Tech 1 bombers

[uberge3k]

I agree. Bombers are fine.

Look, I'm probably one of the most anti-micro people here. I utterly hate micro. If I had my way SC would play more like a turn based game that happens to run in real time than an RTS.

The fact is, bomber first is OP only if do not know how to counter it as a strategy. I initially hated it too. After studying replays of top players I realized that it's not OP because of three things:

1) The person going bomber first is taking a huge risk. They have no way to protect their early engineers. If you went land first, that means you should be able to take a huge amount of map control.
2) Bombers die horribly to T1 AA. You can make a stationary AA before it's made it's second pass if you see it coming, and protect your main base (and effectively keep a "no-fly" zone for some time). Even if the bomber rusher sees this and avoids it to kill expanding engineers, a few mobile T1 aas will finish it off very quickly.
3) You can out micro bombers with about the same amount of effort as it takes for the bomber rusher to micro his bomber. In other words, you see a bomber about to drop bombs on <engineer, lab, whatever>, and you have enough time to move it in the opposite direction - making the bomber miss and giving you more time to prepare your counter for it.

All you need to do is counter that first bomber. After that, you can push your early land advantage.

[CrazedChariot]

I think its insane that I can't counter an early bomber with an intercepter.

On small land maps it is a riskier strategy. On larger or water maps, air fist is probably the best opening.

I hate how all the counters involve serious micro, it isnt friendly to new players and is not what FA is about in my opinion.


I love what funk did to bombers, by fixing their drop rate and making them useful against armies. I don't understand why people are obsessed with keeping their cost and buildtme similar to an early game raiding unit.

[TAG_ROCK]

Well I think its counterable and the air first guy is not gonna win by doing it, he just hopes the other guy lets him kill stuff for free. It spices the game a bit and its hard to pull off.

Ok I agree for new comers its hard to swallow, but the game doesnt revolve around this entirely, and I see only the better players try it. New comers normally play other noobs anyway.

[Gunseng]

Keep T1 air as is. I'd rather not have that strategy taken away, it maintains diversity and makes scouting important. It's one thing I love about this game and keeps me coming back.

[CrazedChariot]

How many times have you scouted an air first build?

[Lu_Xun_17]

hehe i really often make a lightbot first, and be sure it permits to scoot bomber first in 70% of the times i receive one. (added to this the lightbot is insane because opponent have no land to kill it)

[TAG_ROCK]

I think its safe to make a scout first thing especially on small maps and send it towards opponent to check for Air. Its fast and intel is ALWAYS good, against air or land anyway.

[uberge3k]

Again... People are acting like the guy going bomber first has this free advantage. He doesn't. He's sacrificing a huge amount of early map control and "traditional raiding" and gambling on the bomber paying off.

All I ask is that before you insist that bombers are OP, try going bomber first a few times yourself. You'll see that it's nowhere near a silver bullet.

[LordVader]

I can only point out what uber said. early air is a very BIG risk! If the opponent counters it easy then your early map control is lost that results in a big disadvantage. In my opinion bombers are fine, no changes need to be done!

[lebensnebel]

I think air first should stay an option, but I don't see why early interceptor is not the counter for early bomber. That makes no sense.
Is early bomber still viable, if the bomber energy cost is raised to the one of interceptors?