|
United States4883 Posts
_
Positional Balance Vs. Engagement Balance
Introduction: After watching SC2 grow and evolve over the past year and a half, and following it with wonder and admiration, I've seen SC2 come to a standstill the past 2-3 months, becoming very stale. With HotS on the way, I understand that Blizzard is busy preparing the way, but the SC2 fanbase has fallen off considerably as many strategies die out and only a handful are left. In almost all of the matchups, we've seen things becominging considerably stale as both players work up to max armies on 4-5 bases and then clash with a single big battle for victory. While we can blame single spells or units for this (i.e. colossus, vortex, infestors, ravens, etc), the problem goes deeper. It is a fundamental issue with the way SC2 has been balanced all along since its release, based around the issue of engagement balance and not positional balance.
Former topic: “Individual Freedom Vs. Collective Freedom” http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377374 (TL;DR – Balances around the freedom of group synergy (i.e. gateway units) take freedoms and power from individual units, making all units within the group less dynamic.)
What is positional balance? + Show Spoiler +When we look at BW versus SC2, we see a few primary differences. I think the chief among these is that each of the units has a lower “critical mass”. For example, in BW, 12 marines is no more effective in terms of damage compared to 28 marines; in SC2, this limit doesn't really exist, as 90 marines are FAR FAR more effective than 12 marines. Many blame the smooth pathing AI of SC2 or the tendency of SC2 units to clump up in comparison to BW, and while all of these are viable suggestions, I feel they are extraneous (but certainly DO contribute) to the problem of bad space control in SC2.
If we look back and see how Blizzard tried balance patches to deal with mass roaches, mass marines, etc, we see that they simply tried to provide in-game counters or nerfing certain units to be less effective. Examples include: raising roach supply, nerfing snipe, nerfing tank damage, adding anion crystals, making FF more accessible, removing flux vanes (VR speed upgrade), etc. I will take other suggestions...I wasn't around SC2 when the beta first came out. While none of these things were in themselves bad things, the problem was that Blizzard was focusing on how units could deal with other units. In HotS, we see them continuing this trend of trying to balance the units against each other.
This is a bad focus. We should instead be working to provide easily accessible space control units in the midgame that do not lose their efficiency in the lategame. This provides an atmosphere for players to play in a way that requires intelligent control of space (or “expansion management” as Day9 terms it) all game long, rather than focusing on the correct endgame composition and engagement.
Starcraft should feel like a game of chess where you are constantly vying for space and control of the board. It shouldn't feel like “if he has a queen and a knight left and I only have a queen and a rook, I am going to win the game”.
Why is positional balance most important? + Show Spoiler +By creating better space control, the game isn't wholly reliant on unit counters, if vikings>colossus or colossus>marines or marines>zealots. You add another dimension to the gameplay which is space that can be manipulated. Along with the “rock, paper scissors” unit counters and limited unit control, you add manipulated space, which allows greater complexity for strategy.
Looking back at the “critical mass” example, we still have the problem that 90 marines are really strong in SC2. Extending that to 90 supply of MMM, that's even stronger. In the current state of the game, only maxed out deathballs can win against maxed out deathballs assuming both players micro their whole armies well. This means that the strongest way to group your units is all together and that defending expansions requires a lot of dancing back and forth.
However, with space control units that will trade favourably and in small numbers with large groups of units, we can effectively guard certain areas. If the opponent wants to trade for a well-fortified position, the player should have to commit a larger force and accept greater losses.
In the state of SC2 at the moment, a maxed out MMM army will still walk over a planetary fortress and 4 seige tanks in almost no time while taking very few loses. In SC2, we see defenses like these being the tipping points in major maxed out battles, not as actual space control. In BW, half to almost all of that attacking force would have been obliterated by the fortified siege tank fire. Taking this into account, we realize that space control automatically breaks up large groups of units by breaking down the numbers before they actually gain a snowball effect. In addition, better space control encourages more army splitting to cover more area, therefore changing the distribution of supply.
Again, while I think that pathing AI and the tendency of units to clump in SC2 contributes to the deathball phenomenon, weak space control is the largest problem that plagues SC2.
