|
Before we begin discussing the benefits and drawbacks to the barracks reactor, let me first introduce myself. I've been lurking on TL for awhile, and I've been playing SC2 since it came out. However, I am no pro. Until recently, I was in the styrofoam league, but I just recently got promoted to Oak. So feel free to take anything I say with a grain of salt.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's begin a brief analysis.
The Benefits of the Barracks reactor.
The benefits of putting reactors on barracks are obvious: doubled marine production. However, like anything good in starcraft II, this benefit is not free. Let''s take a moment to analyse the costs and drawbacks to the barracks reactor.
Total Resource Cost
Lets start by looking at the direct resource cost of each. A reactor costs 50/50, whereas a barracks costs 150. I realize that it can be difficult to compare minerals to Vespene gas, and that the true cost of each can change with the situation. However, for the purposes of this analysis, I will use the following formula to calculate the total resource cost of each.
Total Resource Cost = 1 * Mineral Cost + 1.25 * Vespene Cost. The 1.25 multiplier is because workers bring in minerals 5 at a time, whereas vespene gas only comes in 4 at a time. I realize that this method for measuring the resource cost is imperfect, but it should work for this analysis.
So with the above in mind, the total resource cost of a barracks is 150, whereas the total resource cost of a reactor comes to 112.5.
So it's definitely cheaper resource-wise to build a reactor than to simply build another barracks, especially when you factor in lost mining time.
However, it's not cheaper by all that much. Only about 40 resources cheaper, without factoring in lost mining time. So it's not that big of a savings.
Real-Estate Cost
A barracks takes up 9 squares, whereas a reactor takes up 4 squares. At first, this seems like a huge deal. However, the two squares immediately above the reactor are basically completely useless. They aren't really in a location where units can use them to walk, and if you build your barracks flush to each other in a vertical column, the only building you'll be able to fit there is a sensor tower. So effectively, the barracks reactor only saves you three squares of space.
Disadvantages of the Barracks Reactor that are Hard to Assign a Number to
Reactors take 50 seconds to build. That's a pretty long time. Enough time to produce two marines. So obviously, if you're doing an all-in, going for reactors may not be the best idea.
But what about standard play? What about the long-term benefits during a non-cheese game?
Well, here are some other things to consider. A barracks has 1000 HP. That's quite a lot. You can't just quickly snipe a barracks. A reactor, on the other hand, has only 400 HP. They die pretty easily to any attacking unit that does decent damage to buildings (so basically anything that isn't a hellion).
That means if you get harassed, you risk having your production severely hurt. Mutalisks and Marauder drops happen, people! And occasionally immortals and void rays get involved. If you had two naked barracks in place of each reactor barracks, you become much less vulnerable to harassment on your production facilities. And should you ever get into a base race with your opponent, it will take them longer to raze your base!
And considering that barracks reactors don't save you all that much in resources, I think this advantage here is enough to at least consider the possibility of not building barracks reactors.
Another thing to consider is walling in. Now I KNOW that some terran players are guilty of building supply depot walls "because those dang add-ons get in the way" (I myself am frequently guilty of this). If you plan to make a lot of marines, one advantage of simply building two naked barracks instead of one reactor barracks is that you can use those two rax to wall without worrying about the add-ons getting sniped, or the add-ons being part of the wall and being weak to banelings, etc. etc.
Also, if you're making a lot of marines, then foregoing the reactors means that a lot of the production facilities you depend upon in the mid to late game will be able to freely lift off and land elsewhere and be able to immediately resume production without having to waste time and money rebuilding add-ons. Main base getting mined out? Why not move all your naked rax to whatever expansion is most vulnerable? That way, you can defend your expansion, and many of the production buildings you depend upon.
I would love to hear the thoughts the TL community has about this.
|
It's cheaper, you lose less mining time, you catch up in marine production after two(?) production cycles or something, Top tier korean terrans do it (with good timing of course).
|
Shouldn't this be in strategy?
Also, yes they're worth it... 1) space considerations 2) you can swap add-ons later on and 3) ask TaeJa (or watch his reps). The new MarineKing.
|
i don't think I've ever said this yet on these forums. But I know if you use the search function there are at least 4 threads of significant length on this.
|
I've always asked myself this question. I continue using reactors but if it happens to not be as good as 2rax, I'd easily change my style.
|
As already mentioned. Dont forget a barracks needs a SCV building which actually is an opportunity cost. Building, instead of mining minerals, so the difference is higher
|
So it's definitely cheaper resource-wise to build a reactor than to simply build another barracks, especially when you factor in lost mining time.
