[Assumption] First Shot Of The Brood Lord

[Aldrius]

Actually Valkyrie->Viking, Wraith->Banshee...

Not... really...

In terms of it's stats, the Viking is something of a mix between the Goliath and the Wraith. While the Banshee is just... a completely new unit entirely.

[pure.Wasted]

It also effectively describes the two ships that had "capital" status from SC1: things that if you get enough of them, can take care of themselves. Mass BCs is really hard to stop, and mass Carriers is hard to stop.

Mass Brood Lords will never be hard to stop. Nobody will ever GG to pure mass Brood Lords.

And would any IRL army ever GG to pure mass naval forces, which are the very definition of capital ships? No. Then your interpretation of capital ship means squat.

That both the BC and the Carrier could attack air and ground and qualified as capital ships is coincidence. Judging SC2 units by a standard set through coincidence will lead to bizarrely incorrect conclusions, as evidenced by the ones you have drawn here.

Once again, I repeat that that version of the Mothership would not fall under your definition of 'capital ship' despite the fact that it would be the "most important" ship with the "heaviest firepower and armor." Your classifications would prevent the most capital ship-esque capital ship in the game... from being classified as a capital ship. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.

[Nicol Bolas]

Gameplay wise, the Brood Lord has no relationship to the gameplay functionality of the BattleCruiser or the Carrier. The point of having general classes of units is to discuss how they could be used; all units in the same general class should be able to generally do the same things. If BLs can't be used in the same way as BCs or Carriers, then classifying them in that same category is necessarily wrong, regardless of what the military definition of how many definitions of the word "capital ship" is.

However, let's say that your definition of "capital ships" is correct. I contest that the Zerg not having this definition of "capital ships" was a Zerg racial trait at all.

What makes the Zerg interesting is that they really rely on a mix of units to be effective. They have generalists and specialists; this is an outgrowth of their unit production mechanism and tech tree. Because of that, their army is generally built around 1-2 units that have 1-3 additional helper units to make them more effective.

Thus the Zerg racial trait wasn't not having a high Hp flying unit, but instead it was that they didn't have a single high Hp flying unit that they could build lots of and win. No matter how many Hp you give the Brood Lord, it will never be anything more than a flying Siege Tank. It will always have explicit and hard counters, just like any good support unit. Sending Brood Lords into a battle alone is the best way to watch them die, whereas sending BCs and Carriers in alone is perfectly reasonable if you build enough of them.

Brood Lords have nothing gameplay-wise in common with BCs and Carriers.

[MattII]

Actually Valkyrie->Viking, Wraith->Banshee...

Since when did the Banshee get AtA, and the Viking splash-damage?

[pure.Wasted]

Gameplay wise, the Brood Lord has no relationship to the gameplay functionality of the BattleCruiser or the Carrier. The point of having general classes of units is to discuss how they could be used; all units in the same general class should be able to generally do the same things. If BLs can't be used in the same way as BCs or Carriers, then classifying them in that same category is necessarily wrong, regardless of what the military definition of how many definitions of the word "capital ship" is.

How about "giant siege airship that's meant to devastate enemy bases from afar"? Seems like he fits right in with the Battlecruiser and Carrier of yore, although less with the BC of SC2, and more with the Carrier of SC2 (increased range).

If that's not similarity enough, then I'm not sure what sort of huge similarities you're seeing between the Battlecruiser and Carrier. For simplicity's sake (since both were considered capitals back then, too) let's compare them in their SC1 forms:

Battlecruiser, especially with Yamato, is a lot more powerful vs. single targets and armored foes... whereas Carrier is a lot stronger against masses of biological units that have little armor. In one on one, the BC always wins, no contest.

So there are huge differences between the two capital ships we already have. The only things they have in common is relative tech position, cost, hefty HP/armor, potential for devastation, and ability to attack ground and air... but the last is clearly coincidental, not a mandatory guideline. And the Brood Lord fits along with the Carrier and Battlecruiser on all other counts no problem.

However, let's say that your definition of "capital ships" is correct. I contest that the Zerg not having this definition of "capital ships" was a Zerg racial trait at all.

The funny thing is, I don't even care about the capital ship business. It's something I heard about on the forums that other people didn't like, and it made sense to me, so I threw it in there for good measure.

