Protoss vs Galactic Empire

[Purple]

Simon_Jester you fail at the basic rules of this board.

Will you get it through YOUR thick head that when debating you have to work from the sources you have and be done with it. It is not up to us to make up what could be but to analyze what is shown in the sources available. If something is not shown in the sources it does not exist period.

For example, the protos fighters do not carry bombs in the game. Ergo we MUST assume that they do NOT carry bombs EVER unless this is countered by a different source of a higher or similar canonic value. It is as simple as that.

If you want to prove me wrong do so by citing actual sources rather than by launching an ad hominem attack to undermine the sources I have cited.

[Simon_Jester]

Very well, Purple. Let's see how far this principle stretches.

For the Terran faction in Starcraft 1, flamethrowers have a range of "2," infantry rifles have a range of "4" or "5," and long range artillery has a range of "12." Yes, you heard me correctly, the indirect-fire artillery (described in the manual as firing 120mm artillery rounds, typical for a field gun) has only six times the range of a flamethrower.

The Terran battlecruiser, a capital ship with nuclear-grade firepower and extremely heavy armor plating, capable of surviving a near miss from a "nuke," can be shot down by infantry using nothing but rifles. Based on my experience, and admittedly it's been a while it takes about eight to twelve Marine riflemen to shoot down one battlecruiser before it can kill them all.

Are these things believable? Or are we looking at abstractions resulting from the need for Blizzard to construct a balanced game mechanic? Because if I understand you correctly, you would maintain that all these things are simple brute facts of reality in the Starcraft universe: eight to twelve men with automatic weapons can shoot down a capital starship, 120mm howitzers have six times the range of a flamethrower, and of course, no fighter-sized aircraft ever carries bombs.

While we're at it, there's no such thing as running out of ammunition (units never worry about that in gameplay), all military equipment is manufactured on the spot in facilities that can be built from nothing but raw materials by combat engineering detachments, and large deposits of rich mineral ores are handy to supply armed conflict on virtually every battlefield in known space.

Because all those things are true in gameplay.

How far do you expect me to stretch my suspension of disbelief here, anyway?

[Purple]

How far do you expect me to stretch my suspension of disbelief here, anyway?

How about far enough to include all the data?

For example, we know that the battlecruisers are spaceships and are described in the cutscenes and other derivative works as huge warships. As such, this conflicts their appearance in the gameplay and we take that option which is more logical or based on higher level of canon. (I am not well versed in SC canon policies but my guess is that in game cutscenes and dialog > gameplay)

On the other hand, there are no extraneous sources, not in the novels or cutsenes that I am aware of that show protos units using rifles or their aircraft equiped with any sort of bombs. As such we must assume that they do not.


You can not just dismiss the game as a source because its a game. Like it or not it is the core of all SC fluff and any derivative works are based on it. But as I said before and will say again. If you want to prove any of my points wrong feel free to open the books, play the game or heck even check the wiki and see if you can find something contradicting me. Argue the data, not the source.

[Vendetta]

(I am not well versed in SC canon policies but my guess is that in game cutscenes and dialog > gameplay)

Quite apart from canon policy, gameplay is generally never seen as valid because it is always designed for balanced play not accurate representation of capabilities.

Same reason we ignore tabletop rules for WH40k.

[Purple]

But if it is the only source available than it can not be dismissed. Otherwise you are left with no sources and can make up just about anything.

[Imperial528]

You're not getting it. Imperial infantry can hit above its weight without requiring large platforms thanks to weapons for which the Protoss have no counterpart. Zealots without Dragoons are screwed against vehicles. Imperials without vehicles can still threaten them with rocket launchers and such. And again, the fact that they normally carry small arms to begin with gives them the advantage in all but Zealot-friendly situations.

Zealots put up against Imperial vehicles would indeed be at a disadvantage, as most infantry would be, but I think it comes down to if Zealot shields could withstand shots from Imperial vehicles, and if they would be able to get close.

The minute you can actually quantify that statement, be my guest.

Archons are extremely powerful in both the game and the fluff. Their psionic attacks are capable of inflicting damage on heavy vehicles, both air and ground, and can slaughter infantry with ease. Their shields are some of the strongest of all Protoss units, due to their powerful psionic abilities.

No, they're not all like that. A Siege tank in siege mode for example can hit models it cannot see (it's sight range is actually less than its weapon range), so long as some other unit is acting as spotter.

Still, I think it's that game mechanics are simplifying the performance down to what is seen is what is targeted.

Unless HTs have shields which are significantly better than Zealots, they were will be vulnerable to sniping, whether it's from actual snipers or simply directing heavy weapons upon them.

They do, as Protoss warriors create their shields using their psionic abilities, and High Templar are much more skilled and powerful, I should think it follows that they have greater energy shielding.

I'm not seeing anything contradicting what I said, which makes them weak against Imperial fighters.

Then I'll leave it at that, then, for now. Unless, of course, the game description of the scout's missiles as being anti matter warheads means anything.

According to all the sources, it's a small nuclear bomb. We have a measurable example from Speed of Darkness where a tactical nuke takes out a town and a Marine squad 3km away takes cover and survives the blast. Depending on how you want to interpret the event, the bomb was somewhere between a few hundred kilotons to single digit megatons. Now, unless you think the Terrans classify "small" nuclear devices to include something bigger than megatons and want to ignore everything else like Carriers dying to suicide Zerg attacks, that makes them very vulnerable to Imperial ships.

I can't say anything directly on the firepower of the Yamato cannon, but, I can say on the classification of Terran nuclear weapons. The bombardment of Korhal was done with 1,000 "Apocalypse" warheads launched from Tarsonis, each of which is smaller than a dropship. The attack annihilated the population, along with most plant and animal life. After that the use of these warheads, which are considered "full-scale" was banned, and the smaller "tactical" warheads came into use. Of course, this doesn't tell us where the Yamato cannon stands, but I think it gives us a decent range of Terran nuclear firepower.

Again, only the supercarriers are armed, normal Carriers have no weapons, and at best that makes them equal to Imperial ships.

I doubt that only the supercarriers have these weapons. We know that only supercarriers have multiple ship-to-ship weapons, but carriers have been seen with the purfication weapon many times, such as the purification of Chau Sara, here:


I'm sure that one of those ships is the supercarrier Gantrithor, but it was the only supercarrier in Tassadar's fleet of fifty carriers, the Gantrithor included.

Um, I didn't? None of their abilities are enough though to make up for deficiencies elsewhere. Stasis only lasts a short time; Recall has great applications but limited to friendly movements; and cloak, assuming it works against Imperial sensors, can be broken by blowing up the Arbiter.

Stasis lasts for forty seconds, which while not a very long time, is plenty long enough to make a difference. Now, Arbiters may be fragile, but they're large starships, and I doubt it'd be so simple as "Blow up that thing!" when enemies you can't see are shooting at you and you don't even know if the Arbiter is responsible for the cloaking.

Yes, it is; did you not read the quotes on the last page? The Protoss have survived thanks to the fact that Shakuras has some production facilities, and they still had to go dig up old weapons systems.

Even if the majority of Protoss military infrastructure was on Aiur, I should at least hope they've got some off-world, even if it is moot.
And you should take note that in the Protoss' case old doesn't mean bad and that it also doesn't mean they don't have enough capability to rebuild their forces. The reason why they brought back the Colossi and the Motherships is because they realized the threat they faced was greater than they had originally thought, although it was too late (The Motherships were put back into service shortly before Aiur fell, but by the time they reached the world from their stations at the edge of Protoss space the Zerg had won and the Protoss were retreating)

Again, as I outlined, the Protoss are either at a disadvantage, or at best equivalent to their Imperial counterparts. The Imperials on the whole are generally better.

This debate isn't over yet.

You are missing the point here.
Dragons are about the equivalent of AT-ST/AT-PT vehicles or in modern terms something like an assault gun.

