|
Please forgive me if this has been brought up recently (or at all). Searched for it and went back quite a way through the pages without seeing anything.
It seems to me that it is common knowledge of the things that are good at killing immortals. Units include marines, zerglings, hydras, banshees, voidrays. The list could go on. But what I want to discuss here is are these really is are the units listed here really a "hard" counter to the immortal? Well the air units go without saying as immortals cannot attack air. Ask yourself would 1-2 stalker really do that much better against these so called counters (assuming that they are ground units of course).
Stalker
Health:80/ Shields:80 / Min: 125/ Gas: 50/ Supply: 2/ Buildtime: 42(32)/ Cooldown(btw attacks): 144 / Unit speed: 2.953/ Unit acceleration: 1000/ Range: 6/ Attack: 10+4armored
Immortal
Health: 200/ Shields: 100/ Min: 250/ Gas: 100/ Supply: 4/ Buildtime: 55/ Cooldown (btw attacks): 1.45/ Unit Speed: 2.25/ Unit Acceleration: 1000/ Range: 5/ Attack: 20+30armored
If you look at the numbers the immortal and the stalker both have basically the same cooldown. The immortal is exactly double the price of a stalker in supply minerals and gas. Its buildtime is a little less than half of that of a warped in stalker. (By the time your robo finishes your warpgate research should be done.)
Also the Immortal does 20 damage to light targets that might not seem like a lot but two stalkers (remember 2 stalkers equal the price of 1 immortal) also do 20 damage to a light target. If the target was armored its no question that the one immortal would have done more damage than the two stalkers.
It seems to me the key differences between the two units are as follows:
The stalker is a slightly faster unit and in combination with its better range by 1 this can allow kiting. Obviously the stalker can shoot air. So if your opponent is going really heavy on air to ground units well its not like collosus would probably not be the best of options either.
Edit: Also stalkers have blink which can mean that later your immortals will have trouble keeping up however this can be supplemented with a warp prism. Bring in 2 Immortals drop them phase up warp in stalkers.
Now to discuss the relevance of adding emp into the mix.
An immortal still has 200 health left after an emp goes down and pretending that emp ONLY hit the immortals in your army and nothing else the immortal would still have more health than a single stalker which has a combined health of 160. But that doesn't happen very often if your immortal gets hit so do the stalkers right next to it. So even after EMP lands your immortal will still live longer on average (ignoring focus fire) than a stalker.
Going collosus seems to be the best early splash damage thing the toss can do but after lots of things start popping out that make collosus life miserable why not keep teching towards HT while the collosus are owning it up and once your opponent has the units out that make a collosi's life miserable you immediately start making Immortals to back up your stalkers which will not only make his viking/corruptor/"insert collosus counter here" force useless but in the case of emp your opponent unless he has alot of ghosts will be likely to target the immortals first then you can bring in or warp in templar for the storm. Once he starts to get alot of ghosts this will eat into his gas/min add hurt his ability to get more vikings out. Thus allowing your collosus to make an appearance later.
I may be completely off with this and if any of my numbers are wrong please note so and I will change them.
This is the website I pulled all of the numbers from.
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_StarCraft_II_units
Edit: Keep in mind people I am not suggesting mass immortal as all it would take is your opponent to get air and you are screwed.
But you have the Robotics facility anyway. Why? Because you made an observer. Now as long as you aren't wanting something else out of that facility as well you might as well produce immortals too as they are as strong as 2 stalkers. Your composition will still be heavy on lots or stalkers but the immortals mixed in with them will be a nice touch.
On October 10 2010 16:00 BuzzJuice wrote:
Also Immortals don't do that well against marines (excellent against marauders), you probably need zealots and HTs to deal with it or collosi.
Remember when you immortals don't do well against marines think about how many marines you need to have to kill a single immortal. 4? plz I would put my money on the immortal. Also whatever that magic number is of the number of marines you need. Think to yourself if this immortal were 2 stalkers how much better would they have done.
|
Two things:
If you stop making Colossi, they can start making medivacs in TvP or other units in ZvP, or they can pretty much win in PvP.