What does space control look like in WoL? + Show Spoiler +When we look at WoL, we can see that there is some attempt at space control. It is certainly true that tanks in large numbers are good, that pylons around the map allow warpins to deal with drops, that DTs buy time by causing scans and block lategame expansions, that cannons and storms can kill off entire armies, that you can wall off with planetaries, etc.
HOWEVER, we definitely see a dropoff in cost effectiveness in the later portions of the game. No amount of gateway units will stop a maxed bioball, no area can be held with less than 6 tanks, no amount of cannons is worth the amount of zealots spent elsewhere (primarily used for defending your big units so you don't lose a big battle). Only maxed out armies can deal with maxed out armies effectively.
On a strategic plane, it's impossible to both defend effectively and try to gain new territory in this environment. However, adding space control allows for the manipulation of space around the major points of contention and more possibilities for strategic posturing.
In the HotS beta, we've seen Blizzard trying to give more attention to positional strategy by adding the swarm host, but so far this unit has been weak and considerably weaker in the lategame where the positional problem is most prominent. They have yet to address the WoL units yet, but I feel certain they need to look into working on storm and tank damage.
What this means: The biggest issue facing SC2 is the deathball syndrome. Without significant changes to the way space is controlled and manipulated, SC2 can never rival the strategic depth and complexity of BW. The game design for HotS should not be limited to trying to solve problems by introducing a new way to deal with units or unit compositions, but should take into account the malleable substance of space and its role in strategy. We don't just want a list of unit counters, we want a dynamic change to the battlefield itself.
_
|
Again of lot of personal terminology, but if you read the whole thing it makes sense.
If you've been following this thread you already know I agree with you that it's more than just the units' pew pew. (I also said as much last time.)
To be fair there can be different styles of games, so "should be X" is a difficult statement to support, whereas "won't ever see a significant departure from Y" is certainly something you can make a case for. SC2 is still a fun game.
|
United States4883 Posts
Thank you!
*Shameless self-bumping*
|
Buffing the strength of space control units would also have to coincide with the reduction of maximum worker saturation per base, gas per base, etc. With the current maps and mineral income per base, turtling on 2-4 bases would become unbreakable, essentially whoever attacks first would lose. Also, the collision space of units would probably have to be increased somewhat in order to balance the strength of aoe siege units (I gather that you're aiming to buff these units).
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 26 2012 16:11 theLiminator wrote: Buffing the strength of space control units would also have to coincide with the reduction of maximum worker saturation per base, gas per base, etc. With the current maps and mineral income per base, turtling on 2-4 bases would become unbreakable, essentially whoever attacks first would lose. Also, the collision space of units would probably have to be increased somewhat in order to balance the strength of aoe siege units (I gather that you're aiming to buff these units).
False! If you look at each race, they all have ways to break fortifications as long as they're willing to commit; I don't think unit clumping affects at all the way they would break things. I think the biggest problem facing buffing AoE damage is the structure of most maps. Most maps would have to be modified with bases spread out further apart and probably a little larger (more the size of Whirlwind). In addition, my suggestion was specifically to give each race a good space control unit in the midgame that is useful into the lategame. This leaves plenty of aggression for the early game and the beginning of the midgame, much as it is now.
Examples include: giving seige tanks an armory upgrade, strengthening the space control ability of swarm hosts, buffing storm damage or giving protoss some kind of seige unit, giving protoss shield battery options.
Overall, this means that getting to 2-3 bases is similar to the current metagame, but beyond that and into the lategame, you are focusing more on positioning and how to properly allocate your defenses rather than what composition of units to get and how to micro them perfectly in a big maxed versus maxed battle.
|
I agree with you, some of your points such as how blizzard designed unit balance is spot on. Holding strategic positions can still an edge under the build up phase of the game but as you say. Maxed armies just walk over them leading to the unavoidable scenario. Two armies dancing around trying to catch the other one out of position. Every match up, every time.
Unfortunately I do not believe there is a quick fix for it. Reworking area control units doesn't seem possible without wrecking balance elsewhere and ultimately would probably just worsen the game. The source of the problem is too deep in the game design.
|
I think a lot of this can be promoted simply with more narrow maps. The issue with making specific units strong for defense is that often that means units just become strong overall.
And even if what you say is true, that siege units can break fortifications, then that is simply a unit countering another.
