<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cybrans considered better on expansive maps</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/</link>
	<description>Transporting our ACUs to your base since 2007</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:57:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: amanasleep</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1498</link>
		<dc:creator>amanasleep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1498</guid>
		<description>If you can do that, great.  The whole point of Auroras is keeping the enemy units at a distance.  Whether the opponent does this or not is up to the player.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you can do that, great.  The whole point of Auroras is keeping the enemy units at a distance.  Whether the opponent does this or not is up to the player.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CovertJaguar</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1497</link>
		<dc:creator>CovertJaguar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:04:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1497</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve had good success with Mantises vs. Auroras. If you can come at the Auroras from the side and get into the middle of their ranks, you easily destroy an equal number of Auroras with few loses. The effectiveness of this tactic has amazed me at times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had good success with Mantises vs. Auroras. If you can come at the Auroras from the side and get into the middle of their ranks, you easily destroy an equal number of Auroras with few loses. The effectiveness of this tactic has amazed me at times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amanasleep</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1468</link>
		<dc:creator>amanasleep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1468</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t really argue with your logic or experience here.  Both seem reasonable to me.  However, in my experience (and IMO) Auroras should always be in formation against other T1 non-artillery ground units when advancing.  This allows them to concentrate a volley of fire on the enemy before retreating out of range.  I always use a 2 move micro with Auroras: I queue formation move into range, then a regular move out of range.  If the enemy units give chase, they will be chewed up trying to catch up with the Auroras (BTW, this is the perfect demonstration of Auroras firing forward while moving backwards).  If they don&#039;t chase, then I just did free damage.  I can now reform my line and charge again.  It is an incredibly effective tactic.

OTOH, if a group of Mantises are allowed to overtake an Aurora formation and penetrate their lines, they will get chewed up for sure.  But in practice I find that without flanking (which implies superior numbers) Mantises rarely are able to overtake groups of properly managed Auroras, with predictable results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t really argue with your logic or experience here.  Both seem reasonable to me.  However, in my experience (and IMO) Auroras should always be in formation against other T1 non-artillery ground units when advancing.  This allows them to concentrate a volley of fire on the enemy before retreating out of range.  I always use a 2 move micro with Auroras: I queue formation move into range, then a regular move out of range.  If the enemy units give chase, they will be chewed up trying to catch up with the Auroras (BTW, this is the perfect demonstration of Auroras firing forward while moving backwards).  If they don&#8217;t chase, then I just did free damage.  I can now reform my line and charge again.  It is an incredibly effective tactic.</p>
<p>OTOH, if a group of Mantises are allowed to overtake an Aurora formation and penetrate their lines, they will get chewed up for sure.  But in practice I find that without flanking (which implies superior numbers) Mantises rarely are able to overtake groups of properly managed Auroras, with predictable results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lefeu</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1458</link>
		<dc:creator>lefeu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1458</guid>
		<description>Personally, the only time I have a homogenous group of mantises is early on when I&#039;m harassing engineers and mexes so I have very little experience with large groups of mantises vs. auras. I was just looking through some of my replays and I can&#039;t find any that come down to the mantis vs. aura match-up.

Conceptually, it would make a big difference if there were enough auras to be able to actually kill mantises and eliminate guns before they were in range. Especially if only a few mantises came into range of several auras at a time (this happens a lot on &#039;constrictive maps&#039; and less on &#039;wide open&#039; maps). However, if both groups are swarming or both groups are in formation this effect is pretty negligible. In the former case, the groups behave more like a series of 1 vs. 1 match-ups and in the latter case, the extra shots on the dead mantises means some mantises will be coming in with full health (but they still will have fewer guns).

Regarding microing, a simple technique I often use, especially with homogeneous mantis groups, is to hold down shift and target enemies in series. The faster muzzle velocity and faster firing rate of the mantis means it has a slight edge when it comes to avoiding overkill. The movement randomness factor can come into play for a few shots on each target here.

I&#039;ve never seen an aura &#039;power slide&#039; backwards. This doesn&#039;t mean it can&#039;t happen but I&#039;ve never seen it make a decisive difference.

