Sky Menace & Master of Stealth

Which is better?

Depends on you ;-)

Most players seems to prefer SM it seems to be easier to play, but if i look at player like Learster i am pretty sure MoS is on the same Level.

Both have their own advantages and disadvantes, SM is very Fast, MoS is surprising, both are expensive, Sm can defend a bit better, MoS can attack a bit better and so on.

SM, unless you have all the marine and sub upgrades there are. In general, high cost strats aren't very good, with the exceptions of SM, MoS and Blitz if you play them well, and NC if you have a good position. Fact is, SM is much faster than MoS, and slightly more cost effective. If you want to play MoS, you need to really know how to use marines and stealths, or else you'll die very quickly. Also, SM is good pretty much anywhere, while MoS fails in close combat.

If you do like to use marines though, I'd strongly suggest skipping MoS and heading to GW. Highly cost effective strat, great defence, more units and therefore more attack (due to cost effectiveness), and good close and long range. More difficult to play than SM, but it's still a top tier strat, and far better than MoS.

Kirjoittanut Mathdino, 05.08.2012 at 08:10

...

More difficult to play than SM, but it's still a top tier strat, and far better than MoS.

GW is usually better than MoS on small maps like europe / europe + / ..., but in big maps like world games, MoS is very often the far better choose.

In general i would say that

• Sky Menance is easier to play, because you dont have to make that much moves within a week and your bomber can just in case also help in the defence
  
• Master of Stealth need a bit more training to play it well, and you need to be more patient while playing. One big advantage of this strategy is that many players can't really handle to play against stealth units.
  

I prefer MoS, just because I see it as being easier to play, and tbh, I feel like a noob spamming bombers at people. :u
I'd say if you like using stealth though, go with GW, because it's $60 marines that are as strong as tanks.

But like what Safari said, in world games, MoS is the way to go granted you get a good foothold in the beginning. You need income, and you need it quickly if you want to win.

No MOS if inferior to GW even in world games simply because of the amount of troops you can produce

i have held europe and middle east before and have auto produced in all of the big cities in europe + russia and middle east.

suddenly you have 200+ marines to shuffle to your enemy, which you can send again later

10,000 game and lower go GW
15,000 and up SM
This is a range that I use... even tho I have when euro with SM at 3000

Sky Menace is pretty much for autists who like to stack up things high and then move them from A to B like the fist of god. There is no finesse about it
As for the original question, here's my personal opinion: Sky Menace is better early game, mid game they are about equal. MoS might have a slight edge.

Kirjoittanut learster, 07.08.2012 at 06:44

Sky Menace is pretty much for autists who like to stack up things high and then move them from A to B like the fist of god. There is no finesse about it
As for the original question, here's my personal opinion: Sky Menace is better early game, mid game they are about equal. MoS might have a slight edge.

This is why I hate using SM, because you just spam bombers.

GW is much better then mos because of cost

Kirjoittanut 98dgreen, 10.04.2014 at 19:22

GW is much better then mos because of cost

Mate..Look at date.