Starcrafts Unit Limit

[Coolness53]

What do you think will be the unit limit. Starcraft unit is 200 but do you think it is going to be higher or lower and why. I think they should keep it the same. I think 200 units was just fine. The reason I am thinking it maybe smaller is because of the graphics. I still think they are going to keep the unit limit 200.

[Swiftjustice]

i think lower like war3 for some reason... speciallyfor reasons like if there is alot of stuff going on the screen at once... I kinda think war3 is perfect with the 90 limit.....

[LoneWolf]

The unit limit must be higher than 90. I like the idea of battles on a larger scale, I feel 90 would be limiting. Also, make sure different units take up different amounts of PSI so armies can be balanced (If that sounded stupid, for some reason I remember WC III having all units cost one PSI... correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really have much of a supporting argument other than that, so... yeah.

[Shinigami]

That all depends on the build of the new units as well as the reshaping of the old ones. Their statistics and roles in an army will help decide their supply and a limit can be set accordingly. Taking the scale of StarCraft into consideration I couldn't imagine Blizzard making the limit for StarCraft II less than two hundred. If anything it would be increased, even if just slightly. Again, when it all comes down to it, it's the unit specifics that will decide the supply limit.

[Battlecruiser]

What do you think will be the unit limit. Starcraft unit is 200 but do you think it is going to be higher or lower and why. I think they should keep it the same. I think 200 units was just fine. The reason I am thinking it maybe smaller is because of the graphics. I still think they are going to keep the unit limit 200.

maybe the reason it was 200 was because computers could not keep track of each unit if it was 300 or 400? I think it might be boosted up to 400 this time because computer can handle it.

[Shinigami]

I think it might be boosted up to 400 this time because computer can handle it.
Which computer? The StarCraft AI or the computer used to play StarCraft? Honestly, 400 is unreasonable. Blizzard will probably up the amount of players per game from 8 and given that StarCraft is already a game that allows you to macro with large sums of units (unless you're Protoss, then that does not ring true) and giving each player 400 supply would overwhelm most computer even if the graphics stayed as they are now, and that is defiantely not the case.

[RevolutiOn]

With Team Melee settings, you can go up to 1000 supply for each player in a 1:1 if you have all eight people join, and then just one person from each side actually plays.

Anyway.. I think the supply limit will stay similar, but it really depends on what units are in it, and what they will be used for.

[Exedore]

I have pretty much the same opinion as Coolness53, the thread initiator. 200 worked fine for Starcraft, so there's really no reason to raise it higher. The only time I ever reached the supply cap and stayed there for more than a minute or two was on money maps and island maps.

However, depending on the development status of SC2 and the expected release year, it may be pushing it to have a supply cap of 200 units if the game uses true 3D. Warcraft3 uses a supply cap of 100, but almost all combat units use at least 2 supply, and it's rare to see a full 100 supply worth of units (most stop at 80). Based on these metrics, SC2 would have about 4 times the units running around that war3 has. To do this, graphics technology would have to advance a bit, or Blizzard would have to make optimizations and limitations on the engine and/or cut down on the poly count for units, which is already low in war3.

[Schwitzer]

As mentioned, it all depends on how the units are done.

In StarCraft units are built and killed quickly, so a cap of 100 just would not work. However, WarCraft III units are quit hard to kill, hence the cap can be 100. Having 200 supply for WarCraft III would've just been overkill.

I'm sure that whatever Blizzard decide to set the cap at, it will be suitable for the game.

[CyNix07]

Has anyone played CC Generals? There is no limit on units, but the graphics are still good. I think StarCraft should not have a limit on units, as long as the player has enough supply depots/pylons/overlords to support them.

[Geno]

Has anyone played CC Generals? There is no limit on units, but the graphics are still good. I think StarCraft should not have a limit on units, as long as the player has enough supply depots/pylons/overlords to support them.

