Thors design and its efficiency

[Pandonetho]

Definition of spearheading, please?
The way I see it, spearheading is linebreaking. Getting in there and destroying base defenses, softening the darn thing up for the main attack.
As for missile turrets... are we talking about the Missile Turrets that LOST DETECTION?

Right so now you're RELYING on the hope that your opponent does not have any form of detection FOR HIS DEFENSE?

Second of all, gee I wonder who's going to win, someone with a line of tanks for defense, and Thors for anti air, or you trying to charge him, with banshees. Gee, I also must be wrong to think that scan comes pretty early in the game. Gee what if your opponent has vikings?

Do you KNOW why Banshees have cloak? It's because they're weak as hell in regards to HP. They won't be "breaking" anything more than wraiths did unless your opponent doesn't have anti-air or detection which is pretty unlikely by the time you have a starport and cloak researched. Or unless you want to suicide run your banshees, smart move. Not.

So let's get this straight, your definition of spearheading is HOPING that your opponent doesn't have ANY form of detection (which if he did you can't do jack shit because you can't hit air or kill buildings with Banshees) and HOPING that he has no form of anti air (let's see, the only thing the banshee can kill easily that shoots back his marines... not in bunkers, and marines can just as easily kill banshees) and then attacking? Did you even WATCH the Terran demo vid? The banshees in that vid had MASSIVE SPLASH and guess what? They needed to cloak just to fight the marines or else they would have died.

So, because there is considerable unit overlap (Viking, Reaper, Hellion, Banshee, possibly Raven) there's no reason to modify a unit to give it a new role?

These units all can serve different purposes. Just because they do some similar things does not mean they're suddenly overlapping roles as units. Are you implying that just because these 3-4 units can fulfill a similar role in harassment, suddenly nullifies any other uses that they have? Right.

My point being that a tank/meatshield isn't necessary for storming a base. If omitted, other tactics will rise.

Last I checked, Terrans never did any storming. Do you even read the posts in this thread? Nicol explained it quite well. Terran tactics 101, become immobile, kill everything, become mobile. Get attacked, become immobile, kill everything, become mobile, move up. That is not the definition of storming.

Yes a "meatshield" is not "necessary" for storming. So what? Do you have a problem with something that actually changes up the Terran playstyle?

[Lupino]

None of the Thor's individual roles are bad in and of themselves, but there is just something about their particular mix — their "togetherness" — that brings a bitter taste to my mouth. Sure, it may be fine for technical gameplay mechanics, but (contrary to what certain people believe) working gameplay is not the be-all-end-all characteristic needed to make good gameplay. Just think of how many games there are that have never really taken off because their gameplay just wasn't that good.

Some of you reference the "boring" armor push of the SC1 Terrans. I see this Thor as the newer version of that. In fact, I think it will be even MORE boring than the original heavy metal push. Need a meatshield? Thor. Need solid AoE GtA? Thor. Need some powerful GtG? Thor. Need a special anti-ground cast? Thor. It's pretty much just an Ultralisk, a Valkyrie, an Immortal, and a Siege Tank all combined into one single unit. That is the most tasteless, unoriginal, gimmicky, cheesy, boring-ass mix of a unit I have ever heard of.

In a way I think this sums up what my big problem with the Thor as well; the fact that it has both good GtG and GtA capabilities. I liked the original much more than its current version, where it was great against ground units but had no answer against air threats. This meant you had to build other units to help cover up this deficiency; the concept of combined arms and all that.

Personally I would keep the Thor as is except remove the AA ability and give it to another unit. A ground version of the Valkyrie, though a few modifications would be in order (let it shoot at ground too?).

[Nicol Bolas]

Yes the unit would be more usefull agaisnt some units, but in return it would also be far worse against most unarmored units, i mean it couldn't even kill a marine in one shot.

But they're already terrible against Marines. Yes, they can kill one every shot, but it's not like that was the only Marine there. Swarms of Marines, particularly with Stim, will pick them apart.

