Protoss VS Terran- who is offensive and who is defensive?

I've read a lot of opinions lately that speculate if the Protoss and the Terran are offensive or defensive- some say the Protoss

are offensive and Terran are defensive, some the way around - a lot of different opinions.


What do you think?

 

Actually, since recently playing the Protoss in 1v1s and watching a lot of replays in the hopes of improving, have found that the Protoss, of all the races, relies most on a "defensive" strategy.

Nal_ra especially relies on thwarting a number of enemy attacks, mostly by taking as little damage as possible in these encounters, to win the game. He often wears down his opponent's ability to attack and then expands and capitalizes on their momentary weakness. He uses this to effect against the Zerg.

 

Protoss is certainly defensive while Terrans offensive.

Protoss have very large HP, as any defensives. And look to the Terran moving buildings- I can't imagine anything more offensive.

 

Yet, the terrans have the best defence when it comes to defending your base. Bunkers with 4 upgraded marines = *pain* and loss of units before you can even hit them. Protoss do start slow so are on defencive early game. I would say both are defencive to an extent.

The real offensive civilization is the zerg, who can produce standing armies easily in 2 or 3 minutes into the game, outnumbering both other civilizations.

 

Terran for defence because they are the best turtle race in starcraft / starcraft 2! , with the bunkers with marines and a fire bat! , with seige tanks behind them and with some missle turrets around the place is the best defence in the whole game!!!

Protoss for offensive because iff You know how to use Protoss then You will really know the mighty offensive power of the Protoss! and I own enemies just with all 4 templars!

 

Protoss are reactive, the design of their forces forces them to build stuff to counter the enemy, not to lay pressure on him (at first).
Terrans are less defensive as they are "stationary", moving their forces makes them vulnerable, having the enemy come to them gives them a advantage.

 

It depends on how you specifically as a player like to play.

Protoss have a great defensive structure, but it is relatively easy to destroy. They also have the most resilient units, but they are the most expensive. So, at the beginning stages of the game, most players will be defensive, using units and Photon Cannons, until they can march out with an unstoppable army that is fully upgraded and can take out much of the enemy.

The Terran have the best defensive combination of any of the races - Missile Turret + Bunker + Siege Tank. Most players also will start defensively while building up upgrades and an army. The difference here in contrast with Protoss offense is that a good Terran player will slowly crawl while attacking the enemy. A combination of Siege Tanks in siege mode and Battlecruisers/other units for protection can inch forward and take out the enemy with relatively little casualties.

I do also agree with EonMaster. Zerg strategy leans most heavily towards offense, as they are capable of the fastest rush in the game and a pretty much unlimited supply of cheap units that a player can continually send at the enemy.

 

Protoss have the ability to create a fast, relatively expensive defense that is strong and stable.

 

I thought Terrans were more of a balanced race at first...

 

all three are good beginning attackers.

terran: M & M
protoss: zealot rush
zerg: zergling rush

but when it comes to defencive buildings:

1) terran: best defence with bunker
2) zerg: sunkern and spore colonies repel most attacks in groups
3) protoss: do I even need to explain? cannons can't live worth crap.

 

imo its easy for protoss to defenend themselves ones the game evolves. Meaning they can expand really easy, with one probe making a nexus, 2 pylons and 7-8 photon cannons relatively easy, and then they can send zealots and what not for fortification.

its much harder for terran to protect their expansions.

Zerg just swarms the map and has fast armies to begin with, and they keep pressure on the enemy.

 

I once thought that photon cannos should have more HP, like EonMaster was saying, but then I realized: photon cannons have a high rate of fire, do normal damage, and have good range (224--guardians are 256 and upgraded dragoons 192). Thus, a photon cannon can take down a dragoon while losing little more than its shields, and since they're so cheap (two photon cannons = same as one bunker full of marines) and can attack both land and air they're an overall balanced base defense. One might say that the versatility makes them less specialized against a particular type of attack, but they're much easier to plan whereas bunkers take micro-management and Zerg colonies must be placed well lest an attacker exploit the layout to destroy base defenses.

 

The problem is the other 2 races defenses can handle mass troops. I think the Sunken colony has a comparable attack rate more damage and more hitpoints while the Bunker can attack more targets.

The Cannon just can't hold off swarms as well as the other two.

 

Zerg= mass + rush = offence
Protoss= late game, high damage= defence
Terran= vs Zerg : marine medic rush; nuke(?), vs protoss: tank+marine, goliath (for carrier)

 

With Zerg you create a lot of units at low cost and rush. Protoss instead, does a lot of dmg, but they are slow at building units so Protoss needs some good defence. I don't know about Terran, i never play them, but mostly i get a lot of sige tanks after me so i suppose that you rush with tanks and have some other unit to defend the tank while it is in sige mode?