The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
Don't know much about how things work right now, but it seems expanding isn't such a good idea until you see that you have at least some degree of advantage against your opponent. In which case, you can actually kill them instead of expanding.
What I feel contributing to this effect are:
1. Economy booms faster in a single base.
2. Income is faster.
3. Unit Production is in mass.
4. Expansions take too much time to set up.
5. It's not worth it to save resources by sacrificing production structures.
Why I see these things factor into making expansions not worthwhile, or a thing that gives advantage but rather a disadvantage is:
1. The income from a single base can support production of mass amounts of units.
2. Fast/Massive production capabilities which you can set up, and almost have to set up, coupled with the intense income rate will cost you much having 400 or 300 less worth of units when the opponent builds on his forces over a small duration of time.
3. The expected returns you gain from at least a 10% working expansion takes too much time, where the expenses, when spent on military units can win you the game.
An opponent that does not expand will overrun a player who expands and spends to setup that expansion. And the only safe time to expand is when you are:
1. Superior in unit composition.
2. Enough resources have been taken from the main so that no other units can be trained enough to overrun yours.
It's different with Zerg, since you always will need that second hatchery for larva production. It's like having your number of gateways, or the such. And you can see how weak it makes a Zerg player who builds up his natural when you strike at 7:00, fall back to regroup with your newly produced units, and do serious damage at 8:00, then walk over them at 8:30.
Thoughts? And if it's a real issue, how can it be fixed?
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
With the Zerg production system, you can saturate bases with workers really fast. However, that wouldn't be in your best interest if your opponent is about to attack you. It just comes down to scouting to determine whether or not you should dedicate your resources to powering economy, or getting an army. If a Zerg sees the enemy preparing for an early attack, it's very rare that the Zerg's economy will actually be ahead, even with a second base. But once the Zerg's base is no longer in imminent danger, they can quickly bring that expansion fully online :].
As for the other races, you definitely need expansions and they aren't too difficult to take. The defender has an inherent advantage because of the shorter travel route from their production facilities to the front line. Oftentimes, there'll be periods where neither player can comfortably make an attack, and that's a good time to expand.
Also, even if you are slightly ahead of an opponent, you'll want to expand when you attack. Due to the advantage a defender has, even if you have a superior army, you may not be able to finish off your opponent in a single attack. To ensure that you stay ahead, you'll want to secure an economic advantage.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
I think that weak static defenses also play a part in this dilemma. You almost always have to have an army comparable to your opponents to stay alive. You can't invest in meaningful strategically placed static defenses to help protect earlier expansions. The lack of a high ground advantage is also a big factor. This means your army HAS to be as big at your opponents at all times.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
I agree with that Operatoring, and I would promote increased range for defensive structures if not increased damage and/or durability.
Grunt, what you say is regarding playing with false judgments and taking advantage of it, right. And from that advantage sneak in an expansion. It does work, and yes expos are something one must slowly invest upon, unlike zerg where it's a burst thing, but the fact remains that getting an expo is a risky move, that may cost you the game should you invest on it while things are tight and heated.
It's not something you do to gain an advantage, but a risk hoping for an advantage.
And I don't really see the defender's advantage thing. I mean, say for example if Toss spends 150 + 600 on 4 photon canons to gain advantage + 400 + 100 per double pump probes, you're dead meat when your opponent sees that. He can react quickly to what you're doing with the mass-production in place and the support that gets from his one-basing.
Not quite sure, but it feels this is how things work. Twilight Fortress excluded.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
You see this because most naturals in the current map pool have wide chokes.
I think a big part of base defense is disrupting the path of an attacker. That is why supply depots and force fields coupled with a tight choke are effective. Right now, closing or tightening a choke is more important in the game vs setting up static defenses.
Units are balanced around the fact that the game has great pathing. If you restrict unit movement when defending, you gain an advantage. Problem is, we cant do this much on expansions.
If naturals had the same size choke as a main, then the situation would be the inverse of the OP.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
Whatever happened to getting an expo to GET the advantage?!!?
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GnaReffotsirk
Don't know much about how things work right now, but it seems expanding isn't such a good idea until you see that you have at least some degree of advantage against your opponent. In which case, you can actually kill them instead of expanding.