The only flaw with that is, what happens on infinite money maps? You can sit there, build tons and tons of units, and turtle your way out. The thing is, when you have TOO many units, the strain would be too great, and the game would crash (I do believe...) and to prove that point, you can go into the editor, make about 400 or so zerglings burrowed in one little area. Make sure they are COMPUTER zerglings. Then, take about 100 marines, and put them on top of the burrowed lings (This can be done with special editor), finally, have a CC, ghost, and nuke the area where all of those units are standing. 99% of the time, the game crashes. If it doesn't it runs REALLY dang slow...

~Larry "Geno" Meyers

[Modred]

Perhaps it would be best if they allowed you to adjust the population limit at the game setup screen for multiplayer, like on Age of Empires. I'd say that 200 is reasonable as a max. But no less than 100.

And no C&C game has limits because that game is supposed to be realistic within relations between units. Consider that a large number of infantry (haven't played Generals so I don't know what they are called, minigunners in other C&C), do relatively little damage to a tank and can easily be run over and squished by any treaded vehicle. Yet rocket infantry can destroy a vehicle with little loss of life, unless they too are run over.

In SC, a large number of marines can destroy large amounts of enemy units, especially if they have stim packs and medics. Thus it is necessary to limit the amount of units you can build.

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

i have played c&c games and the graphics aren't that good. also in c&c units die REALLY FAST.

[RelinaIonna]

I say up the supply limit. If there is a galactic war with the Hybrids, lets up the supply so it can be on a grander scale.

[deadstalker]

yes, there definitly needs to be a limit on units, I think it should be like WC3 and have a 90 limit so SC is a more of a tactical game, throwing out newbie tactics that barley win anway. ( mass bcs or carriers) but then you would need to balance it out with the workers, so you should make everything a lil cheaper, or have it like WC3, you income would depend on how many units you have

[Naitguolf]

Well, i think Warcraft III is a Test for StarCraft II. Works ok with 3d graphs and low supply food? Then we will see that in Sc II. (inmo)

[Shinigami]

I think it should be like WC3 and have a 90 limit so SC is a more of a tactical game, throwing out newbie tactics that barley win anway.
Despite these "newbie tactics" - which can easily be owned by any half-decent player - the amount of supply you can use is a main factor in what differentiates StarCraft from WarCraft. WarCraft is about small battles as it is on a much smalelr scale (for instance, everything takes place on one planet). In StarCraft, though, you've got these races fighting over planets and systems, not towns and continents. StarCraft allows players to get large sums of units and attack en masse if they so chose, as well as let those who wish to get smaller forces and micromanage do just that. To give StarCraft so little supply would to make it that much more like WarCraft and that much less like StarCraft.

[Naitguolf]

but in Warcraft II you can have 200 units. And they change to WcIII, but i think, yes, its because tecnolgy dont allow so many 3d units.

Also, in Sc seems more little fights than huge war. A war with only 200 units is not a real war, only a little fight. :) A true War use more units! (ok, this is only a game)

[Battlecruiser]

Which computer? The StarCraft AI or the computer used to play StarCraft? Honestly, 400 is unreasonable. Blizzard will probably up the amount of players per game from 8 and given that StarCraft is already a game that allows you to macro with large sums of units (unless you're Protoss, then that does not ring true) and giving each player 400 supply would overwhelm most computer even if the graphics stayed as they are now, and that is defiantely not the case.

I am pretty sure my computer can handle it. ALso starcraft 2 will be released around 3 years from now I guess so For sure I will have a even better computer. But I am pretty sure the computer can handle atkeast 300 units unless you have a really sucky computer. But the thing is I am not sure I want that much. But people sometimes get 400/400 supply by being protoss and mind controlling another guys race so if that computer can do it then ours can too.

[Killphill]

There should be a cap. If SC2 is 3D then i think it should be 120 if not (2D) it should be 250.

[Mordecai2k]

I think they should use the old graphics. Going 3D probably isn't the way to go >_<
200 supply is good :)

[CyNix07]

If a cap was used, something in excess of 300 would be nice. On faster machines I don't think that this would be a problem. And I don't think it is possible to "turtle" through a game against a good player. Any good player NEEDS an effective offence as well as a good defence.