From what we know from games and other sources their primary weapon is a projectile that has a slow rate of fire (a modern hand loaded artillery piece shoots faster than those things do in the games), limited range and no area effect.

We have cinematic evidence that it has an area effect (the blast radius is probably enough to mortally wound and give 3rd degree burns to anyone within a 2-3 meter radius), and in the same cinematic the shortest time between shots from a dragoon is about 3-4 seconds, which isn't too shabby considering it can vaporize a person in one shot and destroy an armored watchtower.

For those wondering, this is the cinematic:

Meanwhile, even if given an adequate dragon presence the Protos still have nothing comparable to grenade and missile launchers, machine guns or even small arms. Their army is literally composed of shielded swordsman, light artillery and nothing in between. The only reason this works for them in universe is that the other factions are equally stupid in that sense.

They posses heavy artillery as well, unless the Reaver is somehow a light artillery unit. And I think you're in-universe explanation is frankly without base. The Protoss have had no reason throughout their history to make such weapons, since the only times they have gone to war prior to the events of StarCraft were either against themselves, the Xel'Naga, or hostile low-tech races, and in all cases their psionic abilities were suited to the task, with one exception, which was dealt with by the Colossi very easily.

What this all means is that the only way they can win is if they have the initiative to pick and chose their own battles. If a Protos force gets drawn onto a stronghold, urban warfare or any other location where their dragons can be taken out they will rapidly be overwhelmed by an even slightly competent opponent who can use modern military tactics.

Tell me, where do modern military tactics tell how to deal with an opponent who can cloak vast amounts of soldiers, move troops instantly across a battlefield, trap enemies in stasis, create illusions that look and behave just like actual soldiers, and summon lightning at will?

Not to mention that against anything remotely fortified the Zealots won't even make combat. Setting up a simple guard tower with retractable ladder and you can sip drinks while killing as many Zealots as you have ammo for. Thing like digging a wide deep trench and standing behind it while pointing and laughing would also work.

A reaver ends your plan, Norade. Or a squad of dragoons.

[Purple]

We have cinematic evidence that it has an area effect (the blast radius is probably enough to mortally wound and give 3rd degree burns to anyone within a 2-3 meter radius), and in the same cinematic the shortest time between shots from a dragoon is about 3-4 seconds, which isn't too shabby considering it can vaporize a person in one shot and destroy an armored watchtower.

I know of that cinematic. The problem with it is that a 2-3 meter radius is less than what a modern hand grenade can do, let alone something you would expect on something like a light vehicle. And while the weapon might well have a variable yield it is still the equivalent of an assault gun at best, not exactly the ideal squad support weapon. It also has mobility issues with being that large.

They posses heavy artillery as well, unless the Reaver is somehow a light artillery unit. And I think you're in-universe explanation is frankly without base. The Protoss have had no reason throughout their history to make such weapons, since the only times they have gone to war prior to the events of StarCraft were either against themselves, the Xel'Naga, or hostile low-tech races, and in all cases their psionic abilities were suited to the task, with one exception, which was dealt with by the Colossi very easily.

I disagree. Yes psionics do well and nice but psionics + guns + simple WW1 grade artillery beat just psionics.
As for the reaver, yes I did forget about it but that hardly invalidates my point that they lack any sort of combined arms.

Tell me, where do modern military tactics tell how to deal with an opponent who can cloak vast amounts of soldiers, move troops instantly across a battlefield, trap enemies in stasis, create illusions that look and behave just like actual soldiers, and summon lightning at will?

1. can cloak vast amounts of soldiers
Always be on alert and concentrate variable detection units (like probe droids) in the front. Since we don't know what kind of detection works on the Protos cloaking systems I can't tell.

But since the arbiters can be seen, the most likely tactic would be to target it with manpads until it goes down and reveals the army.

2. move troops instantly across a battlefield
Step up security and organize mobile relief forces and overlapping fields of fire. They might be able to warp into one squad but the other two covering them will shoot them to bits.

3. trap enemies in stasis
Combine 1 and 2, with an emphasis on 1. Use one unit as a lure to get the enemy to extend his power and than the other as the hammer to smack it down. That one can even be used in the actual game.

4. summon lightning at will
See #3.

A reaver ends your plan, Norade. Or a squad of dragoons.

So your answer to a tactic designed to defeat an infantry squad is to call in overwhelming heavy support. Well, that works I guess. But that is like saying that trenches won't work because the enemy can call up the 155mm howitzers. Assets such as heavy artillery will not be plentiful in a realistic situation. And dragons will go down to AT fire, something both a real world force or star wars units will be used to having (I guess they will at least).

[Norade]

You're not getting it. Imperial infantry can hit above its weight without requiring large platforms thanks to weapons for which the Protoss have no counterpart. Zealots without Dragoons are screwed against vehicles. Imperials without vehicles can still threaten them with rocket launchers and such. And again, the fact that they normally carry small arms to begin with gives them the advantage in all but Zealot-friendly situations.

Zealots put up against Imperial vehicles would indeed be at a disadvantage, as most infantry would be, but I think it comes down to if Zealot shields could withstand shots from Imperial vehicles, and if they would be able to get close.

Why would you assume that a zealot's shield would be able to take fire from a vehicle? Based on gameplay I could see them lasting a hit, maybe two. Then again, they died readily to rifle rounds in the gameplay and we can see from cutscenes that those rounds aren't exactly something to write home about.

The minute you can actually quantify that statement, be my guest.

Archons are extremely powerful in both the game and the fluff. Their psionic attacks are capable of inflicting damage on heavy vehicles, both air and ground, and can slaughter infantry with ease. Their shields are some of the strongest of all Protoss units, due to their powerful psionic abilities.

They are tough and can deal a fair amount of damage but in Imperial terms a Siege tank isn't likely to count as a heavy vehicle. We also know that the Imperials like to use lots of jamming and magnetic shields which could create EMP which is known to bone Protoss shields.

No, they're not all like that. A Siege tank in siege mode for example can hit models it cannot see (it's sight range is actually less than its weapon range), so long as some other unit is acting as spotter.

Still, I think it's that game mechanics are simplifying the performance down to what is seen is what is targeted.

They can actually return fire to units that they couldn't see in some cases as long as they were close enough and had fired recently. That shows that unlike the Protoss the Terran actually had some counter battery fire.

Unless HTs have shields which are significantly better than Zealots, they were will be vulnerable to sniping, whether it's from actual snipers or simply directing heavy weapons upon them.

They do, as Protoss warriors create their shields using their psionic abilities, and High Templar are much more skilled and powerful, I should think it follows that they have greater energy shielding.

Everything that we see indicates that the Templar aren't all that tough, maybe they waste a ton of energy slowly floating places that they could just walk to. In game they are and always have been weaker than a basic Zealot and being the only slow moving floating dudes will make them really easy for a sniper to notice.

I'm not seeing anything contradicting what I said, which makes them weak against Imperial fighters.

Then I'll leave it at that, then, for now. Unless, of course, the game description of the scout's missiles as being anti matter warheads means anything.

Unless we see a proper yield in a novel, comic, or cutscene it really means fuck all.

Again, only the supercarriers are armed, normal Carriers have no weapons, and at best that makes them equal to Imperial ships.

I doubt that only the supercarriers have these weapons. We know that only supercarriers have multiple ship-to-ship weapons, but carriers have been seen with the purfication weapon many times, such as the purification of Chau Sara, here:


I'm sure that one of those ships is the supercarrier Gantrithor, but it was the only supercarrier in Tassadar's fleet of fifty carriers, the Gantrithor included.

Great so the Protoss can burn a world with weapons that have a limited ability to aim and need far more ships than it would take the Imperials to do a considerably worse job at ruining a planet. This is hardly a huge point in the Protoss' favor.

Um, I didn't? None of their abilities are enough though to make up for deficiencies elsewhere. Stasis only lasts a short time; Recall has great applications but limited to friendly movements; and cloak, assuming it works against Imperial sensors, can be broken by blowing up the Arbiter.

