Planetary Fortress discussion

[Brutaxilos]

It should be infestable... so much fun.

Seconded.

[n00bonicPlague]

I like the PF. Basically, build OCs at your main and nat and maybe even your second expo, but then keep to PFs for further expos, especially those that are far away, on an island, or containing high yield minerals. Also, if chokes are tight enough, it might be worth building one at the entrance of your base for the lulz. Also:
— CCs can fly and carry SCVs
— OCs can fly but can't carry SCVs
— PFs can't fly but can carry SCVs

[Nicol Bolas]

I don't have a good opinion on static defenses with very high HP and attack power.

It does have a crippling weakness: it can't shoot at air units.

Two problems with this, though. Zerg don't have decent AtG, not for something like the PF, until Tier 3. And the Terrans have the cheapest, recyclable GtA in the Turret. So...

It also doesn't have a particularly high attack power; the units in BR4 died more to enemy unit fire than to what the PF was dishing out. It's really the combination of the armor upgrade and the PF that can cause problems.

[Norfindel]

It does have a crippling weakness: it can't shoot at air units.

Two problems with this, though. Zerg don't have decent AtG, not for something like the PF, until Tier 3. And the Terrans have the cheapest, recyclable GtA in the Turret. So...

It also doesn't have a particularly high attack power; the units in BR4 died more to enemy unit fire than to what the PF was dishing out. It's really the combination of the armor upgrade and the PF that can cause problems.

It deals 40 damage with splash at normal attack speed and 6 range. That qualifies as a lot of damage.

Considering it can be built pretty early and has 1500 HP with 3 Armor, it's obvious this will cause problems. How's the enemy supposed to counter this thing that early?

[ArcherofAiur]

Considering it can be built pretty early and has 1500 HP with 3 Armor, it's obvious this will cause problems. How's the enemy supposed to counter this thing that early?

Your not.
See thats the point. Sacrificing economy for early game protection. Either can win you the game but you have to use them wisely.

[Krikkitone]

It also doesn't have a particularly high attack power; the units in BR4 died more to enemy unit fire than to what the PF was dishing out. It's really the combination of the armor upgrade and the PF that can cause problems.

Well its hard to tell that because the PF deals ~ 40 splash damage, so it wouldn't kill any zealots until the 3rd or 4th shot.... but after that it would be killing large numbers of them.

I do agree the Armor upgrade is a big thing.

I see the benefits as
1. Armor stops it from easily being destroyed
2. Attack means that Workers aren't autotargeted by raiders It is
3. Attack weakens the enemy so they can more readily be finished off by forces

The attack is weak on an 'army' scale but it is about the same as a siege tank in siege mode without the disadvantages (siege mode=100 slow splash if v. armor, friendly damage.... PF=40 normal splash for all enemy only)


Its really good for stopping raids because raids usually include units that do damage in small packets (vulnerable to armor) and are numerous (vulnerable to splash)

[Norfindel]

Your not.
See thats the point. Sacrificing economy for early game protection. Either can win you the game but you have to use them wisely.

That's not early game protection, that's early game immunity. It wouldn't be a huge economic sacrifice, if they rush to the high shield minerals, which the enemy would be unable to attack. Hell, they could probably just float there in some maps, and build a PF if they aren't already protected by destructible rocks. That problem was never addressed.

[Krikkitone]

That's not early game protection, that's early game immunity. It wouldn't be a huge economic sacrifice, if they rush to the high shield minerals, which the enemy would be unable to attack. Hell, they could probably just float there in some maps, and build a PF if they aren't already protected by destructible rocks. That problem was never addressed.

So far all of the high yields have been protected by rocks if I recall.

Also you are giving up MULEs/Comsats with that base.
and early game immunity is nice, but it is only early game immunity, and only for that expansion.

The other player can get more expansions and so let you turtle up while they expand (and while they harass your main with Blink, Reapers, etc.)

They end up being able to out produce or out tech you (because you did use 150 gas early on.)

It seems useful for a base where you expect a decent amount of fighting.
For your Natural it seems like a good either or choice... probably good if you want to tech slightly but not too much.

[Pandonetho]

(siege mode=100 slow splash if v. armor, friendly damage....

IIRC they changed that to 60 damage now. It's a shame really because they used to 2 shot Stalkers.

Now they need 3, they're weaker than the SC1 siege tank against large targets (which the SC1 siege tank did full damage to). Although it's still better against smaller targets since apparently the SC2 siege tank does full 60 to everything.

[Krikkitone]

IIRC they changed that to 60 damage now. It's a shame really because they used to 2 shot Stalkers.

Now they need 3, they're weaker than the SC1 siege tank against large targets (which the SC1 siege tank did full damage to). Although it's still better against smaller targets since apparently the SC2 siege tank does full 60 to everything.

Its Just 60? I thought it was 60+40 (for armor)... are they making it tougher?cheaper? was it actually imbalanced at 100?