Hydralisks

[Dark Hunter1357]

What do you think about this unit is sc2? Expect anti air, what else can it be used for?

 

[viiva]

Hydra's destroy gateway units.

 

[Dark Hunter1357]

zealots destroy hydras.

Hydras need a meat shield and they are awesome. They can actually counter a mmm or mmt or something with mm in it

 

[tagg1080]

They OWN marauders, most people ignore that.


I love them, but they are somewhat slow and you kinda need creep to make them effective.

 

[Coolty44]

I find their attack rate perfect as a backline unit for AA and buildings. I couple them with zerglings as meatsheilds. I also like to use them with nydus worms for effective hit and runs.

 

[busterkomo]

Hydra's

Hydras*.

Expect

Except*.

I've never found them exceptionally useful. However, my melee skills are mediocre to poor.

 

[PurplePoot]

Hydralisks destroy gateway units and suck against Terran. Not much more to be said about them really.

 

[tagg1080]

Hydralisks destroy gateway units and suck against Terran. Not much more to be said about them really.

Why do they suck against terran?

They do quite well against MM, and they are pretty solid against any air, so why is that so bad?

 

[PurplePoot]

Because unsupported MM is bad against Zerg anyways and mass air is bad against Zerg anyways and every mech unit hard counters them.

 

[tagg1080]

Because unsupported MM is bad against Zerg anyways and mass air is bad against Zerg anyways and every mech unit hard counters them.

What mech?

Tanks deal less to unarmored, and thors don't do extra damage to them.

Hellions are the only mech that deal extra, but using them in that situation feels strange.

 

[mrzwach]

Having bonus damage does not mean that they counter them.

Thors are effective against Hydras, as are Tanks. Also, blueflame hellions are pretty nice too vs Hydras at melee range.

 

[Dark Hunter1357]

hydras counter mm and mmt(when he has less then 5 tanks), i had a 1v1 game recently and used hydras. after that i had another one just like the first one and i won them both.
Here is the replay from the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alx8RDZ_eKc

 

[viiva]

What mech?

Tanks deal less to unarmored, and thors don't do extra damage to them.

Hellions are the only mech that deal extra, but using them in that situation feels strange.

Splash.

 

[PurplePoot]

What mech?

Tanks deal less to unarmored, and thors don't do extra damage to them.

Hellions are the only mech that deal extra, but using them in that situation feels strange.

If you think that hard counters are decided by damage bonuses then I have some news for you.

Go put 3 hydralisks vs a thor in a unit tester map if you don't believe me. Hell, even put 4 (which costs more).

 

[tagg1080]

If you think that hard counters are decided by damage bonuses then I have some news for you.

Go put 3 hydralisks vs a thor in a unit tester map if you don't believe me. Hell, even put 4 (which costs more).

If you ball your units, then yes, but with proper micro, it really isn't that hard of a counter...


That is like saying that any MM is countered by collosi, which is not 100% true as positioning and micro can let the MM win handily.

Edit:

4 hydras, without moving any unit and letting them all do their thing, bring the thor down to 50 health.

Considering the amount of thors compared to the amount of hydras that are normally in a game, I would not call that a hard counter.

And 3 balled hydras can kill a sieged tank...


They really are not that bad guys, I just think you don't like them, =)

They are very SLOW, but other than that, they deal TONS of damage.

 

[PurplePoot]

Thors don't do splash. Also, killing 4 with 50 health left is a fairly hard counter when you consider that 4 Hydralisks cost significantly more minerals and supply than 1 Thor.

Also, if you get, say, 4 Marines with stim/concussive they can kill a tank in siege mode (test this if you don't believe me). Now go try that with 20 marines vs 5 tanks. Now go try 60 marines vs 15 tanks. Area of effect attacks are nonlinear, and Hydralisks do not perform against any realistic number of tanks.

 

[tagg1080]

Thors don't do splash. Also, killing 4 with 50 health left is a fairly hard counter when you consider that 4 Hydralisks cost significantly more minerals and supply than 1 Thor.

Also, if you get, say, 4 Marines with stim/concussive they can kill a tank in siege mode (test this if you don't believe me). Now go try that with 20 marines vs 5 tanks. Now go try 60 marines vs 15 tanks. Area of effect attacks are nonlinear, and Hydralisks do not perform against any realistic number of tanks.

and zerglings suck against tanks too cuz they die so fast

 

[Fingolfin]

If you ball your units, then yes, but with proper micro, it really isn't that hard of a counter...


That is like saying that any MM is countered by collosi, which is not 100% true as positioning and micro can let the MM win handily.

I'd like to see you micro those marines around to stay spread while still playing effectively. It's just not realistic.

 

[Aslit]

hydras are more unusable due: it higer cost (in sc1 costed 75/25), not they cant mutate into lurkers, and roached are more effective due they faster regeneration/underground movements, it seems that adding anti-air to a roaches doesnt pay for all the drawbacks nad higger cost

 

[PurplePoot]

And way more DPS and range.

SC1 Hydras were weaker than SC2 Hydras are (not cost-for-cost, one-for-one).

