Tactix

[spooker]

so i smoked a lot of pot this new years, and im feeling extremely intellectually profusive. so, of course you know im obsessed with afghanistan, and i recently read this book about the jihad against the russians and saw the movie, Charlie Wilson's War. i really recommend both. anyways, in the book (not as much in the movie), the key CIA strategist always says that they needed to give the mujahideen a big mix of weapons.....anti aircraft missiles, heavy machine guns, assault rifles, grenades, bicycle bombs, knives, radios, etc. He always makes the point that no single one of these weapons would by itself win the war, but together they would be undefeatable. well he turned out to be right, so i recently tried applying this theory in starcraft--i made a very well-balanced, versatile force of hydralisks, queens (for spawn broodlings on siege tanks), and mutalisks. i assaulted a huge enemy base and only lost one of my 48 units--one hydralisk. when something unpredicted happened--they sent in wraiths--i was well prepared for anything they had to throw at me. incredible! do you guys agree with this theory? does it always hold true? in tactical situations, is it always the golden rule???? discuss

[omix2]

so i smoked a lot of pot this new years, and im feeling extremely intellectually profusive. so, of course you know im obsessed with afghanistan, and i recently read this book about the jihad against the russians and saw the movie, Charlie Wilson's War. i really recommend both. anyways, in the book (not as much in the movie), the key CIA strategist always says that they needed to give the mujahideen a big mix of weapons.....anti aircraft missiles, heavy machine guns, assault rifles, grenades, bicycle bombs, knives, radios, etc. He always makes the point that no single one of these weapons would by itself win the war, but together they would be undefeatable. well he turned out to be right, so i recently tried applying this theory in starcraft--i made a very well-balanced, versatile force of hydralisks, queens (for spawn broodlings on siege tanks), and mutalisks. i assaulted a huge enemy base and only lost one of my 48 units--one hydralisk. when something unpredicted happened--they sent in wraiths--i was well prepared for anything they had to throw at me. incredible! do you guys agree with this theory? does it always hold true? in tactical situations, is it always the golden rule???? discuss

You must not be totally familiar with these RTS games. Yes a mix of units is vital but it's not for the reasons you think. I'm going to use warcraft 3 as an example because it's a better one.

Each unit has its own weaknesses that can be exploited by a mass amount of units. For example if I'm night elf, and I'm combatting anyone but undead, I can usually do an archer rush before teching up to harass the opponent. If I'm fighting human I want mass archers vs. footmen and to start pumping huntresses as soon as possible.

It's about covering all bases - if one unit is stomped by a certain kind of unit (takes extra damage from a certain unit, or another unit is resistant to it). I know the theory you speak of but the reason it works in these games is because they are built on you needing to have a mix to combat an enemy AI computer who is also going to be building a mix. The reason you need a mix is because the computer makes a mix.

If you were fighting me in wc3 and I had mass archers, you wouldn't want a mix, because there is a single unit strong against those archers (footmen with defend) and your flyers are all going to get owned, your riflemen would get stomped, etc.

What I'm saying is yes its a good idea but the reason you use it in the videogame is because the computer automatically makes a mix of units and to beat a mix you need a mix. A mix virtually guarantees you a win while making a ton of 1 unit is putting all of your eggs in one basket and not diversifying your firepower.

[Rampage]

WC3 and SC/BW are two different games, you can't compare them.

Although in SC there are unit counters, its usually about scouting exactly what your opponent is building, and building a mass army to beat it.

When you talk about WC3, the economy is much lower, and you are forced to combine an army with a mix of units to counter the enemy's units.

Although both games have their counters, one is about micro, the other is about macro.

WC3 is about effectively controlling each single unit in battle to win, as opposed to BW, where you just send out as many units as you can for a massive onslaught.

In terms of WC3 I would say its a better example in comparison to "Charlie Wilson's War". In SC there are many ways you can win, but it usually comes down to the same basic tactic; counter what the enemy has and win the game.


and by the way, I don't know what happened to terran players nowadays that they let zerg boss them around so easily. Players have to stop letting zerg get so late game to the point where they can get Queens/Dark Swarm and render the terran ground useless. Take out the overlords, win the game, its that easy. The trick to beating zerg is just anti-air against overlords and then making a quick and efficient ground attack right after. If you let zerg get late game units you already lost the battle. There is no way an early terran push of siege/marines and a quick tech to sci vessel for irridate should ever lose to zerg.

[omix2]

Also on top of whats been said, you want a couple buffers, a couple debuffers, strong heros, anti-air, siege firepower, and anti-siege. Also you definitely want a few tanks.

