Starcraft 2

[K2]

I have been waiting for this game for years. Starcraft turned me from a loyal nintendoite to a hardcore pc gamer. My expectations for this game are high, to say the least. Thus far most of the info out is about the toss, though recently they have begun to release info on the terrans. I have some mixed feelings on the units, siege tanks look weird, goliaths are gone, no more dark archons(and thus no more mind control), carries are back, so are battle cruisers, all of the original fighters are gone(scouts, wraiths)
we know that the terran campaign is focused on Raynor, another plus.

But to be honest I am only looking for three things from a story point of view:to kill Mengsk, to see a hybrid, and to kill Kerrigan. And then I shall be content.

But right now, I just want to talk about units.

[Icewalker]

I dunno, so far I don't mind the reworking they've given the units. I look forward to it as well, although I've never been great at the game.


The one issue I have with the looks of the units: the terrans look too animated. In the first game they were all solid and simple, poster of military efficiency over look, now they look too rounded and shiny, a little gussied up even. I find I preferred their old look.

Nonetheless, the viking is awesome.

[BRC]

in the words of a freinds freind, they could sell a cardboard box with "starcraft 2" on the side and sell 2 million copies

[ArmorArmadillo]

I'm actually starting to dislike this game; it looks incredibly plain.

Warcraft III had an actual development: the leader system.
This justs looks like the same old game with more memory intensive graphics.

[Morrandir]

I, for one, feel the leader system ruined WarCraft III. It was a race to level 6, EVERY FREAKING GAME.

Also, who says there's no Dark Archons?


These swirling, burning effigies of the protoss spirit radiate incalculable power. Their devastating psionic storms can be unleashed against cowering enemy forces both in the air and on the ground. With the halves of the protoss race reunited, an archon can now be brought into being by the merge of two high templar, or two dark templar, or even the unification of a dark templar and a high templar. Although the protoss are loath to sacrifice valuable templar, those who do achieve this final level of commitment are forever honored in the memories of their people.

Emphasis mine.

[Cyrano]

That's the point, Morr. No crazy psionic archons.
Twould be cooler to get two high templar: archon. Two dark: Dark archon. One o' each: Twilight archon?

[Cubey]

You just proved that there won't be Dark Archons, Morrandir. As you posted the quote that explicitly states that the new Twillight Archon can be created by 2 Dark Templars, 2 High Templars or 1 of each kind. Nothing about Dark Archons there.

I have no idea what was the in-game reasoning for Terrans to replace reliable and powerful anti-air Goliaths into experimentally dangerous Vikings that can hit air targets only in air form and land targets only in ground form, but... at least the unit looks cool! Like a transformer, only less humanoid.

EDIT: And I agree with the OP, the Queen B*tch of the universe has to die.

[Morrandir]

Either I'm misreading that, or you're all crazy. It says "an archon can be created by..." Not "a Twilight Archon can be created by..." Eh, besides, still in development. Random things happen.

[Albub]

Why's everyone hatin' on Kerrigan? I liked her, always have. And the in game reasoning behind Vikings is their ability to weed out the best of the best by killing off all the n00bs with hard to pilot machinery, duh.

[Dr._Weird]

siege tanks look weird,

They redid the graphic for 'em in SC2, thank god.

[Reinboom]

Having played it:
It played different and uniquely enough (Star Ports for terran are awesome! Still produce units while flying around itself.) with a lot of new units and new applications and designs to old units that it both felt the same yet different enough to warrant it great.
No heros, which I believe killed WCIII, was a bonus in my opinion. (I'm REALLY tired of getting blademaster wind walked rushed.)
The graphics were pretty - though a few of the basic things were changed (upgrade paths for example were slightly different it felt like) however, it was still a great time.
Unfortunately, I did not build archons, however, I can say that i didn't see dark archons at all.

I'm currently running with a 2-0 winning streak in StarCraft 2. :smalltongue:

[nastyman]

im really excited about this game. i love RTS games. but the one thing i hate about starcraft is that its always a rush. the best part of a good rts is long drawn out battles with tons of units and lots of fun. at least thats the way i like to play lol. probably why i spent over a year play use map settings mass attack games.

[Demented]

No heros, which I believe killed WCIII, was a bonus in my opinion. (I'm REALLY tired of getting blademaster wind walked rushed.)


Aw, killing hero rushes was my favorite past-time!
Admittedly, I stuck with 3v3... But when you can kill 3 heroes in your base all by your lonesome with virtually zero losses... Yes! Sadly, it was all I was good at.

The Goliath change is no fun... But they wanted to increase mobility, badly, and I suppose that's one way to do it.
What's really important to know is, though... Where are the firebats!?

[zeratul]

Ah, I love what they've done so far. My name sake will be involved to some extent at least which is cool.

I like the look of the new protoss units, but I agree. Some of the terran units look kinda goofy. Mind you I think reapers, ghosts, and thors look awesome.

I am interested in seeing what they do with the zerg.

[BRC]

Aw, killing hero rushes was my favorite past-time!
Admittedly, I stuck with 3v3... But when you can kill 3 heroes in your base all by your lonesome with virtually zero losses... Yes! Sadly, it was all I was good at.

The Goliath change is no fun... But they wanted to increase mobility, badly, and I suppose that's one way to do it.
What's really important to know is, though... Where are the firebats!?
When I first saw the reapers in the gameplay video (I didnt have sound on), I thought "Awsome! Firebats get JETPACKS!", but I was mistaken.
Firebats wern't really an iconic unit, technically they were just specialist marines. so I'm not suprised they nixed them.

[Reinboom]

Aw, killing hero rushes was my favorite past-time!
Admittedly, I stuck with 3v3... But when you can kill 3 heroes in your base all by your lonesome with virtually zero losses... Yes! Sadly, it was all I was good at.

Ah, but see, you can still do this! :smallbiggrin:
By playing WarCraft III, which StarCraft 2 fortunately is not

[The_Squid]

Bloodyredcommie, I totally disagree with you. I loved firebats, and whenever I thought of Terrans i was like "firebats!" They where really good at killing zerg. They where my best friends. I really hope they don't kill em off.

[K2]

Personally , I cant wait to bring a BC fleet against a Carrier fleet and slaughter them. Now before you tell me why that cant happen let me say that I have done. A lot. Its all about micromanagement, and the Science Vessel. I love the emp.

I got really excited when I read something about marines having shields(a toss/terran tech share being a dream of mine). But ofcoures, what they meant was that the marines carry riot shields. No more firebats, but I only used them early game to help defend from zealots and zergling. No dragoons, and these immortals have a strange shield(to counter siege tanks apparently). A much bigger difference with the two main terran strategies, mobility and defense, It looks like its more than just what type of units you build.

as for the queen bitch, well old blades is just plain evil.

as for morr, read the article: it is about twilight archons. And it states that any templar combination will make a twilight archon. Therego, no more dark archon.

[Ailurus]

I've got kind of mixed feelings so far. I'm probably going to make my decision based on what the final picture of the terrans looks like (assuming neither the 'toss and zerg aren't totally ruined in feeling) just because terrans was what I played 90%+ of the time.

Bad so far:
*Firebats and Goliaths. Honestly they were my two favorite units, and both are gone now (well, Goliaths for sure, Fbats I haven't seen confirmed, but I believe the reaper replaces them).
*Uber units like the 'toss mothership. This one depends on how insanely powerful they are, and how easy they are to get, but I'm hesitant about it. I've seen them implemented decently before (such as the Master units in Rise of Legends, which are army-destroying powerful but take forever to research) or implemented questionably (such as the relic units in Dawn of War - as much as I love playing the IG there, most skirmishes come down to either mostly winning on a rush, or failing that get the baneblade+2 Lemans, and smash anything that moves). Unfortunately, I'm fearing that Blizzard will put it more on the Dawn of War side, and most SC2 games will be rush or master unit.

Unsure so far
*Terrain crossing units. The idea is nice, but its another thing that depends on the implementation. Comparing it to DoW again, if it just ends up being like the assault marines and stormboyz I can see it turning into a waste (I rarely use stormboyz, and only use assault marines if I need dedicated melee before I can get my terminators out). On the other hand, if the efficacy turns out to be like deep-striking terminators and dreadnaughts or the Necrons, then I'm worried about it mostly turning into the only ground units being the terrain-crossing ones. Just because of the presence of air units and transports, I'm doubting it will end up with them being overpowered, but I'm still not sure if it will be too weak (colossi seem powerful enough to avoid being ignored, I think, but reapers are up in the air for me right now - another reason I think I'd prefer the bats, since they had splash damage).

Good so far
*Unit concepts. Generally, I'm liking the new unit concepts, sans Reapers. As much as I'll miss the Goliath, I do have to say that if anything will help me get over it, its the Viking. The Colossus weapon system sounds cool, as does mixing up the 'toss ground some by replacing the Dragoon with the Immortal and the Reaper. Additionally, variable-strength shields sounds interesting (by that I mean the immortals having strong anti-tank shield, but weak anti-marine, and the carrier replacement [forget the name :smalleek: ] having insane anti-ground shields but no anti-air).
*building changes. Mobile pylons and phase cannons? The ability to put a giant gun on the command center? Starports building while flying and moving? Heck, yeah.
*Single-player campaign. I rarely do online multi-player (though I play a lot of single-player AI skirmishes), so I am concerned about the replay value. And even though the campaign isn't as revolutionary as some people say (from the sound of it, its similar to the way some other games such as Rise of Legends have run it recently) it still sounds like a good idea that will improve single-player mobility.

Overall I'm leaning towards liking it right now. So long as they do NOT have the Viking say 'transform and roll out'.

[Tengu]

Overall I'm leaning towards liking it right now. So long as they do NOT have the Viking say 'transform and roll out'.

I'm sure he will say it when you click him enough times.

[Ronsian]

I love the new units. Reaper? Hell yeah, I always wanted to have a jet-pack and two uzis, who care's if they suck. Goliaths were cool and all, but the Valkyrie looks awesome. What I really like is they're giving almost every unit a special, should make marines and zealots good later on. I personally liked the whole WC3 Hero, because otherwise it would simply not work with getting 12 guys. Heroes in Starcraft would simply not work though, Warcraft seems built for it. Oh yeah, the Queen B*tch is going down :smallmad: .

[K2]

Has anyone else noticed the heavy Egyptian feel on the protoss? It was kinda there in the first game, but I am looking at the units and the concept art and it is most definitely there this time around.

[Morrandir]

I am sad there is no Zerg info other than 1. Nydus Worms are apparently mobile and/or burrowable Nydus Canals, and 2. Zerglings can explode.

I want to see new Zerg things, dangit!

[Saithis Bladewing]

Very excited. Sad that Goliaths aren't there, they were my favourite Terran unit, but giddy over some stuff.

There'll be a lynching if Blizzard doesn't keep the hydralisks though. I mean, they're hydralisks, for god's sake...they're THE iconic zerg, even more than the zergling!

[Morty]

Form what I've seen by now, I can say: graphic sucks. Everything is bright, big snd flashy. Yuck.

[Destro_Yersul]

Form what I've seen by now, I can say: graphic sucks. Everything is bright, big snd flashy. Yuck.

Matter of opinion, my friend. I, personally, like the new graphics.

On reapers: The have detpacks! Can you imagine jumping a bunch of these guys into an enemy base, blowing the crap out of their buildings and harrasing the workers until they send in counterforces, at which point you book it for the nearest cliff?

[Saithis Bladewing]

Form what I've seen by now, I can say: graphic sucks. Everything is bright, big snd flashy. Yuck.

OH dear, they have their own style? God knows that means the graphics must suck. There's no quality in the art, no, I don't like it, therefore it sucks. :smallbiggrin:

I prefer a more grim, realistic approach to the shiny, toony approach that Blizzard has adopted since WC2, but really, it's their game, as long as it's fun, I'm not going to complain. The artwork is very well done, whether you like the style or not is irrelevant.

[Tom_Violence]

OH dear, they have their own style? God knows that means the graphics must suck. There's no quality in the art, no, I don't like it, therefore it sucks. :smallbiggrin:

I prefer a more grim, realistic approach to the shiny, toony approach that Blizzard has adopted since WC2, but really, it's their game, as long as it's fun, I'm not going to complain. The artwork is very well done, whether you like the style or not is irrelevant.

The concept art is pretty cool, if fairly unimaginative. But the units themselves do kinda make this look like Lego Starcraft. I saw a video of a building exploding and chuckled when chunky bright red bricks went flying out everywhere. :smallamused:

[Morty]

OH dear, they have their own style? God knows that means the graphics must suck. There's no quality in the art, no, I don't like it, therefore it sucks. :smallbiggrin:

I prefer a more grim, realistic approach to the shiny, toony approach that Blizzard has adopted since WC2, but really, it's their game, as long as it's fun, I'm not going to complain. The artwork is very well done, whether you like the style or not is irrelevant.

Hey, I don't deny them their style. But it is, in my personal opinion, quite disgusting. I find bright colors, flashes of light and bright lights on everything distasteful. Units and buildings don't look bad, if not for mentioned above.

[Destro_Yersul]

The concept art is pretty cool, if fairly unimaginative. But the units themselves do kinda make this look like Lego Starcraft. I saw a video of a building exploding and chuckled when chunky bright red bricks went flying out everywhere. :smallamused:

Though the explosions have definately improved. Remember the generic building explosion that got used for everything Terran? Or the generic blood spurt for all the zerg buildings?

[tannish2]

Having played it:
It played different and uniquely enough (Star Ports for terran are awesome! Still produce units while flying around itself.) with a lot of new units and new applications and designs to old units that it both felt the same yet different enough to warrant it great.
No heros, which I believe killed WCIII, was a bonus in my opinion. (I'm REALLY tired of getting blademaster wind walked rushed.)
The graphics were pretty - though a few of the basic things were changed (upgrade paths for example were slightly different it felt like) however, it was still a great time.
Unfortunately, I did not build archons, however, I can say that i didn't see dark archons at all.

