Guest
Premium Member
^Exactly faggorty.
No it isn't. In wc3 you could attack a base with a hero and kill tons of units/buildings depending on the hero. In starcraft there is none of that shit, thus making it more realistic.that is grossly inaccurate, and disgusting.
either you have never played Warcraft III, or you ... actually there is no way you played WCIII with that statement.No it isn't. In wc3 you could attack a base with a hero and kill tons of units/buildings depending on the hero. In starcraft there is none of that shit, thus making it more realistic.
In WC:III heroes are only slightly more powerful than your average GRUNT. Even at level ten, a hero can fall to three upgraded grunts.No it isn't. In wc3 you could attack a base with a hero and kill tons of units/buildings depending on the hero. In starcraft there is none of that shit, thus making it more realistic.
You have obviosuly never played warcraft III as I said. But since you have no clue what you are talking about, and you are corrupting the innocent Starcraft players who love to hide behind this idea that Warcraft III was ruined by uber godly heroes. So I will enlighten you.You guys obviously don't know how to use your LVL 10 hero then. Losing to 3 grunts? LOL.
ah yes, nothing like forgetting the fact that you were completely wrong about heroes and instead change the subject. Of course Starcraft is more realistic what with space travel, alien races, warp travel. It makes so much sense how realistic something is just because there is less health on it's space aged weaponry.You're just dense and ignorant then. Warcraft 3 is not nearly as realistic as Starcraft is in any way shape or form. Less health+more armies= more realistic war simulation.
wanna make a wager I very well could play an entire game without a hero, and you can have heroes and I would win. I can do it if you want to test me. I don't know what games you played when you do customs, but when you are able to be ranked on the ladder you tend to pick up some things about a game.You come at me with your fully upgraded taurens and I will come at you with my heroe....I guarantee myself a win.
More realistic when it comes to how war works is what I meant.
wanna make a wager I very well could play an entire game without a hero, and you can have heroes and I would win. I can do it if you want to test me. I don't know what games you played when you do customs, but when you are able to be ranked on the ladder you tend to pick up some things about a game.
Armies without heroes compared to ones that do most likely lose. Making the hero unit a deciding factor.and you obviously don't realize heroes don't win battles.
I agree, but Protoss do better with a fair bit of micro...the only difference is that the main reason for a lot of micro is to get good at targeting and casting spells on individual targets (Lockdown, Yamato), and with a lot of Protoss spellcasters, simultaneous casting isn't necessarily bad. (Recall, Psi Storm, Maelstrom).ANYWAYS....
terran - most micro
zerg - similar to terran, bit less micro i guess
protoss - requires least micro
think im wrong? then think again.
anyways... strategy in sc2, cant really say much until we are shown with all the units in the game wit htheir new abilities
And two armies with heroes means that there is no hero deciding factor, and everything rests on what units you have prepared for your army. No hero has ever single handedly won any battle by itself in a real ladder game. Thats' like saying an army with spell casters and an army without spell casters the army with spell casters will win. That's your logic.Armies without heroes compared to ones that do most likely lose. Making the hero unit a deciding factor.
Wtf newb .ANYWAYS....
terran - most micro
zerg - similar to terran, bit less micro i guess
protoss - requires least micro
think im wrong? then think again.
anyways... strategy in sc2, cant really say much until we are shown with all the units in the game wit htheir new abilities