Are shield batteries even useful, or should you just build more cannons?

Every Protoss player builds them, but are the shield batteries actually a useful cost investment to defend your base? In this video we will find out if building shield batteries is better than spending money into building additional cannons. Two cannon lines of 900 minerals defend against 3:3 Zerg, protoss and terran units. Who will win, and are the shield batteries able to keep the cannons in good health or are they just a poor insurance?
Starcraft 2 is a real time strategy game developped by Blizzard entertainment.
#starcraft #starcraft2 #rts

[@alexfrost2799]

Most Protoss players know shield batteries are used to recharge the shields of their units, not structures. That is the real strength of their defensive capabilities. And Battery Overcharge is one hell of a saving grace against enemy pushes.

[@eldesconocido669]

Eso y que casi siempre vas a poner la batería a rango de un nexo para la sobrecarga de batería de escudos.

[@redwing999]

Agree. This set up in the video is obviously very biased: (1) 6 Cannons obviously have more fire power. If all 6 focus on a single unit, it kills off much faster than 4 cannons. Meanwhile, the results also depend on whether the incoming enemies are attacking the weaker cannons. (2) When against melee enemies like zealots, 4 cannons offer more surface area for zealots to surround a single cannon. (3) When incoming enemies have AOE like banelings, it'd also make a difference if the 4 cannons are spread.

[@anton7c3]

Marauders have defeated the cannons on the left, but you added a number to a win count. Baneling example is questionable because in both cases the banes have been stopped with protoss structures remaining.

[@kalebcampos1064]

What is interesting to see in these examples though isn't necessarily the wins vs losses but with batteries how definitive they are. The only cannons would win but almost always incurred significant damage which to defend a follow up would like mean they'd be destroyed and rebuilt, otherwise it's a designated weak spot vs the batteries which on their wins usually didn't much (if any) actual damage done to the cannons.

[@WJen8]

This was definitely an interesting question and fun to watch. I'd say that it depends on the player, both preferred tactics and skill level. Higher tier players tend to make more units than defensive structures until maybe the late game with extra resources, in which case the batteries have more value recharging armies and sustaining the base until armies arrive to defend it. Lower tier players who are still developing skills might rely more on defensive structures where not only do cannons take down opposing attacks but an opponent of the same tier would also launch non-optimal attacks which are more impacted by defenses. Personally I might build a few more cannons in the early game so I can focus more on micro, then as those cannons die I replace some of them with batteries for a more sustainable mid-late game and larger armies.

[@ZC.Andrew]

You should add more batteries vs smaller and lighter units (like Roaches as we see here), which are better and cheaper than more cannons. Photon Overcharge is excellent for defending pushes. If you are feeling cheesy, having batteries makes for much scarier cannon rushing. Batteries also heal unit shields. Overall the battery is an excellent addition. Life was darker when we just had cannons.

[@lordlard2833]

I don't mind this as a base experiment but while it looks like the SB are not adding a whole lot I think we would see a different picture if we tracked health remaining instead of just units alive vs dead on both sides. % health remaining on friendly units vs enemy units remaining. It would help to show the true value added by having more cannons vs fewer cannons in certain situations. This was an interesting experiment to watch!

[@brynnicholson6908]

Turns out 7 is better than 6!

[@user-dn1sq7ow1r]

What the first music?

[@UrielAngeli147]

Now try it with sbo

[@_rbrbrbrb]

지원군이 오기 전 까지 캐논이 살아있으면 자원을 아낄 수 있으니 배터리있는게 좋다 생각함 거기에 슈퍼배터리랑 유닛에게도 지원해줄 수 있단 면에서 충분히 쓸만하죠

[@mariusmihai1292]

is actually equal because the banelings round did not destroyed the batteries. just because they destroyed the canons that does not mean is a win. because the comparison is between canons and batteries and more canons os if the batteries stayed alive and there were no banelings left is a win for canons and batteries too.

[@Hellafast2uDude]

With focus fire there would better results with batteries

[@FerusVagari]

More like it needs buffs

[@kenshiro100]

eso esta mal,,,,deberia ser 6 estructuras defensivas en los 2 casos.. y en la derecha hay 7

[@rodrigoe.martinmusri8775]

:V ¿Seguro juegas juegos de estrategia? Ambos lados cuestan los mismos recursos, eso es lo que cuenta

[@kenshiro100]

@@rodrigoe.martinmusri8775 si lo se ,,,, cada pilon cuesta 100 de mineral, los canon 150 y las baterias de escudo 100,,, pero lo digo por estructuras defensivas y no por recursos gastados.. y si juego star craf desde el año 2005 . casi 20 años.

[@anthonyellis40]

Vikings

[@natzzu8481]

Más cañones es mejor

[@raulperalta3002]

Creo que aqui la bateria ayuda no tanto parar parar ese primer ataque, sino para recargar rapido a lo que sobreviva para detener por unos segundos a una segunda oleada, pues ayudan más a unidades que a estructuras como cañones

[@TheAzorg]

I don't think I like these. It's always something off with these. Not entirely scientifically accurate tbh. Everyone knows batteries strength and it seems the video is trying to sway people away. An attempt to win more on ladder perhaps?

[@ballsofsalsa01]

The roaches case is very particular, you roaches have high damage but low AS, meaning breaking Threshold AND overkill are very important normally it'd die from 19 attacks, but Healing that Little bit pushes it to over 21 It's less relevant vs fast attackers with essentially 0 overkill