StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mine is the Terran mostly because they have a pretty good balance of offensive and defensive capabilities

depends on how I intend to play....

if I want to play turtle and completely screw with my opponent, I play Terran. seige tanks, 3 missle turrents and a few bunkers filled with marines with a few floating sci ships make a killer defense grid for most incoming.

If I want to dominate, I play Protoss, build a base that is highly compact, ring it with defensive photon cannons, and build a airfield for my carriers. High Templars and Archons provide me with ground defense until I get my airforce up, and then I walk over the map. If I know thier playing Terran, I steal a SCV or three from one of thier secondary bases and build my own branch of nukes. Nothing like the scrambling confusion of a human opponent when they hear "nuclear launch detected" and it's not coming from them....


-sighs-

I chose Protoss

Terran. More story potential.

Oh, do you mean to play as? Well, I liked Protoss in multi-player, but I also loved Zerg rushing.

kekeke

Terran and Protoss. I don't like to play as the Zerg. Leaving aside the fact that they're the bad guys, they're not aesthetically pleasing (Overlords make a sound like constipated bulls) and their tactics suck, I just don't like building wave after wave of cheap units to swarm the enemy.

Terrans are the coolest because they're heartless fascists who enjoy indiscriminately nuking things. Zerg are easiest to play as, though.

I prefer Terrans, definitely. They're versatile, thus allowing me with units for most kinds of scenarios possible within the game. I just love to go to the enemy base with 3-5 ghosts and nuke the base to Kingdom Come.
Besides, story-like, they're also my favorite.

I prefer Terrans myself.

If I want to dominate, I play Protoss, build a base that is highly compact, ring it with defensive photon cannons, and build a airfield for my carriers. High Templars and Archons provide me with ground defense until I get my airforce up, and then I walk over the map. If I know thier playing Terran, I steal a SCV or three from one of thier secondary bases and build my own branch of nukes. Nothing like the scrambling confusion of a human opponent when they hear "nuclear launch detected" and it's not coming from them....

That's gotta be the worst Protoss multiplayer strategy I have ever heard and I cannot believe it would ever work against anyone of decent skill. By the time you've got High Templars and Archons, your opponent has already built a swarm of siegetanks and Marines and Medics or hydralisks and guardians which will utterly flatten your base, not to mention a handful of Ghosts and Valkyries/enhanced Goliaths will totally ruin your carrier's shit. And finally, if you have the resources to develop an entirely different techtree right up to the point where you have nukes, you would be much better off simply investing in a shitload of Dragoons and Reavers.

I prefer Protoss.
Once you've polished your strategy, they're quite nice.
Reaver-rushing is especially embarassing for other players Normally I build zealots and go rushing.
They are a bit weak in the first stages, though.
Zerg have to win in the early stages, because otherwise they're minced meat.
Terrans are just not my cup of tea...

HemlockGrey wrote:That's gotta be the worst Protoss multiplayer strategy I have ever heard and I cannot believe it would ever work against anyone of decent skill. By the time you've got High Templars and Archons, your opponent has already built a swarm of siegetanks and Marines and Medics or hydralisks and guardians which will utterly flatten your base, not to mention a handful of Ghosts and Valkyries/enhanced Goliaths will totally ruin your carrier's shit. And finally, if you have the resources to develop an entirely different techtree right up to the point where you have nukes, you would be much better off simply investing in a shitload of Dragoons and Reavers.

ever thought that I actually am (or used to be) that damn good with protoss to be able to do it? And do you honestly think I leave my entire base open, and I build nothing BUT those units I listed?

Nope, that's only what I work myself up to, I keep dragoons and zealots on hand in the early game, but mid to late game, I have my carriers archons and DT's and HT's. between that and my photon cannons and scouts to be able to handle those hordes of seige tanks, my bases stayed pretty damn secure.

I know my strat. I've seen it work. Others have seen it work. So fuck you for just seeing a bit of it "on paper" and telling me it's the worse fucking strat you've ever seen.

DarkSilver wrote:snip

You're games last so long that you can nuke a terran with toss. And said terran doesn't invest in EMP I bet too.

Stofsk wrote:Terran and Protoss. I don't like to play as the Zerg. Leaving aside the fact that they're the bad guys, they're not aesthetically pleasing (Overlords make a sound like constipated bulls) and their tactics suck, I just don't like building wave after wave of cheap units to swarm the enemy.

Bah. The Zerg are powerful. They are utterly beyond my mindset but they are very effective especially when you switch techs on an enemy. Only the Zerg are capable of fluidly changing the entire make up of their army mid game and later because of their unique production capabilties.

Dahak wrote:I prefer Protoss.
Once you've polished your strategy, they're quite nice.
Reaver-rushing is especially embarassing for other players Smile Normally I build zealots and go rushing.
They are a bit weak in the first stages, though.
Zerg have to win in the early stages, because otherwise they're minced meat.
Terrans are just not my cup of tea...