My observations aren&#039;t scientific at all; just what seems to make the biggest difference when I play. I guess the moral here is to vary your force composition no matter what your faction is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, the only time I have a homogenous group of mantises is early on when I&#8217;m harassing engineers and mexes so I have very little experience with large groups of mantises vs. auras. I was just looking through some of my replays and I can&#8217;t find any that come down to the mantis vs. aura match-up.</p>
<p>Conceptually, it would make a big difference if there were enough auras to be able to actually kill mantises and eliminate guns before they were in range. Especially if only a few mantises came into range of several auras at a time (this happens a lot on &#8216;constrictive maps&#8217; and less on &#8216;wide open&#8217; maps). However, if both groups are swarming or both groups are in formation this effect is pretty negligible. In the former case, the groups behave more like a series of 1 vs. 1 match-ups and in the latter case, the extra shots on the dead mantises means some mantises will be coming in with full health (but they still will have fewer guns).</p>
<p>Regarding microing, a simple technique I often use, especially with homogeneous mantis groups, is to hold down shift and target enemies in series. The faster muzzle velocity and faster firing rate of the mantis means it has a slight edge when it comes to avoiding overkill. The movement randomness factor can come into play for a few shots on each target here.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never seen an aura &#8216;power slide&#8217; backwards. This doesn&#8217;t mean it can&#8217;t happen but I&#8217;ve never seen it make a decisive difference.</p>
<p>My observations aren&#8217;t scientific at all; just what seems to make the biggest difference when I play. I guess the moral here is to vary your force composition no matter what your faction is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amanasleep</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1456</link>
		<dc:creator>amanasleep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1456</guid>
		<description>Lefeu:  1 on 1 you are correct, but in practice with &gt;10 units on each side, the range advantage of the Aurora means that several Mantises are dead before they even get to fire a single shot.  This is deadly for the Mantises, as they simply do not have the firepower to overcome 20% more Auroras, even if they do have more HP.  They also suffer from having their first few shots be at lower accuracy until they stop moving.  And this is assuming that you correctly micro them to achieve this effect.  Meanwhile the Aeon commander can move his Auroras into the field and they take care of themselves with minimal micro (and Aurora micro is superior at high levels anyway--ever seen the Aurora powerslide?  Auroras can move in one direction at full speed and fire in another, even backwards.  Since they are also the fastest unit by a good margin the opponent cannot get into range if they chase them).  Mantises can only beat Auroras if they have superior numbers, which is difficult to do since they cost 10% more.  If you want to kill Auroras build Medusas or Hunters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lefeu:  1 on 1 you are correct, but in practice with &gt;10 units on each side, the range advantage of the Aurora means that several Mantises are dead before they even get to fire a single shot.  This is deadly for the Mantises, as they simply do not have the firepower to overcome 20% more Auroras, even if they do have more HP.  They also suffer from having their first few shots be at lower accuracy until they stop moving.  And this is assuming that you correctly micro them to achieve this effect.  Meanwhile the Aeon commander can move his Auroras into the field and they take care of themselves with minimal micro (and Aurora micro is superior at high levels anyway&#8211;ever seen the Aurora powerslide?  Auroras can move in one direction at full speed and fire in another, even backwards.  Since they are also the fastest unit by a good margin the opponent cannot get into range if they chase them).  Mantises can only beat Auroras if they have superior numbers, which is difficult to do since they cost 10% more.  If you want to kill Auroras build Medusas or Hunters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will (green)</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1453</link>
		<dc:creator>Will (green)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1453</guid>
		<description>So I was playing around as Cybran today and was reminded of something that bothers me about them: shields.  Why does the Cerberus get neemed by allied shields?  Why does the Zapper TMD hit your own shields half the time?  Is there something I&#039;m missing, or are those just accepted bugs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I was playing around as Cybran today and was reminded of something that bothers me about them: shields.  Why does the Cerberus get neemed by allied shields?  Why does the Zapper TMD hit your own shields half the time?  Is there something I&#8217;m missing, or are those just accepted bugs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lefeu</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1451</link>
		<dc:creator>lefeu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1451</guid>
		<description>Amanasleep: While the aura does have just over 50% greater range than the mantis, the mantis has over 85% more health than the aura. After taking two shots from an aura, a mantis will still have almost 30% more health than the aura. Once the mantis stops moving, it fires just as accurately and with the same dps as the aura and will kill it.