I'm currently running with a 2-0 winning streak in StarCraft 2. :smalltongue:

i dont know who you are, but you have played starcraft 2, so i hate you.

so... no heroes.... it might be good for unmodded games, but they lent a lot of versatility to custom games in WC3 gave you a bigger range, now hopefully most of the SC mapmakers will be back for SC2 and it wont matter much, but i can still hope that they will include level-upness in the map editor...

[BRC]

Heroes in Starcraft wouldn't have worked as well, and the game might have ended up warcraft in space.

[Destro_Yersul]

Artanis: This is not Warcraft in space! It's much more sophisticated.

[tannish2]

o i completely agree, but adding them in in the editor, even if they arent in the campaign or ladder games would be a very good move, would make things happier

oh, and yes, i agree, light is a good thing to use to set the mood for a game, unless its just a ""boom" you win." or ""boom" you lose." type game or a "your the hero, you win." type game they will NEED darker graphics, and the starcraft story was ok, if they dont keep it at least a little dark its going to look retarded and take away from the story, sorry about poor post quality if people cant read it ill edit it when i wake up

[Reinboom]

@Tannish2 , But I don't know who you are; and loooove you. :smalltongue:

The graphics felt like 3D starcraft - not warcraft. Though, it had that retarded zoom in thing only bends the camera to see that scene that warcraft 3 did... that was rather annoying.

[SurlySeraph]

I don't like the graphics much, but they'll probably be improved. All I demand from Starcraft II is the following:

1. I want to kill Kerrigan. With fire. In-game, not just in a cutscene. Although there better be a cutscene, too. With fire!
2. I want to kill Duran, slightly more than I want to kill Kerrigan. Actually, I want Kerrigan to kill him.
3. I want to fight the Hybrids.
4. I want some good things to happen to the Protoss.
5. They better not kill Raynor.

[Closet_Skeleton]

as for morr, read the article: it is about twilight archons. And it states that any templar combination will make a twilight archon. Therego, no more dark archon.

But no more 'normal' archon either, so it isn't important.


5. They better not kill Raynor without an awesome death scene where he pwns everyone.

Fixed it for you.

[Destro_Yersul]

5. They better not kill Raynor. And if, for some ineffable reason, they do, it had better damn well be in an awesome death scene where he pwns everything and everyone.

^:Further fixing was required.

[Winterwind]

4. I want some good things to happen to the Protoss.It would be about time, wouldn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Admittedly I haven't seen all the videos out there, yet, but at least the first gameplay trailer had graphics I rather liked. Liked very much, even.

I am still pissed they took out my favorite unit, though. No Phoenix is ever going to measure up to my Corsairs. Ever defeated a few dozen Goliaths with Carriers over a clear ground by means of mass Disruption Web?

And I'm glad there are no heroes. While I like WC3 very much, it's a completely different game. If there were heroes, it would imply that there were at least some units which could survive massive fire over extended periods of time, and that would slow down gameplay too much to still be called "StarCraft".

[K2]

But no more 'normal' archon either, so it isn't important.


Normal archons did never impressed me much, though mainly because every time I fought against toss I always had plenty of science vessels. and allow me to say that 10 hp wont get you far against marines, no matter how much dammage you deal

[Ronsian]

Anybody else seen the campaign stuff the posted (mighta been on Gamespot, I forget). On the terran one you like pick your missions. It will be a mercenary thing, where you get money to buy more guys. Looks pretty cool, although I'm glad it will be only for one, in case it's not awesome. Should still put some spin on the whole build a base, win the mission, repeat on next.

Taken from http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/news.html?sid=6176199&mode=news

(How do I change that again?)

[tannish2]

oh i agree that ladder style games would SUCK with heroes in SC... but maybe in the campaign, because keeping story units alive is a bitch.... fortified inner base with 1 unit in it anyone? and for the mods... my favorite part of any blizzard game

[Morrandir]

I remember a developer commenting on the SC story heroes, and how they were going to discourage the "put him behind 3 layers of defensive structures and forget about him" tactic, which everyone did, because they were hard to keep alive.

Don't remember any particular details, though.

[Tor the Fallen]

It would be about time, wouldn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Admittedly I haven't seen all the videos out there, yet, but at least the first gameplay trailer had graphics I rather liked. Liked very much, even.

I am still pissed they took out my favorite unit, though. No Phoenix is ever going to measure up to my Corsairs. Ever defeated a few dozen Goliaths with Carriers over a clear ground by means of mass Disruption Web?

And I'm glad there are no heroes. While I like WC3 very much, it's a completely different game. If there were heroes, it would imply that there were at least some units which could survive massive fire over extended periods of time, and that would slow down gameplay too much to still be called "StarCraft".

Corsairs were anathema to terrans. Terran's great strength was their ability to hold resource nodes as they slowly built up lots of big hitters. Corsairs prtty much would nullify a terran's base and stomp through with their air.


edit-
Looking at screen shots, it looks like they're a lot still held over from old SC. SCVs have 60 hp, for instance. They're classified as fleshy - mechanical, and it looks like they're mode of movement is 'hover'. Interesting.

Also, it looks like some sort of goliath unit was kept- their are screen shots of an enormous mech lumbering around with terran units. It's way huger than the siege tnks, even. Also, the BCs multiple hits with lasers? Wicked!

[Arameus]

Artanis: This is not Warcraft in space! It's much more sophisticated!

And now it IS 3D, you Zerg summumabetches!

StarCraft 2. Wow. Really. What is there to say? It'll be the greatest thing to happen to the RTS since the original StarCraft.

I just want three things from this game:

1.) I want to see that horrendous Zerg/Protoss hybrid Duran was developing.
2.) I want the Xel'Naga to show themselves. I'm pretty sure this has already been hinted at, if not confirmed.
3.) I want Raynor to get revenge on that Zerg Prostitute Mutant Terror Bitch for killing Fenix. Fenix owns you! FENIX OWNS YOU!!!

I'm not passing judgment on the units or system until I play the game start to finish. Blizzard knows what they're doing; they're still at the top of their game, and their employees are some of the smartest, most hard-working folk in the industry. Whatever they do, I'm going to have to merely have faith in until I get my greasy hands on it.

P.S.: Fenix owns you! FENIX OWNS YOU!!!

[13_CBS]

Everyone might wanna keep in mind that this is Blizzard, aka the Company That Never Sets Things In Stone Until The Game Comes Out.

Check this out: The Evolution of Starcraft (http://sclegacy.com/features/evolution.php#EA) This shows how UGLY starcraft 1 was in alpha stages, and how subtle yet impacting changes were made even during the beta stages. This could mean that by the release of the game, Starcraft 2 could look quite different from what it looks like now.

What's confusing me right now, though, are the shield systems for the Protoss. From what I've read here, it seems like toss units will have shields that will activate against certain attacks. Mechanically, this seems pretty good, since it hones the unit into a more specialized role. Fluff wise, however, it makes no sense. Why aren't the toss using shields that are strong against everything, a la shields from starcraft 1? :smallconfused:

Also, the dragoons from sc1 were weak against swarms of small units like zerglings. So what do the protoss replace them with? Immortals, which are apparently even weaker against zerglings. Yeah...looks like the Khalai engineers took too many coffee breaks...

[tannish2]

well hopefully they will get it right, and hopefully they will include the hero thing just for us custom game people.... were important too ya know.

[Tor the Fallen]

What's confusing me right now, though, are the shield systems for the Protoss. From what I've read here, it seems like toss units will have shields that will activate against certain attacks. Mechanically, this seems pretty good, since it hones the unit into a more specialized role. Fluff wise, however, it makes no sense. Why aren't the toss using shields that are strong against everything, a la shields from starcraft 1? :smallconfused:

Actually, toss shields in SC1 took full damage from everything.


Also, the dragoons from sc1 were weak against swarms of small units like zerglings. So what do the protoss replace them with? Immortals, which are apparently even weaker against zerglings. Yeah...looks like the Khalai engineers took too many coffee breaks...

Well, the dragoons are also a social caste of protoss, so they bulked them up, as they technically can't build any more- just warp them from place to place.

[13_CBS]

Actually, toss shields in SC1 took full damage from everything.

I knew that, but IIRC Immortal shields will ONLY activate when attacked by heavy weaponry, i.e. siege tank cannons. SC1 shields might have taken full damage, but at least they actually activated against any and all damage.




Well, the dragoons are also a social caste of protoss, so they bulked them up, as they technically can't build any more- just warp them from place to place.

Well, no, but the Khalai are the ones who crafted the Immortal combat shells, right? Seems odd that they'd overlook a weakness as dire as the dragoons' vulnerability to getting swarmed...

[Tor the Fallen]

I knew that, but IIRC Immortal shields will ONLY activate when attacked by heavy weaponry, i.e. siege tank cannons. SC1 shields might have taken full damage, but at least they actually activated against any and all damage.

Huh, I don't see any evidence of the only activating when hit by heavy weapons thing. That could be sort of a bummer.



Well, no, but the Khalai are the ones who crafted the Immortal combat shells, right? Seems odd that they'd overlook a weakness as dire as the dragoons' vulnerability to getting swarmed...

Several issues
1. Balance. Giving the toss a 2nd tier unit that is strong against everything is dumb.
2. Combat roles. Different units fill different combat roles. While a handful of dragoons may get overrun with 'lings, adding some zealots to the mix greatly extends their use.

I found that masses of terran siege tanks backed with stimmed rines, bats and medics could melt wave upon wave of dragoons and zealots. If you could get a slow moving reaver close enough to hit, maybe you'd create a big enough gap to move zealots in. 'Course, a good commander would obliterate the reaver before it got close enough to get a scarab off. (For this scenario, throwing down disruption web or psi storm was really the only way forward).

It looks like they've bulked the dragoon up to fill the "take hits from artillery" role while delivering some heavy damage themselves. The immortal has moved more towards an artillary role itself, rather than a frontline fighter.

[Arameus]

It's called 'specialization.' It means that not all units are good against all other units. This means that it may not be a good idea to use Immortals against small swarming enemies like Zerglings, but against enemies that it can take full use of its abilities against. Revolutionary, that Blizzard is.

I don't see the big problem with it. There have always been units with this weakness; Goliaths were weak to swarming, so were the original Dragoons, so were Siege Tanks (assunimg you could GET the swarm to them) so was pretty much any other expensive unit that you don't protect well. Just how it's always been, and it's good that way.

[Morrandir]

Immortals have the basic shield as well. If you watch the gameplay demo, when it gets to the Reaper attack, there's some blue flashing on those surviving Immortals. Granted, it's not there long, since they just finished off the tanks, but...

[Saithis Bladewing]

I think the Immortals' shield probably just takes significantly less damage against certain types of attacks (whether it's activated by high damage, or just specific damage types such as the Siege Tanks' cannon, I'm not sure.) As was mentioned above, I recall a flicker of blue shields when the Reapers hit the Immortals for the first time.

[Ailurus]

I think its likely that Blizzard modified the shields to be like the various armor types. If people remember, back in SC1 Vultures slaughtered little things like zerglings and zealots, but were absolute garbage against anything else - except the shields on all protoss units. There were a bunch of times where I would actually just make a few vultures when fighting the Toss for the express purpose of suppressing shields on the enemy buildings while the marines chewed the actual HP up.

It looks like shields will have their own strength/weaknesses now, just like unit HPs have. The Immortal shields may only take like 25% damage from tank fire (or something), while marines and such do full damage. Thus, the shields will hold off tanks for a while, but a bunch of marines rip them down rapidly, and then knock lots of holes in the chassis. (As for why the video reapers ripped the shields down so fast, it may be that the immortal only has, say, 20 points of shields, but tank fire only does maybe 10% or so damage to hit. So it will take 3 or so shells to rip the shield down. But if each reaper does, say, 10 damage per volley, two reapers could take it down in 1 shot)

[Winterwind]

I think its likely that Blizzard modified the shields to be like the various armor types. If people remember, back in SC1 Vultures slaughtered little things like zerglings and zealots, but were absolute garbage against anything else - except the shields on all protoss units. There were a bunch of times where I would actually just make a few vultures when fighting the Toss for the express purpose of suppressing shields on the enemy buildings while the marines chewed the actual HP up.That's called "concussive damage" (as opposed to explosive damage as hydralisks or siege tanks did). 25% against large, 50% against medium units. And vultures are one of the most important units in TvP, spider mines alone give a huge advantage, and the slaughter inflicted upon zealots who want to mess with the sieged tanks is nice as well.
At least for the Terran player. :smallmad:


It looks like shields will have their own strength/weaknesses now, just like unit HPs have. The Immortal shields may only take like 25% damage from tank fire (or something), while marines and such do full damage. Thus, the shields will hold off tanks for a while, but a bunch of marines rip them down rapidly, and then knock lots of holes in the chassis. (As for why the video reapers ripped the shields down so fast, it may be that the immortal only has, say, 20 points of shields, but tank fire only does maybe 10% or so damage to hit. So it will take 3 or so shells to rip the shield down. But if each reaper does, say, 10 damage per volley, two reapers could take it down in 1 shot)It would be in line with the damage/armour system becoming more complex. SC1 had three attack types and three armour types, WC3 already had seven of each (though one armour type was only for campaigns).
I wonder whether they'll continue this trend in SC2...
By the way, in the gameplay video Immortals have 100 shield points (and 240 hit points). Of course, this likely will change yet.

[Green Bean]

3.) I want Raynor to get revenge on that Zerg Prostitute Mutant Terror Bitch for killing Fenix. Fenix owns you! FENIX OWNS YOU!!!


I want to kill Kerrigan in game as the Zerg player. Why? Because that way, when she launches into her dramatic speech about going down fighting, I'll hit the Spawn Broodling button. :smallamused:

Just like I killed your precious Fenix! MUAHAHAHA!

[Winterwind]

I want to kill Kerrigan in game as the Zerg player. Why? Because that way, when she launches into her dramatic speech about going down fighting, I'll hit the Spawn Broodling button. :smallamused: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:
Now that's what I'd call role reversal!

You, good sir, own the Internet. :smallcool:

[Jothki]

There's also the Stalker, which seems like a Dragoon taken the exact opposite direction, emphasizing mobility over durability. If you want to fight against infantry, those might be a better choice.

[Winterwind]

I strongly suspect for this specific task one will not use neither Immortals nor Stalkers, but ordinary Zealots. Especially now that they got this Charge ability.