Stalkers are a LOT faster. They're super mobile, and with Blink they're amazing at doing little pokes.
|
Immortals are not better than stalkers due to the following reasons:
1) Can not attack air
2) Higher base cost means it takes longer to start them (people really underestimate the base cost of things... ie barracks are great because they initially only cost 150 to start, then you can save up the extra necessary bit for the addon while it is building instead of having to pay up front)
3) Robotics facilities are expensive
4) They are slow and only have 5 range
As a protoss you rarely really need to worry about EMP, since a lot of terran are content just using it on your army instead of the HT in the back. Good control will mean your HT wont get hit pretty much ever.
I will say what I like to do since you touch base on it:
I usually use the 1 gas FE into 4 warpgate. Pump from the 4 warpgates with the expansion up and tech to colossus to force vikings. Get 1 colossus up then switch over to HT's. As long as you are ahead on bases and you force him to have vikings he is at a loss since he is using starports and resources on some vikings instead of medivacs or ravens.
If neither of you attack seriously so that you still have colossus when you want to make a big push with your HT's you will destroy any bio instantly through storm + colossus AE. You will destroy so badly that even if he EMP's your army you will still have a sizable victory.
|
You forgot that two stalkers can do three shots and kill one ling and one more shot on another. While the immortal does 2 shots on one ling during the same time span.
|
You will be able to warp in a lot more Stalkers than Immortals. By the time your economy is such that you can afford to be mass producing Immortals, you're going to have more than a 2:1 Warp Gate: Robo ratio, even more so if you're building Colossi with your Robos.
Also, you're really really breezing past the speed and range of Stalkers. That's a pretty big reason why they're a great unit.
|
I think its better that you have both Immortals and Zealots in your army. Immortals might take a ton, but remember that you don't have 3-4 Robos in your base, you only have 1-2 compared to 4-6 Warpgates, hence why stalkers are used more often.
Also Immortals don't do that well against marines (excellent against marauders), you probably need zealots and HTs to deal with it or collosi.
|
Immortals are a terrible unit...you build immortals because you don't have immediate access to Colossus. Immortals IMO as soon it was revealed that they couldn't shoot air, they become worthless. Sure they work but if you look at roaches and marauders, it's funny to think toss is supposed to be the most powerful race. Like most toss units they're hard to mass produce, expensive but not cost effective. I would prefer a buffed up stalker in exchange for the remove of the immortal.
HT's especially against terran mmm might seem like a great idea, but I haven't seem them work in a straight up match.
First of all Storms do crap damage, and can be dodged, and mmm can easily retreat get healed up then return. So protoss build a lot of HTs, however, HTs aren't attack units, once they run out of energy your gateway units suck by default and you have so few of them because you spent your supply on HTs. And Archons have no place anywhere it seems.
No I think the Koreans are right, Colossus is the most profitable tech route in a standard game, you just have to protect them better. That is what GSL2 is going to show us.
I think protoss is going to have a rough time to be honest, on the pro level. Us toss players might not be whiny but that will change I predict.
|
The only time i really use immortals now is if its late game and zerg is cranking alot of ultra's. Otherwise i just don't bother with them. They are to slow and easily abused by quick agile units.
|
On October 10 2010 16:08 KingAce wrote:
Immortals are a terrible unit...you build immortals because you don't have immediate access to Colossus. Immortals IMO as soon it was revealed that they couldn't shoot air, they become worthless. Sure they work but if you look at roaches and marauders, it's funny to think toss is supposed to be the most powerful race. Like most toss units they're hard to mass produce, expensive but not cost effective. I would prefer a buffed up stalker in exchange for the remove of the immortal.
HT's especially against terran mmm might seem like a great idea, but I haven't seem them work in a straight up match.
First of all Storms do crap damage, and can be dodged, and mmm can easily retreat get healed up then return. So protoss build a lot of HTs, however, HTs aren't attack units, once they run out of energy your gateway units suck by default and you have so few of them because you spent your supply on HTs. And Archons have no place anywhere it seems.
No I think the Koreans are right, Colossus is the most profitable tech route in a standard game, you just have to protect them better. That is what GSL2 is going to show us.
I think protoss is going to have a rough time to be honest, on the pro level. Us toss players might not be whiny but that will change I predict.
Although I prefer collusi tech, you can't just assume HTs are so terrible. HT storm damage is huge, but you have to use it properly. If you have a couple of sentries (you don't want too many as they expend the gas needed for HT) you can forcedfield the Terran ball into a bad position allowing your army to surround it AND your HT storms become so much more effective. IF your afraid of the Terran healing up why not feedback his medivacs ASAP? You can generally one shot them if they have built up energy. Furthermore, if you wan't a player to play defensively you can perform quick storm drops. A couple of warped in HTs in the mineral line can decimate workers if they aren't moved quick enough.
I don't think HT are worse, they just require a lot more control to become useful. This means you need to split them into separate control groups, keeping them far away from any immediate danger but close enough to be able to storm as soon as you command. Further, if the Terran gets ghosts you really need to be aware of any incoming EMPs by scouting ahead of your army.
|
Another thing about SC2, Air units deal so much more damage. The fact the unit cannot shoot up is a much bigger disadvantage than it was in SC1.
Stalkers use Warpgates, can blink (researched) and do not have 2.25 movement speed =_=
Not to mention if you are Immortal focused, you can't have nearly as many gateways, and when you trade armies it takes much longer to replenish your army.
|
On October 10 2010 16:08 KingAce wrote:
Immortals are a terrible unit...you build immortals because you don't have immediate access to Colossus. Immortals IMO as soon it was revealed that they couldn't shoot air, they become worthless. Sure they work but if you look at roaches and marauders, it's funny to think toss is supposed to be the most powerful race. Like most toss units they're hard to mass produce, expensive but not cost effective. I would prefer a buffed up stalker in exchange for the remove of the immortal.
HT's especially against terran mmm might seem like a great idea, but I haven't seem them work in a straight up match.
First of all Storms do crap damage, and can be dodged, and mmm can easily retreat get healed up then return. So protoss build a lot of HTs, however, HTs aren't attack units, once they run out of energy your gateway units suck by default and you have so few of them because you spent your supply on HTs. And Archons have no place anywhere it seems.
No I think the Koreans are right, Colossus is the most profitable tech route in a standard game, you just have to protect them better. That is what GSL2 is going to show us.
I think protoss is going to have a rough time to be honest, on the pro level. Us toss players might not be whiny but that will change I predict.
HT's dominate terran bio. Initiate -> Storm storm storm -> feedback all of their medivacs -> win. Storm does more damage than you might think too.
|
Immortals are a lot better than a lot of people think, especially PvT (I assume a lot of the discussion the OP hopes for is around this match up).
While it is true that on paper the stalker is much more versatile, I think everyone's forgetting that the stalker does a massive 50 damage to the "imba" terran unit, the marauder. FF to stop a retreat path and 2-3 immortals focusing on marauders will decimate an early terran M+M.
For examples, watch IEM NY Kiwikakki vs Drewbie (I think). Kiwi goes 1 gate --> robo, with 3-4 immortals with sentry and zealot mostly and crushes the early/mid bio push. I think he loses 2 zealots total.
Find those games and take a look, cause Kiwi's use of immortal makes me think that protoss can sit behind gateway immortal pretty well and tech to something non-colossus (or even colossus).
|
there's no question that, against ground you'd be better off with immortals than stalkers. Especially against light with armor upgrades... Or really against anything with armor upgrades.
Frankly I could see immortal zealot sentry doing pretty good against Terran. But the problem is getting dual robo bays going. Anyway it's all theory craft.
i guess if you went 2gate 2robo you could make it work.
You obviously have to have at least 2 gates or you'll die to early pressure. And I don't think one robo can pump out enough immortals. Might have to cut production from one gate to save up for an expo.
And if they're going air... better have a lot of sentries to shoot down banshees..
Also why are people talking about PvZ.
This is a TvP topic, nobody's using immortals to kill zerglings.
|
If immortal is a gateway unit, or if robo is cheaper like 100/100, there may be more use to "mass" them in certain situation.
But as of now, they are not as great as what the op said. Because by the time you have the production facility to mass them, you might as well get col or HT or even carrier.
Considering the Immortal build time and tec tree and the fact that it cant shoot air makes it impossible to replace the stalker or sc1 dragoon.
|
Maybe allow them to be warped in with gateways with an upgrade from a Robotics Bay? Immortals are pretty beefy units. This would also solve the problem of cutting Colossi Production.
|
Blink is what makes stalkers so good =/
|
@terranghost: thank you for these informational ^^, they are really helpful to me
|
Stop spreading so much misinformation; immortals produce even faster than warpgate stalkers (64s vs 55) and storm dps is actually quite low (20 dps), it just does it in a larger area than anything else Protoss has. As long as no air is a factor, immortals are just flat out better most of the time. Protoss anti-air is just so weak that it seems more stalkers get built. Since Protoss don't really have a good "hard counter" to an air unit, they can't get behind in stalkers or risk losing a lot to being overwhelmed. Otherwise, to get good immortal production, just dedicate 100% of chrono boost to a single robo. With 2 bases, you can keep a single structure chrono boosted almost all of the time. A second robo always seems a waste from most situations ive seen.
|
On October 10 2010 15:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
As a protoss you rarely really need to worry about EMP, since a lot of terran are content just using it on your army instead of the HT in the back. Good control will mean your HT wont get hit pretty much ever.
Relying on opponents mistakes is not solid play.
|
On October 10 2010 15:54 us.insurgency wrote:
You forgot that two stalkers can do three shots and kill one ling and one more shot on another. While the immortal does 2 shots on one ling during the same time span.
it takes 4 slatker shots to kill a ling
|
easy answer here
immortals don't shoot at dropships, and drops are really the biggest pain right now
|
Immortals do and tank more damage than stalkers, but take longer to get and are less versatile and mobile.
|
I think Immortals are way underused in PvT. I don't understand why more people don't go Chargelots, Immortals, Phoenixes. I've been assuming I'm a noob and don't understand why that would suck.
|
This is simply to point out the similarities between the immortal and the stalker as someone mentioned blink is another advantage of getting stalkers which I will edit into the OP.
However,
I think alot of people here are misunderstanding I edited the OP to say such. I am not suggesting that anyone here mass immortals. 1-2 would be fine. Seems to me from standard play you usually get about 2 gateways and robo up decently fast. Just pump immortals out that one gateway.
The protoss 4gate is supposed to be very very brutal if a immortal counts the same as 2 stalkers then this gets you set up for some really nice pressure if not you can go stalker immortal or just flat out tech to collosus.
Seeing as how the observer is the firtst thing out of the facility if you see double starport or a spire you can just stop building out of the facility and throw down 2 more gates.
In addition pressure with this early immortal or 2 and zealots will set you up for an expo.
In the case of fighting terran this will convince them to go a lot more ghost heavy.
But thats bad I don't want to fight ghosts.
This is perfect for you because as your pressureing you throw a robotics support bay and collosus out. For every 1 ghost they build that is one less marauder they can build and if they did not take their second gas because they weren't counting on needing you can win easy right there. No way they can get enough gas to fund alot of ghosts.
|
The problem with Immortals is that against a ranged army they basically wear a big "please focus me" shield around their neck. Its much easier to focus 1 immortal or possibly 2 if you have a huge amount of units rather than focusing 2-4 stalker with split groups. Plus they can't have blink to get out of the way. For the same reason a singular colossus with out range won't do much for you in a battle vs T. He will just stim and kill it with his Marauders, on paper the colossi would be good but because it allows for easy focus fire it ends up being useless.
|
On October 10 2010 18:24 Darkstar_X wrote:
Stop spreading so much misinformation; immortals produce even faster than warpgate stalkers (64s vs 55)
Like I said if my numbers are wrong I am more than happy to change them I posted a link in the OP as to where I got my numbers from if these are not correct please post a link with more correct numbers. And BTW even if you are correct in your statement about immortals producing faster that will only prove my point more.
On October 10 2010 16:23 ooni wrote:
Stalkers use Warpgates, can blink (researched) and do not have 2.25 movement speed =_=
Likewise with you sir I do not mind editing the OP if you think the move speed that I have stated is incorrect then please post a link where you see it stating otherwise and I will edit the OP.
For clarification purposes just in case their was confussion the immortals movement speed is the one that is 2.25.
|
very good post terranghost,
i have this thinking since beta and its just smart play. since there IS a robotic, you should use it during the whole game (+chrono).
whenever i know i don'T need anti air (and i don't wanna mass blink stalker) i favour immortals over stalkers , have a better mixed army and can have less gates ( robo immos > 2 gate stalkers )
u got all the facts and numbers right.
only smart people will understand you don't care about opponists, you are just giving good advices. keep on with that
cheers
|
im not sure what your getting at here, the post is called immortal vs stalker, yet it pertains no relevance to either, you start talking about colossus and HT's, in very limited situations such as colossus counters, i dont see the relevance of a post that links its self with stalker an immortals when your post turns into a rant about colossus.
better luck next time
|
Its cos of the range. The 1 less range of the immortal makes a difference cos it takes that much longer for them to be able to shoot back. Whilst a stalker is more fragile to something such as a marauder, the stalker is guaranteed to at least do damage back to the stalker as they are both 6 range.
Immortals also have pretty dodgy pathfinding and dont bunch as much. Anyways I still love using them and many times having more immortals than "standard" will let you finish the game earlier.
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
When I first started playing immortals seemed like a very good unit, afterwards I constantly got raped with them and stopped believing in them at all. After a while I started to see their value again from another perspective, its not just are immortals better than stalkers in x situation. The stalker obviously is our most versatile units used in every MU, but its versatility pays a high price in HP vs more or less same cost units for other races, talking about marauders here.
|
On October 10 2010 19:40 Nafaltar wrote:
The problem with Immortals is that against a ranged army they basically wear a big "please focus me" shield around their neck. Its much easier to focus 1 immortal or possibly 2 if you have a huge amount of units rather than focusing 2-4 stalker with split groups. Plus they can't have blink to get out of the way. For the same reason a singular colossus with out range won't do much for you in a battle vs T. He will just stim and kill it with his Marauders, on paper the colossi would be good but because it allows for easy focus fire it ends up being useless.
True if you make 1 or 2 Immortals, not true if you make 5 or 6. I'd much rather he be shooting Immortals with stimmed Marauders than Stalkers. The Immortals will take 40-50% the damage that the Stalkers would for the first 10 shots. Meanwhile if he isn't kiting you your Chargelots are doing terrible terrible damage. It also frees up a lot of gas for teching.
|
A lot of people are saying that going immortals early on would allow for your opponent to just go air and get a free win. However, i think a more logic time to mass produce them would be in the late game. They are more cost effective then stalkers (even against non armored units) and are WAY more tank. They're slightly more effective against rines and rip apart rauders/tanks. Since its late game, assuming youve kept up with your upgrade, immortals would do a whopping 65 dmg per shot (minus armor). Also, by producing immortals, you would free up your gateways for making chargelots and hts which is a far more potent compostion imo. Just make sure he isnt going mass banshees or something and catches you off guard. Something important to note is that immortals wont waste shots on medivacs (could you imagine if lings auto targeted medics in bw?) Lastly, those concerned with the mobility, in a late game confrontion, as long as you have a decent concave, with a few well placed ffs/storms to block off retreat paths and chargelots tanking damage, your immortals will get the job done.
|
Immortals are not a unit you would ever base an army on. But having 1-3 of them in your ball can be invaluable in a battle.
Vs early warpgate push, 1-2 immortals will completely decide the battle.
Vs Terran, they are the difference between surviving and losing. Yeah marauders and marines can kite them forever. But that's not the point. The goal of an early protoss game vs Terran is surviving long enough to enter the mid-game level in economy. From there protoss options open up. So having immortals tank damage from the typical terran timing push is vital.
