Timeline for Which units should I put in bunkers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2011 at 16:58 | comment | added | tenfour | @Sorean what I mean is, if you are marauder-marine balanced, and Protoss is zealot-heavy (+ some stalkers / sentries), I feel like I should put marauders in the bunkers because they are expensive and super weak to the zealots. But I can see the alternate argument that this emphasizes the value of marines, thus they should be protected and made as effective as they can possibly be. So I don't really know. Maybe I should just use a unit tester for that specific scenario and see what I find. | |
| Nov 28, 2011 at 16:13 | comment | added | Sorean | @Sly The reason pro's don't keep them inside and keep them mobile is because they have the APM to control it like that. They can load/unload attack move faster than us regular folks. | |
| Nov 28, 2011 at 16:11 | comment | added | Sorean | But you don't need stim to kite zealots if you have concussive shell. You need stim to kite zealots if you only have marines. | |
| Nov 28, 2011 at 10:31 | comment | added | tenfour | I am not looking for "it doesn't matter". In sc2, it always matters. For example I can think of one rule of thumb: If you have concussive shells against protoss but no stim, favor marauders in the bunkers to protect them against zealots, make it more effective to target units with the bunker, and maximize the range of the concussive shells. | |
| Nov 28, 2011 at 9:07 | history | answered | Sly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |