Since its unveiling in May 2007, StarCraft 2 has been constantly either criticized or praised for the similarity to its masterpiece predecessor. Unlike the WarCraft and Diablo game series sequels, Blizzard’s StarCraft sequel is not radically different from StarCraft. At first glance, the Terran, Protoss and Zerg clash again, with only slightly modified arsenals and greatly enhanced graphics.

But that’s not all. Every RTS game has key concepts that stretch beyond unit armor/damage statistics and eye candy – concepts like the Terran flying buildings, the neutral heroes of WarCraft 3 or the superweapons of Command & Conquer. Concepts that define battlefield priorities, the amount of base management required, and very often compromise the mechanics that drastically change the flow of multiplayer battles.

StarCraft 2 includes many such concepts, which significantly differentiate it from its predecessor:

1) Selection and Automation: Unlimited Selection and Multiple building selection

One of StarCraft’s key troop management considerations was the 12 unit per group limit. Just like any other Blizzard RTS game, and unlike almost any Westwood RTS game, players had to divide units into controllable groups not just based on priority and comfort, but the ease of unified control. Having 15 marines and 7 Vultures usually meant that the player will have to control 3 groups(12+3+7), an artificially imposed handicap which had no real meaning.

StarCraft 2 changes all that. Players will be able to group units by control comfort, map location and unit roles – a drastic change which will affect the diversity and amount of engaged units.

Multiple building selection is a somewhat controversial concept which greatly streamlines production management across multiple buildings. This common control method, which already exists in WarCraft 3, has been criticized for easing production control beyond measure, thus eliminating a facet of skill superiority in matches. MBS liberates more time with which players can focus on controlling the battle, and removes another artificial hassle from the gameplay. Confirmed early on and not changed since, this feature will make it to the Gold version.
StarCraft 2 includes many new automation features, such as smart casting and auto-mining – we have covered them extensively several months ago.

2) Defenses: Terran Supply Depots, Protoss mobile Phase Cannons and the creeping Zerg base defenses

Every race in StarCraft 2 has received significant and original improvements to their defensive structures. The Terran have effectively acquired the first and only StarCraft equivalent of a gate. Despite always having the ability to block and unblock vital ground by lifting buildings off the ground and repositioning them, the size and nature of the new Supply Depots provide an unparalleled static defense flexibility for the Terran players.

The Protoss mobile Phase Cannons are a great way to ensure that every part of one’s base is covered by defenses – if they’re not there at present, they’ll be moved where they’re needed within a few seconds – but perhaps more importantly, they create a great economic advantage for the Protoss. While every other race possesses its own advantages in terms of “offensive towering”, the Protoss have become the only race to be able to recycle its defenses. Static defenses often become obsolete, especially when placed in expansions or offensive outposts, and this feature allows them to be used and reused throughout the game.

Protoss no longer see the Cannons as a waste of resources (even though current build information suggests otherwise) – they can be redeployed to new expansions, be used in a new offensive, or be sent to aid an ally in need.

Similarly, the newly introduced mobile Zerg defenses are a somewhat less aggressive implementation of this idea. While the mobile Protoss Cannons are able to move around even outside pylon range, Zerg defenses, like almost all other Zerg structures, require creep to be built or to move around on. Of course, as noted earlier by Karune – in Zerg Vs Zerg match-ups, offensive towering is extremely effective due to the Queen’s support.

3) Terrain: High-yield minerals, Terrain destructibility, High-Low Ground

One of the first things to be noticed during StarCraft 2’s initial unveiling were the Yellow Crystals. These were later confirmed to be high-yield minerals – a strategy changing concept, which has served Westwood well in its C&C RTS series of games.

The tactical implications of having super-valuable expansions in a macro-oriented RTS game, such as StarCraft, are vast. In 2vs2 battles, an economic advantage is very often all players need to gain a significant advantage over the other team.

Destructible terrain, despite adding an additional tactical twist to any battlefield, will likely become little more than an early game consideration. Blocked choke-points, well isolated expansions and unreachable cliffs will alter players’ priorties, often benefiting the player who correctly times the destruction of these obstacles.

