[Justin]

Originally Posted by Ogre

From my observations at regionals, the best alliances are the ones with three good, versatile shooters.
For instance the three robots that won UTC had strong drive trains and could each shoot a few balls.
The benefit of three shooters is in their offensive period. If all three robots can shoot, you can't defend all three. Block two of them and the third one shoots a few. Go block the third one and the one you left starts shooting.
All three of the shooters also had strong, effective drive trains. They weren't easily pushed out of the way, and could be very effective blocking.
The same thing happened at BAE. Three good shooters, with strong drivetrains.

It's not that robot are built to specifically play defense, it's that the robots are versatile. I mean, there is a 40 second period where your alliance has to play defense, so you might as well play it well. That's exactly what these robots did, and did well.

I have to disagree with this to some extent. I think that you need a versatile alliance. At UTC we witnessed an alliance made up of three amazing shooters but without little defensive capability. In the end they ended up getting d'ed up and fell to the 177 lead alliance. I think there is a lot going on in this year's game and if you can negate even one really good shooter well you might just keep yourself in the match. This is one of the things I like about this year's game it basically forces teams to play defense. If you don't play at least some up against an alliance of shooters you are going to get slaughtered. 177's strategy was exactly what it should have been and was very well executed. Moral of the story from my point of view is don't under estimate defense. Let's also be clear about the fact that 126's alliance was a very good alliance and we haven't heard the last of any of the teams on that alliance in 2006 not be a long shot.

Justin