04/08/2013 01:35 PMYes you did but huge is a vague term and may not be accurate. Where are you getting your information for how many battle cruisers it takes to bring down a Leviathan?
Posted by Inprea
In WoL we face a leviathan and as I said , it takes a whole fleet only yo take 1 on . ( so in blizzard's eyes a leviathan is just as strong as about .... 8-12 battlecruisers)
Besides that , a leviathan is huge compared to a battlecruiser , and the fact a leviathan is a nest for an army of flyers ...
I'm not sure about that Abathur mentions that they were on zerus for days just after the first mission. Which kind of surprised me as all I can assume is Kerrigan was up to something between missions.
As I said , a couple of days between the missions ... And about what Kerrigan was doing , she was probably just taking care of her war macro and reinforcing her grip on the hive mind
We only saw Warfield use ten ships. Also keep in mind how easily his research facility fail. That wasn't the defenses of someone who had a great many ships to use. It doesn't appear he took them with him.
Just 10 ships? that's a whole fleet :O ... (those were capital ships btw , not normal minotaur bc's )
And I didn't understand what you wanted to say with the rest of the statement . sorry
04/08/2013 01:35 PMKerrigan was talking about drop pods arriving on the surface not Leviathans. Not that 1% of her forces would be sufficient to hold a blockade and attack the planet.
Posted by Inprea
She said she only needs 1% of her army on the ground to do this . And about the blockade ... she had multiple reasons to do this ...
1 : stopping supply's from pouring in Korhal
2 : stopping any random fleets (truth be told , you never can know for sure)
3 : keeping a large part of ur forces back is a simple strategic necessity ...
If Kerrigan had rushed all her leviathans to Korhal there is a strong chance they would have been destroyed by Mengsk's psi-toy ... so keeping them back proved to be a wise move ...
and ... as she said , she wanted to preserve the swarm in case she failed ... so i guess this is point nr.4
Warfield is a veteran military leader that became stuck in a certain mind set and could escape from it. Think of the American civial war and how many men were sent into battle using Napoleonic tactics despite the increasing accuracy of rifles and cannons. Think of the difficulty people had adapting from trench warfare to mobile artillery aka tanks.
These were both mistakes made again and again.
I understand what you're trying to say , but I think what happened on Char has more to do with bad story writing than certain psychological patterns .
What happened in the last missions of WoL was different than what happened in the ,,10 bc's incident'' ... what happened in WoL was realistic (a realistic strategy mistake) ,but what happened in Hots was not ... 10 capital ships , one after another ... think about it ...
I don't agree. If he did indeed have warships protecting those planets then destroying them early makes sense so they can't rush to his aid later. Plus there is still the issue of those world's production potentials. You can claim their output isn't significant but Kerrigan would clearly disagree. Even if it was low if you have a chance to pound your enemy's centers of production you do it.
Maybe I'm retarded ... but please explain this logic :
Kerrigan decides to spare many lives by not dropping smack down in the middle of Korhal ... but this increases the difficulty of what already is the greatest battle of her life by a huge amount ... Then she decides to avoid the civilian centers , again this increases the difficulty by a big amount ... so she takes all these huge risks to save some civies
But then she burns some worlds that posed a minor risk
, killing millions of civilians (most likely ...)
I tried to make sense of this , trust me I tried ... but when I felt what I felt in my hear (disappointment ... sadness ... ) I knew this was over ... I knew this game's story was total b...