[Krytha]

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:
Now that's what I'd call role reversal!

You, good sir, own the Internet. :smallcool:

Except for killing Fenix with broodlings. Not cool.

[Green Bean]

Except for killing Fenix with broodlings. Not cool.

I'm sure it's how he would have wanted to go. :smalltongue:

[K2]

When it comes to killing Kerrigan my method of choice would be Raynor back by half a dozen or so ghost. Give her a taste of her own medicine. Also, it would be really cool if you could kill her and Mengks at the same time.

Both immortals and stalkers(or what ever they are called) are the new dragoon, All I have to say is that siege tanks will still win. The terrans always win.

[Krytha]

You probably need to drop a nuke on kerrigan to makes sure she dies and stays dead.

[Winterwind]

Nah, a nuke wouldn't work for the same reasons why a machine gun is almost always inferior to a revolver in movies - not personal enough. Unless someone walks up to her, points a gun directly at her and begins shooting until she doesn't move anymore, there never would be any guarantee she wouldn't survive.

Though, seeing how Illidan survives Frostmourne in the battle with Arthas at the end of TFT, I guess there are no guarantees anymore...

[Arameus]

There's also the Stalker, which seems like a Dragoon taken the exact opposite direction, emphasizing mobility over durability. If you want to fight against infantry, those might be a better choice.

In the demo vid, I believe it is stated that the Stalker has very high damage but very low armor. Like a halberdier or something.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I, for one, feel the leader system ruined WarCraft III. It was a race to level 6, EVERY FREAKING GAME.

Also, who says there's no Dark Archons?



Emphasis mine.
Every RTS is a race to something EVERY FREAKING GAME.
Anyways, I'm not saying leaders were a great system, but at least it was new.

Brood War had new units: I expect something more in a full-blown sequel, not just graphics that'll make my comp inferior for online play again.

At the very least, a new race: the Zerg-Protoss hybrids from BW's teaser.

[13_CBS]

It's called 'specialization.' It means that not all units are good against all other units. This means that it may not be a good idea to use Immortals against small swarming enemies like Zerglings, but against enemies that it can take full use of its abilities against. Revolutionary, that Blizzard is.

I don't see the big problem with it. There have always been units with this weakness; Goliaths were weak to swarming, so were the original Dragoons, so were Siege Tanks (assunimg you could GET the swarm to them) so was pretty much any other expensive unit that you don't protect well. Just how it's always been, and it's good that way.

Please read my first post. I said that I understand perfectly the crunch reasons, I just don't understand the fluff reasons. An extra specialized, improved dragoon? Cool. but why would the Khalai create such a thing?

[SurlySeraph]

You probably need to drop a nuke on kerrigan to makes sure she dies and stays dead.

She has 500 hit points, plus armor. A nuke does 500 damage. Therefore, Kerrigan can survive a nuke. Sorry.


Please read my first post. I said that I understand perfectly the crunch reasons, I just don't understand the fluff reasons. An extra specialized, improved dragoon? Cool. but why would the Khalai create such a thing?

Because there are very few Protoss left, so they have to get as much use out of the surviving veterans as possible.

[Winterwind]

Every RTS is a race to something EVERY FREAKING GAME.
Anyways, I'm not saying leaders were a great system, but at least it was new.

Brood War had new units: I expect something more in a full-blown sequel, not just graphics that'll make my comp inferior for online play again.

At the very least, a new race: the Zerg-Protoss hybrids from BW's teaser.I am very glad there are only three races in SC2. That way, there are only three match-ups to be balanced (TvZ, TvP, ZvP, mirrors being balanced per definition). With four races, like in WC3, the number of non-mirror match-ups doubles - and people in WC3 forums complain about balance until this day (most seem to believe Nightelves are overpowered; haven't played enough to judge that), unlike StarCraft, where most seem to agree a more or less perfect balance was reached. I consider balance to be far more important than a fourth race.

I agree though that innovation would be nice. I think there will be innovation though - the new unit deployment system of the Protoss alone should make for quite a different gameplay.


She has 500 hit points, plus armor. A nuke does 500 damage. Therefore, Kerrigan can survive a nuke. Sorry.Actually, she has 400 hp and 2 armour, so a nuke would be enough to kill her. I rather doubt she will be killed in-play though, I think even if she should fall, it will happen either in a in-game cutscene, or in a video sequence. And when she dies, it will likely be in a "please, Jimmy, kill me, before I lose control again" sort of thing.
...all of you know the Star Wars spoof the holo-projector at the bottom of the BattleNet page displays when you move your mouse pointer above it, right? "Help me, Jim Raynor, you're my only hope", coming from Kerrigan?

[BRC]

She has 500 hit points, plus armor. A nuke does 500 damage. Therefore, Kerrigan can survive a nuke. Sorry.
Maybe things change in SC 2

[Arameus]

Just a thought: If you haven't seen the gameplay demo, go download it now. Take a good twenty minutes out of your day (you post on a forum, so you obviously have nothing better to do) and take it all in. Nuclear Launch Detected.

Why not have a ground unit that can stand up to the fierce and mighty Siege Tank with relative ease? Air support had always been the only way to go without cloaking, and why risk those expensive cloakable units when a good ComSat sweep is just going to light them all up anyway?

The only thing I really have to wonder about is that a lot of the elements and the look of everything seems familiar, if not stolen, from Dawn of War and C&C 3. A lot of the units and mechanics are exactly correlative, like the Reapers and the Mothership, and the graphical feel really hearkens back to Dawn of War. Of course, as someone else pointed out, this is probably only stage 1 of maybe 237 different graphics/gameplay phases, like StarCraft went through. Probably much more set-in-stone this time around, though, simply due to the different climate and that fact that they've already released so much material on the site.

[† Dran †]

I rather hope the story is entirely open ended and if i want i can play as Zerg and kill everyone else off. After all zerg where an awesome army, all hail the bitch queen and all that :smallamused:

Personaly i like the new units. The whole dragoon thing is explained on the main site, the zerg over ran the home planet and thus they cant make the sacred dragoon anymore so they updated the dragoons to give them better lasting power, aka a shield that negates the siege tank almost completely. Oh and that shield is a /second/ shield for the immortals. So yes they have a normal shield as well as one that activates to help shrug off massive damage.

Only unit i dont really like is that new 'toss walker. Reminds me to much of the spider droid in sup com, buut i can see some interesting tactics with it already.

Just wish they would release some info on Zerg. Hopefully they have the mutate ablilitys to make each and every zerg army different. Now that would be cool. Oh and a Hydralisk / zealot cross breed hehe... so much fun.

[Krytha]

She has 500 hit points, plus armor. A nuke does 500 damage. Therefore, Kerrigan can survive a nuke. Sorry.


She has 400 hp. Sorry.

Edit. Ninjas. Why is it always the ninjas.

[13_CBS]

Because there are very few Protoss left, so they have to get as much use out of the surviving veterans as possible.

Yes, but why with a vehicle with such inferior shielding? I mean, they lost dragoon tech, yes, but they can't have lost THAT much of it. Even their basic infantry had better shielding than the ones that the Immortals have now.

[BRC]

Yes, but why with a vehicle with such inferior shielding? I mean, they lost dragoon tech, yes, but they can't have lost THAT much of it. Even their basic infantry had better shielding than the ones that the Immortals have now.
The immortals still have shields, its just their tuned towrds deflecting bigger attacks. in the video it was a large amount of reapers that took the immortals down.

[Saithis Bladewing]

It's even possible that the shield itself isn't necessarily that overly powerful, but that it reduces any damage dealt to it by a significant amount, enough that swarms will still overwhelm it quickly with a minimal amount of damage, while large but slow attacks will cause a decent chunk but don't hit fast enough. Who knows.

It's like 10 damage every 3 seconds vs. 1 damage every .25 seconds. Which is going to overwhelm a 30hp shield quicker, really?

[TheOtherMC]

It's even possible that the shield itself isn't necessarily that overly powerful, but that it reduces any damage dealt to it by a significant amount, enough that swarms will still overwhelm it quickly with a minimal amount of damage, while large but slow attacks will cause a decent chunk but don't hit fast enough. Who knows.

It's like 10 damage every 3 seconds vs. 1 damage every .25 seconds. Which is going to overwhelm a 30hp shield quicker, really?

I think the facts (as Ive read them) are that the Immortal's secondary shield activates in response to heavy fire like siege tanks and reduces the damage to almost nothing, but it doesnt activate against anything below that damage threshhold like marine or reaver attacks. In those cases their crappy regular shields would be their only defence. SO in effect they're great against entrenched positions but vulnrable to small arms making low tier units still a usefull counter to something.

[K2]

The toss walker seems very war of the worlds to me, Jules would be happy.
Incidentally, I heard that they were going to bring stukav back? Now dont get me wrong, I liked him. Heck, I liked the whole UED, but hes dead. They all are. cause Raynor and Fenix had a stupid moment and both Fenix and DUke payed for it.

Also, the science vessel is gone but has been replaced with a clone. The new ship looks different, but has the same exact specs except for irradiate, which has been replaced by some sort of repair ability.
And missile turrets cant see cloaked units anymore?

[13_CBS]

*Sigh* I don't think you guys are understanding what I'm trying to say. :smallannoyed:

[Winterwind]

*Sigh* I don't think you guys are understanding what I'm trying to say. :smallannoyed:You claim Immortal shields are inferior to that of their other units, which is just not true - in the gameplay trailer you can plainly see Immortals have more shield points than, say, Zealots do. It's just that on top of that, their shields take less damage from powerful attacks.

If you want a fluff explanation for that, well, maybe it's sort of like the personal shields in the Dune universe, which allow slowly moving attacks to pass, but block all fast ones.

[Tor the Fallen]

The toss walker seems very war of the worlds to me, Jules would be happy.

Jules? Don't you mean Wells?

[13_CBS]

If you want a fluff explanation for that, well, maybe it's sort of like the personal shields in the Dune universe, which allow slowly moving attacks to pass, but block all fast ones.

...which doesn't make sense. The Khalai engineers gave the ex-dragoons Immortal combat shells which were even more vulnerable to the weaknesses of the previous dragoons?

Eh, nevermind.

[Morrandir]

Kahalai engineers probably did think of that, and countered with the Zealot Charge.

After all, why the heck are the Dragoons even getting into melee? Because the Zealots can't get there fast enough.

Also, am I the only one who actually likes Kerrigan?

[Tor the Fallen]

What's up with Kerrigan's high heels?

[SurlySeraph]

Kahalai engineers probably did think of that, and countered with the Zealot Charge.

After all, why the heck are the Dragoons even getting into melee? Because the Zealots can't get there fast enough.

Also, am I the only one who actually likes Kerrigan?

Well, everyone likes her in the sense that she's a great villain. But liking her as in "not wanting her to pay for her countless crimes against pretty much everyone"? You're alone there.


What's up with Kerrigan's high heels?

Yeah, I didn't entirely get that either. And have you seen that concept art thing of her lying around naked? As much as they try to sexualize her, she's still a sociopathic insect to me.

[Tor the Fallen]

Yeah, I didn't entirely get that either. And have you seen that concept art thing of her lying around naked? As much as they try to sexualize her, she's still a sociopathic insect to me.

Yeah! Maybe Blizzard wanted to set up some sort of juxtaposition between her attractiveness and the fact that she's infected and alien and gross.

Yeah, right. It was for fanboys.

[Morrandir]

I just checked, original SC nuke deals 1000 damage at ground zero.

So, no, I don't think any single unit can survive a direct hit.

[Destro_Yersul]

...which doesn't make sense. The Khalai engineers gave the ex-dragoons Immortal combat shells which were even more vulnerable to the weaknesses of the previous dragoons?

Eh, nevermind.

Short answer? They didn't.

Long answer? The immortals are no more vulnerable to small arms fire than regular dragoons were. They die at about the same rate. Furthermore, the Immortals in the demo were already weakened by siege tank shelling, plus they now have upgraded zealots and stalkers to help with massed infantry.

Yes, Immortals would die to large numbers of reapers or marines or whatever. But so would Dragoons. Both units need back up, and immortals are, if anything, better.

[Elidyr]

Every RTS is a race to something EVERY FREAKING GAME.
Anyways, I'm not saying leaders were a great system, but at least it was new.

Brood War had new units: I expect something more in a full-blown sequel, not just graphics that'll make my comp inferior for online play again.

At the very least, a new race: the Zerg-Protoss hybrids from BW's teaser.

Adding hundreds of units, races and new features doesnt automatically make a game good. What's the point in 100 different units when you only use 5 of them? What's the point in 20 different races when they all play the same?

[Dausuul]

I just checked, original SC nuke deals 1000 damage at ground zero.

So, no, I don't think any single unit can survive a direct hit.

Wherever you checked, it was wrong. A nuke does 500 damage or two-thirds of the unit's hit points, whichever is more. Thus many buildings can take a nuke and survive (though Terran buildings will start burning down afterward). Of the mobile units, a fully-functional Battlecruiser can just barely withstand a nuke hit, thanks to its armor. All other mobile units die instantly.

[Winterwind]

...which doesn't make sense. The Khalai engineers gave the ex-dragoons Immortal combat shells which were even more vulnerable to the weaknesses of the previous dragoons? In addition to what Destro_Yersul posted (Immortal shields are better against everything than Dragoon shields, having more shield points and all, in addition to being significantly better to specific attacks), the most dangerous thing for the old dragoons was siege tank fire. 'Goons fare reasonably well against Marines, and Zerglings should never get past the Zealot line to begin with. But in a PvT, where you'd need 'goons to deal with Vultures and their spider mines, and (in the late game, if you made a switch to Carriers or Arbiters) Goliaths, the most dangerous foe to a Dragoon would be a Siege Tank, and that's what I believe the Immortal's main field of operation will be.

Also, Dausuul is right about the nukes.

[K2]

Wherever you checked, it was wrong. A nuke does 500 damage or two-thirds of the unit's hit points, whichever is more. Thus many buildings can take a nuke and survive (though Terran buildings will start burning down afterward). Of the mobile units, a fully-functional Battlecruiser can just barely withstand a nuke hit, thanks to its armor. All other mobile units die instantly.

