|
United States33334 Posts
I hear people using the term “Rock, Paper, Scissors” a lot when they discuss game balance, especially with Starcraft 2 nowadays. I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of RPS, and how it relates to Starcraft: Brood War. This could be an argument that’s mostly semantics, and I think most people who understand the game already realize this at some level, but I just want to throw in my opinion and clarify.
Starcraft is a game with very weak RPS relationships. In Rock, Paper, Scissors, it is simply win, lose, or draw. Rock will always beat scissors, and will never win against paper. There are very few unit relations in Starcraft like that. Barring fundamental counters like mutalisks vs SCVs, or siege tanks vs sunken colonies, there are few unit matchups that extremely bad for one unit. Only things like firebats vs ultralisks are truly hopeless. There isn’t anything in Starcraft that resembles flame tanks vs rifle infantry in any of the Command and Conquer games, or spellcasters vs magic immune units in Warcraft 3. In those cases, the countered unit cannot put up anything resembling a fight.
Starcraft is about units with enormous damage, low HP, and high mobility. There is a small to medium amount of predetermined advantage/disadvantage, but it is in many cases nullified by the quality of micro (to a small degree, probably an intentional balance choice on Blizzard’s part). Lurkers vs marines goes either way, goons vs vultures goes either way, carriers vs goliaths goes either way, + 1 armor mutas vs sairs goes either way, etc. That’s what everyone loves about Starcraft, the micro is very rewarding, and it is also immediately rewarding (usually within seconds). I guess you could say there is strong rock, scissor, paper with unmicroed units vs microed units, but there is barely any fundamental RPS in Starcraft.
That is also what makes mixed forces in Starcraft so interesting. If you combine unit A, B, and C, they aren’t there to counter units D, E, and F respectively. Let’s take the endgame PvZ army for example. Zealots, archons, templars, reavers, and dragoons. Zealots fill the role of meat shield and non-splash filler damage. Dragoons help increase total damage per area of space occupied with range attack (not all zeals can fight at once). Archons fulfill the weak/constant splash role, templars deal strong/slow burst splash, and reavers do very strong/quick burst splash. Units have been combined so they fill every damage role, maximizing efficiency. Okay, maybe that was an overly theoretical and mathematical way to look at it, but the point is, the units are creating a true synergy, and not countering a counter of a counter of a counter.
In conclusion, Starcraft 2 better be fucking awesome.
|
2 things disturb me so far: specializing armor/attacks of each unit instead of an overall scheme (I think it will make certain units much better vs other units they were designed to counter, at least there is the possibility for this) and reduced mid-game AoE.
|
I sort of agree and sort of disagree. There are rock-paper-scissor counters in Brood War, but there are no rules that prevent someone from playing more than just rock, paper, or scissors. So essentially you get rock-paper-scissors vs. paper-scissors-rock battles and that's what army focus is primarily made of.
|
Have you heard of firebats vs zerglings? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. RPS exists in Starcraft in varying degrees, but it's definitely there and an important part of the game.
|
|
|
Belgium9947 Posts
I think you're forgetting the main use of the RPS principle: Build Orders, not units.
Think of ZvZ and PvP.
|
This post is erotic wtf yer an admin wax
|
United States33334 Posts
On August 08 2007 11:56 XG3 wrote:
Have you heard of firebats vs zerglings? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. RPS exists in Starcraft in varying degrees, but it's definitely there and an important part of the game.
this is a bad way to respond, but bats get picked off by lings all the time
I'm just tired of people claiming SC is a hard counter game
anyway, I suppose it is mostly about how you want to define things
|
On August 08 2007 11:56 XG3 wrote:
Have you heard of firebats vs zerglings? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. RPS exists in Starcraft in varying degrees, but it's definitely there and an important part of the game.
I've seen burrow work quite well against groups of marines/medics/firebats.
|
United States33334 Posts
On August 08 2007 11:59 RaGe wrote:
I think you're forgetting the main use of the RPS principle: Build Orders, not units.
Think of ZvZ and PvP.
