[A] Starbow - Page 119

First, let's drop the idea of winning the game in the late-game with three bases. If you don't plan to defeat your opponent with a strong army in one or two devastating attacks, opting for a more conservative approach of gaining map control and whatnots, you will expand.

I haven't checked how much minerals there are right now per base, but the more there is, the easier time T/P have to sustain production from lower number of bases. And that, considering the nature of Zerg, is perfectly fine. Remember, that Zerg, at its foundations, is a race of cheap, expendable units, that are supposed to win by outnumbering, and ultimately by overpowering, the opponent. For that to happen, it needs hatcheries, and because of that, it needs to expand. The further away from the main base, the more difficult it becomes to defend all of them properly, especially considering that the units are not all that strong by themselves and static defense is just a mineral sink (it is a deterrent for some guerilla tactics, but if one is locked on taking the hatch down, one will apply more pressure than those spines can handle). More hatches mean more minerals, more numbers, etc. - scary? Not that much, when you realize that with such numbers, Zerg's units have reduced per-unit (fire)power, so all is well on the numbers front (all that is in theory - numbers will never cease to require tweaks in order to achieve perfection, as long as any other changes are applied to the game).

On the other hand, you have Protoss, with its very strong, high value units, and a turtling, hard-hitting Terran with just amazing map control techniques. Both of those races can reach their goals with less bases, even if its means they won't be able to rely on the sheer power of their armies and the need for some sneaky maneuvers will arise (drops, run-bys, leap frogging, etc.).

I do believe we have to drop that idea where one can just walk into late game with two, three bases and be happy. For that, we need better maps, where taking a third and fourth actually becomes a challenge for someone whose play revolves normally around two bases. It does sound counterintuitive for myself too, but it has to become a choice - either I secure my third, apply pressure and secure my third or just straight up kill him right now. That slows the transitions between the game phases, but promotes (passive) aggression that helps stabilize and move on. Where the issue lies I think is in the balance between the secure and the aggressive play - both should be available and possible to pull off for every race. Question is, does changing the number of minerals per base help reaching that state? Personally, I don't think it does. It rather encourages hanging onto less bases more. What should be looked into are ways to enable P and T to both apply limited pressure and secure their bases at the same time without compromising their current econ or bases or their late-game plans, which I find to be quite difficult at the current state.

Disclaimer: I am probably talking my ass off here as I haven't played enough games for those opinions to have any considerable merit for any sane person, so consider them suggestions. My limited experience based on the game theory studies can elude myself.