Not unlike StarCraft, StarCraft 2 also has multiple levels of terrain height, but this time the Protoss and Terran are equipped with units specifically designed to hop between the different height levels. Colossi, Reapers and Stalkers have all been designed to take advantage of higher ground in battle. The ability to move between heights provides these units with a significant advantage over melee units, and greatly increases the survival chances they have in multi-tiered maps.

4) StarCraft 2 Production twists – Reactor Add-on and the Warp Gate

One of the most overlooked features at this point is the Terran’s Reactor add-on. As described in a recent Q&A, the Reactor allows a building to build two units at once, effectively doubling its production rate. This is a radical change in production, a crushing advantage for a race that has quite an arsenal of specialized units – as long as the player forfeits the Terran heavy-hitters.

The Reactor add-on can be attached to the production buildings that needs the doubled rate, and detached from production facilities which need to produce Tech-Lab dependant units.

The Protoss Warp Gate, on the other hand, grants the player the ability to summon units directly into expansions and allied bases. A team of Protoss players can provide each other with reinforcements in real time, an especially significant advantage on Island maps and siege situations.

Bear in mind that we have ignored the major implications of introducing such gameplay-changing units as the Zerg Queen and the new Terran Ghost on purpose, to put on emphasis on global aspects that affect production, control, base layout and economy. These concepts are far more likely to survive the many StarCraft 2 builds which have radically altered unit abilities time after time.

Related Posts:

• » Two Massive Q&A Sessions: Battle.Net and Beta In-Depth
• » StarCraft 2 Beta: Protoss Strategies Overview
• » StarCraft 2 Beta: Yo Mommaship Got Nerfed
• » StarCraft 2 Beta: First Gameplay and Battle.net Impressions

41 Comments to “Beyond StarCraft 3D – StarCraft 2 New Gameplay Concepts”

1. BarGamer — April 20, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
   

   So if a Terran player puts a Reactor on his Barracks, pumps out lots of Reapers while Gating himself in… He might still lose to lots of Colossi + Mothership? Hehehehe…

2. Nikasi — April 20, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
   

   A Terran player who uses Reapers harassing, but let the Toss player grow that far to have Colossi and Mothership!!! Man,he must have played SC for the first time.

3. THE_BANANA_REPUBLIC — April 20, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
   

   Excellent blogging. As usual. Reiterating the underscored points to the game is important for the lay-gamers.

4. Anonymous — April 20, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
   

   I wonder, what exactly replaces the Reaver Drop for the Protoss. The Colossus is clearly the robotic unit replacement for the Reaver, but with its speed and ability to clear cliffs, its no wonder that its Tier 3. The other thing that comes to mind is Stalkers, but they need Line of Sight to blink and don’t do as much damage as a Reaver Drop would.
   I’m sure the DevTeam has given this enough thought, what do you guys think?

5. lalalala — April 20, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
   

   i know its tough to strike a balance between appealing to newcomers, existing starcraft hard-core fans and competitive enough for e sports gaming alike…. but they should enable features (etc unlimited unit selection and multiple unit selection and auto mining) to be turned off or on. ; ) so this will ensure everyone will be happy

6. SC2 Fan — April 21, 2008 @ 1:01 am
   

   Just look at this post!! HEAVEN!!! This post shows the TRUE meaning of StarCraft2. a wOOt to the Devs for putting so much effort in the development of the game for the past months. I hope that things will keep going smoothly like this and in no time…POOF…StarCraft2 CD in my hands

   Just ONE thing that I’m confused of…now the post says that Protoss have MOBILE Phase Cannons. So, I just have one question:-

   Does the Protoss now have back their phasing abilities, and they are not stripped off?

   If yes, THANK YOU so much. If it’s a mispost, then it’s ok. but I do hope the ability to phase them is BACK!!!!

