Don’t engage the crazy, man.
What is strategy and what are tactics?
Do you actually read what I don’t write, or do you just make things up? I loved Starcraft, and Starcraft 2. I played through the original three times over. But I suck at the multiplayer, because it’s a constant struggle to catch up to the opponent’s speed. I don’t have a problem
Note that chess is also not really a strategic game. It’s a tactical game. A very pure and abstract tactical game, but a tactical game.
Tactics are the measures involved in actually attacking and disrupting the enemy’s combat force. It seeks to achieve military objectives through the use of combat, enabling the defeat, capture, wounding, or death of enemies on an individual or small-group basis. Position matters to the extent that enables these direct goals. The major (often only) goal of tactics are to destroy the enemy’s ability to fight with minimal loss of immediate resources. Tactics is zero-sum: there are two sides and the better one does, the worse the other does.
Strategies are the measures used to devise victorious campaigns marshaling entire organizations. It is concerned solely with winning political objectives. Strategy is not necessarily zero-sum: it is possible, thought not necessary, for all actors to be better off not fighting.
Tactics vary based on technology and training, or sometimes with immediate resources. Strategies vary with the political circumstances and how best to use existing resources for military ends. Starcraft is a tactical game - all RTS’s I know are basically tactical games. They have a couple oddball elements of strategy, but that’s it.
The only real strategic elements are (a) that you do earn income in the brief matches and (b) can change your unit mix. Note that many concepts have applications on a tactical level: everything is about how to destroy the enemy. Strategic games can in fact be run completely peacefully (although that might not be the point of the game).
The problem here is that “strategy” and “tactics” are relative terms, not absolute. From the foot soldier’s point of view, “tactics” is “keep your head down, keep your gun pointed in the general direction of the enemy, and if you see something move that isn’t one of yours, shoot at it”, while “strategy” is “take control of that bunker on top of the hill”. From the lieutenant’s point of view, “tactics” is “take control of that bunker on top of the hill”, and “strategy” is “Control that valley below the hill to cut off the enemy’s supply chain”. To the general, “tactics” is “cut off the enemy’s supply train”, and “strategy” is “weaken the local warlord’s forces enough that the people can join our cause”. To the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “tactics” is “weaken local warlords so the people can join our cause”, and “strategy” is “occupy and stabilize this nation”. To the President, “tactics” is “occupy and stabilize this nation”, and “strategy” is “control supply of natural resources to keep them available to us”. No matter how strategic you get, you can pretty much always find another layer above it.
This pedantic distinction between strategy and tactics is silly. Buddy says he doesn’t even play the game, so that’s pretty much it. If it wasn’t apparent enough before, buddy just doesn’t know what’s going on. Playing the single player game isn’t worth anything. Are we going to have a ridiculous thread about how all games are role-playing games?
Alright, I just played several “all probe and stalker all the time” games. In terms of winning and losing, it went terribly. In terms of me building probes all the time, it went exceedingly well.
I think I’ll just keep doing the same kind of thing, but make it a mix of gateway units, and I’ll allow myself the single micro manouver of using Guardian Shield each time a battle happens. (I am certain GS would have won me the vs Terran games I lost. GS plus armor upgrades is devastating vs. MM balls.)
Maybe this will help on the W/L ratio while still helping me focus on econ practice.
heh I was writing another point by point rebuttal but my wife walked by my computer and it rebooted (it’s weird it only does that for her). But screw it. You say you don’t want to argue? That’s fine but your first post in this thread told us that high level players were just speed monkeys with pre-set build orders. Most people have pointed out that is incorrect. So if you don’t want to argue why not just post that you don’t really understand high-level play or that SC2 online just isn’t the type of game for you and your definitions of strategy vs tactics are your subjective definitions and only apply to games you already like.
Seem fair enough?
Sorry that came out a bit harsher than I meant re-reading it. The second part is just a kind of ‘hey not my game and doesn’t meet what I view to be strategic gameplay, but I’m willing to concede it may have more strategy than fits my view’.
I’m not arguing strategy vs. tactics, but I was struck by one example given:
Chess isn’t a very good example. I don’t think serious chess players ever “kill all the enemy.” Games are decided either by trapping the King (checkmate) or by conceding after one side gains a significant advantage, which can occur through captures or positioning.
you can surrender in Starcraft too - there is no need to wait for your last building to be destroyed to decide the game. just yesterday i won a game through bravado, even though i had no money left to rebuild my CC while my opponent did.
i put forth that the strongest ‘late late game race’ are the Terrans. it’s hard to beat 200 food cruisers and thors backed up by an army of SCVs.
Battlecruisers are pretty awful right now except in certain situations: in TvT where you already have more vikings, and… that’s it. They’re too slow in TvZA and high templar beat them with feedback in TvP. Of course, this might change when they increase the battlecruiser speed in patch 1.3.
As for best lategame army? Probably Zerg because they can stockpile larvae when they get maxed, and then immediately after they lose their army they’re maxed again. It takes T and P longer to rebuild their army.
I think that with micro (keeping the VRs spread out to avoid splash damage) a 200 food VR armada will beat this.
Neither player should be letting the other player get either of these armies going, of course. 
By the way, the ‘only make stalkers’ thing totally worked.
Feedback can certainly soften up a battlecruiser significantly, but it can’t kill them. What do you use for the other 2/3 of their life? Phoenixes? Void rays? Stalkers?
And personally, I can’t really find a good use for Thors. The biggest problem is that they’re so big and bulky that it’s hard to move them around, and you can’t bring very many of them to bear on any given target. Plus, of course, between being slow-moving and ground-bound, they’ll give your enemy a lot of time to prepare for them. The best I can do is sticking one or two in a group of mostly Goliaths, and then micromanaging at the destination to make sure they’re in the front soaking damage.
Your lawn is so inviting. Mind if I stand on it a while?
Goliaths aren’t in SC2 multiplayer, silly.
Typical Protoss response to battlecruisers would be feedback + blink stalkers (or possibly void rays).
I use Thors all the time vs. zerg because they’re good against mutas and cost effective vs. roaches and hydras. I also like to drop them and kill hatcheries with 250mm cannons. Thors can be effective late game vs. protoss in some situations, and they’re a part of some thor rush builds. TvT they’re mostly useful as a 1-of for fending off vikings in tank/viking wars because they have huge range.