Does that include the carrier? I was never able to nuke one of those.

[Winterwind]

Does that include the carrier? I was never able to nuke one of those.Yes. Carriers have 300 normal hit points, 150 points shield and 4 armour points, which adds up to 454. So, yeah, a Carrier would be destroyed by a nuke as well.
Except for Battlecruisers, only a few heroes can survive a nuke. From the heroes who appear in the campaigns, the Norad II and Norad III, the Hyperion, the Gantrithor and the Torrasque could have taken such a hit.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Artanis, too.
EDIT2: And, if memory serves right, Fenix in the BW mission where one is supposed to kill him, too - he has much higher stats in that mission than usually. Which, of course, still doesn't prevent him from dying the most infamous and instantaneous kind of death imaginable to a StarCraft ground unit...

[BRC]

Yes. Carriers have 300 normal hit points, 150 points shield and 4 armour points, which adds up to 454. So, yeah, a Carrier would be destroyed by a nuke as well.
Except for Battlecruisers, only a few heroes can survive a nuke. From the heroes who appear in the campaigns, the Norad II and Norad III, the Hyperion, the Gantrithor and the Torrasque could have taken such a hit.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Artanis, too.
EDIT2: And, if memory serves right, Fenix in the BW mission where one is supposed to kill him, too - he has much higher stats in that mission than usually. Which, of course, still doesn't prevent him from dying the most infamous and instantaneous kind of death imaginable to a StarCraft ground unit...
I never liked the way they killed off fenix. The purpose was to cement kerrigans status as a villian, because before that she hadn't really gone up against anybody sympathetic and killing Duke was preety much a public service.

[Morrandir]

Ah, the nuke explanation helps things. I did a field test, and the computer was too stupid to field battlecruisers, so I had to test on his command center, of 1500 hp, so 2/3 being 1000...

I also decided Fenix should at least have a chance, and sent a few hundred Zerglings at him, instead of pressing the IWIN button.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Anybody else seen the campaign stuff the posted (mighta been on Gamespot, I forget). On the terran one you like pick your missions. It will be a mercenary thing, where you get money to buy more guys. Looks pretty cool, although I'm glad it will be only for one, in case it's not awesome. Should still put some spin on the whole build a base, win the mission, repeat on next.

Reminds me of Shadow of the Horned Rat, but less awesome.

I don't get the point of trying to be a differant game badly when you can be your own game well.

[Krellen]

EDIT: Oh yeah, and Artanis, too.
I believe Zeratul can. At least the original version, if not the Brood War one. 400 points of shield will do that for you.

If he can't, it's only by virtue of a few points of health.

[13_CBS]

Did anyone else think it was hilarious that a zealot with max armor upgrades and full shields can (barely) survive a Yamato blast?

[Morrandir]

A fully upgraded zealot can (sometimes) take down a basic Ultralisk.

Depends on who stabs first, and the timing of the shield recharge.

[13_CBS]

I also thought that a zealot being able to take out a goliath 1v1 was almost...frightening.

Just imagine that. You think you're all nice and safe inside your mech, autocannons fully loaded and a set of hellfire missles readied in their pods. Then, out of nowhere, an alien with bright blades on his wrists charges towards you. You spray autocannon fire at him, but the alien is unaffected, either because of his shields or his alien constitution. Once he gets close, he rips open the cockpit with his bare hands and proceeds to maul you.

Yowch.

[BRC]

I also thought that a zealot being able to take out a goliath 1v1 was almost...frightening.

Just imagine that. You think you're all nice and safe inside your mech, autocannons fully loaded and a set of hellfire missles readied in their pods. Then, out of nowhere, an alien with bright blades on his wrists charges towards you. You spray autocannon fire at him, but the alien is unaffected, either because of his shields or his alien constitution. Once he gets close, he rips open the cockpit with his bare hands and proceeds to maul you.

Yowch.
Actually, Zeolots are so good because their shiny, they blind you with alien science.

[Winterwind]

I never liked the way they killed off fenix. The purpose was to cement kerrigans status as a villian, because before that she hadn't really gone up against anybody sympathetic and killing Duke was preety much a public service.Yeah, that's what I figured myself, too. And they did a very good job with proving that, yes, Kerrigan is evil that way.
Still a pity about Fenix.


I believe Zeratul can. At least the original version, if not the Brood War one. 400 points of shield will do that for you.

If he can't, it's only by virtue of a few points of health.Hmm... while I don't recall his stats exactly (except for his insane 100 damage points, of course), the StarCraft Editor gives him 400 shield and 60 hit points per default, which I think is what he had in original SC as well. So, no surviving of nuclear strikes for our favorite Dark Templar, though barely.


Did anyone else think it was hilarious that a zealot with max armor upgrades and full shields can (barely) survive a Yamato blast?Huh? Hey, cool, I didn't know that. I always though Yamato shots did normal damage, not explosive.
Heh, yeah, that's pretty hilarious. :smallbiggrin:


I also thought that a zealot being able to take out a goliath 1v1 was almost...frightening.

Just imagine that. You think you're all nice and safe inside your mech, autocannons fully loaded and a set of hellfire missles readied in their pods. Then, out of nowhere, an alien with bright blades on his wrists charges towards you. You spray autocannon fire at him, but the alien is unaffected, either because of his shields or his alien constitution. Once he gets close, he rips open the cockpit with his bare hands and proceeds to maul you.

Yowch.A zealot is able to defeat two hydralisks at once, too. Now that's what I find impressive. :smallsmile:

[The Orange Zergling]

Will they just hurry up and post the Zerg stuff already? The suspense is killing me. >.<

At least my beloved 'lings are still in the game... if a bit more buggish (not a bad thing, IMO).

[Icewalker]

Zerg ftw. I want their section up :smallfrown:

[hanzo66]

It'll be cool to see what the Zerg/Kerrigan cooked up during the last few years. Perhaps an evolved form of Cerebrate that's not just a big fat Larva thing or a mobile mini-Overmind?

[Morrandir]

Just looking at the new Zergling model, maybe they're able to fly up and down cliffs. Can't say for sure, as none survived long enough to get near one in the vids, but those wings look like they could support a little flight...

[The Orange Zergling]

What I'm thinking:

They'll have an upgrade that lets them go up and down (or at least down) cliffs. Like, Evolve Wing Augmentations (Alternatively, an upgrade that allows them to momentarily take flight). Or they will be able to morph into something that can.

[Winterwind]

If the gameplay is anyhow similar to StarCraft 1, wouldn't that be kinda lethal for any economy line, though? :smallconfused:
Even if it was a lategame upgrade, huge hordes of Zerglings could easily overrun a base then... and think of the ambushes possible! The horrible, horrible ambushes! :smalleek:
Oh, well. Many people speculate it might be down cliffs only.

As a side note, I'm waiting for the Zerg data impatiently as well... gotta know your enemy! :smallwink:

[† Dran †]

well since boath terran and protoss have units that can move over and down cliffs, dont see why zerg cant :smalltongue:

[Winterwind]

At least for the Protoss it's a heavy, expensive unit, they won't have too much of them presumably. On the other hand, the Reapers... *shudder* :smalleek:

But, you're right, of course - which probably means the gameplay will indeed be quite different from SC2. I just wonder how one will prevent the enemy from entering the base en masse if it's this easy to circumvent choke points.

[BRC]

Though reapers can jump cliffs, It dosn't look like they have the firepower to be more then a hassel. And it looks like the zerg have Nydus worms for transporting troops.

[ImperiousLeader]

Did you see those grenades the Reapers get? A Reaper assault looks quite frightening to me. The other thing, is it looks like base defenses aren't nearly as tough as one would think. The Banshee vid shows them taking down a Pylon with only a few shots, disabling 3 photon cannons.

[TSGames]

Zerg ftw. I want their section up :smallfrown:

All I have to say is that it looks like a late game zergling rush my be a valid strategy. "Death for the Swarm!"

P.S. I also want to see what has come from infested marines, but removing the max unit cap was a great boon to the Zerg, and they needed it.

[Winterwind]

Did you see those grenades the Reapers get? A Reaper assault looks quite frightening to me. The other thing, is it looks like base defenses aren't nearly as tough as one would think. The Banshee vid shows them taking down a Pylon with only a few shots, disabling 3 photon cannons.When have base defenses ever been tough? But still, considering how they take the Immortals apart, I think their damage output must be rather high - so if a bunch of those arrives in the economy line, it might get messy. Unless their damage type is not suited for killing small worker units.


All I have to say is that it looks like a late game zergling rush my be a valid strategy. "Death for the Swarm!"Isn't "late game rush" kinda an oxymoron, though? :smalltongue:

[Morrandir]

Late game rush. (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/Crogishunger/SCScrnShot_062307_004035.jpg)

[Griemont]

Yes. Carriers have 300 normal hit points, 150 points shield and 4 armour points, which adds up to 454. So, yeah, a Carrier would be destroyed by a nuke as well.
Except for Battlecruisers, only a few heroes can survive a nuke. From the heroes who appear in the campaigns, the Norad II and Norad III, the Hyperion, the Gantrithor and the Torrasque could have taken such a hit.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and Artanis, too.
EDIT2: And, if memory serves right, Fenix in the BW mission where one is supposed to kill him, too - he has much higher stats in that mission than usually. Which, of course, still doesn't prevent him from dying the most infamous and instantaneous kind of death imaginable to a StarCraft ground unit...

Regarding the nuke, it is important to note that its AoE damage is less than whatever gets directly hit by it, so one nuke won't wipe out a fleet of BCs.

And I don't remember that particular BW mission (somehow :smalleek:); did Fenix have a scripted-event death or did everyone just choose to broodling him? I probably didn't, because I honestly never thought of it :smallredface:

[BRC]

When have base defenses ever been tough? But still, considering how they take the Immortals apart, I think their damage output must be rather high - so if a bunch of those arrives in the economy line, it might get messy. Unless their damage type is not suited for killing small worker units.

Isn't "late game rush" kinda an oxymoron, though? :smalltongue:
In the video, it was quite a lot of them against those immortals, and even then that kind of struck me as a Rock-paper-Scissors situation. Come to think of it, in the video it seemed like the protoss were more or less built around unit/counterunit.
Immortals: Beat big things, lose to swarms
Collosus: Beat swarms, lose to big things
Pheonix: Beat swarms, lose to big
Warp Ray: Beat big, lose to swarms.

[TSGames]

In the video, it was quite a lot of them against those immortals, and even then that kind of struck me as a Rock-paper-Scissors situation. Come to think of it, in the video it seemed like the protoss were more or less built around unit/counterunit.
Immortals: Beat big things, lose to swarms
Collosus: Beat swarms, lose to big things
Pheonix: Beat swarms, lose to big
Warp Ray: Beat big, lose to swarms.

I think that's just the game designers trying to balance the game... But I wouldn't put Collosus on that list, I don't think it's a standalone unit as much as it is an infantry support unit.

[Winterwind]

Regarding the nuke, it is important to note that its AoE damage is less than whatever gets directly hit by it, so one nuke won't wipe out a fleet of BCs. Right, but the full damage blast radius is quite large. Well, and BCs can actually survive nukes (500 hitpoints plus three armour points; these armour points allow them to survive.

And I don't remember that particular BW mission (somehow :smalleek:); did Fenix have a scripted-event death or did everyone just choose to broodling him? I probably didn't, because I honestly never thought of it :smallredface:It's the same mission where you get Lurkers for the first time. You are granted a few minutes before the enemy bases "awake", in which you are allowed to destroy as much as you like to; the goal is to kill both Fenix and Duke in his new flagship Norad III. And, no, Fenix' death is not scripted. you just fight him; the thing is, his stats are significantly boosted as compared to normal (I think he has about four hundred shield and hitpoints each in this mission), and he gives a speach before the fight how he will not go down easily. Unfortunately, he is still vulnerable to Broodlings, which makes this "not going down easily" kinda ironic...


In the video, it was quite a lot of them against those immortals, and even then that kind of struck me as a Rock-paper-Scissors situation. Come to think of it, in the video it seemed like the protoss were more or less built around unit/counterunit.
Immortals: Beat big things, lose to swarms
Collosus: Beat swarms, lose to big things
Pheonix: Beat swarms, lose to big
Warp Ray: Beat big, lose to swarms.Still, the Immortals had 100 hit points additionally to their shields, and I think the siege tanks had not managed to break most of their shields. Plus, they probably had some armour, too. At least in SC1 it would have taken a while to beat that many units with this many hit points. So unless the Reapers don't have some specific attack type that does, say, double damage to large units, or however the attack/armour class counter-system might work, they still must have quite a lot of firepower.


I think that's just the game designers trying to balance the game... But I wouldn't put Collosus on that list, I don't think it's a standalone unit as much as it is an infantry support unit.I think so, too... if the Zealots had not been there, I suspect the Collossus' wouldn't have done quite as well.

[LordVader]

The Terran units look great, can't wait to see more. Also, this is a GREAT reference for SCII news, and SC in general: Starcraft Legacy (www.sclegacy.com)

[The Orange Zergling]

If the gameplay is anyhow similar to StarCraft 1, wouldn't that be kinda lethal for any economy line, though? :smallconfused:
Even if it was a lategame upgrade, huge hordes of Zerglings could easily overrun a base then... and think of the ambushes possible! The horrible, horrible ambushes! :smalleek:
Oh, well. Many people speculate it might be down cliffs only.

As a side note, I'm waiting for the Zerg data impatiently as well... gotta know your enemy! :smallwink:

Zerglings pwn you.

And you know it. :smallwink:

[SurlySeraph]

Late game rush. (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/Crogishunger/SCScrnShot_062307_004035.jpg)

You know, I think there's an emoticon for that. What is it? Oh, yes, there it is: :eek:

I never, ever want to see that coming at me in a game. I mean, Radiation won't stop that, Siege Tanks won't stop it for long, Carriers won't stop that, air units will just stand there killing one or two Zerglings while all the ground infrastructure gets ripped to tiny pieces... eek.

