Are barracks reactors really worth it? [D] - Page 2

xJaCEx

155 Posts

February 16 2012 20:06 GMT

#21

I honestly don't see much use for reactors beyond the first one for switching to a factory / starport as gas becomes a much more limiting factor later on so any you can save is a plus. I used to think reactors were way worse though with the increase to build time on the rax I don't think just building a rax instead is always correct now. The first reactor you build is probably more cost effective then ones you build later mostly because of the worker / saturation thing going on in your mineral line.

TBone-

United States2309 Posts

February 16 2012 20:08 GMT

#22

day9 touched on this on a past daily. Imagine your on 2 base with 4 naked racks, you will get a faster third, and then you slam down 4 reactors, all of a sudden you now have adequate 3 base production.(these numbers are not correct but the principal is correct).

Edit: I'm thinking about no reactors until maxed. Imagine your running 14 barracks with no reactors, then when you hit max slam down reactors.

zeniasvalharik

United States19 Posts

February 16 2012 20:14 GMT

#23

Always at least one reactor I would guess, the value of moving your starport onto the reactor the moment it finishes is almost always a good move.

Markwerf

Netherlands3728 Posts

February 16 2012 20:18 GMT

#24

50 gas is simply much less then 130ish minerals so that's enough reason to make them.
I do agree that for many rush builds reactors should be avoided if possible because it takes 2 cyclces to catch up with a naked rax.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

February 16 2012 22:22 GMT

#25

There are numerous topics on this already.

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

Are barracks reactors really worth it? [D] - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming