Mothership Update

Has the Viking still a Ground-to-Air-attack? I thought that this was removed.
Being forced to switch between the two different assault-modes to deal with whatever target they need to deal with rather restricts them, while the Thor is also capable of attacking air-units with strong attacks.
The Thor even needs an Armory, just like the Goliath did in StarCraft 1.

I hope that the next battle reports show some useful stuff with the vikings. So far, whenever somebody plays terran, they concentrate on Thors and Marines for fending off air-units, if the oppossing player even bothers producing them.

The only real advantage the Viking has compared to the Thor is that it doesn't need the Armory and a Tech-Lab at the Star-Port. The Nuclear reactor might level out the disadvantage of the Viking compared to the Thor.

And of course, all this above might still change.

Quote:

---

Has the Viking still a Ground-to-Air-attack? I thought that this was removed.

---

You can't remove something that never existed.

Quote:

---

The only real advantage the Viking has compared to the Thor is that it doesn't need the Armory and a Tech-Lab at the Star-Port.

---

Really? The firing rate, the fact that the Viking can fly, the relative inexpense, the bonus damage vs. massive. None of those are "real advantages".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

Too many people still think the thor is a goliath? The thor page isn't the only thing about the thor that's out of date!

---

The Thor is like a grounded battlecruiser with an attack like a siege tank in tank mode. BC's are already units with huge HP pools. If you want a meat shield, Defense Matrix. Want a long-range siege ability? Yamato Cannon. Need anti-air support? Plasma Torpedoes. Terrans never needed a ground meat shield, removing this role from the game changes little.

If you remove the Thor, all you're really missing is the Thor's role as a ground AA unit, something previously filled by the Goliath.

I personally like the Thor, why do people want it removed?

Personally I don't mind the Thor, but I preferred when it was the badass uber unit it started out as. Right now it's overlapping with many roles other units already fill, it doesn't bring anything new to the table that the Terrans need.

Not having an uber meatshield unit like the Archon and Ultralisk was one of the most unique things about Terrans. If they add a bigass unit like the Thor, I half expect it to have some unique trait like being able to attack multiple targets. It doesn't really add anything to the table that other units don't have covered.

Quote:

---

Terrans never needed a ground meat shield, removing this role from the game changes little.

---

That's because Terrans had Siege Tanks to rely on. They were cheap and killed pretty much everything on the ground. They also dominated 2/3rds of the Terran matchups. This led to a single kind of playstyle: build STs and push.

When you're developing a sequel, you have to look beyond merely what happened to work out well in the original. You have to make the scope more interesting. Without Thors, they'd have to transform the ST back into its old form. At which point, you've basically reverted Terran gameplay to SC1.

Thors give Terrans mobility. A mobile force, one that isn't based on killing everything before it can shoot back, needs units that can actually take some hits. Dangerous units that you must destroy and do so quickly, lest you be crushed by them. Units that can take up room and channel your enemy along a particular direction. And so forth.

Quote:

---

Not having an uber meatshield unit like the Archon and Ultralisk was one of the most unique things about Terrans.

---

Which led to the insufferable playstyle that SC1 Terran play devolved to. I'd sooner see the Siege Tank removed than to see the Thor gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

You can't remove something that never existed.

---

According to the StarCraft-wikia, it did have this ability, but that was later removed.

Quote:

---

Really? The firing rate, the fact that the Viking can fly, the relative inexpense, the bonus damage vs. massive. None of those are "real advantages".

---

The Anti-Air-firing-rate of the Thor is almost equal, and the anti-air-damage of the Thor is also similar (10x4, +4 damage against light each shot), whereas the Viking does (10x2, +10 damage against massive each shot).
Now, it depends if mutalisks can still pose a danger to air-units, as without devourers and scourges, the zerg air-forces seem to be weaker, so the anti-light weaponry of the Thor might not be that useful.

Also, because the Thor can't fly, it can't be exposed to anti-air-attacks, which in StarCraft 2 got buffed up. And it does have a longer anti-air-range than the Viking does in flyer-mode.
Cost-wise, the Thor does seem to beat 3-4 Vikings on the ground.