The way I see it, there can be a triangle of unit types. Fast units for harassment and bouncing around the map, Tough units for defending and drawing fire and dangerous units that deal a lot of damage. The problem is that currently, zerg has almost all the fast units, protoss almost all the tanky ones and terran has the damage output.
With each race having a "theme", I think you prevent a lot of dynamic play. That is why I like swarm host in a way, it gives zerg a different approach. It is also why I don't like the speed hydra, it changes nothing, just makes zerg units faster. Still, it is a rather complex situation already.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 26 2012 17:23 risk.nuke wrote: I agree with you, some of your points such as how blizzard designed unit balance is spot on. Holding strategic positions can still an edge under the build up phase of the game but as you say. Maxed armies just walk over them leading to the unavoidable scenario. Two armies dancing around trying to catch the other one out of position. Every match up, every time.
Unfortunately I do not believe there is a quick fix for it. Reworking area control units doesn't seem possible without wrecking balance elsewhere and ultimately would probably just worsen the game. The source of the problem is too deep in the game design.
I agree that there is not an easy fix. In order to fix something like this, you would need a near-overhaul of the existing game balance. However, that doesn't change the fact that SC2 is balanced around engagement balance, not positional balance. The developers and game designers need to be thinking within these parameters as they're going into the future, or we'll just end up with WoL with more units forever.
On October 26 2012 17:54 Fenris420 wrote: I think a lot of this can be promoted simply with more narrow maps. The issue with making specific units strong for defense is that often that means units just become strong overall.
And even if what you say is true, that siege units can break fortifications, then that is simply a unit countering another.
The way I see it, there can be a triangle of unit types. Fast units for harassment and bouncing around the map, Tough units for defending and drawing fire and dangerous units that deal a lot of damage. The problem is that currently, zerg has almost all the fast units, protoss almost all the tanky ones and terran has the damage output.
With each race having a "theme", I think you prevent a lot of dynamic play. That is why I like swarm host in a way, it gives zerg a different approach. It is also why I don't like the speed hydra, it changes nothing, just makes zerg units faster. Still, it is a rather complex situation already.
That's a rather enlightening point that each race has too much of 1 particular thing. Perhaps then SC2 just needs more general smoothing of each race to achieve a kind of balance.
I still think the Swarm Host needs some work. Right now, it's kind of a bland unit, even though it does introduce positional play to zerg in a way. There needs to be more of a constant stream of locusts...I think players will solve this by staggering groups of 4 SH, but I still don't know if that will be strong enough (sinking supply and resources in at least 8 swarm hosts to hold ONE area seems a little too much).
|
I agree with the premise of this post. Without getting too long winded or into specifics I spent some time making data editor changes to radically alter the game in a way that I felt would make it more fun to play and return the positional play I loved in Brood War. The changes were inspired by these types of threads: How to fix the death ball , Keep the races interesting .
In no specific order here are the high level goals and what happened: 1. Soften hard counters 2. Remove death ball by improving or adding AOE positional units for all races. 3. Remove macro mechanics (Larva inject, chrono boost, mule, warpin) and re-balance. 4. Rework boring or non-used units around the fun first balance later idea. 5. Recreate maps from Broodwar, because rather than holding each expansion with a tiny ramp, position was actually important on those maps. 6. Test
The map took me about 3 weeks to get working and we just did our first really multiplayer test last night. It was amazing how "starcrafty" everyone agreed it felt. One of my friends helping with the test is a major Zerg fan. I had never seen him do an overlord drop in a game of SCII. But out positioning your opponent just became more important in this map. We also found ourselves sending out lurkers and other units to spots on the map for control rather than just at a ramp to protect a base. It’s hard to describe, but we played 4 games, and the sense of positional play really changed the game. No more waiting until the clash of the 2 armies and watch the game be decided in 10 seconds.
