Ambush Command

I think an Ambush could be good if it were like the Patrol command; a 'Patrolling Burrow':

'Ambush'.

The Burrow command would still exist, normally, while 'Ambush' would be a command that causes the unit to burrow, and when an enemy approaches, it unburrows and attacks. Once finished, it returns to a burrowed state. (Possibly, even the exact same location in which it previously burrowed.)

Exactly like Patrol, but a burrowed position instead of its designated route!

(A refresher in case you forgot how Patrol worked. {Hey, I forgot it existed lol} Patrol tells a unit to travel between two set points. If the patrolling unit(s) encounter enemies, the partroller(s) will engage, even traveling a short distance away from the route. After engaging, unit(s) return to that same designated route. )

---
Please tell me if you like that idea?

 

its a nice idea but,what would the icon look like?

 

I hate it. Revomes more micro

 

It is just like patrol. Patrol requires Micro and Strategy.

You have to pay very close attention to what is going on. Did you ever just lob your units at the enemy without looking at the battlefield? Patrol just made units attack what comes near them. It is up to the player to micro.

Patrol, and subsequently Ambush, would just give a split second more reaction time on the players part. A talented player could use that element of surprise to its advantage.

If you are hiding a force:
You want to know just how many to burrow.
How spaced apart they should be.
Which units should engage, which should retreat.
Should you relocate...
Send reinforcement...

If you don't pay attention...
your medium force could be decimated by a large force.
your large force could be revealed, because a small scouting party tripped it, thus ruining some surprise.

Ambush units could be used as traps to allow precious units to escape, while ambushing units can delay pursuers. The main difference was that patrollers were visible, while ambushers would be hidden, until the last moment.

 

I agree with furrer, it removes micro and reduces the skill required in a game. This can be done already, all it requires is you watching whats happening on the battlefield. I can see where you're coming from, decent idea but we don't need to simplify game play.

 

I would like to know, how many of you actually used patrol? Are you against the patrol command as well? If so, then there is nothing I could say to convince you.

My point is that it allows a faster reaction time. Just burrowing means you have to constantly look after each and every location that you burrowed units. There is no warning (besides the mini-map), like "our forces are under attack". Patrol made it so that you could quickly react to your opponents movements in a wider area, than just the units sight range.

The Que system allowed you to stack commands. You could make a unit move between points, similar to patrol, but it would not attack, unlike patrol. Also, burrow was an instantaneous command, and would override any preceding stacked commands. Meaning you could not que a route with burrow as a command. This would add strategic elements to the game.

Direct:
There was Move(w/o attacking) and Attack(attack towards destination).

Pensive:
There was Hold (hold position and attack), and Patrol (hold route and attack).

Inactivating:
There was Stop and Burrow, which both inactivated units (lurker excluded).


Ambush would be up there with Hold and Patrol; now that I think of it, it Ambush is more a cross between Hold and Burrow, rather than Patrol and Burrow.

----
the Icon could look like burrow, with maybe a set of eyes above it!

 

To be honest: I NEVER used patrol, NEVER. Maybe it would have helped at some occasion, but I think it's better to just stay alert and move your patrolling units by yourself. It'll increase your micro and macro capabilities.

 

That is very logical. I prefer to take a more innovative approach to playing. People will find what is most effective, so having more strategic possibilities allows for more options. Gaskmaskguy did hit a nail on the head; Patrol was less effective than staying alert, so then, why have it?. It allows for some complex strategies in which it could be useful.

I think stripping the chance to do something different, simply because it is not useful in all situation is really limiting.

Example
Take the Queens in general. Many people didn't use them often, you could win with just Mutalisks, Zerglings, and Hydralisks. How would you feel had you not had the option to use Queens at all?

While you will be very effective without Queens, there are circumstances in which you could very effectively use them.

I'm asking for the chance to utilize a basic feature, Ambush, for later more complex occasions.

 

You can utilize a basic feature by watchin what happens on your screen.

