Forceful play

[DemolitionSquid]

I'm generally Professor Plum.

[silencbank]

I am beginning to think that I am dangerous on this forum with this much lack of sleep over the last few days. I have derailed this thread more than I usually try to. So back to the OP. Yes, making them do something because you did something in order for you to do something to counter the something they did to counter your something is very good. After all that is why zerg makes banelings. Can not put it any simpler if I tried.

[dejai]

So you just take it from Terran? What if Terran timing pushes and expands. Then he does not loose in the economy since 2 Base Terran is scary to 2 Base Zerg and he is marching on your front door (That will test your micro skills). You guys seem to play like IdRa and Artosis.

[hyde]

This is in any video game. From Counter strike to Street Fighter, you can put on the heat so your opponent is playing defence and has to play a reactionary role to your advances.
Essentially, you have control of him.

I think this is basic warfare philosophy, that it's always better to fight your enemy on your own terms =D

[dejai]

Aggressive and passive play are two valid game styles. In aggressive play you are the one putting on pressure so you are in control of the entire map you cut them to their base and perhaps their natural. If you can "out muscle them" you can win. You can also transition into a more late game build from aggression and a lot of players do that. Nothing stops a reasonably fast expansion from an aggressive player (excluding all ins). As a passive player they are immediately threatening your front and you have to be very good at defending. Is it really fighting on your own terms if they fork your army and your worker line?