 

[Aslit]

u have to remember that the "theme" of the zerg is strength in numbers, so make a lot of weak units seems more likely

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

This could be considered a rhetorical question because after making roaches +1 range, people will be likely to count on them and use hydras even less, really except as an aa unit.

 

[Rispetto]

Why do they suck against terran?

They do quite well against MM, and they are pretty solid against any air, so why is that so bad?

Funny you would say that.
I did an FFA today.. two people left within 5 minutes.
So me and the other guy teched.. and he went 200/200 hydras while I went 200/200 carriers. Note that I had 2-3x more expansions than him, which allowed me to build 200/200 carriers just as fast as he was able to build his 200/200 hydras, but also keep in mind having 2-3x more expos increases the amount of supply used by workers by 2-3x. This eats up needed army supply.

In short.. no. In masses.. Hydras do not compare to air.
I can guarantee you if someone had gone 200/200 banshee it still would have been close resembling results.
They are good for backup and additional firepower.. almost like an overpowered marine. They can't take a hit.. and they are too squishy to be effective alone.

 

[Dark Hunter1357]

Yes, they are like a op marine. Btw who won? because i'm not sure who would win.

 

[mrzwach]

Funny you would say that.
I did an FFA today.. two people left within 5 minutes.
So me and the other guy teched.. and he went 200/200 hydras while I went 200/200 carriers. Note that I had 2-3x more expansions than him, which allowed me to build 200/200 carriers just as fast as he was able to build his 200/200 hydras, but also keep in mind having 2-3x more expos increases the amount of supply used by workers by 2-3x. This eats up needed army supply.

In short.. no. In masses.. Hydras do not compare to air.
I can guarantee you if someone had gone 200/200 banshee it still would have been close resembling results.
They are good for backup and additional firepower.. almost like an overpowered marine. They can't take a hit.. and they are too squishy to be effective alone.

Carriers: 350/250/6
Hydras: 100/50/2

However, I'm willing to bet that you had your carriers fully stocked with interceptors, making each one 450/250. Even more if you count rebuilding destroyed interceptors (essentially, 1 carrier = 3 hydras in supply, but costs 1.5 times as much minerals and 1.67 times as much gas).

Finally, chances are the zerg didn't have hydra +range nor did he actually focus fire the carriers, likely just attacking interceptors. Because seriously, Hydras decimate air if properly used.

 

[Aslit]

for that case just use interceptors

 

[Rispetto]

Oh, I won unconditionally. I lost like.. 3 carriers.. some more were damaged.
And no, he didn't attack interceptors. He even moved closer to the carriers (seeing as how they have longer range) and s-targeted.
And again I could afford the extra cost because I had more expansions. You may think this unbalanced it in my favor, but again, I had a lot more workers than him, and lost about 3-4 carriers in supply shortage alone.
Edit: I'll find the replay if you like. I won't go looking for it, though, unless someone asks.

 

[PurplePoot]

Protoss outexpanded Zerg?

He was bad, nothing to see here, move along.

 

[Aslit]

i ment corruptors if u want anti-air.
thats the way star2 destroyed the few units it didnt take out, the way they destroyed the ghost, hydralisks and stuff is lame

 

[tagg1080]

One thing that irks me, is the zerg doesn't have any units that do + to armored, which is kind of annoying.

What if hydras did + to armored, eh?

That might help them out a little bit, idk.

Thoughts?

 

[Aslit]

how can u explain that thorns deal extra damage to armored?
other crappy thing is that they dont skit any more

 

[mrzwach]

thats the way star2 destroyed the few units it didnt take out, the way they destroyed the ghost, hydralisks and stuff is lame

Ghosts are useful. They are a different unit than in SC1, but they are by no means "destroyed".

 

[Aslit]

the concept of what a ghost was, c´on no lockdown and 200/200...unusable

 

[Darkness-4ever]

I find the SC2 ghost a ton more useful than the SC1 ghost, as in SC1 the ghosts main purpose was either launch nukes or Lockdown mechs, in both cases cloak seemed mandatory, and because of that it was rarely used. In SC2 ghosts are a lot more durable and don't require cloak just to survive, the addition of EMP into their arsenal makes them much more worth getting, the only drawback to the SC2 ghost is their high costs in gas and minerals.

 

[Aslit]

i allways would rathar have and pay for a sc1 ghost and vessel rathar than a sc2 ghost due emp shock is mostly only useful against protoss and lockdown is useful against protos and terran, and emp just take away the shield, lockdown prevent the unit from attacking moving and casting

 

[Darkness-4ever]

Lockdown isn't AoE and required selecting individual ghosts to use, if you had them all selected and used lockdown, they all fired at same time onto one unit. Considering what it takes to get a Ghost in SC2 compared to SC1, I'd hands down, go for the SC2 Ghost than an SC1 Ghost and Sci Vessel. That and Ghost EMP is still usable against zerg units like the Infestor, whereas lockdown had no uses in TvZ.

 

[Aslit]

still in the few situations in which emp is usable againt zerg, it just dont worth it, lockdown is usualy more usable, and ofc ghost more spamable in sc1

 

[Darkness-4ever]

To each his own I guess.

 

[mrzwach]

Yeah, lockdown is greater for taking down the vast array of mechanical zerg units.

Also, EMP blocks fungal growth, which annihilates infantry. Its still more useful than nothing at all.

 

[Aslit]

seriosly?

and u dont need to worry about zerg, they are so weak that they almost die for themselves

 

[Darkness-4ever]

... OK thats enough then, Aslit you lost what little credibility you had left with that statement, it's quite clear now your just talking out of an orifice of your body which shall not be named, and really, its apparent you've never/rarely played Zerg or likely any race in SC2, league, custom or AI. Zerg are so weak they almost die on their own? OK sure, if you're just going to phase the Roach, Ultralisk, Corruptors, Infestors and Brood Lords out of existence, and even then I'd be more than confident that Zerg would slaughter enemies with Zergling/Baneling/Hydra.

 

[Aslit]

... OK thats enough then, Aslit you lost what little credibility you had left with that statement, it's quite clear now your just talking out of an orifice of your body which shall not be named, and really, its apparent you've never/rarely played Zerg or likely any race in SC2, league, custom or AI. Zerg are so weak they almost die on their own? OK sure, if you're just going to phase the Roach, Ultralisk, Corruptors, Infestors and Brood Lords out of existence, and even then I'd be more than confident that Zerg would slaughter enemies with Zergling/Baneling/Hydra.

and then its me the one without credibility......

 

[Rispetto]

Hydralisks are garbage without meatshields,
but are cheese with them.
I think this sums up the entire thread.

 

[Dark Hunter1357]

... OK thats enough then, Aslit you lost what little credibility you had left with that statement, it's quite clear now your just talking out of an orifice of your body which shall not be named, and really, its apparent you've never/rarely played Zerg or likely any race in SC2, league, custom or AI. Zerg are so weak they almost die on their own? OK sure, if you're just going to phase the Roach, Ultralisk, Corruptors, Infestors and Brood Lords out of existence, and even then I'd be more than confident that Zerg would slaughter enemies with Zergling/Baneling/Hydra.

he is using a crack to play, so just ignore him.

 

[Rui]

I have never played Zerg in 1vs1, but I've played them a couple of times in 2vs2 and Infestors can be quite bothersome with their Fungal Growth. On top of that, Grooved Spines-evolved Hydralisks out-range Marines, so if you can catch the Terran army on the move with their Siege Tanks on mobile mode, the Hydralisks can pretty much decimate it while Infestors continue to use Fungal Growth.
Of course that, cost-wise, and if indeed Terran shouldn't go air, you might as well go Banelings, but, in team games where you fight more than a single race, this is an alternative.
And, if that happens, a few Ghosts with enough energy for cloaking and sniper rounds will do nicely (it takes only 2 snipes), or, if the Zerg has got his infestors «balled», you may simply EMP them.
Like a few people here already said, the Hydralisk is like a stronger version of the Marine: send it out in the open, and it's dead in no time, but put meat-shields in front of it, and it'll deal a very worthy amount of damage.

Also, I don't doubt 200/200 carriers can beat 200/200 hydralisks. Remember that carriers can literally «ball» and attack all at once, whilst Hydralisks have collision, and if you just attack-move and watch as the ones at the front die and the ones in the back wait patiently for their turn, then no doubt the hydralisks will lose. Again, it's about positioning. To avoid a proper positioning of Hydralisks, Carriers can engage on a higher cliff level so hydralisks don't group underneath it.

 

[Dark Hunter1357]

i think if hydralisks kill the interceptors, they might of won. even if they didn't, the zerg player should be bale to recreate a lot of them after he loses these, and with low interceptor count, it will be much easier to kill the carriers.

 

[Aslit]

lol.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Hydralisks are a general all purpose zerg unit. They are the second and best zerg ground unit capable of attacking air (queens are not that good) and deal reasonable DPS.

The problem with them is they are organic and actually quite low durability. As such colossus, ultralisks and siege tanks (especially pre patch) can mow them down most effectivly. Thus they must be used with a meat shield like lings, ultras or roaches.

Although they can hit air, they are only good against weak air or anti-air air. You will not want to send an army of hydralisks against a battlecruiser fleet or a swarm of broodlords.

Thus they perform the role of a middle tier zerg unit and quite well.

Late game you will eithor use specific anti air units or anti ground units which are more effective in those areas.

As for the carrier vs hydralisk argument. I honestly do not know. From my personal experience I find hydralisks are insanly effective against interceptors due to their high attack speed and dps and in large numbers I often find carriers being drained of interceptors completly and being forced to retreat. Wether the same applies for 200/200 I can not say. I guess the carriers would win but would suffer considerable losses (huge number of interceptors destroyed or lots of carriers dead).

 

[Rispetto]

Yes, I lost many interceptors, but you're forgetting that they can be re-built mid-battle.
It's not an argument as Dr Super Good stated, it's basic facts. It happened.. lol.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Interceptors still cost 25 minerals each, so eithor way you will suffer quite a bit of loss. Although minerals are far less valuable than the gas both hydras and carriers need.