What I feel contributing to this effect are:
1. Economy booms faster in a single base.
2. Income is faster.
3. Unit Production is in mass.
4. Expansions take too much time to set up.
5. It's not worth it to save resources by sacrificing production structures.
Why I see these things factor into making expansions not worthwhile, or a thing that gives advantage but rather a disadvantage is:
1. The income from a single base can support production of mass amounts of units.
2. Fast/Massive production capabilities which you can set up, and almost have to set up, coupled with the intense income rate will cost you much having 400 or 300 less worth of units when the opponent builds on his forces over a small duration of time.
3. The expected returns you gain from at least a 10% working expansion takes too much time, where the expenses, when spent on military units can win you the game.
An opponent that does not expand will overrun a player who expands and spends to setup that expansion. And the only safe time to expand is when you are:
1. Superior in unit composition.
2. Enough resources have been taken from the main so that no other units can be trained enough to overrun yours.
It's different with Zerg, since you always will need that second hatchery for larva production. It's like having your number of gateways, or the such. And you can see how weak it makes a Zerg player who builds up his natural when you strike at 7:00, fall back to regroup with your newly produced units, and do serious damage at 8:00, then walk over them at 8:30.
Thoughts? And if it's a real issue, how can it be fixed?
I completely disagree with almost everything here. Yes, if you expand at the wrong time you will get beaten, but there are tons of times in which it is "safe" to expand but you dont really have the army capable of beating him (a key example: a turtling terran). Then there are times when the opponent is somewhat passive and he mistakenly "lets" you expand, which then gives you a huge advantage.
Sometimes you get a key unit/upgrade that is vital for holding the expansion, sometimes the opponent does something that lets you expand, sometimes you push out to expand, and many other things. Making it easier to expand just gives everybody a free extra source of income, which is not right at all.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
IME, since zerg are gas-heavy, I've often been "starved" of gas by enemies denying me expansions (usually by attacking my new ones right away, often through constant use of ComSat Sweep).
But IMO the game would be more fun if expansions could be set up more easily.
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
Rabid,
So, when do you think is that time where you cannot spend enough on units which yields resources you can use to expand? Moments before this is the right timing to sacrifice unit production so the expansion is laid down, while the enemy takes his time moving towards your base, and where you can meet him then with the sacrificed unit produced.
I haven't met this at all unless one is supply blocked or had not been constantly keeping everything up and running.
Maybe it's towards when base resources are at 600ave per mineral patch?
My point is that Expanding isn't a natural thing currently. There's no space for it, and sacrificing for it puts one at risk, and the yield of taking that risk will have to cost one much forces, which the other player can produce quickly. Hence, sacrificing a bit to expand is a fools errand unless you are ahead.
And when you are ahead, why spend it on expanding when you can spend them non-stop on units and stomp the enemy?
Re: The Danger of Expanding, and how to fix it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GnaReffotsirk
Rabid,
So, when do you think is that time where you cannot spend enough on units which yields resources you can use to expand? Moments before this is the right timing to sacrifice unit production so the expansion is laid down, while the enemy takes his time moving towards your base, and where you can meet him then with the sacrificed unit produced.
I haven't met this at all unless one is supply blocked or had not been constantly keeping everything up and running.
Maybe the opponent techs, he fails a drop, he loses key units, he himself expands but you cant attack because you dont have the right unit composition yet, tons of times that are too numerable to state is when you can afford to expand. Its true that they arent immediately profitable, but they do quickly become profitable. Why do you think high end players can toss down an extra 3 gateways shortly after they get the expansions up?
Quote:
Maybe it's towards when base resources are at 600ave per mineral patch?
My point is that Expanding isn't a natural thing currently. There's no space for it, and sacrificing for it puts one at risk, and the yield of taking that risk will have to cost one much forces, which the other player can produce quickly. Hence, sacrificing a bit to expand is a fools errand unless you are ahead.
If there is no risk you may as well remove the expansion feature from the game as there would be no point if it was always safe to expand. It should NEVER feel "natural" to expand on a whim. Expanding has always been a key macro orientation in which the player must actively make a decision. He needs to ask himself, "if I expand, can I hold it? Will I be able to take use of it? Would I be better off trying to beat him with 1 base? What will he do if I expand? What if I take an island expansion instead? A high yield?" etc etc.
Quote:
And when you are ahead, why spend it on expanding when you can spend them non-stop on units and stomp the enemy?
Probably because there are a LOT of situations in which it is not viable to attack but it is viable to expand. If your opponent has a narrow choke and high ground advantage, siege units, a wall, base defense with units backing it up, "home field" advantage, and more. Keep in mind that there is travel time, so if you are ahead by 7 units early on, by the time you reach his base you might not be ahead at all, you may even be BEHIND.