Stasis lasts for forty seconds, which while not a very long time, is plenty long enough to make a difference. Now, Arbiters may be fragile, but they're large starships, and I doubt it'd be so simple as "Blow up that thing!" when enemies you can't see are shooting at you and you don't even know if the Arbiter is responsible for the cloaking.

Given that stasis is one of those things we never see outside of game play it's hard to say what its range is and how often it will be able to get close enough before being blasted from the sky. You also need to note that a large starship is a large target and that if they're on the field in many cases they will be opposed by TIE fighters and the like making it harder to keep them on station and cloaking things.

Yes, it is; did you not read the quotes on the last page? The Protoss have survived thanks to the fact that Shakuras has some production facilities, and they still had to go dig up old weapons systems.

Even if the majority of Protoss military infrastructure was on Aiur, I should at least hope they've got some off-world, even if it is moot.
And you should take note that in the Protoss' case old doesn't mean bad and that it also doesn't mean they don't have enough capability to rebuild their forces. The reason why they brought back the Colossi and the Motherships is because they realized the threat they faced was greater than they had originally thought, although it was too late (The Motherships were put back into service shortly before Aiur fell, but by the time they reached the world from their stations at the edge of Protoss space the Zerg had won and the Protoss were retreating)

So your evidence for Protoss production now consists of hoping and presuming?

Again, as I outlined, the Protoss are either at a disadvantage, or at best equivalent to their Imperial counterparts. The Imperials on the whole are generally better.

This debate isn't over yet.

Yeah it pretty much is.

Guns > Swords and Shielding
Armored Vehicles > Archons
Imperial Space Capability > Protoss Space Capability
Imperial Production > Protoss Production

You are missing the point here.
Dragons are about the equivalent of AT-ST/AT-PT vehicles or in modern terms something like an assault gun.

From what we know from games and other sources their primary weapon is a projectile that has a slow rate of fire (a modern hand loaded artillery piece shoots faster than those things do in the games), limited range and no area effect.

We have cinematic evidence that it has an area effect (the blast radius is probably enough to mortally wound and give 3rd degree burns to anyone within a 2-3 meter radius), and in the same cinematic the shortest time between shots from a dragoon is about 3-4 seconds, which isn't too shabby considering it can vaporize a person in one shot and destroy an armored watchtower.

For those wondering, this is the cinematic:

You're aware that we have infantry weapons today that can better the Dragoon in that role right? Things like man portable grenade launchers will out range and out ROF a Dragoon and we've seen that the Imperials do have Grenade Mortars with an ROF of one round every 1.2 seconds. Hell they even make flying platforms that carry these things and can move at 250 k/ph, lets see a Dragoon do that.

Meanwhile, even if given an adequate dragon presence the Protos still have nothing comparable to grenade and missile launchers, machine guns or even small arms. Their army is literally composed of shielded swordsman, light artillery and nothing in between. The only reason this works for them in universe is that the other factions are equally stupid in that sense.

They posses heavy artillery as well, unless the Reaver is somehow a light artillery unit. And I think you're in-universe explanation is frankly without base. The Protoss have had no reason throughout their history to make such weapons, since the only times they have gone to war prior to the events of StarCraft were either against themselves, the Xel'Naga, or hostile low-tech races, and in all cases their psionic abilities were suited to the task, with one exception, which was dealt with by the Colossi very easily.

The Reaver is light artillery by at least Imperial standards. A small blast capable of blowing up at most 12 soldiers is fairly low end. When they start dropping things with a 50m blast radius like 155mm artillery, or even just lobbing things that are more effective than a basic class-a thermal detonator then you can say something about heavy artillery.

What this all means is that the only way they can win is if they have the initiative to pick and chose their own battles. If a Protos force gets drawn onto a stronghold, urban warfare or any other location where their dragons can be taken out they will rapidly be overwhelmed by an even slightly competent opponent who can use modern military tactics.

Tell me, where do modern military tactics tell how to deal with an opponent who can cloak vast amounts of soldiers, move troops instantly across a battlefield, trap enemies in stasis, create illusions that look and behave just like actual soldiers, and summon lightning at will?

They tell you to pull out and drop more arty on it until the problem goes away. Not to mention that the sensors on the basic Terran AA missile platform seem to see through cloak and hallucination just fine so when they realize this they can just toss down a sensor platform or send in a recon TIE to scout the battle field. Hell heavy vehicles may already have the sensors to do this.

Not to mention that against anything remotely fortified the Zealots won't even make combat. Setting up a simple guard tower with retractable ladder and you can sip drinks while killing as many Zealots as you have ammo for. Thing like digging a wide deep trench and standing behind it while pointing and laughing would also work.

A reaver ends your plan, Norade. Or a squad of dragoons.

Not really, by building even a basic defense you can now ignore a fair segment of the Protoss attack force. This means that you now have a large segment of the enemy force being rendered totally worthless by things as simple as a trench and a tower. Not to mention that fact that reavers can't fire up across high ground or over pits.

[Simon_Jester]

But if it is the only source available than it can not be dismissed. Otherwise you are left with no sources and can make up just about anything.

I'd say that we should be limited more by common sense than anything else.

Protoss (or Terran) fighters having nigh-unlimited missile ammunition IS unreasonable, given that physically, visually, there's only so much room on the fighter to store munitions. And yet in the game, they have infinite missile ammo, because Starcraft doesn't normally track ammunition constraints.

Why should we believe that these fighters have unlimited ammo from gameplay? In this sense, gameplay is NOT canon, or should not be, because it's blatantly stupid. If you asked any Starcraft developer "do Wraiths really have infinity missiles?" they would surely say "no, we just programmed the game that way to make it easier to play."

We are not under an obligation to turn off our brains in determining what aspects of gameplay can be treated as guides to "canon." The idea that unlike every real fighter that has ever existed, Protoss and Terran fighters from Starcraft just happen to be totally incapable of carrying air-to-ground ordnance, strikes me as being something that you have to turn off your brain to believe.

Protoss fighters (or Terran Wraiths) carrying bombs is not unreasonable- hell, there's at least one cutscene in SC1 that shows a Wraith unit attacking a target with something that (to me at least) looks like some kind of heavy bomb or torpedo-analogue, something very different from what they're normally armed with. Where, come to think of it, we also see them firing lasers at a spaceborne target- which they NEVER do in gameplay, even though it's quite logical for them to do so 'in real life' if the target's soft enough to hurt that way.

We have cinematic evidence that it has an area effect (the blast radius is probably enough to mortally wound and give 3rd degree burns to anyone within a 2-3 meter radius), and in the same cinematic the shortest time between shots from a dragoon is about 3-4 seconds, which isn't too shabby considering it can vaporize a person in one shot and destroy an armored watchtower.

I know of that cinematic. The problem with it is that a 2-3 meter radius is less than what a modern hand grenade can do, let alone something you would expect on something like a light vehicle. And while the weapon might well have a variable yield it is still the equivalent of an assault gun at best, not exactly the ideal squad support weapon.

Dragoon blasts are pretty clearly intended as anti-armor weapons more than anything else; their ability to kill people is secondary, as is blast radius.

But then, the average guy in Star Wars has body armor that makes shrapnel less than useful- an energy weapon that can penetrate hard cover and destroy light structures in a single shot, with a limited blast effect, might actually be better than a wide-effect antipersonnel weapon.

They posses heavy artillery as well, unless the Reaver is somehow a light artillery unit. And I think you're in-universe explanation is frankly without base. The Protoss have had no reason throughout their history to make such weapons, since the only times they have gone to war prior to the events of StarCraft were either against themselves, the Xel'Naga, or hostile low-tech races, and in all cases their psionic abilities were suited to the task, with one exception, which was dealt with by the Colossi very easily.

As for the reaver, yes I did forget about it but that hardly invalidates my point that they lack any sort of combined arms.

