Should depot submerge be a research?

[Pandonetho]

I didn't know depots have only 350 hp now, that makes me worry about depot killing runs :\

Nah, killing depots should be a viable strategy. I think it's good if that becomes a well used tactic.

[trace wm]

Well, I guess Overlords are still even easier targets. Anyone know the pylon stats?

[Pandonetho]

According to the Wikipedia it's 200/200.

Hm, that's substantially lower than in SC1 where it was 300/300.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that Warp-in is now a very potent mechanic and we also have Phase Prisms that can supply power.

[rcp181]

Looks like they might be intentionally making supply units a more frequent target

[Josue]

It would make sense maybe, but it wouldn't be intuitive to a new player, and why would you stick around to kill such a low priority target when the base will be open to you then? I'm 99% sure they're still visible while dropped.


I didn't know depots have only 350 hp now, that makes me worry about depot killing runs :\

Khas N'ara dak!
Unbelievable, how come "it wouldn't be intuitive to a new player"?
it's obvious, it's clear like water that a submerged building is harder to tear down than one standing tall!

[Pandonetho]

It'd be rather pointless though. What's the point in having submerged depots be more defensive? It serves no purpose for the Terrans as depots that are not submerged provide more of a defensive position.

[Josue]

It'd be rather pointless though. What's the point in having submerged depots be more defensive? It serves no purpose for the Terrans as depots that are not submerged provide more of a defensive position.

it actually goes the other side. the logic is that: to have the needed trade-off, a submerged supply depot is tougher than a non submerged, thus making more vulnerable a wall made of them, but also safer if they were underground.
EDIT
so you must choose whether to lower them so they are unlikely to be destroyed or just leave them to be destroyed and serve as walls which is the main point of all the idea: they are "weaker" while not underground but serve as walls. however (and here is the trade off) they are toughter while underground but don't work as walls!

[Pandonetho]

it actually goes the other side. the logic is that: to have the needed trade-off, a submerged supply depot is tougher than a non submerged, thus making more vulnerable a wall made of them, but also safer underground.

Er what? There's no trade off, when would a Terran want to submerge his depots? Only if he needs to cross them. Submerging your depots does not supply your opponents with a target, they'll just go past them into your base.

[Josue]

pff...
sorry, I was editing the post, could you check the edited version?

[trace wm]

Two problems I see with that logic:

1. Terrans then have no reason to EVER keep their depots raised, unless they are walling in. All of a sudden Terrans have the supply advantage because theirs take twice the punishment.

2. Start employing realism like this and you start wondering how marines take down carriers.