I see so many people that think they know a lot about BW (but actually haven't done anything beyond maybe beat singleplayer and play some BGH), and when talking about it they have a tendency to summarize the three races like this: Protoss = expensive, small, but powerful army; Zerg = cheap, plentiful but weak army; Terran = middle ground
I am not satisfied with this. It seems too glib and inaccurate.
So how would you (briefly!) sum up the three races and their differences? What is the fundamental underlying difference in concept between playing Zerg, playing Terran, and playing Protoss?
Umm, I'd be interested to see this done without taking into account styles. I'll be impressed if a definition of Zerg encompasses both Sauron and hungry/hive tech styles.
Terran armies are by far the less mobile without some kind of dropship support. TvT games turn into a glorified form of chess. TvP requires either setting up pushes or timing your attack to have enough of an advantage to move out. TvZ you have to meander around the map with M&M/Tank/Sci V groups whereas Zerg can set up flanks or counter or whatever.
Protoss is more mobile than Terran but less mobile than Zerg.
Zerg is of course the most mobile.
Exceptions to all of these happen but generally this is true.
(For all races) The leading race it leads if he chooses to fast expands it forces you to fast expand aswell or else risk it all and try to take it's expo.
Protoss-
(PvZ) Protoss must adjust to Zerg at all cost and get inot it's base to see what he is teching, so lets call it the follower race.
(PvT) Basically its a game of who has the better macro, Protoss must overflood the Terran player with masses of units. Also it most stop the slowly moving blob of the vulture/tank combo. Thei name shalt be the flooderier.
Zerg -
Lets see... well its very agile b/c it can mass everything in just a couple of mintues once you got everything up and running to the 3rd layer. So lets call it the metamorphoer b/c you can change your strategy to your oponents strategy. But first you have to over come the larva and cacoon stage and metamorph into the last stage which is the strongest.
In essence, Zerg beats you with speed/inexpensive units. There's a number of styles you can implement that to win tho.
Terran and Protoss are much harder to peg down with an expansive definition. Protoss uses more expensive, but with a high potential for damage, units. And I don't think I can accurately sum up T or P with one line.
I quit playing a couple years ago but I played for 5+ years before that so I'd probably say
Protoss: It is fact that they have the most expensive units. To use Protoss effectively I believe you need a better strategical mind than your opponent and must be experienced at flanking, baiting, and setting up/preparing for a battle. Protoss also has a vast array of spells that are fundamental to victory. Single units such as Arbiters, Templars, and Corsairs can instantly change the flow of the game. Protoss units combinations also seem to be the most varied and powerful if used to counter the correct enemy units.
Zerg: It is fact that they have generally larger armies. However, they will not last as long as the other armies. I believe that in order to play Zerg you have to achieve a level of speed much higher than if you were playing the other two races to play at the same level. The perfect player would choose Zerg. There is no limit to the amount of actions a Zerg can do in a 1v1 game. Zerg armies are swift and are adept at flanking, but unlike the Protoss, if you think too much about a fight you will usually come out the loser. You have to know what you're gonna do, and just do it. Zerg is mobile and hit and run tactics work well. They key to winning leagues with Zerg is to be aggressive from the start. Because your units are weak, you need to overrun the opponents. Zerg have very nice unit complements. Be it Muta Ling or Ultra Ling or Lurker Ling or Hydra Lurk etc...
Terran: I don't think I've understood how to play Terran as much as the other races [ which is why I'm enchanted when I watch high level terran play I.E. Boxer ] but I believe that Terran is NOT a medium race. Every unit in the Terran army is ranged. Terrans have the ability to adapt much better than any of the other races. A makeshift base can be created much quicker than Zerg, even though the bases may be cheaper. I think Terran's real power comes from micro the difference is that Terran micro will bring greater rewards than micro with other races. Marine Medic is probably one of the top three unit complements in the game. I believe Terran relies the least on spells and more on firepower. When a huge Terran army rolls in, it's hard to stop it head on. You have to flank and outthink what the Terran player is going to do.
Well, all that probably shows how little I know about Starcraft but after playing 5+ years I'd like to think I know something.