It would also be nice to have a feature where you could asign one unit to AI micromanage a group of units. Example: One terran firebat to use computer AI to command and target 11 terran marines. The marines would be more useful if they all targeted the same unit (like one protoss carrier at a time). When I play, and I have to manage a dozen such groups, each firing at their own targets, things get hairy.

[Netrunner]

I do think that there should be more, but to get really good units other than infantry, should cost like 4 or 5 the battlecruisers sucked in starcraft. they don't do well, and the good things like valkryies and siege tanks cost way too little supply, and there should be more upgrades.
EDIT: as to the last post, SCII could use something similar to Star Trek: Armada 2's AI system and controls. it works well becayse you can set units to "attack" "defense" and "keep going" modes

[CyNix07]

I do think that there should be more, but to get really good units other than infantry, should cost like 4 or 5 the battlecruisers sucked in starcraft. they don't do well, and the good things like valkryies and siege tanks cost way too little supply, and there should be more upgrades.
EDIT: as to the last post, SCII could use something similar to Star Trek: Armada 2's AI system and controls. it works well becayse you can set units to "attack" "defense" and "keep going" modes
I agree with you. The fact that six of my 50 cent hydras could take out one of your capital ships is messed up. It should take whole armies to take down one capital ship, and the cost and supply/psi/control requires to build and support them should reflect that too. If a Battle Crusier required several thousand minerals and gas to build plus 50 or so supply/psi/control, I think the game would be much more fun. Of course having a small fleet of Crusiers would require something above the 200 cap.

[Killphill]

I never thought of that... A couple hydras can take out a capital ship, somthing is wrong here.
But 50 supplys for a battlecruiser? Thats to much, maby more like 15.

[ZergTyrant]

Ya, i think its kinda its :bs: that 6 hydras can take out 1 bc, they should have bc's supply be like 10 but make it WAY more buff (afterall, it is like 300 ft in the cinematics). They should have more hp, and attack faster. It would also be cool if they used some reaslisim and made it able 2 attak multiple targets, i find it hard to belive a ship that big has 2 offensive cannons other than yamato (one for air, one ground) I also think the protoss unit that fire that huge destructive ray cannon they use to incinerate planets (norm sc intro cinema, only its kills some guys) should be in sc2, some say its a carrier, and i that case a new carrier up could give it and it should be as powerful as yamato. And finnally zerg. they need a buff ground2ground sniper like a tank cuz there ground spash is a lurk but its range blows, and any half-decent player has detectors. but more importantly.... ZERG NEEDS A CAPITAL SHIP bcs and carriers rule the skys and even tho scourges rape them a valk or 2 will kill scourge b4 they hit. also they need a better splash air, devorerour blow unles used w/ guards and mutas and still that force is raped by valks. Speaking of witch, vlaks should be a tad less powerful cuz they rape anything airborne. zerg should also have a cloaking non-burrow unit. its would be really funny if the new critters in sc2 would get pissed if u attacked them and fight back. but porbably the pimpest addition would be 1 or 2 new races. its would be awsome if they had a 3d map editor with cubic locations, the posibilitys would be even more wide then.:bigsmile: I no theres typos, get over it:samurai:

[Cygnus]

The thing the people have to deal with is fitting in realism with balance. Sure they want big ships in there, because this is a sci fi game and this is in the future, but if someone managed to create on of these ships what would happen? Imagine 100 hydralisks taking on what the Battleship should be, if one thought "realistically", the battleship shouldn't even be able to be hit and could vaporize large portions of a zergling ground force.

It's the dilemma many games have, especially strategy games.

[Whiteknight]

If you think that 6 hydras can take out a BC is BS, then think about all of SC. It would change dramatically. A seige tank's attack when seiged in real life should take out all enemies in an area. Almost always, one shot with any infantry would kill another infantry. Nukes would destroy the whole map.

Cyguns said it best. You have to balance realism with balance.

[ZergTyrant]

Srry about that, it wuz my bro talkin there....hes a little crazy..

I aggree with Cygnus about balance but my little bro is right about sumthings (zerg not havin a capital ship).]

Srry again bout this:mad:

[peace_machine]

Srry about that, it wuz my bro talkin there....hes a little crazy..

I aggree with Cygnus about balance but my little bro is right about sumthings (zerg not havin a capital ship).]

Srry again bout this:mad:

Zerg are a biological race, could you imagin a 300ft+ organism? It would need to be filled with alot of hydrogen gas just to float, therefore a marine could kill it just by lighting a match. Some balance.

Why don't you change your passowrd?

[ZergTyrant]

well...i did change my password so dont worry about it

an organism doesn't need hydrogen gas to float....
This "capital ship" could have heavy armored carapass and have gigantic wings which to fly with....just look at dragons...they dont need hydrogen
unless you want a giant baloon zerg unit...weird idea tho...:smirk:

[Kamikazie190]

A human would need a wing span of 7 ft. to fly. A 300ft organism would need about a mile. Either way, has anyone ever read shadow of the Xel'Naga? The zerg do have capital ships, but they're not in the game. They ferry ground forces from planet to planet, and their known as benemoths, huge things that "Block out the sun as they decend to the planet's barren surface"

[Battlecruiser]

hmm I always thought of a combo of a devourer and guardian as a capital ship for zerg but those are not really capital ships. The reason Blizzard didn't give zerg capital ships is because their land units move extremely fast and ultralisks are like capital ships that are on land.

[ZergTyrant]

True, but ultalisks are overrated and yes i have read the 2nd starcraft book shadow of the xel'naga.
My point is that if they can make mutas...they can make much larger versions for their "capital ships", it is easily possible with the zerg because they assimilate differant races all the time...maybe they can make a huge flying creature with strong, light bones so the wings don't have to be "a mile long".

Afterall....all birds and bats have hollow bones to reduce their weight in flight.

zerg need a strong flying unit that can attack air and ground and withstand alot of firepower.

[Battlecruiser]

zerg need a strong flying unit that can attack air and ground and withstand alot of firepower.
I agree but don't you think zerg ground is just a little too strong? Compared to protoss or even terran. Though zerg spell power isn't great.

[ZergTyrant]

Zerg ground forces have to be strong becuase their air is'nt.
Your right...zerg dont have alot of abilities and the only ones for their ground forces is burrow and that is countered all throughout the game...all u need is a detector.

protoss ground forces and slaughter zerg (dark temps, zealots, and especially a high templar's psi storm..ouch). Terran has a tank's splash damage which takes out ground good to...not to mention spider mines.

I'm just saying in the next SC RTS game (if there ever is going to be one) they should make zerg have a capital ship (without hydrogen.....wut a dumb idea) and balance it out with a decent ground unit for terran/protoss.

[blupp74]

I think they should use the old graphics. Going 3D probably isn't the way to go >_<
200 supply is good :)
I agree. 200 works good for me. But since I seem to prefer fastmaps, I'm really annoyed with the map-limit...I think I read somewhere it's around 1.600 units...including every itty bitty rocket...making the Valkyrie useless in those games...which is a shame, cause it's so nice to kill all those Zerg flyers with them...not to mention the general "Cannot create more units" message.

[ozamist]

i think 200 mabe 300 the most because on this game called genreal c&c they have unlimited building for units and when you build to much and too much going on at same time building to much defense buildings units the game mismatchs are freezes are technical difficultys aka crash thats why they limit it it dosent matter if the cpu can handel it its playing on net that cant are the cpu code itself and if it would be to much it would be very unbalanced like zero hour is hasnt been patch in 4 months

[Lain]

Well theres really no teling what it could be. Ive had prior experience where i didnt think i needed 200 food limit. I have also played Command And Conquer Generals. whoa boy. Unlimited food supply. Unfortunetly that wouldnt work in a game like starcraft. But if they do it right it could be pretty cool.

[Original_JaminGrit]

wow, unlimited supply. There's a scary thought. Any drastic change to the the 200 supply limit would really affect the game. I'm not suyre what to think, but the idea about changing the supply limit is very interesting.

[Sikawtic]

I vote 200 supply, it was just fine in the first one, and making the units stronger like in wc3, and lowering the supply would just be stupid in my point of view. Starcraft is about space, in space you have big battles...

On a side note... did you all know that halo was originally genna be an RTS!? That woulda been sweet beanz...

[Cross_Fire]

I think that each race should have a different supply. A different amount of supply would emphasize the basic characteristics of each race. For instance the toss should have about 175, the terran should have 200 and the zerg should have about 225.

On a side note... did you all know halo was originally gonna be an RTS!? That woulda been sweet beanz...Did you also know that it was originally gonna be released for the PC? Then about half-way through development they decided to make it a FPS. Then Microsoft bought Bungie out and made them make it for their new X-Box only.

[Sikawtic]

[offtopic] I have it for PC, just takes awhile longer... like... right now I am waiting for Halo 2 to be released for PC :(. Herm... this should be in the halo thread xD.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

I don't see a reason to raise the supply limits. All it does is enable money-map players to get bigger fleets. If anything, they should lower the supply limit. They could do a whole different format in the game; like instead of building single units you build entire regiments. The game resolution could get a whole lot higher so a mutalisk would be the size of your mouse pointer on a normal computer. Then once you click on that group of mutalisks it'll act as a single unit but you see a bunch of them. It's kind of unrealistic when a zerg swarm consist of only 12 mutes and 3 guardians. You can separate the units in the group, but that'll just make it harder for the player.

But I really believe that they should get rid of the sprite limit or the unit limit per map. Those really get on my nerves on UMS maps. When I first got brood war I built a whole fleet of valks only to see that they do almost nothing cause they wont even attack most of the time. Sometimes I lose UMS games because my units stop spawning and a message kept saying "cannot create more units". grr

[the_invisible]

i think 200-250 would be fine i get annoyed in age of empires where u only have 50 each costs 1 age of eplires 2 you can choose 25-50-75-100-125-150-175-200.

[the_invisible]

i made this map called the wierd thing with a 1 minute timer made with scxe special mode 1627 hatcherys grouped togher all on the screen then at 5 seconds to go caboom hatcherys blow lag is unblevible at 0 game ends in draw

[singo]

Did you also know that it was originally gonna be released for the PC? Then about half-way through development they decided to make it a FPS. Then Microsoft bought Bungie out and made them make it for their new X-Box only.
ive got the PC gamer with the screenshots from that - the chief had a chaingun and it looked far better than the final game did

DAMN YOU MICROSOFT!!!

[theblueknight]

yeah it was supposed to be on the mac too. not the pc. jsut a technicality.



BUT back to starcraft. (after all this is the starcraft two theory forum) heh heh
if u play team melee and u pick terran u can get 400 supplies. im not sure y or how but u can double it. the other races are just 200. maybe blizzard was playing around with the supplies when they did that. im not sure, but wehen u have 400 space u can make so much more, yet it makes it too unfiar and terran are the best no matter what at that point. if u make 350 marines and attacksomeon ur gonna get through.

[ReD_ICE]

i would prefer 150-200 if the unit power was the same, but since they arent...

[kidneythief]

I think that each race should have a different supply. A different amount of supply would emphasize the basic characteristics of each race. For instance the toss should have about 175, the terran should have 200 and the zerg should have about 225.

Did you also know that it was originally gonna be released for the PC? Then about half-way through development they decided to make it a FPS. Then Microsoft bought Bungie out and made them make it for their new X-Box only.

it would be characteristic of their race but that's still retarded, especially given that Protoss vs Zerg games are fairly difficult as it is, and protoss cost much more supply than zerg, so that would really fuck them over...

[mr.nuke]

i think there should be al least a 300 unit max with a 1500 map max and the maps should way bigger

[kidneythief]

you must be joking........ -.-

200 is pretty well perfect, I can't imagine a zerg player with 300 supply, thats just plain evil.......

unlimited units on the map though, if that were possible (which it's not...) because starcraft registers dragoon bullets, photon cannon bullets, missile turret/goliath missles, basically all projectiles including scarabs and yamatos, and interceptors as units. when it says the map can't contain any more units, it's actually referring to basically "entities" this also includes buildings.