Since Reavers are artillery (strange artillery, but they serve the function of artillery quite well under most conditions), I'd say they have that chunk of "combined arms" nailed down. Dragoons are quite effective at both air defense and anti-armor work, too. Air support is... adequate; in gameplay they lack heavy air-to-ground weapons but that strikes me as more gameplay limitation than practical.

The only aspect of combined arms the Protoss are really lacking in is infantry ranged weapons. That would definitely hurt them in combat, I don't deny that... but they do cope with enemies that have those, in quantity, in their own universe.

[Balrog]

Zealots put up against Imperial vehicles would indeed be at a disadvantage, as most infantry would be, but I think it comes down to if Zealot shields could withstand shots from Imperial vehicles, and if they would be able to get close.

We saw just on the last page that a Hydra by itself can bring down a Zealot shield. Imperial vehicles are more then capable. And Zealots being within range is never a given. Imperial infantry are superior thanks to their ranged firepower.
[quoteArchons are extremely powerful in both the game and the fluff. Their psionic attacks are capable of inflicting damage on heavy vehicles, both air and ground, and can slaughter infantry with ease. Their shields are some of the strongest of all Protoss units, due to their powerful psionic abilities.[/quote]
Alright, let me rephrase. The minute you can quantify them without resorting to game statistics, be my guest.

Still, I think it's that game mechanics are simplifying the performance down to what is seen is what is targeted.

If you have any examples of Reavers firing against targets outside their line of sight, please, prove me wrong.

They do, as Protoss warriors create their shields using their psionic abilities, and High Templar are much more skilled and powerful, I should think it follows that they have greater energy shielding.

In ancient times they did that; currently they build machines to replicate the process. Even assuming the HT is powering his up greater than the Zealot's, unless you think it's an order of magnitude or more it won't matter.

Then I'll leave it at that, then, for now. Unless, of course, the game description of the scout's missiles as being anti matter warheads means anything.

We see them shoot some off in SotXN; the lack of any nuclear-scale explosions suggests it's a very small amount.

I can't say anything directly on the firepower of the Yamato cannon, but, I can say on the classification of Terran nuclear weapons. The bombardment of Korhal was done with 1,000 "Apocalypse" warheads launched from Tarsonis, each of which is smaller than a dropship. The attack annihilated the population, along with most plant and animal life. After that the use of these warheads, which are considered "full-scale" was banned, and the smaller "tactical" warheads came into use. Of course, this doesn't tell us where the Yamato cannon stands, but I think it gives us a decent range of Terran nuclear firepower.

Yes, and I already just pointed out a perfect example of the smaller nuclear warheads. Regardless of what their strategic nuclear weapons are rated at, unless you seriously think a "small" Terran nuclear bomb is greater than megaton-range, unless you ignore other examples of Carriers dying to relatively weak attacks, they get trashed easily.

I doubt that only the supercarriers have these weapons. We know that only supercarriers have multiple ship-to-ship weapons, but carriers have been seen with the purfication weapon many times, such as the purification of Chau Sara, here:

Then you doubt the exact words Blizzard has used to describe Carriers. Besides which, those ships look nothing like Carriers, either the old ones or new versions, and given the fact that Supercarriers look the same as the normal versions (at least the old ones do), it doesn't disprove Blizzard's exact definition of normal Carriers.

I'm sure that one of those ships is the supercarrier Gantrithor, but it was the only supercarrier in Tassadar's fleet of fifty carriers, the Gantrithor included.

Based on what?

Stasis lasts for forty seconds, which while not a very long time, is plenty long enough to make a difference. Now, Arbiters may be fragile, but they're large starships, and I doubt it'd be so simple as "Blow up that thing!" when enemies you can't see are shooting at you and you don't even know if the Arbiter is responsible for the cloaking.

You don't need to be a fucking genius to figure out that the ship that just arrived on the battlefield, and everything around it is turning invisible, might be responsible. Unless it's shields are orders of magnitude better than the Carriers, it'll get blown up quickly enough.

Even if the majority of Protoss military infrastructure was on Aiur, I should at least hope they've got some off-world, even if it is moot.

FFS it is, I suggest you actually go back and read the actual quotes I provided.

And you should take note that in the Protoss' case old doesn't mean bad and that it also doesn't mean they don't have enough capability to rebuild their forces. The reason why they brought back the Colossi and the Motherships is because they realized the threat they faced was greater than they had originally thought, although it was too late (The Motherships were put back into service shortly before Aiur fell, but by the time they reached the world from their stations at the edge of Protoss space the Zerg had won and the Protoss were retreating)

That's the point, rather than building new units, ones designed specifically to fight their new threat, they're pulling old ones out of mothballs. Shit, even the Reaver was just a stop-gap measure. They might be good machines, but it's still more of a desperation move. Even more, the Immortals are a direct result of them not being able to build Dragoons anymore. The Protoss lost a lot when they lost Aiur, which makes them vulnerable if they lose it again in this scenario.

This debate isn't over yet.

Nothing you've provided has done anything to dissuade the notion that the Protoss are either deficient or at best equivalent to their Imperial counterparts. The latter of which there are a great many more of.

[Balrog]

Not to mention that against anything remotely fortified the Zealots won't even make combat. Setting up a simple guard tower with retractable ladder and you can sip drinks while killing as many Zealots as you have ammo for. Thing like digging a wide deep trench and standing behind it while pointing and laughing would also work.

To be fair, the Zealots can still get at you, unless your guard tower is set up with clear lines of fire everywhere, cannot be cut down or climbed, and your weapons don't run out of ammo.

What about "stalkers" ?

That's Dark Templar tech, and not available.

I'd say that we should be limited more by common sense than anything else.

Maybe if we're talking about humans, but the Protoss obviously don't think the same way we do. Obviously no one has infinite ammo, and nothing's stopping a Wraith from pointing his laser cannon at an airborne target and shooting at it, but some things simply just are regardless of SC's status as a video game. Regardless of their efficiency against other two sides, the Zealot is still a head-scratcher of epic proportions. We see no examples of Protoss infantry support weapons, heavy armor or bombers, and with the lack of any information whatever we devise to fill in the gap will simply be fanfiction.

The only aspect of combined arms the Protoss are really lacking in is infantry ranged weapons. That would definitely hurt them in combat, I don't deny that... but they do cope with enemies that have those, in quantity, in their own universe.

Do they?
Of the battles which we know about, Chau Sara, Mar Sara and Antiga Prime were pretty much orbital affairs; there were some reports of Protoss ground forces on Antiga, but they gave up pretty soon and resorted to Purification. Tarsonis they did deploy ground forces, however they ended up losing when they were engaged by both Zerg and Sons of Korhal forces. On Char according the Queen of Blades Tassadar deployed with only a hundred Zealots, and if it weren't for Raynor's Raiders providing ranged support Zerg air and numbers would've fucked them up. On Aiur they obviously lost, though part of the blame lies in part to inept leadership. One of the few battles we know about in detail was the fight in Shadow of the Xel'Naga, in which the Zealots are mostly used on suicidal frontal charges as the Dragoons and Reavers stand back and shoot. And they weren't exactly winning it too well.

[Purple]

I'd say that we should be limited more by common sense than anything else.

Even if the conclusion is completely unfounded in any sources at best and directly countradicted by them at worst?

Protoss (or Terran) fighters having nigh-unlimited missile ammunition IS unreasonable, given that physically, visually, there's only so much room on the fighter to store munitions. And yet in the game, they have infinite missile ammo, because Starcraft doesn't normally track ammunition constraints.

Well the Protos have demonstrated teleportation technology. Using common sense as you describe it why not conclude that they simply warp in the extra ammo?

Why should we believe that these fighters have unlimited ammo from gameplay? In this sense, gameplay is NOT canon, or should not be, because it's blatantly stupid. If you asked any Starcraft developer "do Wraiths really have infinity missiles?" they would surely say "no, we just programmed the game that way to make it easier to play."

And what else can you look at than? What constitutes a valid source for you?
How about you start providing some information instead of simply attacking mine? How about you actually try and prove something?