7. Vice_Versa_Man — April 21, 2008 @ 1:13 am
   

   @ SC2 Fan

   This quote here from the article:

   “Protoss no longer see the Cannons as a waste of resources (even though current build information suggests otherwise) – they can be redeployed to new expansions, be used in a new offensive, or be sent to aid an ally in need.”

   Seems to indicate that the writer is operating under the assumption that though the Protoss no longer have the ability to move their pylons, the ability will be restored in some way. Perhaps they were assembling this article before the recent news of the change, and only added in the link to the article that breaks the news as an afterthought.

   Either way, they state that the CURRENT BUILD does not feature this ability. However, as it is a well known and popular ability, I imagine that the author of the article is correct, and it will return in one form or another.

8. Neil — April 21, 2008 @ 3:58 am
   

   The author of this article, perhaps unwittingly, disproves his own point. Compared to the innovations that Warcraft III offered over Warcraft II, Starcraft II *does* very much seem like Starcraft plus. The fact that one needs to point to minor additions, such as high resource minerals, to show how different Starcraft II is would seem to demonstrate this quite adequately.

   So far, the only really innovative change to Starcraft II, that I am aware of, is the Protoss Warpgates.

9. Apharion — April 21, 2008 @ 4:46 am
   

   So far, I have a feeling that SC2 is still a glorified expansion of the original, nothing too radically ‘improved’ or anything, just better graphics, some new units and a redo on balancing…

   I sincerely hope that we will see some new concepts, a lot that I read on this blog site, the expansion of a lower-orbit was a good one, the mothership as a super unit was a good one. But so far, Blizz appears to be going the ‘other way’, but taking back all those crazy concept they had from the start. (like normalizing Mothership, reverting on the SCV made Thor… etc.)

   I am sure at the end, Blizz won’t disappoint, but I am just longing to see it sooner.

10. mmoossen — April 21, 2008 @ 5:02 am
    

    i was just wondering if not only the limit of number of selected units will be improved but also the usability, in the sense that if you have a group of 20 High-Templars selected and you want to cast the psyonic storm, in sc1, all 20 High-Templars (if having enough energy) will react… it would be much better that only the closest one to the casting spot with enough energy would react. then if you really want more storms to be casted you would just cast it the times you want, without any need to select a single one and then to select the group again to continue… imaging also this with the lock ability of the ghost which is a so great ability, but really unusable in sc1, or even the yamato gun…

11. Dill — April 21, 2008 @ 5:58 am
    

    To the above poster: I think that’s in the game as well (As smart casting.)

    To me the gme does seem to be starcraft upgraded enoughnot to work as an expansion, but it isn’t a big deal (compared with, say, Civilization to Civilization 2, which were both quite similar from what I hear but did include enough changes to be useful.)

12. Yokelassence — April 21, 2008 @ 6:07 am
    

    “StarCraft sequel is not radically different from StarCraft”

    ..But is that really a bad thing?

    Sure, some of us hope that Starcraft 2 will go to great lenghts to ensure the game will give you a totally new experience that innovates far beyond what Starcraft 1 could have ever dreamed of…

    However change is a double edged sword as usual.

    For every person who wants a different starcraft, theres another person who wants the same game with better graphics.

    You have seen the constant whining that goes on in the battlenet forums when people find out their favorite unit/ability/feature has been forsaken for something new in SC2. Most of those people happen to be the core fanbase of the Starcraft franchise so blizzard has to make compromises between new and old unless they want to lose them.

    History has proven that innovating is not always considered better;

    Remember how Halo 2 tried to be extremely different from Halo 1 when it came out? Did people enjoy the new innovative experience? No, they griped about it at Halo2sucks.com

    When Halo 3 arrived, Bungie studio’s tried to correct things by going to another extreme: making the game just like Halo 1, but gain this earned them no respect; people just complained the game was a prettier Halo 1.

    This has already happened to blizzard before, but in order to avoid it again they really have no choice but to shoot for a medium:

    “Not exactly the same, but not too different either”

13. keyhive — April 21, 2008 @ 8:10 am
    

    Though SC2 is fundamentally a part of the SC universe, stating it as nothing more than an ‘add-on’ completely ignores the change of gameplay medium that comes with this graphical overhaul.

