Thors design and its efficiency

[DemolitionSquid]

I've advocated scrapping the Tank, or splitting its siege role into the offensive Thor and a defensive structure, for a LONG time.

[Nicol Bolas]

I don't care if you made the zergling cost 200/300, it's no justification to slap on pew pew lasers and 300 armor on it. It's faulty design, which is something I would have figured you would actually be against.

What is faulty about it? Thus far, the two arguments against it are:

1: Too much like the Goliath.

2: Too many roles.

Neither of which constitutes a valid argument against it. And #1 is plain nonsense.

So you do agree there's something wrong with the current factory lineup due to redundancy. And since it's clear Blizz is unwilling to set aside their beloved siege tank, you're willing to settle for the Thor because it's a 'fine' compromise between the Goliath's anti-air and tank's mobile artillery?

No. I'm saying that, given that the Siege Tank cannot be removed, the Thor is approximately where it needs to be. The Thor is a compromise based on the needs of the Terran Factory and the fact that the Siege Tank must both exist and be viable. The current Thor is not the ideal choice I would have made if I had carte blanc to do what I would want. But it is the ideal choice given the presence and needs of Siege Tanks.

Role-wise I suppose I'd rather drop it's long range GtA in favour of the arm cannons being able to fire GtA.

That would make it strong against all the wrong types of units. Void Rays should be the natural predator of Thors, but with strong single-target GtA fire, Thors would take them down easily. Similarly, Thors should be unable to deal with BCs or Brood Lords, but this would allow them to. It also links the GtG rate of fire with the GtA rate of fire, which forces you to make a compromise between the needs of large air units to kill then and the needs of Thors to kill large ground units (their natural prey).

[Triceron]

By your justification of price = it'd better shoot air

We could slap on 100g on the siege tank and have it shoot air, but it doesn't make it a good reason to.

We can already see the current Thor's role is still encroaching on that of the Siege Tank. This is a problem. The Siege Tank just can't compete with what the Thors can bring to the table right now. Siege tanks still have their use, but it's pretty much being limited to cliff-harassment and base defense. Offensive tank pushes can be hotswapped with Thors in the mix, they work just the same as infantry support.

#1 was never an issue. In fact, it's the opposite argument of what is being insisted upon, which is return of the goliath-style inexpensive AA unit rather than the Tank/Anti Armor/AA unit that is the Thor. Like others have said, the Thor is effectively 2 units in one, and it could easily be separated into two specialized units instead.

[Nicol Bolas]

We can already see the current Thor's role is still encroaching on that of the Siege Tank. This is a problem. The Siege Tank just can't compete with what the Thors can bring to the table right now.

How do you figure? Siege Tanks bring AoE to the table; Thors do not. A group of Marines that would slaughter 4 Thors would be crushed by the same 4 Thors cost in Siege Tanks.

[unentschieden]

I had this thought process too 12 years ago - I wondered about the point of Marines, Goliaths to everything better. And why would the Protoss ever build anything other than carriers?

Cost effectivness is the first big issue - yeah the Thor is strong GTG but is it effective?
2nd "Jack-of-all-Trades" only looks on the offensive. There is also the VERY important aspect how the enemy can react to a unit. The Thor is half of the justification of Immortals against Terrans! There is a quasi single Target disable on the HT now, how would that be usefull if instead of a single Thor you´d have 6 Goliaths instead? Or the Zergs Parasite, what are attractive targets among the Terrans to use it?

Thors along with Colossi and Ultralisks are not only impressive units but also allow the integration of single Target Disables. SC had AWESOME single Target disables (Broodling, Mind Control, Lockdown) which were reduced to novelty status due to the lack of appropiate Targets.

[Triceron]

Thors aren't meant to be used solo, just as tanks aren't used solo. Your marines arguement would be akin to saying a banshee takes out tanks without support.

The siege tank is there for long-ranged and anti-armored support. Where the Thor lacks in long-ranged support, it is now the big, beefy meatshield that plays a similar role: Sieging. Simply said, it's a viable option, and being that option removes the siege tank's monopoly on being THE anti-armor siege unit.

Role overlap is something that has been discussed many times over. This is why we don't have 10 different air units, because the more choices we have, the less incentive we have to use another unit. If there was another air unit that pretty much did what the phoenix did, but could shoot ground units and didn't have anti-grav, I'm sure you'd see less phoenix being used.

