and why the current balance changes don’t support how Terran was intended to be played.
Terran has become overpowered since the recent changes to thors, and the older changes to battle cruisers.
the army as a whole is easier to play than any other army, due to severe balance differences between Terran, and any other army.
the current play style allows Terran players to win without playing towards the original strengths offered by the Terran race.
their army has become a basic jack of all trades army, that can adjust to either match the unit production of Zerg, or create bigger stronger units to go up against Protoss.
Zerg vs Terran is where this becomes most relevant, but it can also relate when dealing with Terran vs Protoss.
as it stands, Terran is the only army who can viably win games, defend against nearly anything, and cause a game ending threat using nothing but basic marines.
the Terran army has simply become too Powerfull, because Terran players have become frustrated with the number of troops available to Zerg, and the brute strength of Protoss forces. Terran generally believe themselves to have weaker troop selections all around, and feel as if they need more reliable troops that can match the strength of the Protoss, or the numbers of the Zerg.
this mentality immediately causes the misconception that Terran forces are supposed to be therefore “somewhat in between” being able to outproduce Protoss, while offering stronger units than Zerg.
to better look at the imbalances within Terran, it is better to look at whats going on within Protoss and Zerg.
Two sides of a coin- Protoss and Zerg
Zerg
in what seems to be a case of balance, Zerg relies on having more numbers than the opponent.
Zerg wins battles by positioning its units well, and implementing tactics to mislead the opponent into engaging pointless fights, while positioning his forces to surround his opponent, or attack at undefended positions. this pairs with the fact that Zerg units move and produce extremely fast, and move even quicker on the creep.
unlike Terran, Zerg gives up many of the units that can fight alone or disrupt the enemy economy. (until things like mutalisks, ventral sacs, or nydus worms become available) instead, the Zerg player concentrates on keeping a large army, while maintaining a strong economy.
If a Zerg player was fighting off the creep, keeping his army all in one place, or fighting within a “single-file choke-point”, it would be considered bad play, and would mean the Zerg player is not using all the tools he has available at his disposal, and is not playing towards the strengths of his given race.
Protoss
On the contrary, Protoss relies on having fewer, more powerful troops than the opponent, and has access to units early on that are resilient, and can benefit each other by fighting alongside one another.
Protoss buildings can restore shields, and using a combination of powerful troops, unit synergy, and static base defenses, Protoss can attempt to keep their forces alive indefinitely while defending their nexus and batteries.
like Zerg, Protoss doesn’t gain much access to many disruption type units until later into the game (namely when adepts, phoenix, oracles, or warp prisms become available) like Zerg, Protoss players concentrate on keeping a strong economy, while maintaining a powerful army.
if a Protoss player was fighting off of his own power zones, splitting up his forces, or fighting out in open an area, it would be considered bad play, and would mean the Protoss player is not using all the tools he has available at his disposal, and is not playing towards the strengths of his given race.
The Black Sheep - Terran
Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran relies on disrupting the enemy, scouting, and adjusting itself to any given situation.
the army has access to multiple disruption type units like ghosts, reapers, cyclones, banshees, or battle cruisers that function well as lone units outside of the main army.
these units rely on their ability to position themselves tactically, to deal more damage to a larger force than the initial cost of the Terran unit.
Terran forces are fully adept at manipulating attack range, vision, and height advantages by using cliffs, ledges, and the natural terrain to their advantage, creating walls, overlapping fields of fire, or positions that allow long range units to engage enemies outside the targets attack range.
Terran units themselves are neither powerful, nor high in number, and rely on military tactics to perform well.
Terran gain access to a scan feature that cannot be avoided by any means besides destroying the Terran’s orbital command location.
this allows them to reliably scout the enemy consistently throughout the entire game, and use this ability to scout ahead for disruption type units like reapers, hellions, battle cruisers, or medivacs loaded with marines, tanks, or thors.
Terran players are able to build anywhere on the map, allowing them to easily set up walls or defensive parameters.
although Terran don’t necessarily receive any bonuses from being within their own base location, this is outweighed by the fact that Terran players have access to multiple units that can bunker down in any given location, allowing them to set up static defense positions anywhere on the map using liberators, siege tanks, or widow mines, while being able to build bunkers and missile turrets to support these at any location.