[tannish2]

You know, I think there's an emoticon for that. What is it? Oh, yes, there it is: :eek:

I never, ever want to see that coming at me in a game. I mean, Radiation won't stop that, Siege Tanks won't stop it for long, Carriers won't stop that, air units will just stand there killing one or two Zerglings while all the ground infrastructure gets ripped to tiny pieces... eek.

if you have a good choke point and a couple seige tanks... or a LOT of nukes
or templars... LOTS of templars behind defensive structures

[Winterwind]

Zerglings pwn you.

And you know it. :smallwink:Oh, I'm sure they would love to; alas, my zealots beg to differ. :smallbiggrin:


if you have a good choke point and a couple seige tanks... or a LOT of nukes
or templars... LOTS of templars behind defensive structuresOr just one choke point and two archons. :smallwink: (I'm serious, if they have decent weapon upgrades, I would bet on the archons)
Oh! Or better yet, a choke, three medics and one firebat! (I have actually seen a video where a team of a few medics and one firebat defeats about sixty zerglings)

[tannish2]

Oh, I'm sure they would love to; alas, my zealots beg to differ. :smallbiggrin:

Or just one choke point and two archons. :smallwink: (I'm serious, if they have decent weapon upgrades, I would bet on the archons)
Oh! Or better yet, a choke, three medics and one firebat! (I have actually seen a video where a team of a few medics and one firebat defeats about sixty zerglings)

forgot about archons firebats and medics... havent played SC in a while

[Winterwind]

Meanest thing one could do would be to trap a few of them in stasis as they run up the choke point - after that, one can take them apart any way one wants to.
Zerg might have a problem to hold this off, though. The only thing I can think of would be a large amount of lurkers, burrowed in a line so that they don't fire all at once when it's not necessary.

Well, or just use air units, of course, provided one can keep those little beasts out of the base for long enough (that's again where stasis might come in handy).

[TSGames]

Meanest thing one could do would be to trap a few of them in stasis as they run up the choke point - after that, one can take them apart any way one wants to.
Zerg might have a problem to hold this off, though. The only thing I can think of would be a large amount of lurkers, burrowed in a line so that they don't fire all at once when it's not necessary.


Interestingly enough, my favorite strategy in Brood War was to burrow Lurkers under my buildings, especially the hive. It worked amazingly for defense. I hope it can still be done in the new one.

[Jacob_Gallagher]

So, you'd burrow lurkers, then place buildings on top of them? Sounds cool.

[TSGames]

So, you'd burrow lurkers, then place buildings on top of them? Sounds cool.

Well...almost. The building would already be built. What I did was use a couple of hyrdralisks in combination with the lurkers. All you do is make one get real close to a building, then you make it mutate into a lurker. While it's still an egg, you pack a few hydralisks, or some other unit, around it, and pack them in(group hug?). When it hatches it starts scrambling around because there isn't enough room for it. It will scramble on top of the building and then you just tell it to burrow.

It's even easier to do under the hive, you just have to hatch three hydralisks and then mutate them into lurkers immediately.

[K2]

Lurkers are the zergs version of the siege tank. As for the late game 'ling rush, well if you were real careful with how you built or defense then siege tanks could stop it, but you would need supply depot walls and bunkers with friebats to help defend the tanks.

[Winterwind]

Lurkers are the zergs version of the siege tank. As for the late game 'ling rush, well if you were real careful with how you built or defense then siege tanks could stop it, but you would need supply depot walls and bunkers with friebats to help defend the tanks.Or just let the M&Ms take care of it. Even this many Zerglings will die under the concentrated fire of a marine squadron which is assisted by enough medics. Throw in a few firebats and you're entirely on the save side. And, since M&Ms are pretty much standard in TvZ...
Now, if the Zerg would throw in a few Ultralisks to take the fire, or better yet, Defilers with Dark Swarm, it would look very much differently for the Terran...

[tannish2]

Or just let the M&Ms take care of it. Even this many Zerglings will die under the concentrated fire of a marine squadron which is assisted by enough medics. Throw in a few firebats and you're entirely on the save side. And, since M&Ms are pretty much standard in TvZ...
Now, if the Zerg would throw in a few Ultralisks to take the fire, or better yet, Defilers with Dark Swarm, it would look very much differently for the Terran...

but how are you going to micro that? how can you even controll that many units?

[TSGames]

but how are you going to micro that? how can you even controll that many units?

No, you can't. I gave up on late game zerg swarms for exactly that reason. Hopefully the ability to select more units at a time in the new one will remedy this.

[The Orange Zergling]

Ctrl+1-0 is your friend.

But even then, that only lets you have 120 units under control groups, and you can still only have 12 selected at a time.

IMO, just select a bunch of them and tell them to attack one unit, another batch to a different unit, etc...

But I do prefer the C&C3 selection method. Unlimited selection, but still allows for units to use abilities without clicking on each one in the game world.

[TSGames]

Ctrl+1-0 is your friend.

But even then, that only lets you have 120 units under control groups, and you can still only have 12 selected at a time.

IMO, just select a bunch of them and tell them to attack one unit, another batch to a different unit, etc...

But I do prefer the C&C3 selection method. Unlimited selection, but still allows for units to use abilities without clicking on each one in the game world.

I did use the unit groupings 1-0, but as you said, you can only control 120 that way, which, when you're Zerg, is about 150 too few.


In the new one it looks like you can control either 18 or 24 at once. I hope for the latter, for obvious reasons, but I do expect disappointment.

[tannish2]

well... at least its going up, by SC3 (which will have WC4 and 5 for improvements in the number of simultaneously selectable units) im hoping it will be as many as you can fit on the map... anyone remember warcraft? 1 unit at a time? then 9 in warcraft 2, then 10 in starcraft(i think, not played it in a while), then 12 in WC3...

[TSGames]

well... at least its going up, by SC3 (which will have WC4 and 5 for improvements in the number of simultaneously selectable units) im hoping it will be as many as you can fit on the map... anyone remember warcraft? 1 unit at a time? then 9 in warcraft 2, then 10 in starcraft(i think, not played it in a while), then 12 in WC3...
Now that you mention it...yeah, it was only 1 at a time in Warcraft. Man, it's been so long since I played that game. I have to say, though, Warcraft II was my favorite out of the series. But yeah, those were great games. (Not that it matters, but it was 12 at once in SC).

[tannish2]

12! BLASPHEMY! YOU MUST DIE... as soon as i get popcorn... and a time machine...

[K2]

incidentally, my sources: http://www.starcraft2.com/ , http://starcraft.wikia.com/


also, in Starcraft you could select 12 units at a time...I think

[tannish2]

not if i get my time machine...

[TSGames]

not if i get my time machine...

Do you know how many structures you have to build before you can build that? Like all of them, ever. I'm zergling rushing you before you get to bunkers. :smallbiggrin:

[Winterwind]

but how are you going to micro that? how can you even controll that many units?Are you referring to the zerglings, or the units I proposed to counter them? If the latter, that's not that many units, if the former, as DnDestruction said, you don't. In the lategame even good Zerg players tend to focus on almost macro only and just send in the troops with attack order into the direction of the enemy. If you'd like to use Defilers, you'd micro the Defilers only, and leave the rest of the swarm just overrun the enemy on its own.


As for the selection limit, I thought SC2 already allowed to select as many units as one wished to? There even were quite heaty debates on StarCraft forums about that (since a few people had the, in my humble opinion fairly moronic, belief it would lessen the game's quality by reducing the skill level needed to play it.
Also, the selection limits were:
4 in WarCraft I
9 in WarCraft II
12 in StarCraft
16 (or 18, I'm not sure and don't feel like checking it in-game right now) in WarCraft III.
12 in WarCraft III, thanks to WhatIsGravity for correcting my astonishing mistake. :smallwink:

[WhatIsGravity]

16 (or 18, I'm not sure and don't feel like checking it in-game right now) in WarCraft III.

12. :smallwink:

[Winterwind]

12. :smallwink:Okay, now you've made me check... :smallbiggrin:

Hmmm. Huh. Yeah. You're right.
That's... um... look! A three-headed monkey!

Honestly though, I'm both baffled and ashamed. How, in Tassadar's name, did I manage to play I-don't-know-how-many-hundreds of matches in that game, yet think all the time the selection limit was much higher than that of SC? :smalleek:

[tannish2]

*ominous music*


magic

and sc will not have being had 12 units selection as soon as i get my time machine, i know that looks like crappy grammar but time travel is involved, deal with it.

would be interesting to see how they display all those units though

[Winterwind]

Well, one theory I have heard on some StarCraft forum was that the unit symbols shrink the more units you select at once. Of course, I don't even know for sure whether it is possible to select infinite amounts of units, much less how it would work in the game.

If you look in the gameplay trailer, where they demonstrate the Zealots, it seems as if it would be possible to select 36 units (three rows, each with 12 slots).
That should be enough for Terrans and Protoss; a Zerg probably couldn't get everything into the groups unless the player wouldn't assign any numbers to buildings, but then, why micro every single 'ling in the Swarm?

[TSGames]

That should be enough for Terrans and Protoss; a Zerg probably couldn't get everything into the groups unless the player wouldn't assign any numbers to buildings, but then, why micro every single 'ling in the Swarm?

Maybe not every 'ling, but micromanaging about 10 groups of 36 would be nice. A coordinated and controlled swarm is what the Zerg are supposed to be, and to tell you the truth, it's a lot more effective and a lot scarier than a simple mindless horde.

[Winterwind]

Maybe not every 'ling, but micromanaging about 10 groups of 36 would be nice. A coordinated and controlled swarm is what the Zerg are supposed to be, and to tell you the truth, it's a lot more effective and a lot scarier than a simple mindless horde.Sure, but a player likely will want to assign at least a few group numbers to hatcheries instead, to help with their macro.
Then again, even five groups would give you control over 180 units; given that not all of those will be zerglings, it should be enough in most cases.

EDIT: Plus, I just realised that it will be, of course, possible to put several buildings into a group now, unlike in SC1, for they certainly won't take out a WC3 feature. This should free up quite a few numbers, especially for Zerg, if their unit building system has stayed the same.

[Otto-Sieve]

The Thor (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/thor.xml) is here!!

[The Orange Zergling]

So, in screenshots, we keep seeing yellow mineral patches, in addition to blue ones... perhaps, a third resource mined like minerals? Or maybe it's like green and blue Tiberium... thoughts?

Or maybe it's tileset related...

[tannish2]

does the thor remind anyone else of a certain has to be deployed in stationary mode to attack multi-artillery-cannon mechish unit from C&C2 expansion?

[The Orange Zergling]

GDI Juggernaut? Not until you mentioned it, no... but I can't help but wonder if it's particle accelerators can only fire while on the move? They don't use it in the animations we can see...

[Closet_Skeleton]

well... at least its going up, by SC3 (which will have WC4 and 5 for improvements in the number of simultaneously selectable units) im hoping it will be as many as you can fit on the map... anyone remember warcraft? 1 unit at a time? then 9 in warcraft 2, then 10 in starcraft(i think, not played it in a while), then 12 in WC3...

Actually, you could select four at a time in Warcraft I, you just had to hold down shift when clicking.

[Winterwind]

Looks nice. :smallsmile:
What is its role? We can see them take out a heavily defended position, but that would have been, traditionally, the Siege Tank's job. Since there are still Siege Tanks in the game, when would a player build Thors, and when Siege Tanks?

[tannish2]

when they want classic SC seigeyness that can attack while moving
when they want C&Cish seigeyness that cant attack while moving and dont have a place for seige tank production

[Otto-Sieve]

I believe that they call this a walking battlecruiser. :thog:

[K2]

So, in screenshots, we keep seeing yellow mineral patches, in addition to blue ones... perhaps, a third resource mined like minerals? Or maybe it's like green and blue Tiberium... thoughts?

Or maybe it's tileset related...


Yellow minerals are worth 12...oh...points? as opposed to the 8 that blue minerals are worth. They are suppose to be spread out around maps in hard to defend areas to encourage fighting in those spots. Even if you don't need the money, it would be really bad to let you opponent have that much cash. So, your going to have to defend them. Thats the idea anyways

[Winterwind]

Yellow minerals are worth 12...oh...points? as opposed to the 8 that blue minerals are worth. They are suppose to be spread out around maps in hard to defend areas to encourage fighting in those spots. Even if you don't need the money, it would be really bad to let you opponent have that much cash. So, your going to have to defend them. Thats the idea anywaysSo you'd get three expansions for the price of two? Now, that's some advantage indeed - seems like losing the map control is going to be even more lethal then it used to be.
Though it might be more difficult to lose it, since there are so many units which can pass over cliffs.
Huh. Which, I guess, would mean that such classic strategies as lurker contains aren't going to work anymore, or at least, will get much more difficult.

[K2]

So you'd get three expansions for the price of two? Now, that's some advantage indeed - seems like losing the map control is going to be even more lethal then it used to be.
Though it might be more difficult to lose it, since there are so many units which can pass over cliffs.
Huh. Which, I guess, would mean that such classic strategies as lurker contains aren't going to work anymore, or at least, will get much more difficult.

Indeed, again it seems that there is a focus on mobility as opposed to turtling. Defensive based players are going to need stronger defensive units to balance the sheer financial power of mobility based players, hence the Thor which might as well be a siege tank on steroids. As proofs of my point I direct you to the terrans ability to carry SCVs in their command centers while flying and the improved teleporting capabilities of the protoss(able to teleport anywhere they have crystal powered ground)

[Winterwind]

Indeed, again it seems that there is a focus on mobility as opposed to turtling. Defensive based players are going to need stronger defensive units to balance the sheer financial power of mobility based players, Turtling rarely was a good strategic option in Blizzard's RTS games. In StarCraft, you'd build only as much defenses as necessary to hold of the initial push of the other, and then mostly expand; sole exception would be the Terrans, who could survive on much fewer expansions than the others.

hence the Thor which might as well be a siege tank on steroids. As proofs of my point I direct you to the terrans ability to carry SCVs in their command centers while flying and the improved teleporting capabilities of the protoss(able to teleport anywhere they have crystal powered ground)This Thor-thing is actually still haunting me - so far, there never were units which were rendered obsolete by other units in StarCraft (in WarCraft, yes, once you got Knights there was no need to build Footmen, but not in StarCraft). Every unit had its niche. But so far (admittedly, the information is sparse at best), I don't see what the major difference between the Thor and the Siege Tank would be. The one being mobile and the other not would speak strictly for the mobile one. The different cost would just mean one had to find out which one did more for its price. So what's the difference in the niches these two units occupy?

[K2]

The few times that we have seen the Thor it has been used offensively, which contradicts my own judgment of the unit, while the only time we see siege tanks(in SC2) they are being used defensively.
Now, we all know that tanks have great offensive potential, but it is possible that blizzard is trying to down play that role and but the thor in its spot.

But I am not sure...Your right, I am having trouble seeing how the thor is anything more than a big tank.

[Otto-Sieve]

i'm sure the siege tank is going to have more abilities to make it new and upgraded, so it won't become useless.

[BRC]

The few times that we have seen the Thor it has been used offensively, which contradicts my own judgment of the unit, while the only time we see siege tanks(in SC2) they are being used defensively.
Now, we all know that tanks have great offensive potential, but it is possible that blizzard is trying to down play that role and but the thor in its spot.

But I am not sure...Your right, I am having trouble seeing how the thor is anything more than a big tank.

The thor is a big tank, the only difference is that it uses feet instead of wheels.

[Morrandir]

The Thor seems to have a major weakness in its firing range. Where a tank's turret would allow it to fire in any direction, the Thor is stuck looking straight ahead. If you take a look at the turning speed clip, well...

A Zergling could take that thing down without taking a shot, if it came from behind.

[The Orange Zergling]

Reminds me of a video I saw once, where an un-altered marine solo'd an un-altered Lurker. Sure, he had like 4 hp left when it died, but still... impressive.

[Ronsian]

Seems to me like it's going to be all about speed. If I'm terran, I'll just get 10 reapers or so. Put them in two hotkeys, then jump in different parts of the base. Toss a few grenades, and jump out. Boom, you just lost hundreds of minerals, they gotta have something to deal with that. I'm guessing improved towers, or simply some sort of wraith is a must. It does seem like now Banshees (the anti-ground wraith) can rip through buildings, everybody see the gameplay video? Gonna be hard to balance.

[Winterwind]

The thor is a big tank, the only difference is that it uses feet instead of wheels.Which is not exactly occupying two distinct niches strategy-wise, isn't it? :smallwink:

The Thor seems to have a major weakness in its firing range. Where a tank's turret would allow it to fire in any direction, the Thor is stuck looking straight ahead. If you take a look at the turning speed clip, well...

A Zergling could take that thing down without taking a shot, if it came from behind.A Zergling could (at least, almost) take down a sieged tank as well, if something would distract the tank's fire for long enough for the Zergling to get beyond minimum range.
Both tanks and Thors will be thoroughly booped if they are caught without support from other units. So that's not the difference, either.

I mean - in StarCraft1, both Ultralisks and Zerglings are melee-fighters. Still, one would use both - two Zerglings deal more damage per second than one Ultralisk, and one can get four for the same cost in minerals alone, whereas the Ultralisks are heavily armoured and can survive horrible punishment, thus drawing the enemy fire and allowing the Zerglings to survive longer to deal their superior damage. Hence, both units, although melee-fighters, play a distinct role.
I just don't see what the difference between the tank and the Thor is, in that manner. It might be, of course, that Blizzard switched to WarCraft-design-style, where units are rendered strictly obsolete by later units, but I sure hope it ain't so.
Instead, I'll go for Otto-Sieve's explanation and suppose that, while ordinarily one of the two would be better for its price, the other will have some special ability which makes wise to have both. Or, one will be better against some races for some reason, whereas in other match-ups the other will make more sense.

[Ailurus]

Couple things I've noticed about the Thor which may make the tanks situationally better.

The price is one issue, in terms of raw cost, pop cap, and build time. For build time, the Thor needs to be built by an SCV, whereas the tank should still come from the factory. You'll need the factory anyway, likely, for teching and for making Vikings, and whatever replaces the vulture, and maybe other stuff. However, for the Thor, you're either cutting your repair rate, or building construction rate (both of which may be significant, given the rate at which it seems buildings fall down), or your resource rate, whereas the factory will be wasted or building units. And since we know nothing of resource or pop cap costs, it may be that a thor costs 3 tanks or so.

Second issue is the turning rate. For base defense purposes, especially with jumping/climbing units, the tank will likely be superior. A couple tanks can start pelting reapers or colossi immediately if they show up, while the Thor may get one shot off, then be forced to spend 5 seconds or so turning around to get another. In that time, the reapers will have chucked their grenades, and can be on their way out, forcing the thor to turn again. So the tanks could fire constantly, and maybe take out half the reapers, while the thor gets one or two shots off.

Third is range. At least in SC1, nothing outranged the tanks (except maybe guardians, can't remember). But in all the Thor action shots, it looks like they are within range of base defenses when firing. So, while their HP and firepower are likely superior to the tank, they lose what was (in my opinion) one of the biggest advantages of the siege tanks - set them up, and make the enemy either come to you or get pounded into rubble. Against a strong line of defense, the Thor may well either need to risk destruction, or have a giant force to take hits for him (such as the marines in the one shot). Keeping the marines but replacing the thor with tanks may well have allowed the second shot to happen with no attacking casualties - the tanks blast the depots, if the defending tanks some out they are booped, otherwise just run the marines into minimum range, taking one shot, and mow them down.

And fourth, spawn broodling. You could broodling tanks and goliaths. If you can broodling thors, things will become crazy.

[Winterwind]

and whatever replaces the vultureAccording to the main German BroodWar site, it's something called a "Cobra (http://broodwar.ingame.de/artikel.php?ctid=68178#cobra)", which is supposedly able to fire while moving. I have no idea where they got that information, though.


Second issue is the turning rate. For base defense purposes, especially with jumping/climbing units, the tank will likely be superior. A couple tanks can start pelting reapers or colossi immediately if they show up, while the Thor may get one shot off, then be forced to spend 5 seconds or so turning around to get another. In that time, the reapers will have chucked their grenades, and can be on their way out, forcing the thor to turn again. So the tanks could fire constantly, and maybe take out half the reapers, while the thor gets one or two shots off.That might be it! With his slow turning speed, the Thor might be unsuitable for defending any positions where the enemy is not coming from one specific direction (like through a canyon), but might have that much superior firepower, that it is better if the direction where the enemy is is known (either because there is only one direction from where the enemy can attack, or because the Thor is used offensively)!

Your other points would likely speak, ultimately, for only using one unit or the other, but the above could really be the solution!

And fourth, spawn broodling. You could broodling tanks and goliaths. If you can broodling thors, things will become crazy.:smallbiggrin:
I doubt you can, though. Besides, we don't even know whether there will be Queens or Broodlings in the game.


One funny thing though... remember the Protoss Cannon Rush? Hiding a probe somewhere in the enemy's base, warping in a Pylon and then warping on Cannons?
Well... imagine sneaking in a SCV and building an army of Thors in your enemies base! :smallbiggrin:
(Just kidding - it's surely a much too late unit for that to work. Now, Protoss warping in their entire army via Phase Prism/Warp Gate, on the other hand...)

[LordVader]

According to sclegacy.com, the Firebat is not in the game itself, but it will be in the map editor. So we lose it, but not really.:smallsmile:

[Artemician]

According to sclegacy.com, the Firebat is not in the game itself, but it will be in the map editor. So we lose it, but not really.:smallsmile:

Yea, I've heard that about the Dragoon as well. Hopefully the other cut units will remain as well.. *grumbleWarpray'sgotnothingonacorsairgrumble*

Odds are, if this is the case, there'll probably be a custom map called Starcraft Classic, which plays exactly like the old Starcraft, but in 3D with spiffy graphics.

[LordVader]

That would be incredibly awesome. If they do leave all the old stuff in the editor, someone will definitely make that, too.

[Winterwind]

They used to have Reavers in the game as well, which were taken out in the meanwhile, though.
Actually, I read a Blizzard statement which said that they have implemented all of the original StarCraft units and used them for initial tests/balancing.
I bet we'll see a few of those in the campaigns, too, if only as a kind of nostalgic joke on Blizzard's part.


*grumbleWarpray'sgotnothingonacorsairgrumble*YES! Preach the truth! (though I suppose the more direct analogon to the Corsair is the Phoenix, both can't replace the Corsair! Never!)

And, StarCraft Classic in 3D would be awesome.

"This is not WarCraft in space! It's much more sophisticated! And it is 3D!"

[Artemician]

Starcraft Classic in 3D is, as we say in this part of the world, made of win. After all, if it wasn't, I wouldn't want to say it. :smallwink:

And as for that disgusting Warp Ray...

Go, my Corsairs! Charge, my Dark Archons! Erm.. crawl, my Reavers! Go forth and wreck destruction upon those newfangled Tripod stands and Gyroscopes! Pitiful excuses for war machinery! Crush them!

*erhhrm* Sorry got a bit carried away there.

[LordVader]

:smalltongue:

I actually like most of the new Terran stuff. Especially the Viking. ((or whatever the transformer-thingie is called.))

"Transformers- Robots in Disguise. Transformers-More then Meets the Eyes."
:smallamused:

[Winterwind]

So far, I mostly like what I have seen, as well.
What I truly miss are Corsairs and Dark Archons. With the rest of the changes, I can live; the concept of Phase Prisms and Warp Gates is absolutely brilliant, and if the new Protoss unit building system really works the way it was speculated it does on the forums I read, it's absolutely brilliant.
I'm fine with the Warp Ray, too, it fulfills a completely different role than the corsair (Warp Ray = kill single heavy things on air and ground, Corsair = kill many weak air units). It's the Phoenix that is responsible for taking away the Corsair's place. I would say, "Burn, Phoenix, burn!"... if the pun wasn't so horrible.

Oh, and, gotta love the Terran BattleMechs. :smallbiggrin:

[Artemician]

~ahaha... those catchphrases you come up with are funny. Seriously.

Anywhoo, about those new terran vehicles. I don't know, really.. but some of them rub me the wrong way. Maybe it's all those jutting-out bits on the Thor, or the general clumsy-looking feel on the Viking. It's hard to imagine that thing ever getting into a fight.

The Banshee on the other hand.. heeh. Heeh. Heeh.

And contrary to popular (sort of) belief.. I'm pretty fine with the Phoenix. It's those "Does that hunk of junk even fly?" units that I find annoying.. like Mr BigJobs Thor, "Rotating Spinnything" Ray, and "Ohmygod the Martians are attacking!" Tripod Colossus-thing. Those are just.. well they're just plain ugly and that's the truth of it.

[LordVader]

Keep in mind that the Terrans don't build pwetty things like the Protoss do. Their stuff is ugly, and they're proud of it.:smallamused:

[Winterwind]

Just think of that one cutscene from the Protoss campaign, where they fire that... thing at that single Dragoon, only to be overrun by a few hundred Dragoons warping in. It was hard to believe that deathtrap didn't fall apart when it was fired, or explode, or spontaneously crush its operator just for the sake of it.

[averagejoe]

On the speculation about the thor above. I wonder if, in many ways, it's treated like a building more than a unit. I mean, did you see that thing? It's huge. I wonder if you could even load one in a dropship; and even if you could, it would probably be the only passenger. Just a thought on something that could concievably restrict its mobility when compared to the siege tank.

[Winterwind]

Actually, I'm more wondering when one would prefer the Thor to the Siege Tank, than the other way round. In StarCraft1, you'd hardly see Battle Cruisers in games between good players, because those things were so expensive, and yet so easily countered.

[K2]

Battle cruisers could be played well by good players, they just needed support units(science vessels) and micro management.
But until I see how the thor is special, I think I will stick with the tank.

[Winterwind]

Battle cruisers could be played well by good players, they just needed support units(science vessels) and micro management.And hope there were no Ghosts, Defilers or High Templar around (which is a realistic hope in the case of Ghosts only, which is why TvT-lategame was their main use).
And I think that, unless Blizzard has forgotten all they once knew about unit design, there will be some specific advantage of the Thor the tank will not have.

Actually, I can think of one: If there was a large number of enemy tanks stationed somewhere in Siege mode, siege tanks could never hope to get into Siege mode themselves to combat them - they'd be destroyed as they rolled in. That's what lead to those long stationary battles in TvTs, for instance. Now, if the Thor had enough HP to survive this fire, it could get in and start tearing those tanks apart. Or it could serve a similar role for artillery units as the Ultralisk did for melee units - to draw the fire of the enemy artillery long enough upon itself to allow the weaker, but more numerous own artillery units to get in position unharmed.

[Icewalker]

I'm guessing this for Thor:

It is built by an SCV, making it the super unit, a lot like experimental units in Supreme Commander.

It cannot be lifted by dropship or pod.

It totally wrecks fools.


Looking through the screenshots, it looks like they haven't made the "thor's cannon" particle accelerators yet, just the artillery battery.

[The Orange Zergling]

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the Thor took longer to deploy than the Siege Tank. Another point. I hope the Thor doesn't degenerate into a unit one only builds because they have 3k minerals and 5k gas and nothing else to spend it on/because it's cool.

[Lord Herman]

Does the Thor actually deploy to fire? I thought the artillery barrage was more of a timed ability that takes some time to warm up.

[LordVader]

It does not. It only has to stop and stand still to fire the uber-killy special rapidfire cannons on its back.

[Winterwind]

Does the Thor actually deploy to fire? I thought the artillery barrage was more of a timed ability that takes some time to warm up.Well, in the second video (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/thor.xml)on the right side on the Starcraft II homepage, the Thors get in position, stop, and then parts of their machinery and their guns begin to move (up to the front of the 'Mech, mostly), before they start to fire. So unless they just have a 10 second fire animation, it does seem as if they would deploy to fire.

One more thing. I how with all that flashy effects and explosions one shall keep an overview of what's happening. I mean, after the Thors begin their massive barrage - how would want to select any units in the proximity of that? Like, to move it away, or something? Because, there seem to be a few flashes within the fire of the barrage which I attribute to the Siege Tanks exploding - and if that's the case, then the Siege Tanks survived this fire for a few seconds, so it might be possible to still withdraw forces from this area.
If one was able to see anything, that is.

