But what is the difference between a micro incentive tactic, and your opponent exploiting your lack of anti-air and winning the game with minimal cost?
The 'actions per minute' versus number of units, I suppose. How much attention and how many mouse clicks are being devoted to landing those 3-10 Vanguards? Really what gets to me about Vanguard drops is just that it turns these slow-moving, hard-hitting juggernauts into maneuverable, weak units which can avoid the defenses they were supposed to be cracking.
Well some people are good at their micromanagement and others are good at their macromanagement. People play to their strengths and use them as strategy. And if one player messes up or the other player counters them, you really can win the game with one attack move, having done all of the planning earlier to ensure that you succeed. So I don't really get the common argument of losing to a single mouse click, because I feel like people are glossing over the fact that they let them do so in the first place.
I don't think this is a case of one mouse click versus a hundred a minute. As I said, the number of units is important. This is a macro game. Vanguard drops aren't a counter, they're a repetitively successful tactic which doesn't require much forethought or planning or response to new situations.
I don't agree, as you require rather extensive scouting and analysis of the enemy's base to pull one off. And this is a tactic that is actively attacking you, you have to respond to it, it isn't a response it's self.
Infernos are cheap. Nobody gets just one; five to ten is a standard number. I tested awhile ago and 3 infernos can kill a commander, even while the commander is trying to move away. Add any more and it's a guaranteed kill; bolos rub salt in the wound.
Early game, nobody masses up an army just to protect their commander. You're supposed to use an army for offense, not protecting against a swarm of units that can kill your commander in a flash if given the chance. The only counters to infernos are vanguards and more infernos, as of now. There's no way to know how many infernos your opponent is going to mass up.
Still, bolos can 1-shot grenadiers, and grenadiers can't 1-shot bolos. Unless your opponent has infernos to block your bolo shots, an inferno/bolo combination will beat a bot army, regardless of composition.
Yes, but due to the massive health and DPS of infernos, your defenses are worth nothing. A laser turret line should be able to kill ten incoming infernos, but it can't. The only thing that can is an equal amount of defensive infernos. In any game larger than a 1v1, it's impossible to produce more units than two other players can in a short period of time. There's something seriously wrong with the game's balance if you have to focus all your energy on an army that does nothing but defend your commander from another army.
What's the point of a giant army if it disintegrates upon the death of a single unit? You might as well do nothing but rush bombers and combat fabbers every game in order to kill your opponent.
Defenses can't kite. And so this leads back to the issue of having an army for defense instead of offense.
No, but defenses can't kite infernos, and the inferno's only weakness is its mobility, so they get destroyed easily. You end up needing an army equivalent to your opponent's army to be able to survive; the defenses should at least hold off a few infernos on their own without needing backup.
Infernos are the counter to base defences, and mobile units are the counter to infernos. You need a defensive army to survive a enemy that is countering your static defences.