Protoss is IMO the easiest race to macromanage period. Their units cost a lot and the supply count is high so it's easy to fill out the ranks and spend your cash quickly (read: noobs invariably have hordes of unspent minerals, hence Protoss is a quick pick up, easier than terran or zerg).
Their workers are unencumbered by morphing or building stuff and so devote most of their time and energy to resource gathering. The other side of the coin is that Protoss devour minerals and bases and have to expand like crazy in the longer games. I always run out of minerals faster with Toss than the other 2 races.

However, protoss are overpowered on the ground once terran get a few factories up and running and get tanks, vultures and turrets moving. Terran tanks can cliff like a mother and Science Vessels are a nightmare for opposing zerg and protoss alike. The battlecruiser is fairly useless against T or Z but is a great assset on island maps. Especially the Yamato gun. Know ph34r boon.

As for the why: well Seggybop put it best. Besides, terran is totally the best. The tank and the BC are the 2 most devastating long range attack units in the game. One has the greatest attack range (with splash) and the other is just a devastating precision attack weapon, adept at popping turrets, other capitol ships, templar and such with ease and often impunity. Marines though useless in TvP are worth their weight in gold versus zerg and oh boy, can vultures wreak havoc against zealot happy protoss. I've seen vultures own goons, though in special circumstances. And boy do Science Vessels just mess up your mind. If you ever fought a terran who uses his bag of tricks you'd understand.

ps -- Valkyries are good on islands against zerg... if ever.

I know my strat. I've seen it work. Others have seen it work. So fuck you for just seeing a bit of it "on paper" and telling me it's the worse fucking strat you've ever seen.

Your entire strategy involves biding your time while you build up your tech tree to the maximum extent while spending hordes of money on photon cannons (which are easily outranged by Guardians and siegetanks) while building up an army of top-level units and hoping the enemy doesn't attack before your invincible armada is complete (because, please, those photon cannons ain't doing shit to a tank-marine-medic onslaught). I don't believe it would ever work against a half-decent player.

Protoss.

PROTOSS PWNZOR J00 N00bs kekeke!11!oneoneshift+1eleven

YUO GEIV SoJ??? ^^

PFC Brungardt wrote:However, protoss are overpowered on the ground once terran get a few factories up and running and get tanks, vultures and turrets moving. Terran tanks can cliff like a mother and Science Vessels are a nightmare for opposing zerg and protoss alike. The battlecruiser is fairly useless against T or Z but is a great assset on island maps. Especially the Yamato gun. Know ph34r boon.

As for the why: well Seggybop put it best. Besides, terran is totally the best. The tank and the BC are the 2 most devastating long range attack units in the game. One has the greatest attack range (with splash) and the other is just a devastating precision attack weapon, adept at popping turrets, other capitol ships, templar and such with ease and often impunity. Marines though useless in TvP are worth their weight in gold versus zerg and oh boy, can vultures wreak havoc against zealot happy protoss. I've seen vultures own goons, though in special circumstances. And boy do Science Vessels just mess up your mind. If you ever fought a terran who uses his bag of tricks you'd understand.

ps -- Valkyries are good on islands against zerg... if ever.

The science vessel isn't the only good special unit in the game.
Arbiters with recall and their own stasis version can ruin your day, as well.
Templars are quite useful against Zerg masses.
And as for ground units: A reaver might be slow as hell, but once he arrives they make themselves heard.
And battle cruisers make nice targets for air units, as well

I've always loved the power and grace of the siege tank, the utility of the ghost, and the overall usefulness of the Goliath. I've always enjoyed large footsoldier armies (mostly marines with some firebats and a healthy number of medics) with support vehicles. Siegetanks and goliaths acting as heavy support, with ghosts to disable expensive stuff that my enemy has gotten early (carrier, BC, reaver etc.). After either I or the enemy (depending on how the game goes) is botteled up it becomes a matter of volume battlecruisers with equipment in dropships for support (ghosts, goliaths and siege tanks), with Sci vessel escorts, of course!

terrans. turtle, turtle!

that, and being able to move most my base as necessary is sweet.

One of my favorite addendums to ny strategy while playing as Zerg:

The FART (Fast Action Response Team.) Consisting of 11 mutalisks and a Queen, you keep these guys on call. If the enemy ever expands (you should be watching for this, and have his base well-mapped) simply fly the FART out and burn the command center, then Queen it, and then fly the CC out. This forces them to devote forces to defending all their expos, and is very useful for demoralizing them.

I've always feared the zerg, mostly the defilers though, plague and swarm will utterly crush any army very fast, at least the terrans can get rid of it, I don't know how poor 'toss players cope. Terrans really don't have any "good" melee troops to deal with swarm so when zerg drop it you've just got to avoid it. On the plus side wise use of com sat and science vessels can make defilers (and queens) far less useful, and irradiate is pretty fun. Generally speaking, everything has its counter, and so the real winner is the person who has the most tactical knowledge of the battlefield. I think all in all, Terrans have it the best. As easy as the toss, and to a lesser extent, the zerg, have it to know what's going on in the wilderness, the real prize is knowing what your enemy's army is made of (and thus what you need to counter it). Any commander worth his salt is going to have detectors and perimeter defenders to keep you from spying on his goods; you really can't prevent the terrans from taking a good look. I'll admit parasite is nice, but its main use is against the 'toss now that terrans can remove it (and unless they are stupid, are prepared to!).

