Anti rushing?

About 80% true. A failed rush puts a huge disadvantage to the player that conducted the rush.

However there are circumstances that a failed rush will not put a player in disadvantage. In 1v1, an early game rush would mean the rusher has probably destroyed a handful of the enemy's workers. This still puts the rusher at an advantage because he/she was able to maintain the construction of workers and buildings without disruptions. Whereas the player being rushed will have to replace their lost worker, and during this time, their economy is slowed. Unless the player being rushed can pull a counter rush quick enough, then the rusher is still in the advantage side.

 

Let me define what a true failed rush is:
A true failed rush means that the rusher destroyed no enemy units and the entire force was destroyed by the enemy. The rusher sacrificed probe/scv/drone gathers to make the rushing units.

While it is true a failed rush does not mean automatic failure of the game; however, it does hurt your economy. Imagine the minerals being used in buildings and additional drones. While having no force means that even a small force can kill you... there should be a balance.

It is true that a failed rush will not put the rush at a disadvantage. It all depends. This is all situational and based on the skills of the players. A very skiled player versus a "noob" can have several failed attacks and be on the advantage versus the "noob" who is still using his original 4 drones to get minerals. A true failed rush means that the rusher destroyed no enemy units and was destroyed by the enemy. I am not talking about a rush that does not win the game... i am talking about Player A versus Player B. Player A goes for a rush... rushes the wrong area in LT (for instance) and then attacks the right area and gets his entire force wiped without a single enemy loss.... that is my type of true failure at a rush.


There are degrees of success and failures.

 

boyd. You've lost an entire force without killing a single enemy with a RUSH?! As in, early game, when it doesnt matter what race you are you're base defences are all essentially equal? how awful are you at starcraft? And how many people do you know who play melee who only use their original 4 workers? What the hell man.

 

I agree with Hadean on this one.

When we make predictions and comparisons like this, we need to control the variables. That mean we need to assume that all the players, the rusher and the rushed are of the same skill. Hence it's close to impossible that one player lose their entire rush fleet without killing one enemy unit in early game.

The independent variable here is that one personal is rushing, the other is being rushed. The dependent variable is the who wins and who loses in a longer run.

 

A successfull rush is only the one that kills your enemy in it. Because in order for a rush to trully be a rush, it is necessary to divert your building order to one less effective, but faster. So, if it didn't killed your enemy, the enemy will still rise again and be way ahead in gathering resources/teching than the rusher. So a failed rush is very bad. It's an all or nothing situation, a gambling.

A Zerg player for instance, will waste resources on extra drones to spend on the fast-building of a spawning pool. Thus, they will use the minimum amount of drones to gather enough resources for making zerglings just in time when the Spawning pool is ready. If they rather spent more time/resources into building more drones for resource gathering, they would take more time. but they even spent 2 drones on the Spawning pool, slowing the resource gathering way too much. Same for terrans and the mineral extra-spending with fast-builing: they cripple the resource gathering/teching of the players, by using emergency strats on an early game unnecessarily.

But I don't know what happens if both players try to rush. I suppose the more skilled wins. Yet it's still preferable to be a non-rusher.

 

...say wut? with rushes, you only sacrifice 1 or 2 workers, you act as if rushing requires half of your workers

and it's not even that with protoss

 

And yet it influences the amount of cash you would have in hand, and the early game teching speed. In the end, the rusher, because of this sacrifices and choices between building more workers or building earlier the barracks/spawning pool, will have a shorter cash income for longer. This will leave a difference in cash owned by the players, that enable teching faster/building more units earlier. In a few time, the non-rusher will overcome the rusher in power, and give it an overwhelming counter. (unless the rushed don't know how to use the advantage)

 

you don't necessarily have to kill an enemy to have a successful rush, you can just cripple them by attacking their workers

 

Failed rushes isn't bad because you lose your rushing units.  They hurt you because of the build order that you have to commit to for it.

Early-game rushing is usually a battle of speed/timing.  You try to scout your enemy out in time and build and send combat units before they have the necessary tech to defend against you without suffering too much in workers.  But in order to have everything out fast enough, you sacrifice your build order for early rush capabilities over long term balanced economy and growth.