Of course, I want to stress the fact that my knowledge comes from http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_Wiki, so what I say is possibly inaccurate, and based on false data.

Personaly, I don't see the use of a ground-based terran battlecruiser, if you can have the real deal (now in three different flavors), and I prefer the Wraith compared to the Viking, increased damage nonetheless (which also can be modified anyway). However, I didn't use Wraiths, paradoxically, as marines, battlecruisers and goliaths were better in anti-air, and its ground-attack was practically useless anyway. But it didn't have to transform into a ground-walker-mode.
I fear this might be the same for the Viking, where its anti-air and anti-ground abilities get over-shadowed by other units.

I really wish that there is a battle-report in the near future that shows the advantage of the Vikings compared to the Thor in actual game-use.

...question pertaining to the original topic

Can all 6 laser batteries fire at one time? From the video it seems only 2 at a time, but at the same time...is it possible that each weapon has an limited angle range in which it can fire? I don't really know how best to describe what I mean...the weapon platform firing the laser may have a limited field (like line of sight) in which it could fire. The mothership does rotate rather quickly

Quote:

---

According to the StarCraft-wikia, it did have this ability, but that was later removed.

---

Twelve days later. It was a mechanics fart: unpleasant but over quickly.

Quote:

---

The Anti-Air-firing-rate of the Thor is almost equal, and the anti-air-damage of the Thor is also similar (10x4, +4 damage against light each shot), whereas the Viking does (10x2, +10 damage against massive each shot).

---

... What? How is 10x4 + 4 vs. Light AoE "similar" to 10x2 + 10 vs. Massive? The only things similar are that they are multi-attacks with a base value of 10, which is coincidence at best.

The Thor is clearly better against light armored units, particularly those that cluster together (hence the AoE). Vikings are better, cost for cost, against massive units and single-targets.

And no, they don't fire at about the same rate. Vikings are notably faster on the attack.

Quote:

---

Cost-wise, the Thor does seem to beat 3-4 Vikings on the ground.

---

Against what? Even if we assume they fire at the same speed, 2 Vikings cost slightly less than a Thor. Two Vikings deliver equal firepower to a single target as a Thor. And they fly, thus they can chase targets down. Against massive targets (Viking specialty), one Viking can keep pace with a Thor's damage.

And while a Thor isn't susceptible to AtA, Vikings aren't susceptible to AtG. So Banshees and Brood Lords are mere prey for the Viking, whereas either unit is a major pain for Thors.

Yes, if you get clusters of the Thor's preferred targets together, the Thor is better. But it should be better. Vikings and Thors handle different situations.

Quote:

---

Personaly, I don't see the use of a ground-based terran battlecruiser

---

People keep trying to call the Thor a "something else." It's a modified Siege Tank or a big Goliath or a walking Battlecruiser or some other nonsense. The fact is that it's none of these. It's a Thor. It has its own designation, and its own unique nature. It is not a slightly modified version of any other Terran unit.

Quote:

---

Can all 6 laser batteries fire at one time? From the video it seems only 2 at a time, but at the same time...is it possible that each weapon has an limited angle range in which it can fire? I don't really know how best to describe what I mean...the weapon platform firing the laser may have a limited field (like line of sight) in which it could fire. The mothership does rotate rather quickly

---

What good would that be? The Mothership doesn't rotate that quickly. And in order for it to be used as you suggest, it would have to be surrounded. Which is probably not the place you want your expensive and unique Mothership to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jconant

...question pertaining to the original topic

Can all 6 laser batteries fire at one time? From the video it seems only 2 at a time, but at the same time...is it possible that each weapon has an limited angle range in which it can fire? I don't really know how best to describe what I mean...the weapon platform firing the laser may have a limited field (like line of sight) in which it could fire. The mothership does rotate rather quickly

---

I think that's just a graphical thing.

It would be pretty cool though if each battery could operate independently.