Terran buildings are also able to lift off, re position, raise, and lower, allowing Terran even more versatility in where and when he can build on the map.
this allows Terran to keep his buildings protected almost indefinitely, and allows him to immediately establish static defenses at a given location, before anything else has been built, or otherwise telegraphed that the Terran plans to fortify the said location.
this allows a strategic Terran to set up fully defended expansions without ever exposing his main army, risking a command center, or even sending an scv along the road.
a Terran player keeping his main army outside his own defensive positions, would be considered bad play.
a Terran player being attacked on the road, in the middle of re positioning, should be considered bad play.
a Terran player failing to scout an oncoming army before engaging, should be considered bad play.
attacking an enemy head on before scouting or establishing defensive parameters, should be considered bad play,
for a Terran player to be sending SCVs along the road to construct risky expansions before Terran has established defensive structures,
should be bad play, and would mean the Terran player is not using all the tools he has available at his disposal.
for a Terran player to be able train and upgrade his entire army before scouting the opponents tech paths/ army composition, should be considered bad play, and shows that the Terran player is not using all the tools he has at his disposal.
a Terran player failing to scout, adjust, and counter the opponents army composition, based on what units he expects to be up against, and still winning, is bad play, and would mean the Terran player does not need to use all the tools he has available at his disposal.
all of this can be translated into, if a Protoss player wasn’t using batteries, it’s considered bad play.
a Zerg player not using queens is considered bad play.
a Protoss player not using chrono boost is really bad play, a Zerg player not spreading creep is pretty bad play, not using larva injections… that’s really bad play.
we all need to use the tools we have available or fall behind. Terran remains the only race that can objectively ignore its racial benefits in order to mimic any other races level of production, opting to take reactors, extra supplies and mules, over orbital scans because the Terran army has the ability to simply out produce or over power whatever race it comes up against if opting for mules or extra supplies over orbital scans.
Terran are also the only race who are able to ease up on ground defenses by using a planetary fortresses, making them the only race able to defend expansions reliably for 150/150 against anything other than air. when you consider how much you would be putting into pylons, batteries, and cannons, vs queens, spores or spine crawlers, the value of a planetary fortress and a few missile turrets is absolutely insane.
where i feel like the current balance towards Terran is broken, is in the thought that Terran “should be able to keep up with Zerg and Protoss’ economy.”
this isn’t fair, considering Terran has the strongest available options for establishing well defended expansions, it makes sense that they would need to take a little longer, before instantly setting up unbreachable defensive positions.
the benefit of creating a command center within your own base, then lifting it off into position, is often overlooked. this tactic alone can deny the threat of zerglings scouting for un-built bases. as zerg, we can attack at a nexus, or a hatchery as its being built, this isn’t the case with a command center built within a Terrans main base, then attempting to lift off and land.
Terran also has the ability to relocate its cleared out expansions by lifting off command centers to reuse them at another location. the massive late game economical advantages here are completely overlooked by the fact that Terran has an early game disadvantage when establishing its natural.
the resources saved when making a planetary fortress, or lifting off orbital commands need to be accounted for.
coupled with the fact that Terran has been offered units and abilities from the start of the game to scout and slow his opponents economy down, and THIS is how Terran is supposed to be keeping up with the economy of protoss and zerg.
terran have, in every department, more cost effecient methods for defending or attacking, that can cost the opponent over 10x the value of the unit in question.
this is a factor that transitions all the way from planetary fortresses, to reapers, siegetanks, all the way across the board to battle cruisers and ghosts.
coupled with the inherit ability to reliably scout and scan, the Terran player should always be at least one step ahead of his opponent, allowing him to make cost effecient decision that will benefit him from every point in the game, based on the fact that HE CAN SEE WHAT HIS OPPONENT IS DOING.
the entire army is based on, theoretically, being able to bite off way more than it should have been able to chew.
to give a race like that a giant mouth to go with it, just doesnt make any sense, when Protoss and Zerg can’t even hope to keep up with these value stealing units (like Widowmines for example)
these Terran units are, as the race implies, better used by the means of stealth, cunning, observation, as well as understanding your opponent.
it makes sense to me that this entire style of play would generally be harder, as it relies on constantly out witting and being a step ahead of your opponent.
terran offers a low risk, high reward style of play, coupled with great static defences and the best scouting options in the game. this style of makes Terran completely unique among the three races, and I think the mindset that Terran forces should also to be able to keep up with Zerg/Protoss forces in head on collisions in open engagements, or that the Raw Terran economy needs to be able to keep up, I think is a flawed mindset, and it really needs to change.