For me personally it's that Blizzard fixed something that wasn't broken in such a hideous, hideous fashion that's unlikable. A lot of the cooler new units have been brought down to be more in line with their SC1 counterparts, Mothership = Arbiter, Infestor = Defiler, Phoenix = Scout/Corsair, Ghost = less massable than before, Nydus Worm = Nydus Canal... and it's really disappointing to see. And then on top of it all Blizz takes a unit that we all knew was almost a SC1>SC2 copy/paste job but were fine with and tries to sell it off as something completely new? Maybe it would have been fine when the game was just announced, but after so many disappointing throwbacks to the original game, it's a little too much.

To be fair, I seriously doubt they did this on purpose, ie. someone said, "Let's fool everybody into thinking this is a new unit by naming it something different!" But it's the unintentional straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.

Brood Lords have nothing gameplay-wise in common with BCs and Carriers.

I already addressed this above, but specifically the "GG-inducing" factor of BCs and Carriers... Brood Lords can attack ground, and that's the most important part. In fact, attacking ground they pack probably the most heavy punch of all these guys. And that's the most important part in inducing GG, because that's what buildings and 2/3 of units are.

A simple mass of any air units will destroy them? Well, in SC2, masses of Void Rays will have equally little trouble with Battlecruisers, masses of Vikings will have equally little trouble with Carriers... so these units are hardly win buttons.

[Nicol Bolas]

Battlecruiser, especially with Yamato, is a lot more powerful vs. single targets and armored foes... whereas Carrier is a lot stronger against masses of biological units that have little armor.

It doesn't matter how much armor or Hp a unit has: mass Carriers will kill it fast enough. Why? Because they can't shoot back. Carriers have long range (even longer in SC2); they can kite virtually any unit that isn't flying and faster than them. The reason Goliaths are a strong counter is because they are cheap, plentiful, and can strip them of Intercepters relatively quickly.

That Carriers will kill certain units faster than others is irrelevant when a hundred Intercepters darken the skies. Mass Carriers win, just like mass BCs win.

For me personally it's that Blizzard fixed something that wasn't broken in such a hideous, hideous fashion that's unlikable.

Guardians weren't broken? Going for Guardians in SC1 was, at best, a crap-shoot. Ultralisks and Defilers were the preferred Tier 3 tech of choice. At least these guys can survive some anti-air fire long enough to either escape (if it's ground stuff) or be rescued by AtA (if it's flying).

A lot of the cooler new units have been brought down to be more in line with their SC1 counterparts... and it's really disappointing to see.

Maybe, but that's the nature of balancing: dialing back what is too powerful until it works.

A simple mass of any air units will destroy them?

No, a single air unit that can attack other air units will destroy an arbitrarily large fleet of them. That's the difference. BCs and Carriers will at least take some of the Void Rays and Vikings down with them.

Brood Lords are stopped with ease if they are alone. BCs and Carriers are not. To stop a lone BL fleet, you just need enough AtA to kill them "fast enough". To stop BCs from the air, you need lots of AtA (to cover losses during the battle), as well as micro in case of their missile swarm attack. To stop Carriers, you need AtA that can out-run them (or flank them somehow) in addition to having enough AtA to cover losses from attrition.

[pure.Wasted]

It doesn't matter how much armor or Hp a unit has: mass Carriers will kill it fast enough. Why? Because they can't shoot back. Carriers have long range (even longer in SC2); they can kite virtually any unit that isn't flying and faster than them. The reason Goliaths are a strong counter is because they are cheap, plentiful, and can strip them of Intercepters relatively quickly.

That Carriers will kill certain units faster than others is irrelevant when a hundred Intercepters darken the skies. Mass Carriers win, just like mass BCs win.

So essentially what you're saying is that Carriers and Battlecruisers are completely different.

Right. Should I pretend that doesn't help the Brood Lord's case by making the guidelines for "capital ship" far less strict?

Guardians weren't broken? Going for Guardians in SC1 was, at best, a crap-shoot. Ultralisks and Defilers were the preferred Tier 3 tech of choice. At least these guys can survive some anti-air fire long enough to either escape (if it's ground stuff) or be rescued by AtA (if it's flying).

Why would you assume that I have a problem with the Guardian's stats being changed? I already said that I was pro- Swarm Guardian, which is already different from the original in a fairly significant respect. They're free to change the unit as much as necessary... but they haven't changed it enough for it to warrant a name change. The model regressing even closer to the Guardian is simply icing insult on an injury cake.

Maybe, but that's the nature of balancing: dialing back what is too powerful until it works.