    To anyone who has recently played SC, the visible differences are probably more heavily pronounced. The look and, especially, the feel of the game is radically different. Watching Savior playing the zerg and getting devastated like a noob is a testament to how different SC2 is in terms of pace and possibility.

    Blizzard is on par for the course, considering their patented incremental approach to sequels. Diablo I > II stepped the hero movement directions up from 4 to 16. This -alone- opened the gates wide on new gameplay possibilities.

    That the dev team is able to stay so true to the original with this new graphics engine speaks well for their dedication to the original, and I am in accord.

    It is the greatness of what StarCraft already -is- that has me bound in anticipation for the sequel.

14. Apharion — April 21, 2008 @ 8:28 am
    

    I agree with the above poster, that sometimes.. changes is not necessary a good thing. Halo2 is a great example, I extend my full agreement to that.

    That being said.

    I think after being a blizz fan for over 10 years, I have always enjoyed blizz’s changes in sequels, and with that came a certain sense of ‘expectation’ to have SC2 having new dimensions to both gameplay/strategy etc.

    Example:

    If you have a Mothership, wouldn’t it be cool, if you can have a command that will send it to higher orbit, and laser your enemies base from orbit? (how to counter these will be a separate issue, maybe each base can research some shielding, or something. It’s the idea that counts.)

    Or if you can select a group of marines, once you have more then 20 in a group, you can put them into formations, like, rally-bombardment: in this formation, your marines cannot move, but they boost their fighting power by 2 folds, making these 20 marines an effective wall against in coming… (stuff like that. totally new ways to use units.)

    Or zealots, have them have some sort of ‘ganging’ ability against heavy units, so when you select them and use the ‘gang’ command, the three zealots will rush up and do double damage to a mechanical unit, though they will take double the damage. (or drain their shields.. or whatever.)

    That’s kind of the changes I am looking for.
    more mirco, more detailed, more thinking…

15. Nattaboy — April 21, 2008 @ 9:17 am
    

    What Apharion is referring to (I think) is a thing called ’stances’. I first saw it in the ill-fated Rise of Legends, and if u meddle with some options u can get it in Age of Empires 3. I quite like it as you can have the same unit respond to different scenarios, for example in AoE3 you could set musketeers t spread out, so a if the enemy has a cannon they cannot wipe out a chunk of ur soldiers at once, or there is the defence formation (mostly for melee troops) which means u take less damage but ur guys bunch up and do less damage. I quite like the idea.

    The orbital bombardment ability for the mothership is a cool idea, kkinda like C&C superweapons, but i think other races need something similar, although you could say the terrans have nuke.

    Ahh, the blinking red dot is beautiful to the one who is launching…

16. battlarmd — April 21, 2008 @ 10:14 am
    

    the stance thing for zealots and marines is an excellent idea mate!

    not only will it give tier 1 unit some late game use, but also adds a lot of strategy, good one. This blog does log some good ideas, if only blizzard reads them.

17. Joe — April 21, 2008 @ 11:38 am
    

    I kind prefer not having squad control, like unit formations, in Starcraft. I think the unlimited unit selection will further remove any desires for it. The game is simpler without it.

    I like to micro units into formation, and the formation is always changing (usually I do it either to move damaged units out of melee attack range, avoid another unit’s attack radius, or to optimize potentially stupid unit pathing). While not giving my units a statistical advantage, they sure seem to last longer when I’m controlling them. And I’m having more fun!

18. Lonia — April 21, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
    

    I am not sure if you guys have seen proleague sceans but you are supposed to move and control units as squad, not the game which makes this game even more fun.

19. Yokelassence — April 21, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
    

    Apharion I would have to agree, those idea’s would be cool.