Also I did some trigonometry and at the aura&#039;s maximum range it&#039;s only necessary to change the approach vector of the mantis by 7 degrees as the aura fires to completely avoid the shot. When the aura fires a second time, this increases to about 7.5 degrees (these calculations assume a circular mantis geometry which is a slight approximation).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amanasleep: While the aura does have just over 50% greater range than the mantis, the mantis has over 85% more health than the aura. After taking two shots from an aura, a mantis will still have almost 30% more health than the aura. Once the mantis stops moving, it fires just as accurately and with the same dps as the aura and will kill it.</p>
<p>Also I did some trigonometry and at the aura&#8217;s maximum range it&#8217;s only necessary to change the approach vector of the mantis by 7 degrees as the aura fires to completely avoid the shot. When the aura fires a second time, this increases to about 7.5 degrees (these calculations assume a circular mantis geometry which is a slight approximation).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T2A`</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1450</link>
		<dc:creator>T2A`</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1450</guid>
		<description>Yeah, the last game I played on Open Palms, I specifically noticed two Aurora going up against two Mantises on the middle platform.  When the dust cleared I still had an Aurora left.  I didn&#039;t micro them either since I was busy building mexes and such.

Cyde, the 1:1 mix of Fervor/Aurora seems to work pretty well on maps with rugged terrain and chokepoints, and then there&#039;s the fact that Fervors just build faster, allowing you to mass the same amount of units quicker than all Aurora or a 2:1 ratio.  Also, let&#039;s not forget that at the level I play at, people don&#039;t micro their units much, so the Fervor does a good job at taking stuff out and supporting the Aurora.  Their 2-second fire rate seems to make them much more usable against units than the other factions&#039; artillery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the last game I played on Open Palms, I specifically noticed two Aurora going up against two Mantises on the middle platform.  When the dust cleared I still had an Aurora left.  I didn&#8217;t micro them either since I was busy building mexes and such.</p>
<p>Cyde, the 1:1 mix of Fervor/Aurora seems to work pretty well on maps with rugged terrain and chokepoints, and then there&#8217;s the fact that Fervors just build faster, allowing you to mass the same amount of units quicker than all Aurora or a 2:1 ratio.  Also, let&#8217;s not forget that at the level I play at, people don&#8217;t micro their units much, so the Fervor does a good job at taking stuff out and supporting the Aurora.  Their 2-second fire rate seems to make them much more usable against units than the other factions&#8217; artillery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amanasleep</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1448</link>
		<dc:creator>amanasleep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1448</guid>
		<description>Mantis, like all T1 Heavy units, has a splash of 1.  The significant point of comparison between Mantis and Aurora is not health, but range.  The Aurora has a range of 26, which is 50% longer than a Mantis.  This means that a Mantis closing on an Aurora will take (at least) 80 damage before it even starts firing.  Because of the inaccuracy the Mantis has while moving, they cannot properly close and micro to make Aurora shots miss, as they do significantly less damage that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mantis, like all T1 Heavy units, has a splash of 1.  The significant point of comparison between Mantis and Aurora is not health, but range.  The Aurora has a range of 26, which is 50% longer than a Mantis.  This means that a Mantis closing on an Aurora will take (at least) 80 damage before it even starts firing.  Because of the inaccuracy the Mantis has while moving, they cannot properly close and micro to make Aurora shots miss, as they do significantly less damage that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cyde Weys</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/comment-page-1/#comment-1444</link>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/27/cybrans-considered-better-on-expansive-maps/#comment-1444</guid>
		<description>Lefeu: Yes, you&#039;re definitely right about the firing inaccuracy while moving (and I&#039;m kind of surprised you noticed it on your own; I only figured it out upon reading it in the units database).  Mantises have a 1.5 firing inaccuracy while moving, which normally wouldn&#039;t be a huge deal at the short ranges they deal with, but since their weapons are lasers with no splash damage whatsoever, it does mean that a good proportion of their shots simply won&#039;t do anything.  When they&#039;re stationary, though, they don&#039;t have a firing inaccuracy.  Hence using attack-move with mantises to harass engineers, mass extractors, etc., is probably the best move.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lefeu: Yes, you&#8217;re definitely right about the firing inaccuracy while moving (and I&#8217;m kind of surprised you noticed it on your own; I only figured it out upon reading it in the units database).  Mantises have a 1.5 firing inaccuracy while moving, which normally wouldn&#8217;t be a huge deal at the short ranges they deal with, but since their weapons are lasers with no splash damage whatsoever, it does mean that a good proportion of their shots simply won&#8217;t do anything.  When they&#8217;re stationary, though, they don&#8217;t have a firing inaccuracy.  Hence using attack-move with mantises to harass engineers, mass extractors, etc., is probably the best move.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