Its too hard to sum up ; [ But even the casual players do a decent job of it. I mean the Protoss army is relatively expensive and low on units compared to the other two. Z is kind of cheap and lacks an easy mode game winner at low levels. Ultra is of course, but if you suck your opponent would likely make this too hard for you by having Carrier/BC. I will try to sum my feelings on them though..
Zerg = Economy race. You will end up mining more via your cheap expansion capability(I hope), but your units are hardest to make effective vs the defense of T and P.
Protoss = Magic/Power race. You have access to DT and Templar which form the basis of a lot of the strategical dynamic between Protoss and the other races. DT being strong and invisible while Templar being the one unit in the game with a true large area effect damage spell. The Power comes from Zealots and Carrier, where you start the game with the strongest base unit and end it with the strongest top unit.
Terran = Defense/Ability race. Obviously tanks are a strategical backbone of Terran, they are (nearly?) 2x the range of any other units in the game and not very mobile, along with bunkers and cheap turrets they get some of the best defense options. And most every unit has an ability giving them a lot of flexibility situationally.
Protoss : Patience Terran : Timing Zerg : Zoo( you got a lot of crazy shit going on everywhere, but if you can handle it youll make a lot of profit...)
What happened to the short summaries? A paragraph is not a short summary. I would think he means basically a sentence or two about the race, that you could maybe bring up to a friend between classes, rather than a formal, ten-page essay which would take a year to explain. Obviously with "definitions" that short, it's hardly an accurate description of an element of a game which is so complex, but I'll give it my shot.
Zerg: A primarily macro race, who need to focus on timing to overwhelm their opponent with outrageous numbers of "weak" units.
Protoss: A primarily 'knowledge-based' race, who need to focus on understand concepts of the game in order to properly counter their opponent with high-hp, medium-damage units.
Terran: A primarily 'controlling' race, who needs to focus on the elements of the map and matchup, as well as weaknesses of the opponent, to effectively harass and upset the opponent, before going in for the final knockout-punch.
No definition is very satisfying because the races are too complicated to just sum up so easily. As Chill said, there's just no way you can sum up, say, Yellow[arnc] and Savior[gm] in the same sentence. The closest anybody's coming is Detonate, but his answers leave a lot to be desired as well since low eco Zergs don't necessarily have much of a zoo to deal with meanwhile some of the crazy Terrans (Xellos, NaDa etc) are constantly controlling a zoo with units all around the map (think about Xellos' game vs Razor from WCG...he multitasked 3 fights simultaneously), and not many Protoss players have better patience than NaDa and not many Terran players have better timing than Savior (do any?).
The best you can really say is that Protoss players need macro and strategy, Terran players can have any 2 of micro, macro and strategy and Zerg players can have micro and either macro or strategy, and I'm not even sure if I can justify any of that!
Well, one way to look at it is the [damage]/[hit points] ratio to give you an idea of how much micro is required. Obviously, Terran requires the most and Protoss requires the least overall. Although anytime you use units that have a high ratio it requires more micro: lurkers, templars, etc.
SC is a matchup game, not a race game really, so I don't think this type of thinking can be accurate.
Describing Terran style vs Toss is entirely different than describing vs Zerg, and maps change it too. Who's the aggresser/defender, etc. And like Chill said, style plays into it as well.
On October 30 2006 14:38 neSix wrote: What happened to the short summaries? A paragraph is not a short summary. I would think he means basically a sentence or two about the race, that you could maybe bring up to a friend between classes, rather than a formal, ten-page essay which would take a year to explain. Obviously with "definitions" that short, it's hardly an accurate description of an element of a game which is so complex, but I'll give it my shot.
All he said was brief, and if a paragraph is too long for you...
On October 30 2006 14:38 neSix wrote: What happened to the short summaries? A paragraph is not a short summary. I would think he means basically a sentence or two about the race, that you could maybe bring up to a friend between classes, rather than a formal, ten-page essay which would take a year to explain. Obviously with "definitions" that short, it's hardly an accurate description of an element of a game which is so complex, but I'll give it my shot.