| 1 |
[quote]I want to get really good at the expansion strategy.[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]I want to get really good at the expansion strategy.[/quote]
|
| 2 |
This only works if you know your opponent will not go into the aggression strategy.
|
2 |
This only works if you know your opponent will not go into the aggression strategy.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
Which they should, because it captures the initiative and can seamlessly transition to either two of the other strategies *after containing you in a stranglehold*.
|
4 |
Which they should, because it captures the initiative and can seamlessly transition to either two of the other strategies *after containing you in a stranglehold*.
|
|
|
5 |
\n
|
|
|
6 |
Ex: "interception defense" vs "aggression": aggressor can always stop trying to actually kill your stuff, and instead settle for making you unable to expand - switching intent to kill with intent to contain - by running around and threatening to kill things if you stop intercepting. Meanwhile as you are intercepting, they can safely expand themselves (transitioning into contain-backed "expansion" strategy, essentially).
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
"expansion" vs "aggression" can imo only survive when raiders that the aggressor employs are easy to stop by constructors rapid-plopping emergency turrets, or when you're also running an "interception" subroutine with higher efficiency than the enemy runs his containment (e.g. your raiders are better than his, you are way better at micro, your intel advantage is really big, etc), or if he fails to scout your expansions before they lay eggs - something that's hard to pull off in the age of Sparrow.
|
B732215 2 on Trojan Hills v05 (Multiplayer)