Planetary Fortress discussion

[Kimera757]

The damage change was also a boost vs weaker units. It can one-shot marines now, even if they have shields.

[Krikkitone]

The damage change was also a boost vs weaker units. It can one-shot marines now, even if they have shields.

um.... it wouldn't be a boost v. weaker armor ... if all they did was remove the boost for armor than it was a nerf.... no positive to tank combat value
(unless they also made another change like higher rate of fire, higher hp, or decreased cost)

[Kimera757]

um.... it wouldn't be a boost v. weaker armor ... if all they did was remove the boost for armor than it was a nerf.... no positive to tank combat value
(unless they also made another change like higher rate of fire, higher hp, or decreased cost)

The original damage was 50 + 50 vs armored, and now it's just 60. Vs light units, it's 20% better. Probably an overall nerf, but 60 splash is very good vs light. It's like a baneling cannon, really.

[Norfindel]

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

Not all, some of them are just on difficult to defend positions. At least difficult to defend unless you build a PF there early game. If they're protected by rocks, and it's reasonably near your main, you can float a CC there and remain protected by the rocks. In a map, a Blizzard employee floated it's own main CC there.

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.)

That depends a lot on the map. If the enemy must go tru your natural, building a PF there will stop early rushes, so you're safe until they get something that can attack your main directly, and allows you to bypass Marines, and tech earlier. It's just 150 gas, that won't impact your tech too much, considering that you quick-expanded. The enemy must get two expansions early just to out-expand you.

[Krikkitone]

Not all, some of them are just on difficult to defend positions. At least difficult to defend unless you build a PF there early game. If they're protected by rocks, and it's reasonably near your main, you can float a CC there and remain protected by the rocks. In a map, a Blizzard employee floated it's own main CC there.


That depends a lot on the map. If the enemy must go tru your natural, building a PF there will stop early rushes, so you're safe until they get something that can attack your main directly, and allows you to bypass Marines, and tech earlier. It's just 150 gas, that won't impact your tech too much, considering that you quick-expanded. The enemy must get two expansions early just to out-expand you.

well you can bypass marines, but
Barracks are still needed for Teching, the PF needs an engineering Bay which you could have bypassed otherwise

You can only bypass marines if the PF builds quickly enough... because you need to

1. Get enough minerals to start on a CC
2. Wait for the CC to finish while you start getting Gas and an Engineering Bay
3. Wait for the PF to finish (assume Engineering Bay+150 gas +150 minerals are ready by then)

The later 2 steps take 150 seconds

Compare that to the Protoss FE of
1. Get 150 minerals
2. Forge
3. Build Cannons

Total of 75 seconds for the later 2 steps.
Basically more risky than a Protoss FE

It probably will be a good idea, but the other player can contain you (Proxy Pylon+Cannons/Bunkers/Zerglings outside your natural)... Because for this to work, the Natural must also be the only way out.

Then as long as the other player can hold the contain, and expand themselves, they can out expand you.

It is a possible strategy, but far from fool proof.

[Norfindel]

Ok, it's not build-and-forget, but encourages bad gameplay. It's disgusting enough as it is when Terrans decide to turtle like hell in a high ground base.

[DemolitionSquid]

Pre-req for PF should be more than just the Bay.

[Krikkitone]

Ok, it's not build-and-forget, but encourages bad gameplay. It's disgusting enough as it is when Terrans decide to turtle like hell in a high ground base.

How is turtling like hell bad gameplay? It is bad if it is imbalanced, but it should allow you to out expand them and/or commit too many of their forces to defending multiple locations.

It should be a viable strategy, just like the early rush... Just make it a Balanced Strategy.

[ArcherofAiur]

How is turtling like hell bad gameplay? It is bad if it is imbalanced, but it should allow you to out expand them and/or commit too many of their forces to defending multiple locations.

It should be a viable strategy, just like the early rush... Just make it a Balanced Strategy.

Thank you. Turtling isnt bad as long as its not the only way to play the game. Turtling should have its advantages and its disadvantages.

[Gifted]

Just an FYI, in preparation for the Beta Request Lounge... I believe I have a calculated build order for a Banshee Rush + FE involving a planetary fortress... It is possible but Risky. If my calculations look correct, It involves an 11 CC and dual refinery at 14 while abusing salvageable bunkers.