Completely true, but I was just talking about units I guess
|
8748 Posts
I agree with RaGe. The primary use of RPS in BW is with build orders and strategies, not units. Perhaps that is more evidence to support your case -- since no one has thought it useful to discuss RPS with regard to unit counters, it indeed is not an issue in BW. I think the interesting question is whether or not SC2 will have similar build order RPS as BW. But really that's a question that truly cannot be discussed for practical purposes until after release and Blizzard is faced with making balance patches.
In professional BW, we see players making RPS-decisions with fast rushes or fast expansions. Is that a part of the gameplay that people want to see persist in SC2? Should professionals sometimes feel obligated to take big risks in the first few minutes of the game? I would like to see less of the RPS principle in SC2 than there is in BW. I don't like the idea that a player can be granted a huge advantage just by luck. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that is anything but luck, either. Perhaps a year or two ago players could plan a cheese against a macro player or a fast expansion against a conservative player, but nowadays the players know to do something unpredictable every so often just for reputation's sake, to counter the phenomonen created by the RPS principle. It was cool at first, but now it just seems destructive to me.
|
Actually, it's a little something like this:
The game was intended to be RPS at pretty much all levels micro and macro and people found ways around it through intense micro.
Blizzard really needs to keep this in the back of its mind because I think they're already starting to screw up a bit here. For example - stalkers vs zealots, hell any ranged unit vs zealots. I think that the zealot charge upgrade is a really bad idea because dashing up to a unit really isn't helpful vs a ranged unit unless it's immobile. Zealots can barely get a single hit in on goons before legs kick in, now imagine your leg upgrade has a cooldown ;_;
|
Brood war isn't rock paper scissors.
It's a fucking intricate dance of awesomeness on good maps and most matchups.
|
I felt the same way you did as I was reading RPS material, but I minimized my feelings and summed it up to be people oversimplifying such a complex game, and that's what I was angry at.
|
Starcraft is based around emergence: units are designed with vague strengths and weaknesses with rarely any assumptions about what they're "supposed" to counter or what their role has to be. It is then left to players to work out which the best combinations and usages of units are. Damage and armour (size) types are used as just another strength/weakness, they are not law (most units with explosive damage are still great against small units, for example).
This is how Starcraft gives the illusion of being designed to an incredibly deep level, where units seem to fit together in marvellous ways that couldn't possibly have all been imagined and explicitly designed (because of course they weren't). In fact it's part of the genius of Starcraft's design that, all the way back in 1998, they didn't need to imagine what pro Korean players might do to the game to still have confidence in the robustness of their design.
Games like Warcraft 3 which prescribe a unit's role a lot more with much stricter adherence to damage/armour types can potentially curb player freedom. They also foster a culture where it's sometimes viewed as "wrong" or a design or balance problem when a clever player finds a way of using a unit for a purpose for which it doesn't appear to have been originally designed.
|
I always thought RPS means exactly same as Strategies, Counter-strategies sort of thing ;PPP
On August 08 2007 11:29 Waxangel wrote:
In conclusion, Starcraft 2 better be fucking awesome.
|
On August 08 2007 12:36 MYM.Testie wrote:
Brood war isn't rock paper scissors.
It's a fucking intricate dance of awesomeness on good maps and most matchups.
well said my testicular friend
|
On August 08 2007 12:43 Asgard wrote:
Starcraft is based around emergence: units are designed with vague strengths and weaknesses with rarely any assumptions about what they're "supposed" to counter or what their role has to be. It is then left to players to work out which the best combinations and usages of units are. Damage and armour (size) types are used as just another strength/weakness, they are not law (most units with explosive damage are still great against small units, for example).
This is how Starcraft gives the illusion of being designed to an incredibly deep level, where units seem to fit together in marvellous ways that couldn't possibly have all been imagined and explicitly designed (because of course they weren't). In fact it's part of the genius of Starcraft's design that, all the way back in 1998, they didn't need to imagine what pro Korean players might do to the game to still have confidence in the robustness of their design.