I am sick and tired of your tirade of ignorance and refusal. Either shape up or GTFO.

We are not under an obligation to turn off our brains in determining what aspects of gameplay can be treated as guides to "canon." The idea that unlike every real fighter that has ever existed, Protoss and Terran fighters from Starcraft just happen to be totally incapable of carrying air-to-ground ordnance, strikes me as being something that you have to turn off your brain to believe.

And yet you fail to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Idiotic designs did and still do exist. Especially when the two main combat forces are a bunch of fringe guards and an empire that has not been in any significant wars for a very long time. In fact I find it quite likely and sensible that we would see all sorts of insensible designs similar to say inter-war tank warfare concepts and the T-35.

Protoss fighters (or Terran Wraiths) carrying bombs is not unreasonable- hell, there's at least one cutscene in SC1 that shows a Wraith unit attacking a target with something that (to me at least) looks like some kind of heavy bomb or torpedo-analogue, something very different from what they're normally armed with. Where, come to think of it, we also see them firing lasers at a spaceborne target- which they NEVER do in gameplay, even though it's quite logical for them to do so 'in real life' if the target's soft enough to hurt that way.

YouTube is your friend. How about you prove that assertion?

Dragoon blasts are pretty clearly intended as anti-armor weapons more than anything else; their ability to kill people is secondary, as is blast radius.

More likely anti aircraft weapons but yes, you stand correct in the assessment as far as I am concerned.
However, this does not change the fact that no mater how destructive they are to single targets the slow rate of fire and insufficient area of effect will render them ineffective against the kind of targets they can hope to face in this situation.

But then, the average guy in Star Wars has body armor that makes shrapnel less than useful- an energy weapon that can penetrate hard cover and destroy light structures in a single shot, with a limited blast effect, might actually be better than a wide-effect antipersonnel weapon.

The issue becomes that said weapon will only fire once before it is blown up by the remainder of the squad hiding in their own light cover. Since the area of effect indicates that if that projectile hit a squad of tightly packed infantry most of them would still come out fighting. And that presents some unique problems when faced with infantry that are armed with more than just basic rifles or claws.

Since Reavers are artillery (strange artillery, but they serve the function of artillery quite well under most conditions), I'd say they have that chunk of "combined arms" nailed down.

So did the Napoleonic army. Hell, they had cavalry, infantry and artillery all integrated into a neat little package that worked against their enemies. But the fact remains that when faced with a mobile, mechanized force supported by light and medium walkers, e-webs and artillery they will lose out.

Dragoons are quite effective at both air defense and anti-armor work, too. Air support is... adequate; in gameplay they lack heavy air-to-ground weapons but that strikes me as more gameplay limitation than practical.

What they lack is infantry that can fight from cover, personnel carriers, weapons that can reach into cover and are not mounted on their light vehicle equivalents or worse yet artillery units.

That would definitely hurt them in combat, I don't deny that... but they do cope with enemies that have those, in quantity, in their own universe.

That is because their enemies suck.
We have the Terrans, who's vehicle park consists of a light scout car with a grenade launcher a walker with twin machine guns and a mobile artillery piece. No mechanization, no squad support weapons, no mortars, no missile launchers no nothing.

I mean, how unreasonable would it have been for the marines to whip out a MANPAD to shoot aircraft with rather than their rifles? We see other SC units switch weapons like that so it can't be a gameplay issue. The conclusion must be that the Terrans either can't or more likely simply don't deploy infantry support weapons. That sort of logic is completely fine if you are babysitting the ass end of nowhere. And it is pretty much what you would expect from the conditions in the setting.

On the other hand you have your tyranid equivalents with strangely the most balanced force around. They still don't have any proper heavy artillery or mechanization but at least they get away with it since there are only so many things you can grow.

The Protos are just like Klingons. The fact that they manage so well is not because they are good. It is because they suck marginally less than their counterparts.

[Norade]

Not to mention that against anything remotely fortified the Zealots won't even make combat. Setting up a simple guard tower with retractable ladder and you can sip drinks while killing as many Zealots as you have ammo for. Thing like digging a wide deep trench and standing behind it while pointing and laughing would also work.

To be fair, the Zealots can still get at you, unless your guard tower is set up with clear lines of fire everywhere, cannot be cut down or climbed, and your weapons don't run out of ammo.

Obviously it's not as entirely simple as that, but it does show that a very simple thing causes headaches for the Protoss that it wouldn't for more sensible races.

[Connor MacLeod]

They don't have or need any of the above; they have personal shields. Pretty good ones, by all accounts I'm familiar with.

Protoss and Jedi get their resistance to small arms fire from very different sources, and ones that are vulnerable to different counters (a round of birdshot might be reasonably effective against Jedi who don't get enough precognitive warning to get out of the way, but not all that effective against Protoss Zealots, for instance). But the basic point remains that Zealots are a lot more dangerous than "LOL swords" leads one to believe, given their performance in the game against well-armed opponents who do seem to use reasonably logical tactics.

This isn't like Klingons against redshirts, where the redshirts lose more because of their own mistakes than anything else.

Ok, but now I'm even less sure why you even brought up Jedi to begin with then.

]Connor, what exactly is your point here?

Is your point "I think the Protoss should stop giving their frontline infantry lightsabers and start giving them ray guns?" That's a reasonable thing to say, but is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

Is your point "The Protoss would lose in battle against an opponent who made large-scale use of ranged weapons and artillery, because their frontline infantry use lightsabers?" Because that's not true in the setting- they try it, and they sometimes lose, but sometimes win.

Is your point "The Protoss would lose against someone with Star Wars weapons because their frontline infantry use lightsabers?" That's somewhat more sustainable, I suppose.

My point is "they're that good" isn't really an explanation. It's more a "belief" than anything else. I've dealt with fans of various franchises using that sort of argument ever since my days on SB dealing with Rabid Fivers ("THE FIRST ONES ARE THAT POWERFUL CUZ THEY ARE OLD!") It relies on ascribing vague, unquantified abilities to account for deficiencies, sort of like the "Mysterious unknown mechanism" explanation for the Death STar. It doesn't really explain anything, it just exists because.. it must exist. I also realize you may not be advocating that theory yourself, but just reporting what others say. This isn't directed at you specifically, it's just a comment on why I don't buy that particular approach.

Up until SC2 material started coming out I'd have said that the Protoss method of fighting in the first game (and spinoff mateiral) was largely cultural and a result of them being the Big Kid on the Block for so long (pretty much like the Minbari in B5.) and that in a serious, life threatening situation, they start changing tactics alot more to cope with new circumstances.

Hell I'm still trying to apply that, but with SC2 coming out that becomes alot harder. Zealots still seem to be a primary frontline unit, with no obvious changes to their capabilities, for example. I'm still holding out that this might prove otherwise with subsequent installments, but I'm not terribly optimistic either, and that just makes it much harder to rationalize their behavior (as in "why they still rely on Zealots as their frontline unit").

The capability is there... and yet orks routinely charge into hand to hand with axes preferentially to firing their guns. They manage it, though they die in large numbers.

Depends on your source. I've seen some sources that work exactly like that yes, but it's far from an absolute. Going by the Codexes for Orks alone, even their melee types (the axes or choppas, more precisely) they are given a gun for shooting. Other "squads" (or rather mobs) can be entirely firearm based (shootas, heavy shootas, etc.) They can even have heavy/special weapons (flamethrower, rocket, heavy machine gun, analogues) or even use bolters. Some even have energy weapons (although those are upper tier almost always). Orks also have grenades.

To be fair, their accuracy is generally poor compared to other forces, but the capability exists and is employed. Even inaccurate fire will provide some benefit (even if its just suppressing. ) And given ork numbers and reproduction rates, their use of vehicles for carrying troops as well as tanks, their use of artillery, etc.. it works quite well for them and from their POV (they're aliens after all.)