[Canadian*Sniper]

WC3 is about effectively controlling each single unit in battle to win, as opposed to BW, where you just send out as many units as you can for a massive onslaught.

WRONGGGGGG!!!!! 0_o

Anyone who uses Micro/Macro the best in SC/BW wins the match. I've played both games (starcraft and warcraft3) and can strongly say that SC holds more strategy in the game. Just building a bunch of units and sending them to attack one place and ignore them is a good way to lose a match. This is why all the competative players use micro at it's fullest. Check out any replay with SlayerS_`BoxeR` in it That's my proof for my above statement.

[Rampage]

WRONGGGGGG!!!!! 0_o

Anyone who uses Micro/Macro the best in SC/BW wins the match. I've played both games (starcraft and warcraft3) and can strongly say that SC holds more strategy in the game. Just building a bunch of units and sending them to attack one place and ignore them is a good way to lose a match. This is why all the competative players use micro at it's fullest. Check out any replay with SlayerS_`BoxeR` in it That's my proof for my above statement.

I watched Star League all the time, I follow most of the top tier players..
Regardless of what you think, and don't pinpoint one sentence out of the entire paragraph..
I talked about how it requires a lot of strategy, and it still has the most basic of RTS gameplay, and thats countering whatever the opposition is sending out.

Opposed to WC3, In SC microing involves what? moving your units in and out of range as you attack so they take less damage, that is mostly all of the microing you are going to do, you cannot track unit health the way you can in WC3, and surrounding/spell casting is not nearly as effective, potent, or capable as in WC3.

I am a BW fan, not a WC3 fan. Regardless they are completely different styles.


Don't ignore an entire paragraph and show one statement out of the whole.

Massing units is still extremely effective in SC, i never stated you don't to mix units and micro, but you cannot micro on the same level as you can in WC3. Especially because there are masses of units. Notice as it becomes more late game, even the pro players have a harder time controlling the amount of units they produce. In the early game stages when they have a small army they do a great job controlling each single unit.

The micro in WC3 is much more important, because you have to surround, and you have to use an extreme amount of spells with many varying units.

[Canadian*Sniper]

Opposed to WC3, In SC microing involves what? moving your units in and out of range as you attack so they take less damage, that is mostly all of the microing you are going to do

Use SCVs to surround your marines in a corner to protect them from zealots early game and keep them close to the zealots.

2+ marines vs 1+ zealot(s). Both marines attack the zealot but when you find out which marine the zealot is targeting, make that marine retreat around the other marine attacking. Then the zealot will switch it up so you have to switch it up as well.

There are more but you get the basics that microing can be retreating/maneuvering in between attacks or playing keep away by using other units to block paths. It doesn't stop there either since you can micro an SCV or Vulture to traverse their way through a blockade of supply depots or mineral patches.

With the above statement being said, I ask you what exactly is different in the microing in WC3 from SC?

--

I totally agree with what you said about Terran vs Zerg. The zerg have such a bad disadvantage against the terran since it's almost like every terran unit is for anti-zerg. Irradiate being the nastiest spell and tanks being the nastiest keep away. Shielding two firebats into a horde of lings? OOF!

[Rampage]

Use SCVs to surround your marines in a corner to protect them from zealots early game and keep them close to the zealots.

2+ marines vs 1+ zealot(s). Both marines attack the zealot but when you find out which marine the zealot is targeting, make that marine retreat around the other marine attacking. Then the zealot will switch it up so you have to switch it up as well.

There are more but you get the basics that microing can be retreating/maneuvering in between attacks or playing keep away by using other units to block paths. It doesn't stop there either since you can micro an SCV or Vulture to traverse their way through a blockade of supply depots or mineral patches.

With the above statement being said, I ask you what exactly is different in the microing in WC3 from SC?

--

I totally agree with what you said about Terran vs Zerg. The zerg have such a bad disadvantage against the terran since it's almost like every terran unit is for anti-zerg. Irradiate being the nastiest spell and tanks being the nastiest keep away. Shielding two firebats into a horde of lings? OOF!

Let's see, just like I mentioned early game/late game. You mentioned an early game scenario. WC3 requires micro throughout the ENTIRE game. Every single unit, every single spell. Almost every unit has a few spells, not to mention a hero which completely controls the tide of the battle with its spells/attacks, especially multiple heros. The heros require a great amount of micro unlike SC which has no hero.

Also, a great reason for the micro difference?

200 Supplies, Compared to Upkeep in WC3. Whats the max unit limit? 80? compared to 200? there it is right there..

Less Gold to mine = more expansions = still only a limited army, meaning more importance is put on every single unit, and losing every single unit means that much more in terms of the win/loss coloumn.