    I was not saying that I dislike the addition of new idea’s

    I thought that the original Mothership was the coolest thing ever, I would love to see go back the way it was as a unique, expensive but powerful support unit. I also wish the thor would go back to being that unique, expensive but powerful assault unit and with the queen already being a unique, expensive but powerful defense unit they all would have been nicely balanced.

    Still it was innovation that in they eyes of many was just an unnecassary attempt at breaking what was already fixed

    (sigh)

    What really happened to those units goes to show my point.

    Blizzard can only go so far…

20. meo123 — April 22, 2008 @ 2:43 am
    

    Well, actually I have seen a few things that Blizzard has taken from some other games and altered them a little bit (eg. the high yield mineral is similar to the blue tiberium crystal in C&C3; the Mothership of the Scrin faction in C&C3 also; the removed drop pods which appeared in Warhammer 40k of Spacemarine faction; the Reapers who really resemble the Seraphims of the Sisters of Battle faction in the new expansion of Warhammer 40k with jetpack and dual guns, etc). However, it’s not really a big problem as long as SC2 gives me the amazing story and the ballanced multiplayer mode.

21. Anonymous — April 22, 2008 @ 11:53 am
    

    @meo123
    For that matter, Drop pods are in C&C3 too (Zone Raider Drop Pods), as well as Jumpjets (Zone Raiders and GDI Commando) and Blink (Scrin Shock Troopers). I don’t mind really, Blizzard has never been one to use entirely original concepts. In the end, its the whole package that matters.

22. meo123 — April 22, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
    

    Yeah, I will love SC no matter what it will be. Just remember how i used a bunch of floppy disks back then to copy SC1 from my friend. Many of us grow up with the game

23. Lonia — April 22, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
    

    Starcraft2 SHOULD be different from Starcraft 1 because they are not the same game. How different? I don’t know. it depends.

24. Yokelassence — April 22, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
    

    It depends on what the fans really want

25. SC2 Fan - pls read, something to ask, again — April 23, 2008 @ 2:10 am
    

    Same here! I’ll play StarCraft2 whether it is simmilar to SC1 or not. The graphics are WAY better than SC1 thats for sure. So, it is still a better game, cheer up!!

    and thanks ‘Vice_Versa_Man’ for clarifying it to me . If there is still anyone reading this post, I would love to hear your opinion on this suggestion of mine.

    For the mothership, would it be better if we improve the mothership further as a support ship by giving it passive skills i.e. regen aura, damage aura and so on. this could add extra advantage to units once the mothership is produced.

    Another thing I would suggest is that, since the Mothership is a support ship now, it should have a skill maybe called “Soul Converter”. When the Mothership kills a unit, it’s life energy is converted to be stored in the Mothership’s core thus enhancing the powers of units around the Mothership until a certain level. This comes under the Auras. When the Mothership is destroyed, stored souls are poured into nearby allied units, giving them temporary extreme internal energy, enhancing armor, attack damage and regeneration. It(stored souls) could also strike enemy units, weakening them temporarily. This is a good counter for the Protoss since the Mothership will be a primary target. With this, players would have to take into account how many units are assisting the Mothership before trying to destroy it.

    Pls leave your comments, TX

26. Vsevolod — April 23, 2008 @ 6:56 am
    

    I can understand one thing. Hydralisk is big unit with two pads -blade, so this creature should very powerful in the hand-to-hand fighting. If players can switch attack type of this unit, it would be very cool.

27. Joe — April 23, 2008 @ 11:24 am
    

    @sc2fan : I don’t want to see aura’s in Starcraft. Nor should unit’s become more powerful as their kill rate increases. These ideas are too unit centric; it is better for this game to focus mainly on the tactical positioning of groups of units. Sometimes the line is blurred a little between unit centric and army centric (warcraft and starcraft) gameplay ideas, but I think that auras and individual unit power levels crosses the line.

    Basically, if the player (who is basically the commander) could cast that aura for a set period of time (ala dark swarm), then we’re back in business.