 

I used patrol, it's handy for Observers spaming the map. Just set them on a short course around the outside of your base. Otherwise though, not often.

 

I'm not against the patrol ability, because it was not really helpfull for killing units. But the ambush command could help you get some "easy" kills. AND only ZERG would have the ability! - thats the most important part!

 

If you wanna defend your base just use Lurkers as a trigger when an enemy force is entering your bases area. Lings will be further out then when you don't see the force you'll hear the spikes or that message will come up ''your units have engaged the enemy'' something like that, then bam unburrow your Lings.

 

^^ That my words, I agree!

 

The fact that the Zerg alone would have this ability is interesting. But that is a primary feature of the game, distinct factions; Zerg constantly regenerate, and have no traditional style cloaking units, I.Kerrigan excluded. Lurkers, partially, and only ground assaults.

The kills shouldn't be any more easy than they would, had you used patrol.

Your micro will still make the difference:
Lots of zerglings ambushing Colossi, would likely run into problems.
Lots of patrolling zerglings encountering a Colossi, would likely run into problems.

The differences are subtle, but have the potential to be used effectively. I think the differences are too subtle for knee-jerk dissatisfaction. Do you object to its possible existence, simply because you would not personally use the skill?

 

When I first saw this I thought the command would work somthing like a hold fire command. If you are terran and you have siege tanks on a hill, it would be very nice to be able to keep them from shooting at a scout at the head of an army and wait for the actual army. Currently you can't really do this. The best you can currently do is spam the stop command and hope the units don't fire.

 

I both like and dislike this idea. It does remove micro, which I think is important to maintain, but I could see how useful it would be. I love the idea, but I'm in favor of leaving it out. Those good at micro should be rewarded, and we should keep the game with as large a skill margin as possible.

 

While I don't follow very many Zerg topics this is one I have found rather interesting.

I persoanlly think its a great idea, it adds something to the game without removing very much at all. The argument that it will have a major impact on the skill margin of this game is BS. Because it would create alot of new strategic elements to the game while only removing a very small tactical amount on the tactical skill margin which is already ennormous as is when you think of the various new units that will require a massive amount of oversite to keep at maximum efficiency.

Personally I don't believe the UI should be limited just to promote microing all that does is remove from the strategic element of the game. All this would be is a minor improvement to the UI, I think a few new commands would add a lot to the strategic element of the game without hurting so called "micro" very much.

Also just because I forsee this happening, DO NOT USE THE ARGUMENT OF WHAT IS OR ISN'T GOOD FOR PRO GAMERS AGAINST ME. If you do I will happily summon an armada of Motherships and blast you to a distant corner of the universe.

 

THANK YOU LordKerwyn!

That is the point I was trying to get out. A better UI could lead to more strategy. If there is too much clicking intensive micro, your potential for strategy is limited

------------
@Quanta
That "Hold Fire" command would be a great option. I remember that Lurkers had a similar issue. You had to spam "Stop" until a platoon was directly over your units, then unleash sweet pandemonium.
---------------------

"User Interface"
-that could be a good sticky post!

 

No way. The game would no longer be called Starcraft. It would be called Macrocraft. Lets also make HIgh Templars perfectly autocast Psi-storm on groups of enemies. THe more HT you have the bigger the storm!!

 

Thank you for your input random spammer. This disscussion is not about any change to High Templar, what it is disscussing is a few minor additions to the UI. If you honestly believe sacrificing a relativey tiny bit of micro skill range (which there is already plenty) in exchange for comparitivly larger increase in macro skill range would turn SC2 into "Macrocraft" then I would love to see your support, otherwise please keep your random spam filled posts to yourself. 

Good day, and if you would like to disscuss the merits or lack there of, of making High Templars autocast psi storm I encourage you to make a new thread about said disscussion, Im sure there will be numerous people believing having High Templars autocast psi storm is bad change to the game. (Just for your information though said change has yet to make its way into SC2 you may be thinking of smartcasting which is a seperate topic entirely.)