Games like Warcraft 3 which prescribe a unit's role a lot more with much stricter adherence to damage/armour types can potentially curb player freedom. They also foster a culture where it's sometimes viewed as "wrong" or a design or balance problem when a clever player finds a way of using a unit for a purpose for which it doesn't appear to have been originally designed.
this was also a very well written post props yo^^
|
On August 08 2007 12:19 NonY[rC] wrote:
I agree with RaGe. The primary use of RPS in BW is with build orders and strategies, not units. Perhaps that is more evidence to support your case -- since no one has thought it useful to discuss RPS with regard to unit counters, it indeed is not an issue in BW. I think the interesting question is whether or not SC2 will have similar build order RPS as BW. But really that's a question that truly cannot be discussed for practical purposes until after release and Blizzard is faced with making balance patches.
In professional BW, we see players making RPS-decisions with fast rushes or fast expansions. Is that a part of the gameplay that people want to see persist in SC2? Should professionals sometimes feel obligated to take big risks in the first few minutes of the game? I would like to see less of the RPS principle in SC2 than there is in BW. I don't like the idea that a player can be granted a huge advantage just by luck. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that is anything but luck, either. Perhaps a year or two ago players could plan a cheese against a macro player or a fast expansion against a conservative player, but nowadays the players know to do something unpredictable every so often just for reputation's sake, to counter the phenomonen created by the RPS principle. It was cool at first, but now it just seems destructive to me.
I mostly agree. I think that only if scouting is made such that it totally allows you to prepare (i.e. not have to guess/gamble), then we are safe to have RPS build orders. But, I don't know how it'd be possible to scout early enough to account for this unless on some maps unless you sent one of your first workers. So, less luck = more skill wins = better I think.
|
Well, if you start out with 6 workers it should be much easier to send one of them out....its only a 17% loss of money as opposed to a 25% loss.
|
I agree Wax, but War3 doesn't have hard counters :/ Yes I realize that magic casting units cannot even touch magic immune units, but there isn't any other thing like that in the game, it's almost like two air units, one is air-to-ground only, one is air-to-air only.
Other examples, like a footman should counter a rifleman, because his 'normal' attack type gets 50% increased damage vs. the rifleman's 'light' armour. But this isn't always the case... just like in BW
Considering a NE player can mass bears/dryads vs. (mostly) every unit shows that the game definitely doesn't have hard counters 
The units have much more HP, but their damage doesn't compensate, so where a unit can actually damage another, micro usually plays a large part in what wins.
Obviously, though
Good post
|
SC's beauty is that everything is a 'hard counter' if you don't micro well. Everything dies very quickly, sometimes instantly, so you must always be on your toes. Sairs can be slaughtered by mass muta if you're not paying attention. WC3 is kind of a 'let's chill and order units to slowly waltz with eachother but with swords' sort of game.
|
Well said -
I recall watching an interview once with a SCBW developer and he talked about how starcraft IHO (in his opinion) introduced the genre (intentionally) to 'soft' counters as oppose to 'hard' counters found in other games in the genre, like CnC.. not really new information just thought i'd share ;p...Soo yeah... Nice post 
|
I hope the SC2 devs are reading this thread. It is nearly a design doc covering why SC1 is amazing.
|
thank you for that post, i was wondering what makes cnc so shitty and sc so fucking awesome
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
StarCraft is built out of hard counters between different units. Keep in mind that a "hard counter" is one unit countering another, whereas a "soft counter" is a group of units countering another group of units.
I really like Wax's point that many of SCBW's hard counters aren't total dominance. For one thing, if unit A counters unit B (say, without any micro) then you can often defeat A using B (without micro) with a resource ratio around, say, 3:2 or 2:1. But more importantly, even though B is at a disadvantage, if all you have are Bs against your opponent's As then you can still fare relatively-well or even come out on top by microing your units sufficiently-well.
An ideal example is goons > vultures: despite the hard counter, the vultures (armed with mines) can still win with good micro even if the dragoons are also microed. Even in the extreme case of firebats > lings, if your opponent screws up or doesn't pay enough attention and 1-2 bats become separated from the rest, then you can surround and pick them off relatively-easily with lings.
I have never thought about this aspect of SC before, but now that it's mentioned I think it is a crucially important aspect of the game: in many cases, hard counters aren't hopeless. With a small resource advantage and a considerable micro advantage, they can be overcome.
