What is better, battlecrusiors or carriers?

[Wing Zero]

did u ever notice that lotts bc vs lotts carrir or bc vs bc and carrir.. u get the point its hella long?

 

[TheLightsOut]

wouldnt 12 valks own 12 carriers?

 

[Sakuhta]

Lmao..no valks actually suck, take too long. Carriers would own them out. Only problem with carriers and BC's is their slooowww speed. And very expensive. Makes them an ideal and very easy target for Psi Storm.

-Sakuhta

 

[betaalpha5]

i liek carriers they might cost more but hey grab a AT and recall a bunch of carriers and bcs might die for the interceptors would go away from the cloaking field which would made them visable while the clokaing field would keep the carriers safe. and if they are on the defensive. a few shield batteries would keep them alive for a while and if the interceptors get hurt press "stop" and they would all heal again and ready for battle

 

[Renzokuken]

Ever noticed how the Carriers Interceptors will do 3 damage each time it hits, unless upgraded? BC's own Carriers easily.

Carriers just suck!

 

[TheNamelessYam]

Originally posted by panthr_dude
i say carrier because the enemys can get confused with the interceptors and will attack them instead of the carriers letting the carriers stay longer. And then the interceptors can do multiple damgae cause they all each attack different tagets

the only thing confused around here is you. when you kill interceptors, they take time to remake, if you kill enough/all of the interceptors, the carriers are near completely powerless, giving you instant owange. but thhats the hard way, i say take out the carriers as fast as possible with yamato guns. although, ive never massed bcs nor carriers, ive only seen it happen.

 

[Phoenix2003]

Not the BC vs carrier argument.... AGAIN. Oh well. I say carriers. They're more potent than BCs. BCs can't touch carriers without YC. BCs lose to just about everything cost effectively except valks and pure mutas. If I had a nickel for each time somebody said they have good armor and health...... Well, if BCs were 1000/1000, I'm sure people would still argue they have good armor and health.

 

[Phoenix2003]

Originally posted by TheLightsOut
wouldnt 12 valks own 12 carriers?

No, Valks attack is like BB guns to carriers.

 

[betaalpha5]

but what bout if the carriers where in 1 big group that would hurt

 

[Ued_colonial]

dude bcs rule carriers get own by bcs.

 

[Renzokuken]

Originally posted by Phoenix2003
BCs can't touch carriers without YC.

They dont need to, if you have enough BC's (Even the same amount as Carriers) you could just shoot down the Interceptors (Since they have crap HP) so the Carriers would be defenseless.

Originally posted by Phoenix2003
BCs lose to just about everything cost effectively except valks and pure mutas

Actually, Carriers are the least cost effective. It costs 550 minerals and 250 gas to create one Carrier with eight Interceptors. And one BC owns one Carrier, and it costs less. So, in conclusion, Carriers are the least cost effective.

Originally posted by Phoenix2003
If I had a nickel for each time somebody said they have good armor and health...... Well, if BCs were 1000/1000, I'm sure people would still argue they have good armor and health.

But you still cannot deny that truth. Face it, Carriers suck.

 

[Phoenix2003]

BCs won't shoot down the interceptors fast enough to make a difference. Shoot them down all you want, I'll just replace them(they're cheap) as you lose your BCs. BCs aren't that good and are horribly overrated. You won't get within range of carriers to kill them. So sad. Carriers are very cost-effective against almost anything including BCs.

 

[fritfrat]

it doesn't say who would win, it said who was better! my god. it is BALANCED!! did anyone ever think of that? carriers cost more, but are more effective at killing more things. however, carriers alone are not as good, and they are bigger targets to psi storm. armor also makes more of a difference against carriers. however carriers dealing 9 8 times over and BCs dealing 34 would seem easy, but each of them are good for different things, as they are different units. because I think ur arguments are stupid

 

[Phoenix2003]

Good luck shooting down 96 interceptors as your opponent replaces them. Face it, BCs suck. Good armor and health don't mean sh*t in a real game. Not sure why anyone whose actually played this game beyond newbie level would think of wasting 400/300 on a weak, easily countered unit.

 

[HydraGyro]

mmm bcs would own carriers but if u cloak the carriers with an arbitor the bcs would become retarded...

neway mostly i use zerg with gaurdian/devour/muta combo... always owns...

 

[betaalpha5]

err well question who the hell uses carriers and bcs in a real lifegame?






ty

 

[eSc0]

whenever i actually use bc's i always own carriers easily even without the YC. but of course i play money maps

 

[betaalpha5]

ahh money map nad fastest map i play on those 2 and after a whle i stop using carriers. i just kinda mass goons with some zeal and maybe dts

 

[Skyhr]

After several posts, I now agree with Phoenix, but not entirely. Carriers WOULD own BCs with good micro-management(Hit and run. I tried this and it actually works), but BCs don't simply SUCK. Their yamato are useful and without carriers, they're harder to defend due to their formidable hp and attack, and maybe defense...

Carriers are NOT least cost effective, because when interceptors are being made, mineral is being harvested... So it's not like I need 550 minerals RIGHT AWAY to make one carrier...

 

[Renzokuken]

Originally posted by Phoenix2003
BCs won't shoot down the interceptors fast enough to make a difference. Shoot them down all you want, I'll just replace them(they're cheap) as you lose your BCs. BCs aren't that good and are horribly overrated. You won't get within range of carriers to kill them. So sad. Carriers are very cost-effective against almost anything including BCs.

Replace them? Hah, you wont have the time. It'd take too long to replenish them in the heat of battle. The BCs would own them.