However, as is always the case, it's really all about who the better player is, and who makes the most mistakes

Edit: Hey, post 1000, cool

Dahak wrote:

I wrote:blah blah, rant and rave

The science vessel isn't the only good special unit in the game.
Arbiters with recall and their own stasis version can ruin your day, as well.
Templars are quite useful against Zerg masses.
And as for ground units: A reaver might be slow as hell, but once he arrives they make themselves heard.
And battle cruisers make nice targets for air units, as well

Bah, Protoss tech units are uniformly expensive. The terran can go far with just Science Vessels, no BC's need apply (except in T vs T). Templar are indeed great against hordes of Zerg -- against terran much less so unless you wanna say the terran is getting marines in a T vs P game

InnocentBystander wrote:snip

In general, yeah, I agree.

What gets me is you seem to unduly focus on the battlefield / tactical / micro aspect of Starcraft. While important (utter ignorance is inexcusable) macromanagement is a much more important skill. A Zerg player pumping out trains of hydras will go further than a Zerg player with a handful of hatcheries but excellent unit control. Ditto for Protoss and Terran. The ability to take expansions, build more units and build more unit producing buildings and managing it better than your enemy (while trying to prevent him from doing the same) will go very far even with a little bit of tactical skill. This is why some people with low Actions Per Minute (APM, ie mouse speed) can sometimes beat a crackpot Korean with twice as much APM.

And Firebats & Medics eat Zealots for breakfast, which is always fun.

"Do you want to get invited to my next barbeque?"

PFC Brungardt wrote:In general, yeah, I agree.

What gets me is you seem to unduly focus on the battlefield / tactical / micro aspect of Starcraft. While important (utter ignorance is inexcusable) macromanagement is a much more important skill. A Zerg player pumping out trains of hydras will go further than a Zerg player with a handful of hatcheries but excellent unit control. Ditto for Protoss and Terran. The ability to take expansions, build more units and build more unit producing buildings and managing it better than your enemy (while trying to prevent him from doing the same) will go very far even with a little bit of tactical skill. This is why some people with low Actions Per Minute (APM, ie mouse speed) can sometimes beat a crackpot Korean with twice as much APM.

RTS games always favor he who has more resources, of course. Thing is, expansions are not cheap and pretty soon they start to cut into your troop supply pool. It takes a good while to recoup the loses from an expansion, and at least once, you are going to have to build a new swarm of workers.

It's not cheap, and if your enemy knows how to control better than you and is agressive enough, you'll find yourself at a serious disadvantage. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like you shouldn't build expansions, but I've always been in favor of two, with the standing army covering the expansion, and ready to run back and defend the main base. Holding more than 2 resource bases at once, is, in my opinion, unwise.

Oh, and the game is entirely different for the Korean Super Starcraft Warriors, and I don't think any of us play at that level, thankfully.

Hemlock's right. Teching to the top-tier unit off of one base is idiotic in the extreme. That being said, I have (rarely) seen one of the previously mentioned Korean Super Starcraft Warriors do it to surprise a Heavy-Metal Terran build. Carrier rushing is incredibly weak on any serious map, but it's still available as a 'surprise' option, albeit this happens like once in 100,000 good games.

RTS games always favor he who has more resources, of course. Thing is, expansions are not cheap and pretty soon they start to cut into your troop supply pool.

Only for a short time after first made, which is why expansioning at the start is risky but a high-payoff strategy.

It takes a good while to recoup the loses from an expansion, and at least once, you are going to have to build a new swarm of workers.

Not at all! That's why the Maynard was invented: You continue to build workers constantly, leaving you with more workers than really necessary at saturate the minerals at your main. When your expansion comes on-line, send half of your mining workers to your expansion. It becomes instantly profitable, and your main will still be functioning at near full-steam.

It's not cheap, and if your enemy knows how to control better than you and is agressive enough, you'll find yourself at a serious disadvantage.

Expanding early is always risky, but it's definately a valid strategy if you yourself can make your expansion profitable fast enough. It largely depends on the map and the matchup.

Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like you shouldn't build expansions, but I've always been in favor of two, with the standing army covering the expansion, and ready to run back and defend the main base. Holding more than 2 resource bases at once, is, in my opinion, unwise.

Oh no, you're quite mistaken. It's risky to expand at the start, but if you're winning the game, you should be capitalizing on your advantage by expanding constantly, especially if your advantage is not so overwhelming that you can hope to win the game with an attack. Expansions are risky at the start but as the game goes on, become exponentionally less so.

BTW, I'm a Terran-player exclusivly and I'd still love to hit you guys up for a game sometime. I'm pretty busy this week + weekend, but I haven't seen Destructinator or PFC on AIM at all, so I'm just making sure you guys are still up for a game at some point.

If you've bottled up the enemy to the point where it could be said that you are "winning' than the only reason to farm resources like a monkey is to improve your points. I'd much rather maintain 2 groups of workers and divert the rest to my army, or better yet, (since my enemy is bottled up), nukes.