Siege Tanks still have their purpose, but the Thor's current role also specializes in anti-armor, has a barrage ability, and has high hitpoints to boot. The Thor basically has the incentive of being a mobile all-purpose unit, that is also speciallized in what it does. Long Range/high damage just isn't as attractive for siege tanks when there is this other unit that can pretty much do the same, and can move around while doing it.

[Nicol Bolas]

The siege tank is there for long-ranged and anti-armored support.

No, it isn't. The Siege Tank is for anti-mass, not anti-armored.

Long Range/high damage just isn't as attractive for siege tanks when there is this other unit that can pretty much do the same, and can move around while doing it.

Which is why Siege Tanks will be used for their actual specialty: anti-mass. Hellions don't mean squat to a group of Marauders or Stalkers. But Siege Tanks do.

[MattII]

That would make it strong against all the wrong types of units. Void Rays should be the natural predator of Thors, but with strong single-target GtA fire, Thors would take them down easily. Similarly, Thors should be unable to deal with BCs or Brood Lords, but this would allow them to. It also links the GtG rate of fire with the GtA rate of fire, which forces you to make a compromise between the needs of large air units to kill then and the needs of Thors to kill large ground units (their natural prey).

Um Thors can currently out-range BLs, with this proposal they wouldn't be able to, and making them good against BCs makes them bad against Banshees, which means that the only race that can't slaughter them with air is the Protoss, and I don't see anything wrong with the races having different tactics.

[Nicol Bolas]

Um Thors can currently out-range BLs

By 1. And they do 10x4 damage, which means that the BL's base armor knocks that down by 4. And BL's have lots of Hp, and they don't bunch up together.

making them good against BCs makes them bad against Banshees

No, it doesn't. They'd slaughter Banshees. All anyone has to do when using Banshees against Thors now is spread them out. This strips away the AoE component of the attack, rendering it just 10x4 damage to one, with a decently long cooldown. Compare this to a 30x2 attack with a much faster cooldown. 3 shots per Banshee. Combined with the high Hp of Thors, and they can drop a squadron of Banshees easily and quickly.

[Norfindel]

           Thor         Siege Tank       Thor/Tank Comparison  With cost ratio applied
Minerals   300          200              x1.5
Gas        200          150              x1.33
Supply     6            3                x2
"cost"     600          425              x1.41


HP         400          150              x2.66                   x1.88 (Thor better)
Armor      1            1                x1

Ground                  Ground, Siege
Damage     30x2=60      60 (splash)      x1                      x0.71 (Thor worse, but should get near because of Tank cooldown)
Bonus      ---          ---
Attacks    1            1                x1
Range      7            13               x0.54
Speed      Normal       Slow             Thor Better
Targets    Ground       Ground
Can move   Yes          No               Thor Better

Ground (repeated)       Ground, Assault
Damage     30x2=60      15               x4                      x2.8 (Thor better)
Bonus      ---          +10 vs Armored   x2.4                    x1.7 (Thor better)
Attacks    1            1                x1
Range      7            7                x1
Speed      Normal       Normal
Targets    Ground       Ground
Can move   Yes          Yes

Air
Damage     10 (splash)  ---              Tank doesn't have
Bonus      +4 vs Light  ---              Tank doesn't have
Attacks    4            ---              Tank doesn't have
Range      10           ---              Tank doesn't have
Speed      Normal       ---              Tank doesn't have
Targets    Air          ---              Tank doesn't have

Abilities  250mm Cann.  ---              Tank doesn't have

HP/Miner.
ratio      1.33         0.75

HP/Gas
ratio      2            1

HP/Supply
ratio      66.66666     50

Dmg/Miner.
ratio      0.2          0.3 (should get lower because of cooldown)

Dmg/Gas
ratio      0.3          0.4 (should get lower because of cooldown)

Dmg/Supply
ratio      10           20 (should get lower because of cooldown, but probably not below 10)

Conclusion: the Thor is better for cost in HP, but has lower damage/cost when the Tank is in Siege mode (unless the difference in cooldown can eat the difference, which is likely, but still the Siege Tank has splash). About range the Tank in Siege Mode has no contenders, but the Thor gives you anti-air with huge range, splash, and damage; mobility at 60 dmg/attack, and a 500 dmg anti-ground ability.


.