And yet Space Marines also do this under some conditions- usually when they're relying on the quality of their armor protection to make them effectively immune to the enemy's weapons. It's rarer for them, they do have and use ranged weapons, I know this.

To be blunt, Space Marines are optimized for CQB. They are expected to be able to field any mission that comes to them and are equipped as such, but CQB is pretty much their forte. This hearkens back mainly to ship to ship boarding ops and Space hulk missions, but also reflects their use of air transport (thunderhawks) and drop pods and even teleporters to launch assualts. That said, their weaponry tends to have quite a bti of range (some heavy weapons are multi-km, like lascannon and missile launchers, and even Marine bolt pistols can reach out to 150-300m accurately in a number of sources)

In some situations, yes they do make "human wave" type charges (I remember one case being Nightbringer, which was Ultramarines) but that also fits in with their capabilities as a psychological/terror weapon (one reason they use noisy bolters and chainswords)

But I think it's premature to say "Zealots use melee weapons they must stink" when everything in the Starcraft setting suggests the opposite: that in spite of using only lightsaber-equivalent weapons, they manage to function quite well as the Protoss' front line forces, even against the guys with automatic rifles and artillery and all the other things we normally expect to smash melee troops flat. Guys who use those weapons with some reasonable semblance of competence, as we see all the time in the setting.

I won't dispute that in-universe they stand up quite well to their other adversaries. That however, does not istself provide sufficient reason, since it is relative to the capabilities/competence of the other universes. Zerg are quite melee oriented with many units as well (at least their expendable and lower tier ones) so Individually superior protoss can easily kick their asses. Humans I won't touch on because that's more nebulou sand I don't want to decend into "rednecks hur hur" if I have to (besides that was the Confederation and that my have changed with the Dominion, esp in SC2.)

I'm also quite willing to come up with a plausilbe reason for why Zealots fight the way they do, but it's not going to be easiyl explained without descending into fanboyism or anime-style explanations (NINJA MAJIK!!! or something.)

[Simon_Jester]

They don't have or need any of the above; they have personal shields. Pretty good ones, by all accounts I'm familiar with.

Protoss and Jedi get their resistance to small arms fire from very different sources, and ones that are vulnerable to different counters (a round of birdshot might be reasonably effective against Jedi who don't get enough precognitive warning to get out of the way, but not all that effective against Protoss Zealots, for instance). But the basic point remains that Zealots are a lot more dangerous than "LOL swords" leads one to believe, given their performance in the game against well-armed opponents who do seem to use reasonably logical tactics.

This isn't like Klingons against redshirts, where the redshirts lose more because of their own mistakes than anything else.

Ok, but now I'm even less sure why you even brought up Jedi to begin with then.

I think that in some respects, Protoss zealots might present some of the same kind of problems for Star Wars ground troops that Jedi do. How Zealot psychic abilities (not modeled in game as magic powers, but nominally present among the entire Protoss race to some extent) stack up against the Jedi I can't say, of course, probably quite a bit lower.

But what I'm getting at is that Star Wars has a history of men with rifle-analog energy weapons losing battles to guys with glowing swords before. They don't always lose, but they don't win as easily as some here would imply, with the "they can be stopped by a guard tower with a moat" or some such.

]Connor, what exactly is your point here?

Is your point "I think the Protoss should stop giving their frontline infantry lightsabers and start giving them ray guns?" That's a reasonable thing to say, but is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

Is your point "The Protoss would lose in battle against an opponent who made large-scale use of ranged weapons and artillery, because their frontline infantry use lightsabers?" Because that's not true in the setting- they try it, and they sometimes lose, but sometimes win.

Is your point "The Protoss would lose against someone with Star Wars weapons because their frontline infantry use lightsabers?" That's somewhat more sustainable, I suppose.

My point is "they're that good" isn't really an explanation. It's more a "belief" than anything else. I've dealt with fans of various franchises using that sort of argument ever since my days on SB dealing with Rabid Fivers ("THE FIRST ONES ARE THAT POWERFUL CUZ THEY ARE OLD!") It relies on ascribing vague, unquantified abilities to account for deficiencies, sort of like the "Mysterious unknown mechanism" explanation for the Death STar. It doesn't really explain anything, it just exists because.. it must exist. I also realize you may not be advocating that theory yourself, but just reporting what others say. This isn't directed at you specifically, it's just a comment on why I don't buy that particular approach.

I do understand.

The problem is that based on everything we see in the game, the Protoss are presented as credible opponents in warfare in their own setting. Ignoring that because "lol swords" strikes me as extremely poor debating practice.

In Star Trek, the most popular explanation here for how the guys with swords beat guys with guns is that the guys with guns screw up by the numbers. And there's supporting evidence for that on-screen in Star Trek (for instance)... but there's not a lot of supporting evidence in Starcraft. We see Terrans using things like artillery firebases (see The Ambush from SC1), and fielding a reasonably broad panoply of the weapons we today associate with 'combined arms warfare.' We see the Zerg presented as operating in such enormous numbers that they should be able to swamp anyone who isn't very, very effective at scoring advantageous kill ratios against them.

Somehow, the Protoss manage to go up against this on reasonable terms: they aren't military pushovers.

Up until SC2 material started coming out I'd have said that the Protoss method of fighting in the first game (and spinoff mateiral) was largely cultural and a result of them being the Big Kid on the Block for so long (pretty much like the Minbari in B5.) and that in a serious, life threatening situation, they start changing tactics alot more to cope with new circumstances.

Hell I'm still trying to apply that, but with SC2 coming out that becomes alot harder. Zealots still seem to be a primary frontline unit, with no obvious changes to their capabilities, for example. I'm still holding out that this might prove otherwise with subsequent installments, but I'm not terribly optimistic either, and that just makes it much harder to rationalize their behavior (as in "why they still rely on Zealots as their frontline unit").

It seems so much more logical to me, though, that they rely on Zealots as their frontline unit because it works. Or works better than the alternatives- sure, they could retrain their ground troops to use different weapons, but it would take a considerable amount of time and effort, and based on their racial fluff a lot of those Templar Zealots have been training to fight the way they do for decades.

I know everyone would rather dismiss the guys fighting with swords as stupidly archaic and must-be-ineffective, but I don't think we can do that in Starcraft. It just requires too much rejection of the overall fluff of the way the Protoss are presented.

The capability is there... and yet orks routinely charge into hand to hand with axes preferentially to firing their guns. They manage it, though they die in large numbers.

Depends on your source. I've seen some sources that work exactly like that yes, but it's far from an absolute. Going by the Codexes for Orks alone, even their melee types (the axes or choppas, more precisely) they are given a gun for shooting...

The codexes also note that the average ork is often more effective when hitting enemies over the head with his gun than when firing it at the enemy.

To be sure they have ranged weapons, they have the capability, but the tabletop rewards you for getting them into close combat and almost every time they are portrayed in the fluff, they are portrayed as trying to get into close combat.

But I think it's premature to say "Zealots use melee weapons they must stink" when everything in the Starcraft setting suggests the opposite: that in spite of using only lightsaber-equivalent weapons, they manage to function quite well as the Protoss' front line forces, even against the guys with automatic rifles and artillery and all the other things we normally expect to smash melee troops flat. Guys who use those weapons with some reasonable semblance of competence, as we see all the time in the setting.

I won't dispute that in-universe they stand up quite well to their other adversaries. That however, does not istself provide sufficient reason, since it is relative to the capabilities/competence of the other universes. Zerg are quite melee oriented with many units as well (at least their expendable and lower tier ones) so Individually superior protoss can easily kick their asses. Humans I won't touch on because that's more nebulou sand I don't want to decend into "rednecks hur hur" if I have to (besides that was the Confederation and that my have changed with the Dominion, esp in SC2.)

I'm also quite willing to come up with a plausilbe reason for why Zealots fight the way they do, but it's not going to be easiyl explained without descending into fanboyism or anime-style explanations (NINJA MAJIK!!! or something.)