28. meo123 — April 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
    

    With the introduction of the Reactors for Terran and Warp In for Protoss, it seems that these two race have been given high advantage in production. I wonder if the Zerg will have something relatively , for example extra larvae if the Hatchery is fully upgraded or something?

29. meo123 — April 23, 2008 @ 11:48 am
    

    Ah and one more thing about the unlimited selection. In SC1, double click on any unit or hold Ctrl and click on any unit will allow us to select all units of the same type on the screen with maximum number of 12. I have strong sense that Blizzard will keep the same function in SC2 and remove the number 12 limit. However, for players who want to go for a bit micro, will there be any way to quickly select 10 or 12 units at once, for example holding Alt and click on the unit?

30. ULysses — April 23, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
    

    Excellent blogging – it is. But nothing new, nothing new.. The Blizzard is juicing us out. To tell the truth, i’m not that eager to run and pay for the SCII to have the disc as i was like 0,5 a year ago.. They are heating the audience up, but it takes too damn long. i’m over-boiled and absolutely full with all the “null-void” strategy talks, talks about nothing i can truly taste and feel..

31. Arthur Santana — April 24, 2008 @ 8:56 am
    

    I almost agree with Ulysses. Though I am still longing for the game, an open beta would be pretty fun =P. (And I would be able to test the system requirements, which are kinda frightening to me)

32. Lonia — April 24, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
    

    Nobody juiced anyone. Don’t juice yourself out.

33. MondSemmel — April 25, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
    

    Especially (!) Blizzard fans should know that “it’s done when it’s done”, not earlier. Expecting them to change this philosophy because you “can’t wait anymore” kind of means expecting a game not made by Blizzard…
    Looking at both look and system requirements of WoW, I guess it’s safe to say that ~5 year old computers will probably still be able to play SC II on minimum requirements.

34. Yokelassence — April 25, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
    

    True, I would prefure a flawless game released in 2009 rather than a rushed and imbalanced one released in May.

    As for the system requirements: compared to some other games released today, SC2 does not look extremely power hungry. I have better hopes of running SC2 on my machine than UT3, COD4 or Crysis. Besides, alot of the special graphics probably can be disabled to save frame rates.

35. Anonymous — April 25, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
    

    frg

36. Anonymous — April 25, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
    

    i have a question for blizzard

    will marines ever run and shoot at the same time?

    or will they need an upgrade such as reduced gun wieght which will allow them to run and shoot

    it would look dumb if the mairne ran stand still then shoot

37. meo123 — April 25, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
    

    The run and shoot feature for the Marines is nice. I love it, as well as the feature for the air units to fly and shoot at the same time. It’ll be much more realistic but also more difficult to micro and control.

38. Joe — April 26, 2008 @ 10:35 am
    

    I don’t really see how running and shooting at the same time is realistic. If anything they would become less accurate if moving and shooting simultaneously, and reduced gun weight should also mean reduced damage. What a hassle!

    I think the marines look fine as they currently are, running, and stopping to shoot. Its got that nice Starcraft feeling to it.

39. Yokelassence — April 26, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
    

    Blizzard will not see that suggestion anyway. They only browse the battlenet forums to my knowledge

    Go to http://www.Starcraft2.com if you have a question for Blizzard

40. Powerfan5000 — June 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am
    

    I’m kind of sick of hearing how the pros play SC1 and any changes to SC2 should be in line with how the pros play SC1. First, the pros should practice using the new game mechanics and adapt. That’s what makes them pro, that they can adapt to new strategy. Second, I like the VAST majority of players, am not a pro-gamer nor will I ever be. Using pro strategy to evaluate game play changes is ridiculous when 99% of the people playing the game are not pro.

41. bwong1 — August 16, 2008 @ 6:02 am
    

    i agree. Pro players don’t make the game or influence the company. They play the game really well and become pros, but they still are considered players in the gaming industry. The game is designed for people to make them learn the mechanics and develop their own gaming style. Its like saying everyone is following the same strategy guide if Blizzard has to refer to the pros to evaluate their game and make it to their playing style. It totally takes out the developing aspect of the game.