There's a difference between dialing something back in order to balance it and removing it completely because you haven't found a way to balance it. As trite as this is -- and as loathe as I am to repeat it -- this is SC2, not SC1.5, and there must naturally be a line where we say, "That's enough removing of new things in the name of balance. Take the time to make the new things work instead."

That there is such a line is inarguable. The question is whether we've come to that point or not -- whether the units I noted have become too close to the originals, or this is still acceptable.

Frankly, given SC2's necessarily non-revolutionary approach to gaming, I think it's pretty mandatory for the folks at Blizz to make what new abilities they come up with work. I don't think they're in a position to say "it didn't work out so we'll go with the tried-and-true," and if all else fails, should simply try it out in the Beta and look for the fans suggestions (and there will be plenty) to make it work. Any regressions are huge steps back, and as I said, here was simply the ugly, ugly one that put a stamp on the whole deal.

No, a single air unit that can attack other air units will destroy an arbitrarily large fleet of them. That's the difference. BCs and Carriers will at least take some of the Void Rays and Vikings down with them.

Brood Lords are stopped with ease if they are alone. BCs and Carriers are not. To stop a lone BL fleet, you just need enough AtA to kill them "fast enough". To stop BCs from the air, you need lots of AtA (to cover losses during the battle), as well as micro in case of their missile swarm attack. To stop Carriers, you need AtA that can out-run them (or flank them somehow) in addition to having enough AtA to cover losses from attrition.

Okay, and BCs and Carriers are stopped with ease if you have Lockdown, whereas Brood Lords are not. BCs and Carriers are practically neutered by EMP, whereas Brood Lords shrug it off.

All you've succeeded in demonstrating is that they are different and have different advantages and disadvantages. This is exactly as it SHOULD be. If it weren't so, then we would have reason to become suspicious.


Imagine if SC1 had come out with only the Protoss, no Zerg or Terran. The only infantry we have are Zealots. So what is infantry in SC1? Infantry are tough melee soldiers that have no abilities. BW comes out and Terrans are thrown into the mix. Suddenly, Marines are being touted as infantry, when they are NOT tough (but expendable), NOT melee, and have Stim Packs.

Following your reasoning, we could stubbornly refuse to accept Marines as infantry because they don't fit pre-established criteria... even though the common sense approach suggests that the Marine is more akin to infantry than the Zealot.

You're allowing the incredibly limited examples of the SC world provided by SC1 turn into laws that are set in stone. There is no law that says a capital ship must attack air units; as long as most criteria are met (high tier, high cost, priority target for the enemy to destroy [either because of damage, or abilities, or both]) then it works, simple as that.



All that said, I'm going to go back on calling the Brood Lord a capital ship. 350 HP just doesn't cut it. It is the toughest air unit outside of Carrier/BC/MS, but I don't think that's enough. The rest of my argument still stands -- if a Brood Lord existed with 500 HP instead of 350, but all other stats remained the same, I would fully expect it to deserve capital ship status.

[RamiZ]

Not... really...

In terms of it's stats, the Viking is something of a mix between the Goliath and the Wraith. While the Banshee is just... a completely new unit entirely.

You are comparing stats? Ok, i compare it with unit Role, and Banshee is Cloak Harasser like Wraith, and Viking is AtA unit(ofc in air mode), just like Valkyrie, and it doesnt need to have splash to be the same unit with same role -.-

[pure.Wasted]

You are comparing stats? Ok, i compare it with unit Role, and Banshee is Cloak Harasser like Wraith, and Viking is AtA unit(ofc in air mode), just like Valkyrie, and it doesnt need to have splash to be the same unit with same role -.-

Problem is, those are the units' conceptual unit roles. But the Wraith is no good at actual cloaked harassment (except in some TvT situations or all-in builds). If anything, mostly it's just used as a straight-up AtA fighter to counter Dropships.

As far as the Valkyrie/Wraith split is concerned, however, the Viking definitely lands on the Wraith end of things. V/W are both AtA fighters (both with a twist; cloak twist is active, splash twist is passive), but Wraith is anti-big ship and Valkyrie is anti-small ship. This time it is about the unit roles, and you fluxxed them up.

[ManjiSanji]

You are comparing stats? Ok, i compare it with unit Role, and Banshee is Cloak Harasser like Wraith, and Viking is AtA unit(ofc in air mode), just like Valkyrie, and it doesnt need to have splash to be the same unit with same role -.-

The Banshee is more like a cloakable, shorter-range Guardian than it is a Wraith.
The Wraith was horrible at AtG, even with cloak.