I'd say it's mostly a combination of:

-Personal shielding, good enough that it takes a lot of fire from small arms to bring them down on an individual basis. Gameplay supports this interpretation; I'm not so sure about cutscenes though, since it's hard to get a sense for exactly how much shielding a Protoss unit has left in a cutscene. And that's not ninja majik; the Protoss are specifically presented as having excellent shield technology, to the point where it is one of the main things that makes their combat forces effective- widespread use of teleportation being the other big one.

-Cybernetics, which tends to make individual Protoss both more durable and physically higher-performing. In gameplay Zealots are made far more effective with the addition of "leg enhancements;" explicitly presented as cybernetic enhancements that greatly increase their running speed, which would tend to allow them to close the distance in the open field more easily.

-Power armor, which heterodynes with the two advantages above; power armor is something of a 'baseline' for the performance of soldiers in both Terran and Protoss forces, and we see very few combat units that don't have it or something equivalent to it.

I don't feel any of those factors are fanboyism, really. The Protoss, who are long presented as being very technologically advanced, are good enough at making all those items that they can use them to become reasonably effective fighting as Zealots do.

[Connor MacLeod]

One question that does pop into my head: Just how "commonplace" can we take certain depictions of Protoss? In this case I'm remembering one trailer bit from the SC2 stuff where we see a horde of Protoss zealots running across an open field towards teh enemy. But there's also "Shadows of the Xel'Naga" - should we treat that as an exception, or as a rule?

It also occurs to me that as I noted before, we have to take into account how "quickly" Protoss adapt. It could be some factions/segments of their forces adapt quicker than others, or that they're still trying to put together a plan to fight back. I mean, their tech at least offers some POTENTIAL of making even the melee-oriented Zealots work, so its more a matter of how likely it is they would do that.

Although personally I'd have preferred it if the Protoss were more mechanzied than they are depicted ingame. That was why they were supposed to have the robotics after all. I'd have loved to see mechanical infantry units. I'm sure they have them.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think that in some respects, Protoss zealots might present some of the same kind of problems for Star Wars ground troops that Jedi do. How Zealot psychic abilities (not modeled in game as magic powers, but nominally present among the entire Protoss race to some extent) stack up against the Jedi I can't say, of course, probably quite a bit lower.

I guess that depends on whether Protoss shielding requires concentration to maintain or remains active regardless. Alot of the mechanisms a Jedi uses to "protect" him/her/it self from attacks are "active" measures - meaning there's always a chance of slipping through without wearing them down, or catching them unawares, or whatnot.

But what I'm getting at is that Star Wars has a history of men with rifle-analog energy weapons losing battles to guys with glowing swords before. They don't always lose, but they don't win as easily as some here would imply, with the "they can be stopped by a guard tower with a moat" or some such.

Er wait. When have we seen massive armies of Jedi attacking riflemen before? We've seen Jedi leading armies, and jedi fighting small groups perhaps, but that's it. And this is wholly in-universe - I'm willing to admit SW competence in many of those showings is less than stellar.

I do understand.

The problem is that based on everything we see in the game, the Protoss are presented as credible opponents in warfare in their own setting. Ignoring that because "lol swords" strikes me as extremely poor debating practice.

In Star Trek, the most popular explanation here for how the guys with swords beat guys with guns is that the guys with guns screw up by the numbers. And there's supporting evidence for that on-screen in Star Trek (for instance)... but there's not a lot of supporting evidence in Starcraft. We see Terrans using things like artillery firebases (see The Ambush from SC1), and fielding a reasonably broad panoply of the weapons we today associate with 'combined arms warfare.' We see the Zerg presented as operating in such enormous numbers that they should be able to swamp anyone who isn't very, very effective at scoring advantageous kill ratios against them.

Somehow, the Protoss manage to go up against this on reasonable terms: they aren't military pushovers.

Well as I said, I don't doubt they're competent within the context of their own uiverse, but that simply begs the question of how the others match up. That's alwyas the problem with "X beats Y, so therefore Y must beat Z" arguments - it invariably assumes X = Z, which may or may not be true.

It seems so much more logical to me, though, that they rely on Zealots as their frontline unit because it works. Or works better than the alternatives- sure, they could retrain their ground troops to use different weapons, but it would take a considerable amount of time and effort, and based on their racial fluff a lot of those Templar Zealots have been training to fight the way they do for decades.

They have shielding, and can presumably move pretty fast. And I assume their powered suits give some measure of protection. That helps somewhat, but in a general, prolonged warfare situation, it's just asking for trouble. They have transport and teleportation, which MIGHT overcome that. It would have made much more sense if they still had the personal teleporters, honestly. They have mechanized units. I would assume they make use of those more (perhaps with the Zealots acting as officers or lead units. Or at the very least, deploying from vehicles, althouth ghat can have it's own dangers.)

I know everyone would rather dismiss the guys fighting with swords as stupidly archaic and must-be-ineffective, but I don't think we can do that in Starcraft. It just requires too much rejection of the overall fluff of the way the Protoss are presented.

Hey I deal with 40K, Ih ave to come up with reasons WHY melee still makes sense. I'm not averse to making sense of the Protoss idea, but I don't think you can just do it in any old manner, or acsribe "general badassery" as an explanation. Space Marines are "badass" too, yet they can get taken down by a guy with a sniper rifle from long range quite easily. How they use it matters, but how it is used also has to be sufficiently explained.

The codexes also note that the average ork is often more effective when hitting enemies over the head with his gun than when firing it at the enemy.

They're generally more accurate with melee weapons than with ranged weapons, as I noted, their accuracy is poor.

To be sure they have ranged weapons, they have the capability, but the tabletop rewards you for getting them into close combat and almost every time they are portrayed in the fluff, they are portrayed as trying to get into close combat.

I tend to avoid ingame stuff if I can (which I can't always, sadly) but alot of it depends on how an Ork player structures their army. Orks tend to be quite flexible despite how they get portrayed in fluff.

In any event, as I said, it depends on various factors, but even if they suck t accuracy and need to get closer to be effective, the fact they still HAVE guns and ranged capability benefits that (EG suppressive fire, although the Orks tpyically don't think of it in those terms.) There's also their tendency to use very high speed vehicles to transport troops around (buggies, trakks, and wagons and the like, many of which also have guns.)

I'd say it's mostly a combination of:

-Personal shielding, good enough that it takes a lot of fire from small arms to bring them down on an individual basis. Gameplay supports this interpretation; I'm not so sure about cutscenes though, since it's hard to get a sense for exactly how much shielding a Protoss unit has left in a cutscene. And that's not ninja majik; the Protoss are specifically presented as having excellent shield technology, to the point where it is one of the main things that makes their combat forces effective- widespread use of teleportation being the other big one.

-Cybernetics, which tends to make individual Protoss both more durable and physically higher-performing. In gameplay Zealots are made far more effective with the addition of "leg enhancements;" explicitly presented as cybernetic enhancements that greatly increase their running speed, which would tend to allow them to close the distance in the open field more easily.

-Power armor, which heterodynes with the two advantages above; power armor is something of a 'baseline' for the performance of soldiers in both Terran and Protoss forces, and we see very few combat units that don't have it or something equivalent to it.

I don't feel any of those factors are fanboyism, really. The Protoss, who are long presented as being very technologically advanced, are good enough at making all those items that they can use them to become reasonably effective fighting as Zealots do.

Those alone aren't, and yes they do help, but I'm not convinced that alone fixes everything. Shielding, for example, is unlikely to make zealots completely immune to force or momentum. How would they fare against anti tank rockets/RPGs, mortars, or other more man portable hardware an enemy might employ? Or anti-tank grenades (40K at least has some of those in krak grenades) or even HMG/autocannon analogues (HMG maybe can be explained by gauss weapons, depending on your calcs, but that's debatable and it doesn't neccesarily cover "cannon") I guess it comes down to a matter of flexibility in equipment and armament and capability (which isn't something the Zealot really has.)