Reactors take 50 seconds to build. That's a pretty long time. Enough time to produce two marines. So obviously, if you're doing an all-in, going for reactors may not be the best idea.
Question answered IMO.
|
On February 17 2012 04:06 Eisregen wrote:
As already mentioned. Dont forget a barracks needs a SCV building which actually is an opportunity cost. Building, instead of mining minerals, so the difference is higher
And reactors can be reused if there's an immediate threat. For example, if you scout colossi, you immediately put your starports on reactors and make vikings asap.
|
Use the search function. I've seen this thread pop up like 3 or 4 times already.
|
Reactors are worth it in tvp and tvt imo, but not in tvz beyond the first couple.
In tvp you mostly have tech labs to your barracks except 2 maybe 3 reactors very late game. This is dude to marines becoming less viable as the game drags on.
In tvt, if you are going bio vs bio you can easily get 6-7 reactored barracks while vs mech you will have slightly less because you also want to spam mauraders.
Tvz is a little different though. You want to spam marines like a mad man, but having few barracks with reactors vs many barracks without reactor will make your production very vulnerable to mutas/ling rungbys etc. Also you would want to have a bunch of naked barracks for when he switches to infestor/broodlord. That way you will get ghosts out much much faster than if you have to build alot of new barracks and add tech labs.
|
makes sense in the early game, when minerals are tight to make a reactor. When you have bank in the late game, you generally add on extra rax. I ussually leave these naked, for a while to determine if i need rauders/ ghosts.
|
Reactors work well while taking new bases because they allow for really fast production right away while not cutting as much as barracks into the 400 minerals you need for an additional command center. Also, late game terran usually has a lot of gas chilling if they went infantry so reactors are favored. Further, in the middle of battle sometimes you wont have time to build 10 more rax, holding down c while selecting all your rax is much faster.
I agree reactors shouldn't be added in the period after you just took your natural expansion and you aren't going for a really fast third. Building more rax at this point will boost your infrastructure immensely later on.
|
Forget the 1.25 multiplier. Gas and minerals are used for different things, and differ in relative importance depending on your tech path and progress in the game.
Also, you forgot to include the resources NOT mined by the scv building the barracks. It's at least 30 minerals. So barracks costs ~180 minerals.
So the question is whether trading 50 gas and marine production time is worth the extra 130 minerals and additional space in your base.
You should NOT make reactors when:
--You will not be making a lot of marines
--You are nearing a major engagement (reinforcements will be needed)
--You are going a gas-heavy build
|
If you consider the fact that you can swap a reactor with a factory or a starport, making a reactor is worth it. Gives you flexibility in builds and saves you resources down the road (you wouldn't make 2 factories to go for hellion opening in tvz right?).
|
you don't need to take a SCV off mining for the time it takes to build another barracks, and early game you may not have the minerals to make another barracks while you have enough mins and gas to make a reactor
|
Depends on your mineral/gas ratio compared to what you're currently needing as well
|
Yes, they're worth it. The only thing that sucks though is when you have to suddenly make marauders or ghosts (like if you're playing TvT and the other guy is going mech, or in TvZ and they go ultras)
|
well in the lategame reactors often become useless. So unless you intend to stay on marines, don't get to many. But in the early game they boost your eco and later on are helpful for starports. In general 2 are always nice to have. (to react to air switches 2 reactor starports are often enough). Personally i tend to get 2-4. Would be nice if fusion core would unlock a few more units for reactors or speed up techlab unit production, 4 units that can be produced plentiful by your techlab production since you need alot of techlab production, as those units tend to build for ages.
Mech is probably a good example. You need so many factories, that there is no need for reactors to get hellions, the lab factories are enough.
Still reactors have their role and it seems for HotS there will be more units that will work without techlabs. As for racks, they are needed for the mass marine strat as it saves you alot of minerals and in the early game to keep up with the eco/production of the other races.
|
i think another big thing is that if ur playing bio, ure almost never gas starved but u are much more mineral dependent, so i rather spend 50 gas instead of 100 more mins.
|
no amount of minerlas can be expressed in an amount of gas or vice versa
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
There are numerous topics on this already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