Ultimately, all this potential for micro and all these hard counters give rise to unplanned, emergent soft counters, like how the elementary laws of physics give rise to everything in our universe, or like Conway's Game of Life. Going a little off-topic here, I think I agree, in a way, with people who say SC1 had a magical luck factor that helped make it so beautiful. By nature, complex emergent behaviour is unpredictable. Maybe all a designer can do is to design the hard counters and some of the micro potential, then observe the results, make changes, observe again, make more changes, observe again, etc. etc., and hope that in the end, the game will have that spark of magic in it.
|
I've said this before and I'm not sure if anyone feels the same as me. I really don't think the way we play BWs today was how Blizzard intended BW to play. I think the community really did alot of the leg work on balance. If you read Blizzards strategy guild for BWs and SC they clearly wanted it to be a RPS game. I think the players are the ones who showed blizzard that "no Scouts can't counter Tanks. Because by the time I get Scouts he will have a shit load of MT and Goliaths besides Tanks!". That "Hey these Lurkers can attack too. Not just stay in one spot and keep M&Ms away from my base." I honestly think Blizzard kinda Forrest Gumped there way into the great game and balance that is BWs with our help basicly. There just no way they invisioned BW playing the way we play it.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Also, in terms of balance, we as a community will be doing much of that ourselves when we create our custom maps to play on. So Blizzard just needs to throw together a solid game and patch it like crazy.
|
United States33334 Posts
I agree that war3 doesn't have very hard counters, but magic vs magic immunes was one of the examples that came to the top of my head. War3 micro is VERY rewarding, but it's very slow to become apparent compared to Starcraft, which is why SC gamers hate war3 so much 
|
I posted this in the closed thread. I still think there's truth to it.
I dunno. I think both have to be present.
Vultures microed properly will always beat Zealots, no questions asked.
Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.
Tanks microed properly will always beat Dragoons, no questions asked.
Zealots microed properly will always beat Tanks, no questions asked.
Because these hard counters exist, making and microing armies of mixed units becomes important.
Too much rock paper scissors, and what units are being built becomes more important than what you do with them.
Too little rock paper scissors, and the game becomes a matter of building the only viable units for the situation and microing them well.
It's interesting to have certain match ups that emphasize each kind of game play. ZvZ in StarCraft is about how well you use your Mutaling. Whereas in TvP a well-executed tech to Carriers can put away your Terran opponent even if his micro is superior. Ultimately, great care has to be taken in order to make sure both are in the game.
|
What Blizzard is really doing is screwing over their balance team ^-^
|
United States33334 Posts
On August 09 2007 17:51 DTDominion wrote:I posted this in the closed thread. I still think there's truth to it. Show nested quote +I dunno. I think both have to be present.
Vultures microed properly will always beat Zealots, no questions asked.
Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.
Tanks microed properly will always beat Dragoons, no questions asked.
Zealots microed properly will always beat Tanks, no questions asked.
Because these hard counters exist, making and microing armies of mixed units becomes important.
Too much rock paper scissors, and what units are being built becomes more important than what you do with them.
Too little rock paper scissors, and the game becomes a matter of building the only viable units for the situation and microing them well.
It's interesting to have certain match ups that emphasize each kind of game play. ZvZ in StarCraft is about how well you use your Mutaling. Whereas in TvP a well-executed tech to Carriers can put away your Terran opponent even if his micro is superior. Ultimately, great care has to be taken in order to make sure both are in the game.
yeah and you're still horribly wrong
|
On August 08 2007 12:03 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2007 11:56 XG3 wrote:
Have you heard of firebats vs zerglings? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. RPS exists in Starcraft in varying degrees, but it's definitely there and an important part of the game. this is a bad way to respond, but bats get picked off by lings all the time I'm just tired of people claiming SC is a hard counter game anyway, I suppose it is mostly about how you want to define things
I'm still convinced that starcraft has harder counters than wc3.
There are a couple of things in wc3 that don't work but more units are viable. For example, ghoul and fiend builds are common. But in sc, in TvZ you're using mostly units that you hardly use in TvP. Isn't that because they counter better?
And watching extreme cases, units that counter well can make many more kills than in wc3. It's not uncommon to see units with 15+ kills in sc, in wc3 it mainly heroes that get to do that. But i agree that the micro plays a much bigger role than the counters.
|
Having less kills on units in WC3 is cause the dmg is significantly lower compared to the average hp of everything, and you use WAY LESS UNITS, damnit. Go count them! Are you totally out of your mind?
|
Unless I misunderstand the term, it seems to me that there are some hard counters in BW, and that weren't mentioned here. They are so hard that the countered unit is never produced if your opponent can make the countering unit. High temps seem to be a hard counter for m&m and bats, so although you may OCCASIONALLY see them early in a non-pro tvp, once toss techs the terran really can't produce any more infantry. Pretty much the same for reavers. Anything surface to air is a hard counter to scouts, so a scout is only made very early pvz or pvt (terran can produce a counter at any time - marines - but has to send its barracks home and produce 4, so the delay occasionally makes a scout viable for harass). Vultures are a pretty hard counter to marines and bats in tvt. Technically, I guess DAs are a hard counter to any low hp caster, but neither casters nor DAs are ever produced in high enough quantities for it to matter. Scouts are a hard counter for BCs and carriers as well if you include cost at all (at this point I'm rambling so I'll stop...).
These still aren't as many or as "hard" as some WC3 examples, but I think saying there are absolutely none in BW is exaggerating. You also never produce just a single unit type in SC, so you don't see hard counters in action, because the countered unit will have support from other units that counter the counter (or at least render it ineffective). I'm not familiar with the terminology, but perhaps this is where the term "soft counters" comes in.
|
United States33334 Posts
ah well like I said, it's mostly an argument about definition
what is a "counter" anyway? By definition, it isn't somethign that situational. It should be called a situational counter then. Call it a situational counter in that case. Lurker is a situational counter to marines, if your micro is better. A "Hard counter" should mean a relationship where one unit will almost always win, regardless of other circumstances.
SC doesn't have hard counters by that definition, units matchups sway hugely depending on the situation and micro.
|
On August 09 2007 18:16 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2007 17:51 DTDominion wrote:I posted this in the closed thread. I still think there's truth to it. I dunno. I think both have to be present.
Vultures microed properly will always beat Zealots, no questions asked.
Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.
Tanks microed properly will always beat Dragoons, no questions asked.
Zealots microed properly will always beat Tanks, no questions asked.
Because these hard counters exist, making and microing armies of mixed units becomes important.
Too much rock paper scissors, and what units are being built becomes more important than what you do with them.
Too little rock paper scissors, and the game becomes a matter of building the only viable units for the situation and microing them well.
It's interesting to have certain match ups that emphasize each kind of game play. ZvZ in StarCraft is about how well you use your Mutaling. Whereas in TvP a well-executed tech to Carriers can put away your Terran opponent even if his micro is superior. Ultimately, great care has to be taken in order to make sure both are in the game. yeah and you're still horribly wrong
how is he wrong? I agree with pretty much everything he said except for "Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.", i think perfectly executed vulture micro is superior to goon dance
|
On August 09 2007 21:48 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2007 18:16 Waxangel wrote:On August 09 2007 17:51 DTDominion wrote:I posted this in the closed thread. I still think there's truth to it. I dunno. I think both have to be present.
Vultures microed properly will always beat Zealots, no questions asked.
Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.
Tanks microed properly will always beat Dragoons, no questions asked.
Zealots microed properly will always beat Tanks, no questions asked.
Because these hard counters exist, making and microing armies of mixed units becomes important.
Too much rock paper scissors, and what units are being built becomes more important than what you do with them.
Too little rock paper scissors, and the game becomes a matter of building the only viable units for the situation and microing them well.
It's interesting to have certain match ups that emphasize each kind of game play. ZvZ in StarCraft is about how well you use your Mutaling. Whereas in TvP a well-executed tech to Carriers can put away your Terran opponent even if his micro is superior. Ultimately, great care has to be taken in order to make sure both are in the game. yeah and you're still horribly wrong how is he wrong? I agree with pretty much everything he said except for "Dragoons microed properly will always beat Vultures, no questions asked.", i think perfectly executed vulture micro is superior to goon dance
All of the match ups are numbers dependent of course, but I think my overall point still stands.
|
a hard counter in starcraft imo is probably when a unit will always seek support from some other unit or defence building when fighting a certain other type of unit if none of them are greatly outnumbered, you will very rarely see 0-0 lings fight 1-0 zealots unless its absolutely necessary, altho a micro mistake in firebats vs lings can tip the favour of the zerg again, zerglings will most likely always avoid the firebats, hence why mutta/ling will always try to pick off the firebats first with the muttas before entering with the lings.