Though, so far StarCraft II seems to be a doing a much better job with this than WarCraft III - at least the player colours are much more prevalent now, so that the units will not make such an incoherent mess of different colours anymore.

[LordVader]

They deploy for 10 seconds to fire the special ability only. In the first video where they are demonstrating its weaknesses, a group of fast units runs a ring around it, and it can't turn fast enough to keep up, but it still fires while turning.

[Winterwind]

They deploy for 10 seconds to fire the special ability only. In the first video where they are demonstrating its weaknesses, a group of fast units runs a ring around it, and it can't turn fast enough to keep up, but it still fires while turning.Okay, that makes sense.

[LordVader]

So basically, arm cannons can always fire, but the four back cannons only deploy as part of the ability.

[tannish2]

well i can think of a time when you build footmen in warcraft 3: when you need a few units fast and the enemy has no AOE and lots of peircing. killed lots of noobs with wyverns using only footmen and blood mage.

so the thor might not cancel the seige tank... but then again, it might

[Winterwind]

So basically, arm cannons can always fire, but the four back cannons only deploy as part of the ability.I wonder whether the arm cannons can target air targets.
www.broodwar.de claims it can't, but I have no idea where they got that info from (and hence, I don't trust it)...

[Winterwind]

well i can think of a time when you build footmen in warcraft 3: when you need a few units fast and the enemy has no AOE and lots of peircing. killed lots of noobs with wyverns using only footmen and blood mage.

so the thor might not cancel the seige tank... but then again, it mightOkay, and a second use would be if the enemy has lots of Kodos or Master Banshees, but that's about it (unless you count such rare stuff as Dark Ranger or Pit Lord ultimates). And if you replace Footmen with Grunts, and Knights with Tauren, it will always be true (save for those super rare examples above).

[Talkkno]

*Rant*
"The problem is that every single justification that can be applied to
make mecha viable can be applied better to tanks. Excepting silly
AC-style 'uber psychics can only interface with legs!' stuff.
Example: Larger weaponry? Tanks, since they have a more stable firing
platform (ie their gun is mounted on the center and it isn't thirty
feet off the ground) can mount and use a much larger cannon than a
mech of equal tonnage.
Shields? I see no reason a tank can't have a shield generator. After
all, if your mech can have one, you can put one in a tank of equal
tonnage.
Power? Any reactor you can put into a mech can be put into a tank.
Because of a tank's shape, it has much less surface area than a mech,
so a tank of equal tonnage will have thicker armor than a mech simply
because the armor doesn't have to be spread out all over the place.
Also, a tank's armor will be sloped while a mech's will have to be
more or less flat due to the machine's shape, so a tank will have even
better protection.

Ground pressure means (duh) how much pressure something exerts on the
ground. Since mechs are big, heavy machines on two legs, their weight
will be focused on their feet, with the effect that they will be more
prone to sink in soft terrain since the ground won't be able to
support all that weight on such a small spot. By contrast, a tank has
its weight spread out throughout its tracks, so a tank of equal
tonnage to the mech will be much less prone to sinking in mud. Also,
the mech would have to work harder to get its legs out of the mud than
a tank would have to work to keep its treads moving. The net effect is
that mechs will get stuck in mud when tanks won't.

With visibility, the best way to think of it is with the following
hypothetical. Let's say that you're sitting on a flagpole in an open
plain. Your friend is also out there somewhere, but he's on the
ground. It's true that you'll be able to see farther through the plain
than your friend, but no matter where your friend is, he will be able
to see you since you're on a flagpole. Furthermore, your friend is
going to have a much easier time finding you since you're on a pole in
the middle of the plain, while you won't be able to find him so easily
since he'll be closer to the ground and less easy to distinguish from
the grass, scrub, and other things on the plain. I hope that makes
some sense.

About the only thing a Mech would have practical over a tracked
vehicle would only be if its limbs were at least as articulate as a
human's and strong enough to deal with it.

And by this, I'm thinking of nightmarishly rough terrain. Places like
mountainous terrain, where you dare not put even the toughest tanks.
The advantage is only that a Mech can step over obstacles and climb
through this terrain."
That aside, its looking pretty good.

[LordVader]

Tanks are better and more practical in that sense. However- Mechs are far more mobile then tanks, and could probably go just as fast. Also, Mechs are much more useful against infantry, as they can punch/kick/step on them. A good example of this is BattleTech, where the tanks have more armor but are weaker nonetheless, mainly because of reduced visibility and mobility.

I don't disagree that tanks make more sense and are more practical, however.

[Vonriel]

A tank rolls in, and starts looking around for the mech that it's hunting. It keeps rotating its cannon, to keep it in constant movement to make it easier to catch the mech should it drop down unexpectedly. It continues driving through the hilly terrain. Then, the mech drops on top of the tank by using a short burst of its jets to get it airborne long enough to take the tank by surprise. What can the tank do? Its cannon can no longer move, because the mech has its foot in position to hamper the movement. The tank can try driving off, but the mech - being on top of it - is going to move with it. Meanwhile, the mech pilot is laughing as he points his gun straight down and draws a bead on where the tank pilot(s) are and fires, disabling the tank. It moves on.

Tanks are definitely less mobile than mechs, because you can't put any sort of jump jet on a tank. You try, and you're likely to create a very hazardous environment for whoever is piloting the tank. You have to be very, very careful about where you set that tank down, because even though your tank has the "superior" treads, when half of a tank is hanging off the cliff, chances are that tank is going down. Even with the jets, you're likely to put it in a position where firing them would cause the tank to fly off at an angle to the ground, and require a good deal of effort to correct this problem. This whole time, the tank is very vulnerable to enemy fire. Meanwhile, a mech only has to get one of its two feet on a stable purchase in order to operate properly.

I'll agree that tanks are generally superior on a large, flat field, but realistically, how many times are you going to have such superb conditions to pilot them in? In any sort of rough terrain, I'd say a mech is going to be superior due to its mobility.

Edit: Oh, right, and? Mechs are just plain cooler. :smallbiggrin:

[nooblade]

I think that the key difference between Thors and Siege Tanks is that the Thor can attack much more quickly. If you place a Thor at a chokepoint, then you can expect almost nothing on the ground to get through until the duration of the ability runs out. Groups of Siege Tanks are really good at "laying siege" to certain places like that, but the Thor trades two of the tank's weaknesses, attack speed and minimum range (maybe) for a host of new weaknesses that are compensated for much differently.

For example, a Protoss player can drop zealots on top of big groups siege tanks to make them damage their own units, hopefully doing more damage than spending 100 minerals on each zealot, but if you dropped on a Thor then you would just do slow, regular damage and draw fire from whatever supporting forces are around it. It's much more formidable that way, plus you only need to build one instead of a group, which makes repairing it faster (and I'd bet the extra resources would be worth the amount of attention you could save for other things in the late game when the things are available). Hopefully they won't be vulnerable to spawn broodling or maybe whatever mind-control abilities remain.

And, yes, they certainly are phallic symbols. Of epic proportions. Even more so than the Battlecruisers. I always thought that the yamato gun animation was interesting.

[Talkkno]

A tank rolls in, and starts looking around for the mech that it's hunting. It keeps rotating its cannon, to keep it in constant movement to make it easier to catch the mech should it drop down unexpectedly. It continues driving through the hilly terrain. Then, the mech drops on top of the tank by using a short burst of its jets to get it airborne long enough to take the tank by surprise. What can the tank do? Its cannon can no longer move, because the mech has its foot in position to hamper the movement. The tank can try driving off, but the mech - being on top of it - is going to move with it. Meanwhile, the mech pilot is laughing as he points his gun straight down and draws a bead on where the tank pilot(s) are and fires, disabling the tank. It moves on.

Tanks are definitely less mobile than mechs, because you can't put any sort of jump jet on a tank. You try, and you're likely to create a very hazardous environment for whoever is piloting the tank. You have to be very, very careful about where you set that tank down, because even though your tank has the "superior" treads, when half of a tank is hanging off the cliff, chances are that tank is going down. Even with the jets, you're likely to put it in a position where firing them would cause the tank to fly off at an angle to the ground, and require a good deal of effort to correct this problem. This whole time, the tank is very vulnerable to enemy fire. Meanwhile, a mech only has to get one of its two feet on a stable purchase in order to operate properly.

I'll agree that tanks are generally superior on a large, flat field, but realistically, how many times are you going to have such superb conditions to pilot them in? In any sort of rough terrain, I'd say a mech is going to be superior due to its mobility.

Edit: Oh, right, and? Mechs are just plain cooler. :smallbiggrin:

From a tacticial point of view that may be the case, but in terms which is better for the purpose as mobile light fire support platform, a tank is superior. I already pointed out the moblity issue, and really, thats why we have combinded arm's tatics that makes up the tanks weakness and enhance its strength, while a mech's diluation of focus makes them weaker from a stragtic point of view.

[Vonriel]

Understandable. I'm just pointing out why Mechs still have their place on a battlefield.

For me? I'd probably choose a squadron of mechs for hit and run as opposed to tanks. However, when I really want to crush my enemy beneath my heel, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women, give me a good tank squadron any day. :smallamused:

Edit: Another afterthought, about the Thor. I don't recall anyone mentioning this, but, it's possible the siege tank may still have a higher single-hit shot than the thor. The difference being that whereas the siege tank is a shoot, reload, shoot style of fire, the thor seems to have a sustained barrage of artillery fire.

[Winterwind]

Even though I love BattleTech, I, too, agree that 'Mechs are rather unrealistic on the battlefield, unless they are extremely mobile and use this mobility, too. And the Thor doesn't exactly look like it was about to perform a ballet dance, or something. How does the old mantra go, "BattleTech is not LogiTech"? 'Mechs are still cooler, though. :smallsmile:

nooblade, you might be right with your analysis (including that part with the phallic symbols :smallbiggrin: ).

What just occured to me - maybe the Thor is like the Steam Tanks in WarCraft III? We don't know how the weapon/armour type system will work, after all - in StarCraft buildings just had ordinary "Large"-type armour, but in WarCraft there was one special armour type for buildings, which took much less damage from most attack types, but increased damage from siege type weapons. There was only one unit (a single hero ultimate excluded) which had the same armour type, and that was the Steam Tank. Maybe it's like this here, as well?
That would, incidentally, also explain why buildings tend to explode so fast in so many videos we see - perhaps they were fired upon with siege type weapons, and would usually survive much longer?

[Griemont]

I still don't see what makes the Thor anything other than a bigger, more expensive siege tank. In fact, in situations like on the unit page on starcraft2.com, it seems like they even replace the siege tank :smalleek: The only difference I see is that siege tanks are more defensive and Thors are more offensive? :smallconfused:

[Winterwind]

I still don't see what makes the Thor anything other than a bigger, more expensive siege tank. In fact, in situations like on the unit page on starcraft2.com, it seems like they even replace the siege tank :smalleek: The only difference I see is that siege tanks are more defensive and Thors are more offensive? :smallconfused:So far, that's our best shot, I suppose. Tanks can defend a large area, whereas a Thor, which has to turn slowly in order to fire into a different direction, does not. Now, if on the other hand a Thor can walk up to a heavily defended position and take it out, whereas tanks would be blasted apart before they could switch to Siege mode, both would have their niche...

[Griemont]

Yeah, but given the huge emphasis (even Karune said this) on having each unit be unique, having two siege units is a bit...eh. The siege tank was most people's favorite unit from starcraft 1, though, so I can see why they'd want to capitalize on that.

[Winterwind]

On another note, is it just me or do space marines have much more hit points than they used to? Because, in that second video on the Thor's unit page, a huge number of them runs right into this defensive position taken out by the Thor's later - and when the Thor's are finished, a lot of them still appear to be standing! Now, if I'm not mistaken, there are several siege tanks up there, so unless either the hp of marines has increased significantly, tanks deal much less (splash) damage, or the damage reduction due to inappropriate damage type for that specific armour has increased, all of them should have been long dead.

[Arameus]

I'll agree that tanks are generally superior on a large, flat field, but realistically, how many times are you going to have such superb conditions to pilot them in? In any sort of rough terrain, I'd say a mech is going to be superior due to its mobility.

Edit: Oh, right, and? Mechs are just plain cooler. :smallbiggrin:

The extreme coolness of Metal Gear REX aside, machines with legs simply do not work. At all. The theory about mobility is garbage. A machine with legs cannot respond to its environment and maneuver as a human can, and it's just going to step on something uneven or run its leg into something and fall over due to its insanely-high center of gravity.

Tanks, on the other hand, are much, much more agile than you give them credit for, as they have treads, which are essentially the opposite of legs. It's pretty incredible to see what a tank can do; they're definitely, definitely not limited to a 'large, flat field.'

[Winterwind]

The extreme coolness of Metal Gear REX aside, machines with legs simply do not work. At all. The theory about mobility is garbage. A machine with legs cannot respond to its environment and maneuver as a human can, and it's just going to step on something uneven or run its leg into something and fall over due to its insanely-high center of gravity.It can make sense if the pilot becomes, more or less, one with the machine with legs. That's why 'Mechs in the BattleTech universe not only have legs made of a tissue highly similar to muscles (capable of contracting and expanding, for instance) and are equipped with huge gyroscopes, they also are piloted via a neurohelmet, which links the 'Mech directly with the pilots brain (and also makes use of his human sense of balance). So there, the 'Mechs practically become an extension of the human, and can be similarly mobile as humans.

Generally, though, I fully agree with you. We're not about to see 'Mechs replacing tanks for quite a while, and for good reasons, too.

[tannish2]

The extreme coolness of Metal Gear REX aside, machines with legs simply do not work. At all. The theory about mobility is garbage. A machine with legs cannot respond to its environment and maneuver as a human can, and it's just going to step on something uneven or run its leg into something and fall over due to its insanely-high center of gravity.

Tanks, on the other hand, are much, much more agile than you give them credit for, as they have treads, which are essentially the opposite of legs. It's pretty incredible to see what a tank can do; they're definitely, definitely not limited to a 'large, flat field.'

