2 barracks VS 1 + reactor - Page 2

Deleted User 47542

1484 Posts

September 03 2010 21:56 GMT

#21

Reactors are mainly for fact/port, I rarely see any reason to get it on the rax since 300/0 is really cheaper than 250/50 for terran. Not to mention the the amount of time you aren't producing marines due to the building of the reactor.

Severedevil

United States4838 Posts

September 03 2010 21:58 GMT

#22

You should have reactors for flexibility to swap into Starports or Factories. The barracks is the cheapest Terran production structure, so it's good to have it build the reactor. And if the reactor isn't in use, there's no reason not to use it to pump marines.

But you probably don't ever want to build a reactor JUST to pump marines. Another barracks is much more versatile (it can fly, it's tougher, it can add a tech lab), and the 50/50/50 build time on the reactor is rather stifling.

RScott

United States15 Posts

September 04 2010 04:51 GMT

#23

700+ diamond T
In the early game, my infantry opening was 1 tech lab and two normal rax. I tried to change it to two rax with 1 tech and 1 reactor. After a long losing streak (around 30 games 80% loss) I figured out that build change was costing me a lot of games.

In the early game the Reactor slows down your early attack timing. I forget how many but I think it takes 3-4 rounds of marines for the Reactor to produce as many as you would have with 1 Rax if you spend the time making marines instead of a reactor. Reactors take a long time to build. With two Rax no addons, the Reactor really won't be helping you at all early game.

Reactors can be a liability if you get pressured during the time that it's building early game. A reactor is quite easy to pick off in an early push. A rax is not so much.

Now, late game I think that reactors are perfectly fine. Usually that is the time that your base is getting cramped and having 1 building instead of two is good in my book.

ZannX

United States70 Posts

September 04 2010 06:44 GMT

#24

It might take longer to build a 2nd rax, but in the time the reactor is being put down you could have made 2 marines so the time difference is completely nullified.

A better argument for the reactor is the scv making the rax is not mining so it's more than just 150 vs. 50/50.

Early game I don't think it's ever worth it to make a reactor due to the opportunity cost of not making out of the barracks you already had down. The achievement to make 20 marines in the first X minutes showcases that you should actually go for more barracks as opposed to reactors.

link0

United States1071 Posts

September 04 2010 10:14 GMT

#25

I like reactors even on barracks in the very early game when the minerals spent are less front loaded. It smooths out many build orders.