But its not viable to say that a unit is not a "hard counter" towards another unit because a mistake from the stronger one is needed to make it possible for the countered type of unit to beat em , its the active micro that should be rewarding not the absence of it :p
but i agree with waxangel on most other things.
Obviously most units are extra strong vs certain other units...but its the mixed fights that makes sc so cool, almost everyone unit needs support in some way.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Exactly. Numbers, positioning, and purpose of your units. How you play them. If you just use your tanks and can't bust out fast enough due to the number of my dragoons, it'll allow me to gain valuable time to mine more from my many expansions you have yet to destroy. Etc, etc. There are so many more factors in this game than mere rock paper scissors. Think mutas vs marines and medics. Sure a fight will end with terran advantage ('cause of cost of mutas, etc) and mutas generally melt in the presence of many stimmed marines, but use strategic hit and run techniques, you nullify this relatively strong counter because you have a different objective.
|
Have the rest of you noticed the change in the SC2 forum on TL since blizzcon ? Average posts getting longer, people thinking more before they post, more old member, mods and gosus joining the discussions etc. I hope blizzard notice this and read many of the recent threads that have had realy good and creative discussions.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On August 09 2007 20:06 Waxangel wrote:
ah well like I said, it's mostly an argument about definition
what is a "counter" anyway? By definition, it isn't somethign that situational. It should be called a situational counter then. Call it a situational counter in that case. Lurker is a situational counter to marines, if your micro is better. A "Hard counter" should mean a relationship where one unit will almost always win, regardless of other circumstances.
SC doesn't have hard counters by that definition, units matchups sway hugely depending on the situation and micro.
Well, actually Blizzard already defined hard vs soft counters in the past when they were asking gamers what their opinions were on hard vs soft counters in Warcraft 3, so I think we should stick to their definition (hard being one kind of unit vs one kind of unit, soft being multiple kinds of units vs multiple kinds of units).
Maybe a better term would be "unconditional counter" (in contrast to "situational counter") for a relationship where one unit will almost always win.
|
On August 09 2007 23:06 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2007 20:06 Waxangel wrote:
ah well like I said, it's mostly an argument about definition
what is a "counter" anyway? By definition, it isn't somethign that situational. It should be called a situational counter then. Call it a situational counter in that case. Lurker is a situational counter to marines, if your micro is better. A "Hard counter" should mean a relationship where one unit will almost always win, regardless of other circumstances.
SC doesn't have hard counters by that definition, units matchups sway hugely depending on the situation and micro. Well, actually Blizzard already defined hard vs soft counters in the past when they were asking gamers what their opinions were on hard vs soft counters in Warcraft 3, so I think we should stick to their definition (hard being one kind of unit vs one kind of unit, soft being multiple kinds of units vs multiple kinds of units). Maybe a better term would be "unconditional counter" (in contrast to "situational counter") for a relationship where one unit will almost always win.
I think you mean that a hard counter is when you only need 1 unit type to do it(Such as dryads vs gryphons) and a soft counter is when you need multiple units to do it(Such as raiders + grunts counters archers since raiders net and grunts kill them)
While those definitons work well in wc in sc you cant really define it like that since theres not many support uniots in sc and also there are really hard counters there.
But really, a counter is harder the less of the counter you need. For example to kill 1k min worth of unit a you might need 750 min worth of unit b, this can be seen as a soft counter. Second example to kill 1k min worth of unit c you need 250 worth of unit d, this counter is a lot harder than the previous one. The only thing needed to be defined is were the line is drawn, ofcourse anything that cant fight back is counterd hard.
Also you need to consider that almost every counter in sc is conditional since they arent so much about damage types but instead range/splash etc, while in a game such as aoe you cant in any circumstance win with pikeunits over sword units or horse units over pike units or sword units over horse units, since theyre basically the same unit but with different armortypes, kinda like how hydras counters goons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