Also, armored units disproportionately have more Hp than light units. This means that any unit that has high single-target damage is effectively anti-armored. Just like any unit that does AoE damage is effectively anti-light (since there are fewer massable armored units).

Again, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Some of you reference the "boring" armor push of the SC1 Terrans. I see this Thor as the newer version of that. In fact, I think it will be even MORE boring than the original heavy metal push. Need a meatshield? Thor. Need solid AoE GtA? Thor. Need some powerful GtG? Thor. Need a special anti-ground cast? Thor.

The problem with Siege Tanks isn't their ubiquity; it was the playstyle. The static "sit here and hold terrain, then sit there and hold terrain, etc," style of play. Siege Tanks require this style of play; there is no other way to effectively use them.

Whereas the Thor brings with it a myriad of possibilities. Thor + Marines is a very different kind of build and playstyle than pure Mech. Thor + Banshees is a different playstyle from Thor + Marines. And so forth.

The other thing is that Siege Tank strategies are generally built around getting a lot of them. Which means you need lots of Factories. Which means you don't have the money for lots of Barrackses or StarPorts. And that means you can't effectively combine them with

By contrast, you only really need 3-4 Thors, at most. 2 might even be enough in the mid-game, depending on your strategy. 1-2 Factories is sufficient for your Thor needs. This leaves money available for combos with Barracks or StarPort units.

Even if the Thor becomes the standard go-to unit for the Terrans, it won't guarantee any particular playstyle.

[Blazur]

Nicol, so you're generally happy about the Thor in its current role? I ask the question because sometimes its difficult to gauge your stance on a particular issue.

You bring up some good points about how it fits into the current unit makup given its present stats, but are you overall happy with how fun the unit appears to be or the challenges it presents to Terran's opposition? If not, I'd be interested in hearing how you'd like to see it specifically changed at all.

[Triceron]

Running a parallel, the Thor is like if you took the Immortal and gave it an air attack. It ends up changing the role of the unit, and overall feels like it's adding too much. It's pretty much the anti-tank unit, it doesn't need the added role of anti-air.

That's how I feel about the Thor. It's given too many roles/abilities and needs to be simplified.

[Nicol Bolas]

You bring up some good points about how it fits into the current unit makup given its present stats, but are you overall happy with how fun the unit appears to be or the challenges it presents to Terran's opposition?

Am I happy with it? I would be happy if Blizzard cut the Siege Tank, went back to the earlier Barrage form of the Thor, and if there was a need for some GtA from the Factory, they would build a unit for that purpose. Since Blizzard considers the Siege Tank to be sacrosanct, I find the current state of the Thor to be an agreeable compromise.

Running a parallel, the Thor is like if you took the Immortal and gave it an air attack. It ends up changing the role of the unit, and overall feels like it's adding too much. It's pretty much the anti-tank unit, it doesn't need the added role of anti-air.

But Thors are expensive; Immortals aren't. The difference is simply cost. If you double the gas cost of Immortals, they had better be able to attack air.

[n00bonicPlague]

Pretty much what you said Triceron. I think it just does too many things.

I think it could reasonably be split up into two new units.

[Triceron]

So you're defending the Thor's design based on cost?

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.

[Blazur]

Am I happy with it? I would be happy if Blizzard cut the Siege Tank, went back to the earlier Barrage form of the Thor, and if there was a need for some GtA from the Factory, they would build a unit for that purpose. Since Blizzard considers the Siege Tank to be sacrosanct, I find the current state of the Thor to be an agreeable compromise.

Aha! 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?

Not me. I know Blizzard can do better than this monstrosity. And not just with its aesthetics, but also with how fun it'll be to use or face off against. Right now I feel they're just giving up on the unit and are afraid to try something new.

[MattII]

Personally I don't like the Thor, it seems to false, to forced. Role-wise I suppose I'd rather drop it's long range GtA in favour of the arm cannons being able to fire GtA. I'll also agree with Nicol that the ST being considered sacrosanct does mean having to shoehorn everything else in.