The types of changes I made would be a radical move for blizzard. It would require a massive effort to rebalance the game. However it’s clear to me that something radical needs to happen. SCII is stale. It’s not just nostalgia; the game just isn't as fun to play in its current state.
|
One of the many problems Thanks for this post.
|
On October 27 2012 00:55 The_Overmind wrote:I agree with the premise of this post. Without getting too long winded or into specifics I spent some time making data editor changes to radically alter the game in a way that I felt would make it more fun to play and return the positional play I loved in Brood War. The changes were inspired by these types of threads: How to fix the death ball , Keep the races interesting . In no specific order here are the high level goals and what happened: 1. Soften hard counters 2. Remove death ball by improving or adding AOE positional units for all races. 3. Remove macro mechanics (Larva inject, chrono boost, mule, warpin) and re-balance. 4. Rework boring or non-used units around the fun first balance later idea. 5. Recreate maps from Broodwar, because rather than holding each expansion with a tiny ramp, position was actually important on those maps. 6. Test The map took me about 3 weeks to get working and we just did our first really multiplayer test last night. It was amazing how "starcrafty" everyone agreed it felt. One of my friends helping with the test is a major Zerg fan. I had never seen him do an overlord drop in a game of SCII. But out positioning your opponent just became more important in this map. We also found ourselves sending out lurkers and other units to spots on the map for control rather than just at a ramp to protect a base. It’s hard to describe, but we played 4 games, and the sense of positional play really changed the game. No more waiting until the clash of the 2 armies and watch the game be decided in 10 seconds. The types of changes I made would be a radical move for blizzard. It would require a massive effort to rebalance the game. However it’s clear to me that something radical needs to happen. SCII is stale. It’s not just nostalgia; the game just isn't as fun to play in its current state. Some of these things just aren't true: -BW had plenty of hard counters - the biggest one was that bio wasn't played AT ALL in TvT and TvP because marines were hard countered by almost all AoE damage (storm, reavers, tanks, and to a lesser extent lurkers) -In BW maps expansions were "held with a tiny ramp" far more frequently than in SC2 maps. Expansions often used single-width ramps (which were even harder to attack up than in SC2 due to bad pathing), and the 3rd was often designed to be able to be walled with 3 or so pylons to block vulture harass.
|
[/QUOTE] Some of these things just aren't true: -BW had plenty of hard counters - the biggest one was that bio wasn't played AT ALL in TvT and TvP because marines were hard countered by almost all AoE damage (storm, reavers, tanks, and to a lesser extent lurkers) -In BW maps expansions were "held with a tiny ramp" far more frequently than in SC2 maps. Expansions often used single-width ramps (which were even harder to attack up than in SC2 due to bad pathing), and the 3rd was often designed to be able to be walled with 3 or so pylons to block vulture harass.[/QUOTE]
I guess by hard counter I mean that a single unit's whole design is to counter one other unit. This has decreased the utility of units over all. Simply because AOE is effective against marines doesn't mean its a hard counter (maybe it was too good in Brood War). Now consider Immortals, everything about that unit is just anti siege tank. It has some other uses, but it was designed as a hard counter.
On the map stuff, I'm not as up on the pro broodwar scene as many people here. However I took a look at the map section for various broodwar tourneys and there are maps with that sort of design, but many with a more open design as well. As for what most people experienced through blizzard maps and custom maps on bnet it was a way different map design.
Its a little off topic, but I think part of the issue with the community in SCII is that its missing the joy that casual players had in SC1. To have a growing community you need a huge base of non pros that want to watch pros play. SCII doesn't have that because its focus is all ladder all the time. The arcade has helped a little, but its not exactly the community that existed in SC1. Things like XP that they now want to introduce are just an artificial way of trying to create that community, instead of creating a game that is both entertaining to play at all levels and fun to watch. Don't get me wrong, I like SCII, but its missing what made SC1 more than just a good RTS.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 27 2012 03:10 The_Overmind wrote: I guess by hard counter I mean that a single unit's whole design is to counter one other unit. This has decreased the utility of units over all. Simply because AOE is effective against marines doesn't mean its a hard counter (maybe it was too good in Brood War). Now consider Immortals, everything about that unit is just anti siege tank. It has some other uses, but it was designed as a hard counter.
On the map stuff, I'm not as up on the pro broodwar scene as many people here. However I took a look at the map section for various broodwar tourneys and there are maps with that sort of design, but many with a more open design as well. As for what most people experienced through blizzard maps and custom maps on bnet it was a way different map design.
Its a little off topic, but I think part of the issue with the community in SCII is that its missing the joy that casual players had in SC1. To have a growing community you need a huge base of non pros that want to watch pros play. SCII doesn't have that because its focus is all ladder all the time. The arcade has helped a little, but its not exactly the community that existed in SC1. Things like XP that they now want to introduce are just an artificial way of trying to create that community, instead of creating a game that is both entertaining to play at all levels and fun to watch. Don't get me wrong, I like SCII, but its missing what made SC1 more than just a good RTS.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377374 In this topic, I explain why units given ultra-specific niche roles force a reliance on other units and an overall weakening of all the units. In terms of unit design, units that directly counter other units are shallow and need more multi-purpose abilities. The marine and, I daresay, even the warhound, were well-designed units that filled multiple roles and could soft-counter things a little more with some work and skill.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=378265 In this topic, I talk about how casual players feel left out of SC2 and why SC2 fanbase is fairly low. Overall, I think changes need to occur in the way BNet is set up and how the game is played in order to attract new players and retain their attention and excitement. Skill is a measurement of how many things you master; with relatively small things to master in SC2, the attention of the casual SC2 community is shifting away to more fun and rewarding games like LoL or Dota 2.
|
I think positional balance was done completely and utterly wrong in WoL (with the Siege Tank essentially being free money to the enemy), however Blizzard is slowly inching toward a better direction with all of the pressure we've been putting on them in regards to HotS recently.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 28 2012 23:55 DemigodcelpH wrote: I think positional balance was done completely and utterly wrong in WoL (with the Siege Tank essentially being free money to the enemy), however Blizzard is slowly inching toward a better direction with all of the pressure we've been putting on them in regards to HotS recently.
I think positional balance wasn't even considered in WoL. After the Steppes of War incident where seige tanks got nerfed to the ground, all Blizzard could do was constantly patch units so they didn't hard counter the shit out of each other, leading to an overall weaker army that relied solely on synergy to be effective (and thus couldn't be split up).
I agree with the inching. It is certainly inching. Swarm host, widow mines, and time warp are steps in the right direction, but HotS is going to need so much more before we can actually expect a game with as much depth and strategy as BW.
|
I don't think siege tanks are actually that bad. They just match up very poorly versus protoss. They are the essence of a damage dealer, with no mobility and poor health to cost ratio. With protoss having units much less susceptible to splash and high enough mobility(blink/charge) to just run up and kill the tanks, they simply have no role in the matchup. And if you make tanks stronger, they will simply start killing all protoss units and then there is no way to engage them (well, aside from air). Maybe that is a good thing, but I dont think it is given how powerful vikings already are in the air.
Tanks are also much better vs T and Z, where their splash becomes the ultimate way of reducing the opponents damage output before the fight even starts. By killing 20 marines or 40 lings in the first volley, the resulting difference in strength makes you dangerous enough to not be overrun.
A lot of the usefulness of splash and defending is down to the map though. At the moment, map makers make wide open maps because of the notion that "zerg needs it", while narrow maps are undoubtedly better for positional play. Especially with ramps and high/low ground.
But more imortant perhaps, what other units work like the siege tank? I think we can put tempests and brood lords in the same box, but aside from those? The biggest failure I think is the colossus in terms of siege range. It does not behave like a glass cannon with that amount of hit points and mobility, yet has siege range and splash. A lot of that comes down to how effective single target damage both T and Z has. I think it also is why the colossus is so powerful in PvP where the single target damage isn't up to par. Without colossus versus bio or roach/ling you are in a very tough spot. That is a different topic however.
I still think the Swarm Host needs some work. Right now, it's kind of a bland unit, even though it does introduce positional play to zerg in a way. There needs to be more of a constant stream of locusts...I think players will solve this by staggering groups of 4 SH, but I still don't know if that will be strong enough (sinking supply and resources in at least 8 swarm hosts to hold ONE area seems a little too much).
That is true, but not so important imo. One of the reasons it feels a bit bland I think is because the broodlord already does the same thing in many ways. I think something as simple as letting the SH's spread creep around them when deployed or have a choice of releasing GtG or GtA locusts with every wave would go a long way to give more depth. The important thing is that they aren't running around
|
So you'll take other suggestions? I'll post this in detail once I get home.
Nerf ALL ranged units and turrents by 1 range.
I'll post more in detail regarding my rationale tonight, but with a basic change like this, you can already see the premise of "critical mass" being nerfed. 200 marines would still do the same "death ball" dps as 100 marines, until the size of the army falls under critical mass. Then you can take a guess what happens when things don't snowball as quickly
|
Some good points here. I like the way HotS is going now though - the oracly is great the tempest seems good, widow mines are mean and the viper sounds good (didn't try it).