1. exactly, even modern tanks can go up and down hills, and probably even jump with the right stuff (though it would be terribly impractical because they are too heavy, being blocks of armor w/ a cannon on some treads)if they built super-light tanks (with modern weaponry, fighting any state of the art military armor would be basically worthless) they would be VERY mobile

but i must say this about mechs... HOVER LEGS DAMMIT(armored core fan)

[averagejoe]

Yeah, but mechs can't use oversized guns. Sure, you can mount guns on them, but it wouldn't be the same.

WAIT! Get a tank with gigantic arms coming out the top of it. The ultimate weapon!

[The Orange Zergling]

Better yet, armored tank with extendable multijointed arms carrying chainsaws.

Also I do agree, the Space Marine Dreadnaught-type mech is far more practical than the 'metal shell' mech. The Dreadnaughts in the 40k universe are essentially bodies for permanently crippled warriors. As in, it's a second skin, pretty much.

[Winterwind]

There's also one more thing to regard: A bipedal 'Mech rests upon a much smaller surface, because his feet are smaller than tracks, plus, while he walks his weight rests actually on only of his feet. This means it will sink into the ground much deeper than a tank, and also cause much heavier damage to whatever it walks upon (like concrete roads), which is yet another reason in favour of tanks.

In the case of something as heavy as the Thor the recoil of its guns will probably be negligible - even though it's centre of mass is very high, it's still too massive to fall.

On the other hand, a tank's turret would make all this slow turning unneccessary...

Still, in terms of coolness, 'Mechs win hands down. :smallcool:


So, anybody some thoughts to the apparently unusually durable marines I mentioned in my last post?
Supposedly, this shield upgrade they get increases their hit points, but it can't be that much, can it?

[averagejoe]

So, anybody some thoughts to the apparently unusually durable marines I mentioned in my last post?
Supposedly, this shield upgrade they get increases their hit points, but it can't be that much, can it?

I dunno, if you look at the bodies on the ground, the first tank barrage wiped out, like, six marines, as did every other barrage after that. Also note that they had medics backing them up, so the splash damage was likely only marginally effective, because anyone not killed outright was probably healed.

[Winterwind]

I dunno, if you look at the bodies on the ground, the first tank barrage wiped out, like, six marines, as did every other barrage after that. Also note that they had medics backing them up, so the splash damage was likely only marginally effective, because anyone not killed outright was probably healed.Really? Huh... missed the medics. Will have to take a look at that video again once I'm back home, but that sounds much more as it would be in StarCraft 1, all right.

[Icewalker]

I haven't seen any video involving the Thor units, can anyone link it?

[Winterwind]

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/thor.xml
Here you go.

[Tekar]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it already but the Thor is also 'built' by SCV's and not trained in a building.

[Ailurus]

Really? Huh... missed the medics. Will have to take a look at that video again once I'm back home, but that sounds much more as it would be in StarCraft 1, all right.

Yeah, there's three medics backing up the marines. I can't get an accurate count of the number of marines going in, but I'm pretty sure at most 6-7 of the initial group survive. The number of marines at the end is higher because right as the tanks blow up, a second group of a couple dozen or so marines come in.

[tannish2]

maybe the sheild changes them to a new armor type, they did it for orc burrows and towers in WC3, dont see why it wouldnt work for marines

[The_Herald]

And I quote
"Marines will be able to receive an upgrade that increases their hit points by 15. Once upgraded the marines' game model will change to include a shield and bayonet."

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Marine

[Solo]

Would anyone care to speculate as to what happened to the Player Character in the original Starcraft? (The Magistrate)

[Griemont]

On another note, is it just me or do space marines have much more hit points than they used to? Because, in that second video on the Thor's unit page, a huge number of them runs right into this defensive position taken out by the Thor's later - and when the Thor's are finished, a lot of them still appear to be standing! Now, if I'm not mistaken, there are several siege tanks up there, so unless either the hp of marines has increased significantly, tanks deal much less (splash) damage, or the damage reduction due to inappropriate damage type for that specific armour has increased, all of them should have been long dead.

Do they have the shields? :smallconfused:

[nooblade]

And I quote
"Marines will be able to receive an upgrade that increases their hit points by 15. Once upgraded the marines' game model will change to include a shield and bayonet."

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Marine

Not only does it sound cheesy, the main reference that proved that it was happening (the faq post) is missing. The game is still pre-Alpha, so there's plenty of time to change that to an increase in armor like I'm hoping for. When you think about it, more armor is more helpful when using medics and marines.

I just can't believe that people are still complaining about graphics. It doesn't look "cartoony" at all. I think that the main thing making it different from other modern RTS games is just the brightness, which is an excellent feature particularly well-suited to allow eight colors to be differentiated by players on a screen full of units.

I hope they don't change the graphics or anything. If the game requires a PC upgrade, I think I'm going to stick with some fun open source Linux games I know of. I hate spending money on games, personally.


Would anyone care to speculate as to what happened to the Player Character in the original Starcraft? (The Magistrate)Well each campaign is obviously about different people (I used to think you get turned into a cerebrate, then a Protoss, and so forth into the expansion, which doesn't really make much sense, but I was little then). The Magistrate was allied with Jim Raynor last, so he probably participated in the fight against the overmind and continued fighting with Raynor on Auir. Maybe you're actually the same person in SC2? I see no reason why the magistrate needed to be killed off.

Actually it looks more like you're playing from Raynor's perspective now, so maybe the magistrate is Raynor's second-in-command. One of the books probably has more about this.

[Solo]

Well, Matt Horner is listed as being the second in command for Jim Raynor, but he's not, and has never been, a Magistrate...

[Ailurus]

Can't find the link right now, but from the starcraft II lore panel at Blizzcon, one of the Q&A session was what happened to the magistrate/cerebrate/executor from SCI and Broodwar. Blizzard's answer was that they died (but they didn't give any further explanation as to how).

[nooblade]

Well, Matt Horner is listed as being the second in command for Jim Raynor, but he's not, and has never been, a Magistrate...

Yeah, well, that was just a moment's speculation. It looks like they're going to be ignoring the existence of a player again, but being able to control a character could be interesting.

This Wikipedia page was interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_StarCraft#Raszagal) but I'm sure they're not going to require any reading before playing the game.

[LordVader]

I think the general idea is that the player is Raynor/whoever the heck it is for Toss and Zerg campaigns.

[Vonriel]

I imagine 'toss will be either Zeratul or Artanis, perhaps both interchangably, and I imagine the Zerg will be Kerrigan if that is the case.

[LordVader]

Most likely. It'd be interesting to see who Kerrigan'll be interacting with, not much choice there.:smalltongue:

[Winterwind]

Do they have the shields? :smallconfused:Hard to say, but doesn't seem so. Still, the explanations the others provided are convincing. Phew. So no indestructible marines there. :smallsmile:

Most likely. It'd be interesting to see who Kerrigan'll be interacting with, not much choice there.:smalltongue:...yet. :smallwink:

[The_Herald]

Not only does it sound cheesy, the main reference that proved that it was happening (the faq post) is missing. The game is still pre-Alpha, so there's plenty of time to change that to an increase in armor like I'm hoping for. When you think about it, more armor is more helpful when using medics and marines.


I happen to agree with you that the armor would be better, and that its in pre-Alpha and a lots going to change before the game hits shelves. I found something that confirms what the starcraft wiki said about the shield.

it's down near the end of the first post just look for Starcraft 2 Q&A - Batch 5

the link for where to find it is: http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=9409

[nooblade]

I happen to agree with you that the armor would be better, and that its in pre-Alpha and a lots going to change before the game hits shelves. I found something that confirms what the starcraft wiki said about the shield.

it's down near the end of the first post just look for Starcraft 2 Q&A - Batch 5

the link for where to find it is: http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=9409

Oooh, that link is very neat. It's nice to see the developers interacting with the players. I'm really excited about Twilight Archons having an AOE attack and that Feedback ability. Feedback = my favorite ability, by far. Caster dominance forever! But I'm also worried about ghosts sniping my high templar.

[LordVader]

There was a FAQ from an official Blizz rep that said the shields are, in fact, in the game. So it's reliable. Also, it makes perfect sense, too. You have a Zergling charging at you, you're going to want something to put between it and you.:smallwink:

Again, I point you all to http://www.sclegacy.com. Really, it's an excellent website for SC2 news.

[nooblade]

There was a FAQ from an official Blizz rep that said the shields are, in fact, in the game. So it's reliable. Also, it makes perfect sense, too. You have a Zergling charging at you, you're going to want something to put between it and you.:smallwink:

Again, I point you all to http://www.sclegacy.com. Really, it's an excellent website for SC2 news.

That link to battle.net showed the FAQ. The post about shields was in batch 5 and now they're on batch 11. SCLegacy is very dear to me, but I'm afraid that a whole slew of other sites are getting information about the new game a lot faster than it is. The bayonets look silly on those marines, nobody uses bayonets anymore. But I guess the marine is perfectly capable of carrying the extra weight and they're not exactly invested in any kind of stealthiness, unfortunately.

Let us now take a few moments to mourn the probable loss of the mightily useful Reaver. While its abilities were a little redundant alongside the AOE Psi Storm, its capability for considerable damage against structures and instant death for workers will be missed. It was also conveniently placed on the same path as the wonderful-when-combined-with-the-Reaver Shuttle. I think that perhaps the High Templar's Disruption Web-esque ability can allow uncontested fighting with defensive structures like sunken colonies and such, but an aerial unit was best for getting to the front of your armies to disrupt threats. Ahh, well. I'm still optimistic about the Protoss, even if they lose Dark Archons, Reavers, Carriers, and Corsairs.

[Vonriel]

What makes you think they're losing carriers? Unless I'm missing something somewhere, in the screenshots section of the Starcraft 2 site there are two screenshots depicting carriers blowing up terrans.

Note that I'm not up to date on the news, so if there's been news since saying that that screenshot is not right, I wouldn't know.

[K2]

They had planned on replacing the Carrier with a weaker version called the "tempest" but they decided to scratch it. The carrier is, blizzard said so themselves

[averagejoe]

I imagine 'toss will be either Zeratul or Artanis, perhaps both interchangably, and I imagine the Zerg will be Kerrigan if that is the case.

Don't forget everybody's favorite triple+ agent, Duran. And by "everybody's," I mean, "almost nobody's."

Having the heroes be the "player characters" won't be a huge change. If I recall, you used a hero in most missions anyways, the implication being that they were the ones leading the troops, or some such.

[Jacob_Gallagher]

Anyone played the Ogres games, or read the Bolo books? Huge tanks can be cool too.

[Solo]

Can't find the link right now, but from the starcraft II lore panel at Blizzcon, one of the Q&A session was what happened to the magistrate/cerebrate/executor from SCI and Broodwar. Blizzard's answer was that they died (but they didn't give any further explanation as to how).

A moment of silence for those that did not make it.

[K2]

I am just glad that we stopped talking about the feasibility of mechs vs the practicability of tanks.

Also, I just added Duran to my must kill list.

[Vonriel]

You just added him? The moment he killed Stukov (The only UED member who actually knew what the hell he should be doing) I wanted to let my trigger-happy ghosts nuke the place he was in.

[Closet_Skeleton]

According to the FAQ here (http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=sc-general-uk&t=228&p=1&#post228) the Thor can attack air units.

In C&C terms, the Thor is a Mammoth tank and the Siege Tank is an Artillery. Not that C&C ever cared about not having overlapping units.

Or in Age of Empire's II terms, the Thor is a battering ram, the Siege Tank is a trebuchet. Except that game had far too many overlapping units.

[K2]

I was about to point out that no one needs to worry about the hydralisk being replaced cause blizzard released promotional art including the buggers. But then I found this: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/wallpapers/wall1/wall1-800x600.jpg
those are wraiths in the background. And the wraith is most certainly out.

[Winterwind]

But the hydralisk is the most iconic unit of the Zerg. Taking it out would be like taking out space marines. There are many things uncertain about StarCraft II, but I think there are few things as certain as that Hydralisks will remain in the game, even though it has not been explicitly stated yet.

[K2]

I don't think its going to happen, but some one had asked about it earlier.


And, I had forgotten about Duran simply because of how much I wanted to kill Kerrigan and Mengks.

[Winterwind]

Mengsk? Oh, please not - I like him way too much.
I mean, he's an evil bastard, but I like having him as an enemy. He's cool and charismatic - a game needs adversaries like him.

[tannish2]

SC has a lot of good villians.

[ufo]

I don't remember Mengsk as anything else than a charismatic emperor. Last time I played Brood War was a year ago, last time I played vanilla was when I was eight. I remember nada.

[BRC]

Mengsk? Oh, please not - I like him way too much.
I mean, he's an evil bastard, but I like having him as an enemy. He's cool and charismatic - a game needs adversaries like him.
Mengsk was a great villain, especially since it wasn't a double-cross that turned him from a hero to a villain, just an insight into the way he did things. Usually when somebody you think is good turns evil in a story, its because they were pretending to be good, all that happened was you learned the depth of Mengksks belief that the ends justify the means when he uses the psi-emmiters on tarsonis and sacrifices kerrigan.
Duran as a villain, though definetally more evil then mengsk, was never as fleshed out, and did the whole "Bwa ha ha TRAITOR" thing twice. I have a feeling he's going to make another appearance.

[LordVader]

I was about to point out that no one needs to worry about the hydralisk being replaced cause blizzard released promotional art including the buggers. But then I found this: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/wallpapers/wall1/wall1-800x600.jpg
those are wraiths in the background. And the wraith is most certainly out.

The wraith is most likely out. Also, they did concept art of the Reaver without putting it in the game.
Regardless, the Hydra is the Zerg unit- it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Griemont]

First of all, the Reaver was actually put into the game, but later removed. (see starcraft2.com's most recent Thor screenshot, the old Siege Tank design is there and you can see reavers in the upper right)

Also, note that at least as of the announcement of the game, the Hydralisk was in, without much intention to remove it, as it figures noticably in the announcement trailer. And I doubt they'd include a unit in the trailer that they were iffy on, because of the sheer effort (>5 million polygons on Tychus Findlay :eek:) involved.