Thors design and its efficiency

[Nicol Bolas]

Conclusion: the Thor is better for cost (or very close, depending of the Siege Tank cooldown) in all aspects, except ground range and dmg/supply.

Did the Siege Tank lose it's splash damage in Siege Mode, or did you simply not factor this in? A Siege Tank nailing 5 Marines is doing much more damage than a Thor. This makes the ST specialized for dealing with groups of units, not a general "anti-ground" unit.

[Norfindel]

Did the Siege Tank lose it's splash damage in Siege Mode, or did you simply not factor this in? A Siege Tank nailing 5 Marines is doing much more damage than a Thor. This makes the ST specialized for dealing with groups of units, not a general "anti-ground" unit.

Good catch. I'm adding it. Time to get some sleep .

Overall, if you're against a bunch of low-hp units, go for the Siege Tank. Otherwise, as long as the enemy is ground-only, the Siege Tank should be doing similar damage (depending on cooldown), and has a lot more range, but is immobile.

In assault mode, the Thor wins without any doubt.

Another consideration is Terrain, if there are a lot of chokes, or high ground areas, the Siege Tank could be a better idea, as it's range would really shine, and the Thor will have serious problems to move around.

The Tank is in serious shit if the enemy brings air units. If he uses air units, and doesn't has tons of low-hp ground units (or you have other units to deal with them), the Thor would be a better investment. I can see this happening at late game.

Anyways, i wouldn't say the Tank is dead, as terrain has been and is his best friend, but i can see the Thor casting a loooong shadow over it in the late game.
.

[Triceron]

The splash damage of the Siege Tank is an asset, but by no means a unique one anymore. Firebats were the only practical alternative before. Now, Terrans have a LOT of splash damage from numerous support units sources. We now have alternatives such as HSM, Hellions, D8's, and banshees. All of which are on units with high mobility.

What the Siege tank brings is a powerful punch and siege potential (Long range). Like I mentioned before, the Thors can do pretty much the same since they pack quite a punch, have tons of HP to soak damage, and have that nifty Barrage ability.

The threat of siege tanks were in its numbers. They created a perimeter that your opponent did not want to cross else they take 3-4 volleys from your tanks. Now that number is reduced to 2-3 volleys with the new food cost.


At this point, the Thor is basically a ground Battlecruiser. I would much rather see it be a cheaper unit with AA focus than be this.

[Nicol Bolas]

We now have alternatives such as HSM, Hellions, D8's, and banshees. All of which are on units with high mobility.

Banshees don't have splash. Ravens cost more gas, not to mention the tech differential (I think HSM is a research at the Fusion core, so it's really high tech). Hellions don't do 60 damage and are very fragile. And D8's require a lot of micro and can be avoided/destroyed. Siege Tanks have none of these failings. They're reliable AoE (as long as they're not moving).

Like I mentioned before, the Thors can do pretty much the same since they pack quite a punch, have tons of HP to soak damage, and have that nifty Barrage ability.

Since you didn't get it the last two times I've said it:

The 250mm Strike Cannon attack is a SINGLE TARGET attack!

Do you get it now? The Thor has no ground AoE of any kind. So wild, roving packs of Marauders, Stalkers, Zealots, Zerglings, and such are its bane. Whereas these are the natural prey of the Siege Tank.

[Triceron]

*sigh*

In context of Sieging (which Splash has little-to-no worth), Thor does the same as a Siege Tank, which is a strong attack at range. I never said Thor did splash damage so get that in your head.

The Thor can be countered by small units, yes - But that's why i mentioned in my very first post here that it would replace the Siege Tank as INFANTRY SUPPORT. Meaning I'm expecting you to bring these with your marines/marauders/medivacs or other such units. It's just easier to bring a couple Thors instead of bringing 3 Siege Tanks + Vikings or some other AA unit. At this point, there's little reason NOT to bring Thors with your M&M pushes. They're so versatile, they deal potent damage vs buildings, and they're great AA. They can also rape Ultralisks as shown in some of the videos. Just take a look at the latest Terran vids, and more often than not you will see people assisting their forces with Thors now.

Siege tanks are still most effective in numbers. The more tanks you bring, the more you will need AA cover for them. The Thor's counter seems to be heavy air, or lots of small units. Your own M&M combos can deal with any small threat. Thors can also have a large HP pool so even heavy air will take a while to take them down, whereas Siege Tanks will simply pop.

It's pretty simple when you boil it down. Do you want to use the practical, efficient unit? Or the more micro-intensive specialist that is slightly better? The choice is yours to make, but the Thor is ultimately the easier one to use.

[Hamshank]

Right, pro players aren't always right but they're right a lot more than us. We haven't even played the game.

I'm going to stand by and trust them in their conclusion that the Thor renders the siege tank useless.

[flabortast]

That's flawed reasoning. It implies that star players have better understanding of the game than their coaches just because they can play better.

[Triceron]

Which is true in this case because only the players are playing SC2 beta, and not their coaches.

[flabortast]

I still believe that they are using wrong unit choices to fight Thors and overblowing how good they are. Thors aren't very cost effective. They fall easily to masses of cheap units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCg-q...layer_embedded

notice that the only thing that actually killed the zerglings were the tanks.

[Triceron]

That they did.

They also killed the Hellions and did a hefty chunk to the Thors :P