Siege Tanks, obsolete?

[phazonjunkie]

Musing on the battle reports that have been released so far, at least the ones that had terrans, one thing I've noticed was the conspicuous lack of tanks; (at least in terms of the massive pushes that were so common in sc1, especially in TvP). I'm sure this is more than likely do to the fact that the terrans now have more options in terms of ground attack, especially with the inclusion of unit's like the marauder & the banshee.

I don't intend to go into things like stats, damage output or whatnot, I'm talking about it in terms of purpose. I'm under the opinion that a terran players over reliance on tanks in sc1 was simply a matter of necessity. In order for a sizable push to have the most probability of success, you generally had to include tanks. This was especially true in TvP. In TvT, this often resulted in the game getting bogged down in tank stalemates while one or both players went air.

Due to the above instances, I think that siege tanks became somewhat of a crutch for terran players (albiet a powerful necessary one).

My question is this: Since the terrans now have significantly more options in terms of ground warfare, such that they don't have to rely so much on tanks anymore, will siege tanks fall by the wayside in multiplayer? Also if, after beta testing, blizzard decides that they are no longer necessary, how many would be angry to see it go?

Thoughts?

[areese87]

Perhaps in offensive pushes, maybe. It still is fantastic for defense, and with no sighting on cliff attacks, dropship/tank harassment will see play.

[Krikkitone]

I don't think so, because siege tanks provide a cost effective 'protective ring' for a ground push.

Essentially they allow a slower, more certain push.... it actually complements the role of Thors (which provide a meatshield to protect the tanks as well as providing a similar wide range for air)

The mobility of a Marauder/Thor/Hellion group may be tempting, but I feel that Blizzard will make sure the tank is a sufficient trade off if it proes too weak (improving either its mobility by decreasing siege/unsiege time or improving its tank form or improving the siege form).

I wouldn't mind too much if it was gone, but blizzard I think has identified it as a core unit (along with Marines+BC) so that it will be there in a similar format.

[LXM]

Siege Tanks are an essential part of SC, imo. Without them, the game wouldn't be the same :<

[Kimera757]

My question is this: Since the terrans now have significantly more options in terms of ground warfare, such that they don't have to rely so much on tanks anymore, will siege tanks fall by the wayside in multiplayer? Also if, after beta testing, blizzard decides that they are no longer necessary, how many would be angry to see it go?

Thoughts?

1) I think tanks are still too useful. At BlizzCon (I believe it was 2008, not the last one) Browder was saying he thought they were still overpowered post-nerf, but would need the beta test to know for sure.

2) I wouldn't mind if they went.

[Gifted]

I think they are very useful still. I have had this conversation with "Jack Doe" a few times and here is what has come from the conversations.

1. While they are still in the game with the same abilities, their role has changed as other units have been introduced and shifted. For this reason, the "role" of the siege tank was slightly shifted around in our collective conversation. While a shift of role was intended, how it played out kinda "happened" and wasn't necessarily planned. This is not new for Blizzard game development. As you change the game for a sequel, sometimes the best changes are inspired or happenstance from previous changes. In his words "sometimes when you change the pieces of a puzzle, ones you didn't intend to change suddenly pop into place without you knowing it."

2. The Terran race have more of an identity of earlier splash damage. Again, as it was explained to me, this wasn't intentional but just happened to fit. Between the Hellion and Tank being T2, this makes sense. Reapers as well, if you want to consider their D3 charge but I believe his intent was to explain it as a non-ability splash.

3. The role of the tank is more on the defensive and, more importantly, pertains more so to map control in testing from what I've heard. Combine this with salvageable bunkers and auto-repair you have quite a significant way to create control points on the map. (such as outside the opponents base or distant expansion) and allow a mobile assault to happen. This has worked in his favor a few times as he'd put up a "blockade" assault an expansion, and his blockade held back the reinforcements while he finished the base off and came back to the blockade to help defend it.

An exception that both sides of our conversation we agree on is that while it's "role" may have changed, it can still be used in the old intended push fashion, but it's no longer considered to be the most, and in some cases only, efficient core of a push, it's merely one of a few options now.

This is a good thing in many games as it provides diverse strategy options. It matters mostly if the eventual balance is found and gameplay trends of the players align with it well. In other words, we'll have to wait until beta to see and balance is subject to change.

There is a LOT more on this conversation... but this is more a summary of my thoughts on the matter after discussing it with him. It's been a while since we've actually talked on it, so I don't feel it's right to "quote" him on current thoughts.

[Norfindel]

The Tank still has huge range, so it can shoot from relative safety, while the Thor must be in the heat of battle.

Terrans willing to make a Tank push, will be able to combine with salvageable Bunker push with 6 unit capacity, and maybe a Marauder inside. That's powerful. Probably too much.

[Draco]

Did we watch the same Battle Report 4? Tank drops and tank defense.

I want to see some Viking action.

[SaharaDrac]

Again, changes from SC1 are being exaggerated into huge problems that don't exist. The problem is that Siege Tanks are too powerful in SC1. The Terran army is nothing without them. You literally can't play the race without making them. Sounds like the kind of problem that would create hundreds of complaining threads if it were happening in SC2.

The problem with Tanks has simply been fixed in SC2. They're still going to be a staple defense and siege unit, but they're simply not the complete backbone of every Terran game any more.

Stop holding yourself to double standards. Sc1 was a perfectly balanced game, but it wasn't perfect.

[The_Blade]

I agree with SaharaDrac. It doesn't apply only to the terrans and its tank but also the goliat and the other two races. We can see the use of mutalisks and zergling in zerg.While protoss need storms/reavers.

SC2 has opened a lot of possibilities into each race even if they seem limited, they are not. Mechanics in SC2 are far more powerful than the ones in SC. Basically, every unit now shares a lot of "niches" with others. This gives the player full decision regarding which way they should take in the tech tree.