So hillzagold, even though it's only 1 drone for the pool, it's actually a lot more in actuality.  6 pool, 9 pool, and 12 pool are only 3 drones apart, but have huge differences and great impact on your game after that point.  As long as the player going for economic growth can hold out against very early rushes, he will always have the advantage.  After a couple of failed waves, the tides will reverse fairly quickly after that.  The player that built more workers early on will have everything afterwards come to him increasingly faster, more workers, more money, faster expos, etc.

But I think knowing how to have flexible build orders is the way to go, I don't find myself sticking to strict build orders anymore.  Knowing only the few sets of textbook BOs found on internet FAQs and guides will only get you so far, it's very limiting in the long run.

 

i try to do zergling rushes as often as i can
theyre zerg
zerg = rush

 

True. But you have to admit that:

12 Warp Rays + 12 Carriers vs 24 mutalisks + 12 scourge + 12 devourers
is a lot more fun and exciting than
4 zerglings vs 8 probes.

 

The treaty mode of The War Chiefs expansion of AOE3 was good but then AoE is an empire building game where you have a very massive infrastructure and leigons of troops so Im not sure how well it would translate. I think it would work but you would probably have a hard time getting those games going since many of the players nowadays have no patience and want the game to start NOW and want to attack NOW. SC2 is supposed to be fast paced so as much as I would like a no rush game it is probably not going to happen because it goes against the doctrine of the game.

 

my guess is that terran are obviousely better against rushes, you just go to another mining site with your command center

 

rushes force the opponent to rush his defense though, unless you utterly botch it, the difference should remain minimal

 

With the siege tanks and bunkers they have the best defense though. Having one race excell at both attacking and defending is ecxessive and probably imbalanced.

What I think is Terrans are the turtle race because of their superior defenses
Protoss are the boom race since they can set up bases the fastest
Zerg are the rushers because they can get units the fastest

 

However, there is also a lot of wasted time not being able to gather resources because your CC is floating and not on the ground. Either way, a rush can do serious damage to an economy.

 

Edited out quotes. Please read the forum rules and refrain from quoting unnecessarily.

That's true for all games though.

3 basic strategies

Rush:
Focus on building units early at expense of gatherers and defenses
Weak economy spells your downfall if rush fails
Weak Vs turtle Strong vs boom

Turtle
Focus on defenses at expense of economy and units
Can defeat an early rush but leaves a weak economy since you dont leave your base to expand
Strong vs rush weak vs boom

Boom:
Focus on resource gathering and expansions
Gives you enough resources to mass units later on at cost of extreme weakness early game
Weak vs rush strong vs turtle

 

I have my own form of anti-rush/everything else. It is a combo between Rush, Turtle, and Boom. I will call it Repulse. It is when you go faster than you opponent in resorce gathering period, and creating about 15 simple units and small amount of defence like 3-4 phase cannons. Send your troops imediatly to your enemys base as soon as they are built 4 at a time or untill you have your defences up. It is also a great defense against rush because you can easily overwhelm their rush and you will be able to keep on building units at a steady pace. Simply put Dragoons are usless in this strategy so do not make them. As soon as your forces have the enemys base surrounded and cutting them off from all other resorces accept that within their base while you can take the expanshion recoses easily. I advise sending in some units once you have extra as long as you keep your production line going into their base keeping them under your tumb. Then you can bring in Dark Templars if your are that far ahead. Since they likely won't have any turrets or spore collonies or very few to detect because they beleive you are purely ground you can wreak havok upon their base with the dark temps and then a wave of zelots to finnish them off for shure and done deal they are dead. Extreamly effective in 1 on 1 or a secluded battle. Only week to counter attack from other players.

 

This thread's problem can be solved easily:

The best defense is a GREAT offense. Strike first, strike hard. My goal is to kill a worker for every two Zerglings that I've sent. I have a good track record.

 

I always rush, most people rush and then i send in my units and since they basically have no defense i overwhelm the,. unless they're rushing me...