Is 3 early Barracks' a good idea?

[GenocideAlive]

2 Barracks for fast building units
3 Barracks for slow building units

A simple analogy, no?

First off, that's not an analogy. Educate yourself: www.dictionary.com.

Second of all, 3 buildings for production is just too many unless you've got multiple mines and you're trying to overwhelm someone; especially tier 1 buildings. Slow-building units are more expensive (Tauren, Frost Wyrms, Abominations, etc) and thus you can't afford to build 3 at a time unless you've got 3 mines going.

Mike seems to have some idea, though he's not very good at explaining.

 

[x42bn6]

First off, that's not an analogy. Educate yourself: www.dictionary.com.

Second of all, 3 buildings for production is just too many unless you've got multiple mines and you're trying to overwhelm someone; especially tier 1 buildings. Slow-building units are more expensive (Tauren, Frost Wyrms, Abominations, etc) and thus you can't afford to build 3 at a time unless you've got 3 mines going.

Mike seems to have some idea, though he's not very good at explaining.

The problem is that you have to build a lot more units than Tier 3 and expensive Tier 2 units. Which is why 3 (or more...) of any unit-producing structure will slow you down. To build another Tauren Totem, you could buy a lot of things alone, and you would have to wait for the building to be made. You could easily just train 2 Shamans for about the same cost.

I have never seen 3 unit-training structures work very well in small (3v3 or less) games, only in 4v4, 5v5 and 6v6 (where you can easily take 2 expansions), for the very reason that you should've won the game by then (if you can afford 3 Tauren Totems) or lost the game by then (because you tried to mass Taurens and it failed).*

 

[ChrisH36]

actually 3 barracks would pump out units faster if you have alot of expansions... LOGICALLY.

but its just dumb to make 3 when you can have 2 to make army pretty darn fast, you dont need like 2879827 units like in SC to own ppl, all you need is 12, or tad bit more.

Actually any number would be benefical, as long as they don't fall in like 3 seconds. The only time I ever used 3 structures was back in RoC to mass gryphons and wyverns.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

anyone with half a brain knows the only logical amount of expansions you should have is 3 anyways. After that your actualy losing more money than your making.

 

[Revelade]

3 is useful when you need speed. I use 3 sometimes when I necrorush, since I need those upgrades, necs and some banshees BEFORE they get anticasters.

I've heard this saying from Crazy Assassin or someone: "Tech > Mass > Expand > Tech". So, I guess it would work well when someone expands.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

It is stupid to get 3 necs. If you perform a good necro rush, you don't get an expansion, and in doing that, you cannot get 3 temples. It takes little under 8 minutes to get 11 master necromancers, 3 meatwagons, and 2 statues.

 

[Revelade]

It is stupid to get 3 necs. If you perform a good necro rush, you don't get an expansion, and in doing that, you cannot get 3 temples. It takes little under 8 minutes to get 11 master necromancers, 3 meatwagons, and 2 statues.

Necrorush is not the same as necrowagon. It is possible to get enough money to get 3 temples at tier 2, though you will have to sacrifice other options. 3 Temples mean I can't get a Lich, wagons or anything else. Wagons just cost too much, take too much food, are too slow, and take too long to get in my strategy. 3 Temples is not JUST for necs mind you. I factor in banshees and the upgrades as well. I need 3 for speed, since the strat is an all or nothing chance, so I might as well hit him with all I have.

 

[ChrisH36]

You could also get an expo during the t1 > t2 interval. Then you can have enough money for everything, just you won't be able to get acols until t2 comes. Also, it might ruin the rush strategy.

 

[Lizardbreath]

If you are going to go 3 barracks then you better be going knights/rifles/priests...and maybe some mortars(if you can get there). My suggestion is to go tech and go mortars/rifles/priests/sorc.....With a MK and a Paladin. That is a really effective combo IMO.

 

[TheoStormhawk]

MK and Palladin?
Ok but I still think that the AM is beter at start, water is very good , and brilliance rules. If the enemy has water dispelling is easy to switch to blizzard.
About the Palladin, I want to ask something, I don't know this maybe sounds stupid, but I think that this hero gains less experience then the other heroes, what do you guys think?

 

[Lizardbreath]

IMO the Paladin and MK compliment eachother because they provide great defense for eachother. Lemme explain; If the paladin is in trouble the MK comes in and claps/bolts anything near the paladin allowing him to escape or possibly get that last couple seconds for divine shield. If the MK is in trouble it can clap/ get healed by the paladin and be able to fight longer.

Though the AM is a good hero also.

 

[Harris.On.Rento]

Early? I think 3 barracks is always stupid idea. well, if u go fast exe and mass ghoul maybe then it's good... and I played few 4v4 games where I made fast exe and 3 AoW and mass arch+potm =)

 

[TheoStormhawk]

Yes, I use AM first, MK second because at tier 3 I get the palladin and that MK gets brilliance and holy light, and he becomes a force, because of his assault abilities.
u are right to say that they provide defense for each other, but the thing is that the MK has a pretty low mana pool and his spells are quite expensive (in mana cost), I mean if u don't provide him with brilliance or something to help his mana, a mana burn can be fatal for his spells.