There are so many different threads on these forums that identify what is to be done that it's a bit hard to say what the core issues are. At this may point it may really be best to change and add stuff that is simply fun to play and watch and balance out later. Go with the idea that if something is to strong, don't nerf it but just make sure that there is a way to circumvent or overcome it.
Personally for me as a protoss player, what bothers me most is the fact that gateway units are so crappy (which is the reason for collossi dominance).
Example: Forcefield together with the warp mechanic REQUIRE gateway units to be rather cost inefficient because it would be to easy to overpower your opponent after splitting his army/ reinforcing instantly.
A better way: Timewarp instead of FF allows to control the flow of battle somewhat while not directly changing the outcome itself ( as much ). And warptech can easily be changed to be a trade off mechanic: chose between instant reinforcement OR quick production (by giving warpgate a huge cooldown).
But with the tempest and the viper in the game I really think that the siegetank can get a buff now. And HT could easily use some form off buff as well like a bigger area of effect. Another option is giving the tempest a very small aoe, that would at least go well with the graphics and feel of the unit.
The infestor would need to change though, maybe make fungale have a huge area and last longer but deal no damage, In combination with banelings or swarmhosts that could be awesome. Don't know if that would count as positional control as per your definition though but it would be a more interesting dynamic.
|
On October 29 2012 06:14 Prodigal wrote:So you'll take other suggestions? I'll post this in detail once I get home. Nerf ALL ranged units and turrents by 1 range. I'll post more in detail regarding my rationale tonight, but with a basic change like this, you can already see the premise of "critical mass" being nerfed. 200 marines would still do the same "death ball" dps as 100 marines, until the size of the army falls under critical mass. Then you can take a guess what happens when things don't snowball as quickly This is effectively a size increase for everything in the game, and a movement speed buff. It would sort of work, but making the pathing less clumpy would do the same thing but (theoretically) better.
|
On October 25 2012 11:40 SC2John wrote: What is positional balance? When we look at BW versus SC2, we see a few primary differences. I think the chief among these is that each of the units has a lower “critical mass”. For example, in BW, 12 marines is no more effective in terms of damage compared to 28 marines; in SC2, this limit doesn't really exist, as 90 marines are FAR FAR more effective than 12 marines. Many blame the smooth pathing AI of SC2 or the tendency of SC2 units to clump up in comparison to BW, and while all of these are viable suggestions, I feel they are extraneous (but certainly DO contribute) to the problem of bad space control in SC2.
If we look back and see how Blizzard tried balance patches to deal with mass roaches, mass marines, etc, we see that they simply tried to provide in-game counters or nerfing certain units to be less effective. Examples include: raising roach supply, nerfing snipe, nerfing tank damage, adding anion crystals, making FF more accessible, removing flux vanes (VR speed upgrade), etc. I will take other suggestions...I wasn't around SC2 when the beta first came out. While none of these things were in themselves bad things, the problem was that Blizzard was focusing on how units could deal with other units. In HotS, we see them continuing this trend of trying to balance the units against each other.
This is a bad focus. We should instead be working to provide easily accessible space control units in the midgame that do not lose their efficiency in the lategame. This provides an atmosphere for players to play in a way that requires intelligent control of space (or “expansion management” as Day9 terms it) all game long, rather than focusing on the correct endgame composition and engagement.
Starcraft should feel like a game of chess where you are constantly vying for space and control of the board. It shouldn't feel like “if he has a queen and a knight left and I only have a queen and a rook, I am going to win the game”. I fully agree with all the conclusions here EXCEPT the one about pathing and unlimited unit selection NOT being at fault for the lost ability to control space. They are the main culprits which make the tight armies possible and thus are responsible for being able to overrun any defensive position of "a few tanks plus a few bunkers" (for example) with your own whole army. Tight unit formation and unlimited unit selection (plus the "Siege Tanks* are OP" whining) are responsible for nerfing Siege Tanks and other AoE attacks, which would be partial counters to the masses of units. There simply is no downside to massing your armies in a tight clump of units.
* You can replace Siege Tank with Storm, EMP and a few other things.
|
|
|
|