Yes. And Immortal also has turret tracking, which Thor doesn't, thus Immortal can keeps firing back when retreating, while Thor has to turn around when retreating.
MInerals: Immortal costs 275 mineals (so should be 10,9 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors). Gas: Immortals cost 100 gas (so should be 20 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors) Supply: Immortal costs 4 supplies (so should be 15 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors). Minerals are very cheap and with easy acess. So we should focus more on gas and supply for a real comparisson. So, perhaps 11-15 Immortals should do the trick.
I don't think it's practical to compare the cost of unit. Zerg mines heavy than terran or protoss. In a mid to late game, zerg can reproduce any composition in an instant. Terran has mules which can replace scv in a late game in order to free up supply for thors. Making terran gets the army supply advantage. Protoss is kinda OP because you can have mass carriers to protect the immortals and it's super hard to defend as zerg.
Immortals problem is its small size here. VS Ultra because they are so small they can get hit by mutiple aoe of Ultras compared to Thors. And VS Thors they suffer because of mobility ironically, Thors can outmanouver immortals tahnks to their size so they dont get stuck on each other as often. But thanks tho their size they are far more useful in situations were the map heavely limits how wide the combat area is. Though the units didnt have every signle upgrade like Ultras charge and Thors bombardment for example. But still, it does show pretty well how cost effective those units are.
This for once, but don't forget, immortals are 4 supply, while Thors and Ultras are 6. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but generally speaking, more supply (-costs) should win against less. So if we go by that, 15 Immortals vs. 10 Thors/Ultras, it would be quite a different outcome
@@bam3xs id say it's more supply to cost ratio. Roches are extremely cheap for there supply at 12.5 gas, but bane-lings are 50, ghosts are 62.5, high templar 75. Ofc minerals do apply to some units like immortals that are mineral heavy, but generally gas is the main tell at how supply efficiency a unit is.
En mi opinión, los Thors son mejores. No solo sirven como fuerte línea defensiva en tierra, sino como línea sumamente ofensiva en aire. DIOS como destrozan cosas aéreas. FEEL THE THUNDER!!!!
Immortal is the cheapest of the 3, and also more of a mid game unit while the other 2 are late game units. Immortals also have the fewest hard counters, I'd pick immortal over the other 2 any day.
it looked to me like there was a significant delay in the Thor's attack animation. The Ultra was practically on top of it before it fired its first shot.
![ULTRALISK vs ALL UNITS [STARCRAFT 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwusqP1CPak/mqdefault.jpg)
![ULTRALISK vs ALL UNITS [STARCRAFT 2]](/img/tr.png)
![THOR vs ALL UNITS [STARCRAFT 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wxs3ZIrSGTY/mqdefault.jpg)
![ARCHON vs ALL UNITS [STARCRAFT 2]](/img/n.gif)
"Immortals. We'll put their name to the test."
Immortals do pretty good, for their much lower price, and being a Tier 2, instead of Tier 3 unit.
And their supply cost
They also do well as numbers grow. 20 Immortals beat 20 Thors, and annihilate Ultralisks. You can see it start to happen here in the vid.
Yes. And Immortal also has turret tracking, which Thor doesn't, thus Immortal can keeps firing back when retreating, while Thor has to turn around when retreating.
This is one of the reasons why StarCraft is amazing. There's a difference in between numbers and upgrades
wrr
the last battle even tho the thor walking around doing nothing in the first few second and they still win ahha
Thor is the only one capable to deal huge damage to air units
MInerals: Immortal costs 275 mineals (so should be 10,9 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors).
Gas: Immortals cost 100 gas (so should be 20 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors)
Supply: Immortal costs 4 supplies (so should be 15 Immortals versus 10 Ultralisks or Thors).
Minerals are very cheap and with easy acess. So we should focus more on gas and supply for a real comparisson. So, perhaps 11-15 Immortals should do the trick.
I don't think it's practical to compare the cost of unit. Zerg mines heavy than terran or protoss. In a mid to late game, zerg can reproduce any composition in an instant.
Terran has mules which can replace scv in a late game in order to free up supply for thors. Making terran gets the army supply advantage.
Protoss is kinda OP because you can have mass carriers to protect the immortals and it's super hard to defend as zerg.
Valid point
Yes, but you forget that Thor can also fire to the air units, is more versatile like immortals and utralisk...
Immortals problem is its small size here. VS Ultra because they are so small they can get hit by mutiple aoe of Ultras compared to Thors.
And VS Thors they suffer because of mobility ironically, Thors can outmanouver immortals tahnks to their size so they dont get stuck on each other as often.
But thanks tho their size they are far more useful in situations were the map heavely limits how wide the combat area is.
Though the units didnt have every signle upgrade like Ultras charge and Thors bombardment for example. But still, it does show pretty well how cost effective those units are.
This for once, but don't forget, immortals are 4 supply, while Thors and Ultras are 6. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but generally speaking, more supply (-costs) should win against less.
So if we go by that, 15 Immortals vs. 10 Thors/Ultras, it would be quite a different outcome
@@bam3xs id say it's more supply to cost ratio. Roches are extremely cheap for there supply at 12.5 gas, but bane-lings are 50, ghosts are 62.5, high templar 75. Ofc minerals do apply to some units like immortals that are mineral heavy, but generally gas is the main tell at how supply efficiency a unit is.
thor has longer range
immortal can defeat thor when 100vs100
well 50 immortal can defeat 55 thor
En mi opinión, los Thors son mejores.
No solo sirven como fuerte línea defensiva en tierra, sino como línea sumamente ofensiva en aire.
DIOS como destrozan cosas aéreas.
FEEL THE THUNDER!!!!
Immortal is the cheapest of the 3, and also more of a mid game unit while the other 2 are late game units. Immortals also have the fewest hard counters, I'd pick immortal over the other 2 any day.
Bro remember when immortals were actually immortal, before blizzard recked them to the ground
They're still pretty good dude...
you do realize they are cheaper right? in a realistic fight there would be more immortals
immortal takes 4 supplies and the others take 6 supplies
There also half the gas
@@tuskular yea, boi~ that's right!! immortals rule~
Remember back during Wings of Liberty, the Thor can stunlock an Ultralisk with 250 mm cannon to death and Ultra wouldn't be able to do a thing...
If the immortals kited I bet they would beat the ultras despite the cost difference could likely do it with only 9 vs 10
nice!
Inmortal is the best
You get take this into consideration: Thor is a mighty anti air unit as well.
How come ultra can beat Thor in this vid but in other vids ultra lose against thor
it looked to me like there was a significant delay in the Thor's attack animation. The Ultra was practically on top of it before it fired its first shot.
Old harden shield immortal would have destroyed ultra and thor.
Los inmortales necesitan un buff
Protoss nerffed
Immortal sucks