Giant Bunkers? How did we miss this?

[Josue]

Well look at the picture, they're different. It's because their cargo capacity increased by 2, but their physical building placement size doesn't increase at all with the upgrade.

So, what would you think about being able to submerge your Bunkers?

[Pandonetho]

Personally I don't see any merit to the idea, it probably wouldn't be utilized much (what would it be used for?) and you'd want supply depots to be in front of your bunkers anyway to prevent melee targets from attacking them.

[Hamshank]

So, what would you think about being able to submerge your Bunkers?

First off it wouldn't work at all.
Supply depots cannot reemerge and split forces when there's a huge army present. The supply depots are trapped.

Therefore, if you were under attack and you submerged your bunkers, even for a split second, they'd be stuck down and you couldn't use em'.

[Nicol Bolas]

I feel that since marines have such short range now, with no upgrades, bunkers are relatively useless...even with +1 range, many units outrange marine/bunkers, so it's just too easy to avoid or deal with.

What? They have a range 5. And just like in SC1, Bunkers give +1 range, thus giving them range 6.

[imdrunkontea]

What? They have a range 5. And just like in SC1, Bunkers give +1 range, thus giving them range 6.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many units now have 7 range. If you're using marines against void rays, the bunker is useless because the VRs have range 7, as do banshees. If you wall-in with supply depots in front, units like immortals can shoot the depots while being out of range of the bunkers. If you're going against mutas, it's more cost-effective to build several turrets, which have range 7 and detection, than building bunkers.

[Nicol Bolas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many units now have 7 range. If you're using marines against void rays, the bunker is useless because the VRs have range 7, as do banshees.

Of course it does. Void Rays are supposed to be good at killing buildings; it's part of their job. If upgraded Bunkers could shoot back, then it wouldn't be doing its job. Same goes for Banshees.

If you're going against mutas, it's more cost-effective to build several turrets, which have range 7 and detection, than building bunkers.

Except that you can't salvage turrets; you can salvage bunkers. So if you build Turrets that never kill anything, that's money lost. While Bunkers can be salvaged once the danger of Mutalisks has passed (assuming they don't tech-switch back into them).

Also, Marines in upgraded bunkers kill Mutalisks faster (unless they have armor upgrades). And Marines in bunkers get the benefit of attack upgrades, which buildings don't.

It's a simple tradeoff.

[Artanis]

Also, Marines in upgraded bunkers kill Mutalisks faster (unless they have armor upgrades). And Marines in bunkers get the benefit of attack upgrades, which buildings don't.
It's a simple tradeoff.

Anf of course, usable stim while in bunker

[MillenniumDH]

From my experience almost all defencive buildings in sc2 are almost completely useless, and onyl usefull the money in rare ocasions.

Or for detection, for example.

[Islandsnake]

Bunkers are so crazy X_X

Most terran players neglect to bring 3-4 scvs with there army! Very useful for proxy turrets and bunkers.

Proton Cannons seem about as good as they've always been, and spine crawlers can move around which makes them a better investment than they used to be!

[Norfindel]

Well look at the picture, they're different. It's because their cargo capacity increased by 2, but their physical building placement size doesn't increase at all with the upgrade.

Makes sense, or the already-built Bunkers would overlap. They can be taller and look beefier, however.