I was thinking though, if Immortals could deal armoured anti-air damage, that would be sweet. In combination with an observer they could counter banshees and also provide a reasonable groundbased hard counter to voidrays. As voidrays when massed are near impossible to kill once charged up. If you could have 5-6 immortals as a viable counter to 6-8 void rays that would really open up some strategy.
|
If immortals could attack air, then banshees, bcs, tanks, and rauders would all get owned by the same unit lmao
|
hehe, yeah. At first when I read that I thought "oh yeah, like an upgrade from the robo support bay that allows them to shoot upwards as well, that would be kinda neat cuz Protoss groudn to air sucks".
Then I thought about it a tiny bit more and came to that same conclusion. Probably should just remove templar tech from the game if you're going to do that.
|
Banshees aren't armored, vikings are.
|
On October 10 2010 22:34 Lavitage wrote:
Banshees aren't armored, vikings are.
Ahh my apologies. I just assumed the previous poster was correct.
|
On October 10 2010 19:31 Grond wrote:
I think Immortals are way underused in PvT. I don't understand why more people don't go Chargelots, Immortals, Phoenixes. I've been assuming I'm a noob and don't understand why that would suck.
Wow, I was actually thinking about that unit composition before. Would be so badass.
|
The biggest difficulty with immortals is positioning vs a fast moving bio ball w/ stim- they just have too short a range and require a lot of managing to get into position due to their speed & size. With stalkers that same management is allowing you to pull injured ones back and maintain a larger amount of units continually firing.
Also remember that vs bio, the more shots you have at a lower damage is better vs marines since you have less damage being wasted on overkill. Personally though, I'm of the opinion you should just be going sentry/zlot so the gas you'd be using on the immortal is detrimental.
|
Canada1047 Posts
I think they should have a tiny amount of AOE personally, if they're going to be a beefy "take shit out" weapon. They tend to be too slow to be at the head of your army charging in to take seige tank hits as well, the stalkers blow by them and end up absorbing the damage.
|
I've been winning about 80% of my PvTs since I started adding more Immortals to my army. Reason being, they completely own the timing pushes that 3 rax opens up. I played against a decent ~1550 Terran player on D.Q, and I was able to convincingly hold off the "early" push with one Immortal, one Stalker, one Sentry and two Zealots. After that, I made 3 more Immortals for the second push, and I was actually able to meet him in the middle of the map and entirely destroy the typical 3 rax allin with medivacs, while expanding myself (one Immortal can take down destructible rocks really quickly of you hold some way to make sure you won't get attacked) If I'd gone straight for Colossi I would have had 2 less Immortals, and I would have had to pull back all the way to my ramp and used Forcefield to stop the push. Other games have yielded similar results, especially against early attacks and 3rax play. If I know for sure my opponent is going to be aggressive, then I grab some Immortals. As an added bonus, they might feel obligated to get ghosts for EMP, which just makes Colossi a stronger, natural progression because each ghost is like giving up 2 Vikings. I've also used them to completely hammer on Tank pushes by FFing their units back so they can't get far enough in front of the tanks to protect them from Immorals.
Anyways, my point is that Immortals are good, don't overlook them. They can take more hits than stalkers, dish out more damage than stalkers, survive an EMP better than stalkers, and they're a large pool of HP so where two stalkers might turn in to one during a fight, an Immortal can just live.
|
On October 10 2010 21:25 D-Lite wrote:
im not sure what your getting at here, the post is called immortal vs stalker, yet it pertains no relevance to either, you start talking about colossus and HT's, in very limited situations such as colossus counters, i dont see the relevance of a post that links its self with stalker an immortals when your post turns into a rant about colossus.
better luck next time
The point is to compare the immortal's stats vs the stalkers stats but on top of that to suggest ways that could help you or transitions you would be able to do should things pose a problem to you.
|
Having range or speed upgrades would help the immortal. If you have to retreat from a T ball early, you just handed them a free immortal since it can't keep up ESP with slowing.
Small AoE would be sick but might make it too strong en masse
|
Before I switched to Zerg I had a huge winning streak versus Terran based on swapping out my Stalker investment for immortals.
