Reactors on Barracks.

Terran Discussion
Post Limit:
03/05/2013 07:14 PMPosted by Quirriff
It's quicker and cheaper to make a 2nd barracks,

neither of those are true
I'd say it helps with production cycles, saving space, and balancing resources since Terran is generally not gas starved.
03/07/2013 12:06 AMPosted by Neblime
neither of those are true


I argued definitively they actually are, it is faster to mine the 100 mineral difference for a barracks, than 50 gas for a reactor.

You can start the production of the second barracks, before the first is complete.
And you will be ahead in your marine count if you're constantly producing.

1) A Reactor can later be switched onto another building (Factory, Starport). The tradeoff is that you tie up the production of a Tier 1 unit to later have increased production of Tier 2/Tier 3 units, for example the TvZ Reactor Hellion opener.


I'm not contesting that, you can have hellion rushes to raid expansions etc..That's the only good use for an early reactor.

3) It costs less minerals than another Barracks, which can be used for things such as a faster expansion (which in the long run gives you more mineral income, etc. etc.).


Any fast expansion sacrifices early unit production, Having a reactor instead of a 2nd barracks won't enable you to build quicker quicker since you still need to build a refinery worth 75 of those early minerals, and 3 SCVs aren't mining minerals.
Considering mineral difference is only 100, not 150 you actually loose more, in addition to the 50 gas.

4) It takes up less space, which allows more of your buildings to stay in better defensible positions (i.e. the main base). 2 Barracks take up 18 squares while a Barracks with an add-on only takes 13.


Space isn't an issue very early in the game, and i'm not contesting their usefulness on saving space. Reactors are great in the late game for that very reason.
Any fast expansion sacrifices early unit production, Having a reactor instead of a 2nd barracks won't enable you to build quicker quicker since you still need to build a refinery worth 75 of those early minerals, and 3 SCVs aren't mining minerals.

Considering mineral difference is only 100, not 150 you actually loose more, in addition to the 50 gas.
Sorry, I think there might be a misunderstanding on my part. Neither of us specified when the add-on would be built on the first Barracks (i.e. 2 minutes into the game, 10 minutes into the game), so it's possible we have two completely different situations in mind.

If you're talking about building a Reactor on Barracks #1 with your very first 50 gas and plan on only building Marines, then yes, that is a bad strategy and horribly inefficient. We're on the same page. 11/11, 12/14, and the 4 Rax build are far superior for early Marine rushes.

When I'm talking about building the "first add-on for your Barracks", the scenarios I have in mind are things such as 1/1/1 Banshee play (7 minutes) or MKP's TvP 2 Rax (5-6 minutes). Both of these builds are traditionally "Reactor Barracks first" but use the early gas for more than just Marines.

If we're on the same page but you still don't agree, then here is an example of a situation where Reactor First is good:
Let's say that you went for the 1/1/1 build. You built an early Banshee for harassment, did your damage, and now you're at the 7 minute mark with 25 or so workers. Your base is completely saturated with mining and you already have your Refinery up.

Rather than pull your SCVs off of gas, it is better to build a Reactor & throw down CC #2 because:

1) You're already mining gas and can't fit more SCVs on your mineral line (or, if you can, their mining is very cost-inefficient).

2) It gives you the option to tech switch and swap your buildings as new threats become scouted (i.e. I need 2 Vikings right now, I need 2 Hellions right now).

3) You will be pumping units off of 1 Barracks for an extended period of time until your economy grows large enough to support more production.

4) Depending on the add-ons you already have and the units you choose to build, you may have a surplus/stockpile of extra unspent vespine gas.

If you are 100% sure that you only need Marines, you could technically throw down a second Barracks. But the ability to tech switch on the fly is an extremely powerful and understated advantage to building the Reactor.

If you need proof of this, look at how the Zerg take full advantage of their larva. We Terrans can do the same exact thing, albeit to a lesser extent.
03/07/2013 01:54 AMPosted by Axiom
If you're talking about building a Reactor on Barracks #1 with your very first 50 gas and plan on only building Marines, then yes, that is a bad strategy and horribly inefficient. We're on the same page.


That is exactly what i'm talking about!, I see you understand it's bad.
However it is also quite common, I just can't comprehend why somebody would do that.

BTW: I have no problem with your scenario, You sort of need the space if you're hard-teching, and it's always good to have a spare reactor in case of emergencies.
i think the point here is, dropping a reactor on your 1st rax delays production of marines now, in exchange to double produce them faster later.

If you are suspecting an early rush, the reactor can indeed cost you the game right then and there. But if the game is gonna last longer - there are pros and cons, right?
This went well...
I find that I build 1 or 2 rines before going for my reactor. I also ALWAYS build a tech lab on my first racks, and then the reactor on the second. having 1 or 2 rines, allows me to deny scouting, and hold behind my wall pretty good for a bit.
Second, when has going for a reactor ever killed a player in the first 5minutes. Unless you have a replay that can prove, beyond a doubt, that going for a reactor first thing has killed someone, in the early game you argument is invalid.
Second, before you make a statement such as this, I invite you to watch GSL, MLG, and any of the Grandmaster streams, and watch them get an early reactor. That is unless you are better than them. I mean after all, what is a grandmaster compared to a gold?
I'd say it helps with production cycles, saving space, and balancing resources since Terran is generally not gas starved.


This. Seriously. After 10 min (unless I'm going Ravens), I always have plenty of gas. In fact I often don't even take gas at the third and later expansions until I have started exhausting the geysers in my main and natural.

Contrast that with Zerg. When I play as Zerg, I take bases just to mine gas. I'll have bases with only 8 drones on minerals and be fully saturated on gas.

Protoss is similar, you need gas immediately as protoss just to get ranged units out.

Join the Conversation