Upgrading armor vs. weapons first?

[Blazur]

I'd like to hear some arguments about which upgrade people feel is more important to get first. I hear so many people argue that weapons are more worthwhile, but I've always felt that armor is better. Reason being is not every unit attacks. You have your workers, spell casters like the Templar and Raven, all of which would benefit from an armor upgrade. Upgrading your weapons will affect a smaller pool of units.

What are your thoughts, and which do you usually choose first?

[Todie]

its all situational. for example, if your fighting against mutalisks, armor ugprades are quite wortwhile since they reduce not only the primary attacks damage but also the glave-worm-bounce's attack. similarly, armor is of great value vs low-damage-per-cycle dealing untis such as marines, zerglings sentries & even workers.. if you are the one using those units its the other way around; upping a zerglings attack from 5 to 6 is a big deal!

a typical argument for weapon upgrades is that if you deal more damage, you'll kill more enemies quicker and hence limit the damage you are taking.

also remember that some unit vs unit matchups are greatly affected by differences in upgrades, in taht it just barely takes one hit more or less for the kill. i remember this from sc/bw where zealots only take 2 hits to kill a zergling if they have an upgrade advantage, but 3 hits if they dont.. zergling hP and zealot damage is the same in sc2 so the same rule should apply here.

[Maxa]

a typical argument for weapon upgrades is that if you deal more damage, you'll kill more enemies quicker and hence limit the damage you are taking.

I've thought about this argument (if you deal more damage, then you'll take less damage), but you could say the same thing in reverse: if you take less damage, then you'll live longer and deal more damage. So I'm not sure I buy it.

I suspect that if Blizzard balanced things correctly, armor and weapons upgrades would be of roughly equal value (I mean this generally. As Todie points out, whether you should upgrade one or the other can depend on particular situations). How exactly you would test this I'm not quite sure.

Personally, I tend to favor weapons upgrades. Why? In literally any engagement, weapons upgrades will help your units. There is no situation in which weapons upgrades don't make your army stronger. But the same isn't true of armor, because when fighting your units will not always be taking fire. If you tech to banshees and your opponent only has zealots, for instance, your weapons upgrades will still help you kill faster (hopefully before he can get some anti-air), but your armor upgrades won't be put to use at all.

[SlickR]

Really depends. If you go mass roaches for example, it would be better go get armor first, since they already deal a lot of damage, they also have survivability, but +1 armor against marines and marauders is huge. They also have a slow attack, so +1 to attack won't benefit them much.

On the other hand upgrading attack on zealots for example is a lot more valuable than armor, especially against zerglings and marines.

And also, its very situational so there is no simple choice like weapons or armor is better upgrade.

[protoswarrior]

I think that if your build is aggressive as hell, or you want to do a timing push using a higher tier unit in the mix of lower tiered units, +1 attack makes a huge difference! Armor would not benefit this build as much.

However, if you intend to macro and defend/harass, armor upps are prolly best (or shield upps, for Protoss). So far, this is what I have noticed.

When I get +1 attack, I am making more immortal/Colossus (whose attack is GREATLY augmented by the upp), and these units cause chaos vs an unupped opponent, or puts an armor upped opponent on the defensive.

If I go Zeal/Stalker/HT, then usually getting armor upps is more important as I find that build and unit mix more defensive, as you will need to have good scouting and timing on your attacks. If you attack with that army and he counters an expo, having the extra armor helps your probes, and warping-in units, just so that they survive to deal a hit and allow time for more reinforcements aka ur army to return.

[GRUNT]

Like others have said, it's situational and also depends on the matchup .

In ZvZ, you want to get the lvl 1 Missile Attack upgrade first, since your whole army is Roaches for a good part of the game, and +2 damage wins out over +1 armour when both sides have only Roaches .

In ZvP, I actually like going lvl1 Missile Attack upgrade, as well. This is because I favour a Roach/Hydra composition in the early-midgame. I think that the +1 carapace has a bigger effect in a more Zergling-heavy build, but I don't use Zerglings a whole lot unless my opponent over-produces Immortals and Stalkers. +1 Carapace is especially good against Zealots, now that they don't get +2 damage from their Weapons upgrade, but 2x +1. However, once Colossi enter the field, it doesn't matter whether my Hydras have +1 or +2 Carapace - as long as the Protoss has +1 weapons, Colossi will still two-shot Hydralisks . Another reason why I prefer +1 missile attack.

Against Terrans, I always get the Carapace upgrade first . I'm not sure how the math works out, but I think because the Terrans do their damage through the cumulative effect of lots of 'little' damage dealers (namely Marines), it's more beneficial to get Carapace than Missile Attacks first.

[Todie]

on a side note, zerg melee upgrades feel weak, even though banelings and broodlings are affected, and zerglings adrenal glands upgrade acutally works by now, ranged upps affect hydra, roach and even infested terrans.. it just seems to give you more bang for the buck.

having said that, i am yet to witness true mid-lategame zergling-massing, that might will benefit from melee 'grades. but it feels quite situational across teh matchups, in any case.

[Noctis]

i think its extremely situational

if your opponent has rolled out +1 weapons and you have nothing, roll out +1 armor and if you can do +1 weapons at the same time

but ideally i would typically do like +2 weapons, and depending how my opponent responds get +3 or get a +1 to armor

[Perfecttear]

If your main army is mostly low tier then an armor upgrade is usefull, or for timing pushes. In all other cases you should go damage upgrades first.

Lategame an damage upgrade is far more usefull than an armor one. A +3 damage upgraded units will always win against an +3 armor one. ( a +6 damage marauders, zealot, roach will easily win against similar units with +3 armor.

So far i noticed, that it's only usefull to research armor upgrades if you are a zerg, since it's for all your ground units, and if you are a protoss then the shields upgrades pay of.
But for terran you are bether of researching only damage ones.

In short geting damage upgrades first is bether for about 80% of all units. ( all units that get more than +1 damage per weapon upgrade.)

[arthas]

[QUOTE=Perfecttear;73195]
Lategame an damage upgrade is far more usefull than an armor one. A +3 damage upgraded units will always win against an +3 armor one. ( a +6 damage marauders, zealot, roach will easily win against similar units with +3 armor.

[QUOTE]
You can skip the zealot,armor aplies per attack,and zealots get 1 damage per attack(2 attacks)...