[Simon_Jester]

But what I'm getting at is that Star Wars has a history of men with rifle-analog energy weapons losing battles to guys with glowing swords before. They don't always lose, but they don't win as easily as some here would imply, with the "they can be stopped by a guard tower with a moat" or some such.

Er wait. When have we seen massive armies of Jedi attacking riflemen before? We've seen Jedi leading armies, and jedi fighting small groups perhaps, but that's it. And this is wholly in-universe - I'm willing to admit SW competence in many of those showings is less than stellar.

Episode II comes to mind; massed Jedi at the arena on Geonosis. And yes, they were losing until the air support showed up, but it took quite a lot of opposition, and the bringing-up of heavy support weapons, to put them in that position.

Certainly, Jedi are far more effective against a line of men with blasters than, say, a bunch of random idiots waving perfectly normal swords would be.
________

Well as I said, I don't doubt they're competent within the context of their own uiverse, but that simply begs the question of how the others match up. That's alwyas the problem with "X beats Y, so therefore Y must beat Z" arguments - it invariably assumes X = Z, which may or may not be true.

True, true. What I mean is that we should be concentrating more on that, and less on "lol swords." A lot of people here seem to be stuck at the "lol swords" level of analysis, and I have very little respect for that.

I know everyone would rather dismiss the guys fighting with swords as stupidly archaic and must-be-ineffective, but I don't think we can do that in Starcraft. It just requires too much rejection of the overall fluff of the way the Protoss are presented.

Hey I deal with 40K, Ih ave to come up with reasons WHY melee still makes sense. I'm not averse to making sense of the Protoss idea, but I don't think you can just do it in any old manner, or acsribe "general badassery" as an explanation. Space Marines are "badass" too, yet they can get taken down by a guy with a sniper rifle from long range quite easily. How they use it matters, but how it is used also has to be sufficiently explained.

I try to avoid invoking "general badassery," and try to be as specific as I can.

I really think that their extensive use of heavy personal shielding is key to understanding Protoss warfare. The idea that they really can make their foot soldiers dangerous enough that even in an SF setting they require antitank weapons or extreme concentrations of firepower to kill, combined with other traits we know the Protoss possess, is very important to bear in mind.

Those alone aren't, and yes they do help, but I'm not convinced that alone fixes everything. Shielding, for example, is unlikely to make zealots completely immune to force or momentum. How would they fare against anti tank rockets/RPGs, mortars, or other more man portable hardware an enemy might employ?

Poorly, but many of these weapons are not normally carried in large quantity. Or, by nature, cannot be used very effectively against fast-moving targets that can make use of concealment (like Zealots). If every individual man in the enemy army has to be taken down with a direct hit from an antitank weapon*, you are going to be in for a very long fight, and probably one where the casualty rates will be quite lopsided. Sure, dropping a mortar bomb on his head or firing an RPG into his shields has a good chance of bringing him down, but in a realistic combat scenario, how often is that likely to be practical?

*(or worse yet, multiple hits if it takes one to knock down the shields and then another to kill the power-armored guy inside)

[Purple]

The problem with your angle SJ is that you approach the whole situation from the wrong point of view.
When you say:

The idea that they really can make their foot soldiers dangerous enough that even in an SF setting they require antitank weapons or extreme concentrations of firepower to kill, combined with other traits we know the Protoss possess, is very important to bear in mind.

What you are saying is that the Protos are so badas that they manage to hold their own in spite of their self imposed technological stupidity. Meanwhile, I say that even if this is the case that still makes them idiots who won't use guns. Objectively speaking a Terran marine hiding behind a rock and shooting his gun on the side poses a greater threat to a generic enemy than a Protos running at him with blades.

All the evidence you presented so far indicates that they somehow manage to hold their own against other ill equipped and at times mele oriented forces. And I don't dispute that. But what I do dispute is that this automatically means they could do the same against an organized force like the Imperial Army or even a modern day one.

[ThrawnyOne]

By logistics, it is clear that the Imps have a huge advantage. They have incredible power supply and building abilities, which simply cannot be matched by the Protoss.

In space, the Imps also have the cards. Their shielding and weaponry are far superior to those of the Protoss, with one ISD doing the job of an entire Protoss Fleet.

What's left are ground forces.

Imperial Stormtroopers, although Elite, they are numerous. If need be, they can be grown in a day.Their E-11s, when used in squads, should be enough to take down the basic Zealot shielding in no time. One thermal detonator would take out an entire horde. One E-web station, as long as it has power, could stand its own against Zealots as well.

Protoss Zealots would logically be one-hit-killers, with their swords. Their armor is enough to tackle Terrans, but not Imps, whom are highly superior.

[NecronLord]

Close to necromancy, but I'll allow it.

[Batman]

Err-since when can Stormtroopers be grown in a day? It took 10 years in the movies and even Thrawn's ysalamiri-aided advanced cloning process needed two weeks to put out a fully grown clone.

[avatarxprime]

Err-since when can Stormtroopers be grown in a day? It took 10 years in the movies and even Thrawn's ysalamiri-aided advanced cloning process needed two weeks to put out a fully grown clone.

There's also the fact that the Stormies aren't even clones anymore so I don't think faulting ThrawnyOne on the timeframe involved is all that central an issue.

Also since the thread is kinda-sorta back I just thought I'd post my thoughts on the "The Protoss are stupid and don't even know how to use their own tech" argument:

The Protoss are obviously stupid, between warp resource harvesting technology (as shown by the auto-refinery), autonomous robotics (so many examples), and miniaturized mobile factories (the Reaver) the Protoss could easily go von Neumann on the Korpulu sector and show the Zerg what a real swarm looks like. There is also the issue of the observer's permanent cloak that for whatever reason is not equipped on say, every Protoss military unit that can fit it, but that would ruin game balance so it will never happen.

[Panzersharkcat]

By logistics, it is clear that the Imps have a huge advantage. They have incredible power supply and building abilities, which simply cannot be matched by the Protoss.

Understatement in understated. The Protoss have maybe a few dozen planets, the most heavily developed of which was Aiur, and that fell to the Zerg. Even if we're assuming the Protoss at their peak, they get squished before the might of the Empire. The last post here in a long thread ranking sci-fi powers. The Protoss and the Zerg are ranked below even the Federation. I raise an eyebrow at that but other than gut feeling, I don't have an actual argument.

One thermal detonator would take out an entire horde.

I find that hard to believe. Proof, please?

[Sela]

@ThrawnyOne:

You need to pay more attention to a few rules of the board. Next time you post in an old topic please be sure to read enough to at least get the gist of it. Notable posts you missed:

p1 - THIRD post!:

"He's right, though, at least from what we can discern from Starcraft's rather limited opportunities to quantify Protoss abilities. The Protoss are few in numbers and forces, overly centralized around a single planet, and not particularly powerful compared to an Empire that can wield the resources of a galaxy and millions of worlds." -Guardsman Bass

p1- 6th post: "How about the Protoss vs a single Imperial sector?" -Srelex.
So already we are no longer discussing the idea that we pit a small interplanetary civilization against a galactic one.

p3 -Top: "@All: If we take the question of scale out of the picture, say that a smaller patrol force of the Galactic Empire accidentally is hurled bizzarely far away and thus unable to clal for backup or return to their homeworld. Unbeknowenst to them, they have 'violated sacred Taldarim space' across 8-12 worlds or so and have an 8-12 planet battle to fight against this Protoss sect. So rather than being so vastly outnumbered as to make any actual combat-comparison moot, we leave the Protoss side at being "somewhat" outnumbered on the order of 2:1 or 3:1. *now* who wins? If it makes a difference, we can give each side time to prepare by [insert technobabble here]" -Sela.



The discussion yet again is turned to an EVEN SMALLER scope! The issues and point you're trying to make have already been discussed, are relatively obvious, and have been stated more eloquently and with more backing evidence than you gave. It's your first post on this board, and this is a very . .. different . . .sort of bbs than what you're probably used to.