An Immortal is vastly better versus pure MMM than Stalkers. You can always warp stalkers in if anti-air needs show up.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=147385
This blog on the topic shows how much more effective immortals are against mixed Roach/Hydra armies. The same stats apply even more intensely to mixed marauder/marine armies, since Stalkers MELT to Marauders whereas Immortals have 100 HP of Zealot tankiness.
|
Listening to the latest State of the Game Artosis was talking about Immortal/Phoenix builds becoming dominant in Korea so it looks like my instincts weren't totally off. The nice part about Chargelot/Immortal/Phoenix is if you add Colossus later and he tries to focus fire them he will pay a very heavy price.
|
On October 10 2010 16:08 KingAce wrote:
Immortals are a terrible unit...you build immortals because you don't have immediate access to Colossus. Immortals IMO as soon it was revealed that they couldn't shoot air, they become worthless. Sure they work but if you look at roaches and marauders, it's funny to think toss is supposed to be the most powerful race. Like most toss units they're hard to mass produce, expensive but not cost effective. I would prefer a buffed up stalker in exchange for the remove of the immortal.
HT's especially against terran mmm might seem like a great idea, but I haven't seem them work in a straight up match.
First of all Storms do crap damage, and can be dodged, and mmm can easily retreat get healed up then return. So protoss build a lot of HTs, however, HTs aren't attack units, once they run out of energy your gateway units suck by default and you have so few of them because you spent your supply on HTs. And Archons have no place anywhere it seems.
No I think the Koreans are right, Colossus is the most profitable tech route in a standard game, you just have to protect them better. That is what GSL2 is going to show us.
I think protoss is going to have a rough time to be honest, on the pro level. Us toss players might not be whiny but that will change I predict.
All of this is completely wrong.
HT's are great against MMM, especially once terran go viking and from listening to SOTG and Day9 and other streams a few have said the koreans are starting to experiment with them.
Archons are also very useful in SMALL numbers. They tank a shitload of damage (especially if you have shield upgrades), do splash (are great against bunched marines), and can help hit air.
Colossi WERE considered the best unit before but it's slowly swinging towards using them midgame to hold until the tech to templar recently. Storms also don't do crap damage and if they are running guess what... you get free shots at them with your stalkers and colossi (you should still have a couple colossi even with HT, I think these 2 in combination really strengthen both of them). Not to mention HT can rip through terran medivacs like they are nothing so he CAN'T retreat and heal. Not to mention 2 Templars can rape most terran drops.
As for immortals, if you can't micro well enough to FF with them, ya they suck, but as long as you use them to FF against marauders, or tanks, they are AMAZING. Not to mention they tank a shitload of damage for your army.
|
the size, speed and range of immortals makes them a crap investment compared to stalkers against non-armored ground units.
but they do a good job against armored stuff.
|
It's really the mobility factor, don't underemphasize it in your OP! (seems like you did).
|
I've had good success lateish game in PvZ with HT/zealot/sentry/mass immortal. The reason being is that lategame zerg like to get ultras to counter collossi, but if you invest heavily in immortals (I'm talking like 8-10 immortals) you can roll over the roach/ultra builds that zerg players are using in T3. with abit of HT backup.
|
I wouldn't want to swap out all my stalkers, or even a majority of my stalkers for immortals, but when you add 2-3 into a normal ground army it really pays off. They do ok vs non armored units, not great by any means but not absolutely terrible. VS armored targets they own face so hard. 1 immortal does ~34 dps vs armored targets, that is higher then a DT for less gas(and 100 more minerals) and they are a hell of lot more durable 300 hp+shilds vs 120 and thats ignoring the hardened shield effect.
VS a big terran bio ball you do need some kind of AOE, but you can do some pretty devastating pushes with gateway/immortal before they get to a critical mass of bio and a bunch of medivacs. One strat I have been trying recently is getting robobay for the observer and a few immortals, and getting a relatively quick twilight council. Its save to expand on, protects from the banshees, and gives you the option of HT or collosus depending on if you see a starport or ghosts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