Starcraft you can regain an entire army within minutes.

[Canadian*Sniper]

Also, a great reason for the micro difference?

200 Supplies, Compared to Upkeep in WC3. Whats the max unit limit? 80? compared to 200? there it is right there..

Less Gold to mine = more expansions = still only a limited army, meaning more importance is put on every single unit, and losing every single unit means that much more in terms of the win/loss coloumn.

That's Macro except for the last sentence there

SC allows micro in late game as well. -.- I find the whole WC3 hero thing really restrictive on strategies. A heroless army vs an army with a hero will definitely lose.

[Rampage]

Macro has so much to do with micro.

In WC3 the miners mine extremely fast, you run out of the gold mine much quicker, and your upkeep is less, so you have a lot less units to deal with.
In turn the units are much stronger, have much more capabilities but each one is as important as the next.

In SC you can spare many marines (units) and still rebuild your army within seconds. You can have many miners because the workers mine much slower.
The supplies (200) are much greater, so you are able to build a much larger army. Making Microing less important in starcraft.

That was my point, you don't need to try and dissect one part out of an entire paragraph, it doesn't help your argument.

WC3 is way ahead of SC in Microing, thats why they are two different games, if Blizzard wanted they wouldn't of created WC3 and made SC2 already.

You gave such early game examples and not one late game example. Even in early game rarely does anyone see SCVs used to shield marines. These tactics are only useful against early game rushes when you're lacking the manpower to defend against a good rush. Moving marines around eachother really makes only a small difference in the grander scheme of the game. Since units can be built so quickly, SC is really about pressure. Keep building units, keep putting on pressure, and never stop the pressure. While applying tactical pressure, keep building expansions to help you create more of that plentiful 200 supply.

I've given sufficient reason through my premises as to why WC3 requires a lot more micro through macro. That is why they go hand in hand.

[Rampage]

That's Macro except for the last sentence there

SC allows micro in late game as well. -.- I find the whole WC3 hero thing really restrictive on strategies. A heroless army vs an army with a hero will definitely lose.

EXACTLY! That is WHY wc3 requires so much microing! because heroes play such a HUGE role in the game.

[Canadian*Sniper]

I don't really count casting spells as microing. I guess it could be like how you use HTs to take out the entire zerg army. How's that different from using a hero in wc3? :/

Rampage I don't want to argue about RTS like people are arguing over the top 6 players. Let's just play the game and both shut up about it

[Rampage]

I don't really count casting spells as microing. I guess it could be like how you use HTs to take out the entire zerg army. How's that different from using a hero in wc3? :/

Rampage I don't want to argue about RTS like people are arguing over the top 6 players. Let's just play the game and both shut up about it

Casting spells is not microing? are you kidding me?
are you controlling a unit to attack another unit specifically? yes
HT = AOE spell
WC3 contains almost exclusively single unit spells and counter-unit spells.

You have to control many units individually to make these spells useful no?

This is microing.

I agree, but this is no argument, this is a debate on microing, and which game has it to a lesser or higher degree.

[omix2]

casting spells is the definition of micro, wc3 is a major micro game. once you're all teched up its a lot harder to micro because enemy heros do so much damage and they're specials are just so hurtful.

once i tech up and i have all my buffers / debuffers / heros , 3 armies ready to go, once i finally get a conflict its hard to even keep the hero alive with 3-4 rejuvenates on them because the focused firepower is so insane, meanwhile the aoe's are nailing your units and the casters are doing ridiculous damage

[Canadian*Sniper]

(Directed at Rampage's post above omicron's )
Well then don't play dumb that there aren't single unit spells in SC as well :/ Queen parasite and broodlings, DA feedback, Ghost lockdown, Infested Terran suicide, Devourer devour, BC Yamato, Vulture spidermine [microing when being attacked by goons], and Medic blind and restor.

WC3 has it's fair share of AoE spells as well. Every race has a hero that can use Shock Wave or War Stomp. The Archmage's Blizzard and the Bloodmage's Flame Strike. tranquility, Earthquake, Starfall, Death and Decay, Animate Dead, and Big Bad Voodoo. Horde Totems are AoE and aren't as versatile as the quicker minded spidermines.

--

I'm really glad that SC2 won't be having much autocast spells (blizzard mentioned they'd only have auto SCV repair[dumb] and auto Medic heal[medic return ]). That's the 2nd major turnoff for me in wc3. Autocast spells just give players too much breathing room, making manual spells like Purge not as affective as the instant cast.