"Doublestacked Rax," what is?

I keep hearing splendid chaps speaking volumes about this rax "doublestacking" stuff.

From what I surmise, this entails placing two identical buildings next to each other.

I don't like to place two identical buildings close enough for a high-splash weapon to take them both out at once.

If I'm placing redundant raxes in a base, I'll put one on each side of a VF or on opposite sides of the base.

If I'm placing redundant raxes outside of a base, I'll spread them out as much as possible. [sub]This also provides a nice safety net for my irresponsible use of the CV...[/sub]

If turrets oughta not be clumped together, why should raxes be treated differently?

 

double stacking is usually used when putting up barracks under fire or in ninja spots where they are likely to be spotted within gren distance of enemy spawns.

theory being that for 200 red you have a 30+ second shield from mortar fire whilst the rearward barracks can be built.

As for additional barracks in main bases, my feeling is you can never have enough so long as you plan ahead and don't end up blocking your turret farm or giving the enemy a cozy place to park their apc behind. Ideally I always stash a barracks wherever the enemy would like a ninja barracks. This way when you lose main you have an offensive position to take it back.

 

I don't think there's such thing as "redundant" raxes.

As an Engi killing your base, I feel a lot more depressed when I see more than two raxes in your base. No matter they are "doublestacked" or not.

You don't have to worry about the splash damage. I don't think we have a lot of people that know how to make good use of the splash damage.

 

Stack 'em

 

You first pull the rax at :50-53 to make sure they are dropped by com at the minute mark and then build them before :15. Magic happens.

 

I've never seen anyone explicitly say that barracks need to be put right next to each other. When people say "doublestack barracks", all they mean is to have two barracks close enough together that spawning in one is as effective as spawning in another. Whether that means they have to go right next to each other or on opposite sides of a base depends on the situation.

 

I was aware of that strategy. Is that typically called "doublestacking?"

"X has no effect.

I don't like the effect of X."​

lulwut?

I may have misinterpreted the term. How do you other guys interpret this word?

 

Pretty much this. It's a phrase I coined a few years ago. Basically, any position you hold on the battlefield should have a minimum of 2 permanent spawns, if not 3. An APC is not a permanent spawn. Essentially, the more spawns you have, the harder it is to take it.

It's not just that though. The idea is that anyone can use either rax without being at a disadvantage in terms of distance to armoury, VF, etc. As an example, if the VF is on the low ground on Mvalley and you have a rax next to it, putting a rax then on the high ground is not double stacking your raxes. That's a different position. You need 2 on the high ground, 2 on the low ground, and maybe even 2 nearer to the dam. A-z-K touches on this below with regard to placing it where the enemy will probably want to put one.

But in short, that is what "double stacking" a rax means.

As for what A-z-K said:

That's not what the phrase means but it's another strategy I worked out in scrims, mainly as NF. I saw FN pull it on on Mvalley, it gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I used to call it a "blocking" rax or something along those lines. Unlike double stacking raxes, it's not something I ever really did in pub games, just in scrims. Generally speaking, if I said "blocking" rax, Lawliet (as comm) knew what I meant. It's super effective as NF more than anything. If you're trying to get a base up in like E3 on Mvalley to assault the enemy main, I usually ask for 2 raxes so that the front one can block the fire and the one behind can be built.

 

"I don't think there's such thing as "redundant" raxes."
=> More raxes are better. (As a defender)

When I am killing a base with more raxes, I feel more depressed.
=> More raxes are worse. (As an attacker)

Basically, I don't like the effect of X because X is effective.
Clear?

 

So there's no such thing as redundant raxes, but redundant raxes are better.

I suspect that redundant doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

Back it the days we just called it backup rax, we had no need for fancy wording to compensate for a small penis.

 

Yeah but those were pre-moba days. First we had HoN, now we had Dota. They had the bestest terms.

http://wiki.empiresmod.com/index.php?title=Jargon

That was always interesting though. A lot of those aren't used any more. There was one there called "Fireworks - used when setting lots of turrets up but not completing them, so that you can complete them all at the same time to instantly put a lot of fire up". I never actually heard that phrase used.

 

Aids, paper, turtle - don't hear those terms too much nowadays. People don't even seem to say calc/calculator a whole lot either.

lolfort and lolingrad are totally missing from that list.

 

I use them terms all the time when playing empires... does that make me oldfag?

 

Multiple grouped raxes =/= redundant raxes
They aren't redundant because since there are multiple raxes, they actually serve a slightly different purpose than a single rax. Multiple Grouped Raxes (now to forever be refereed as MGRs) have the function of distributing damage between all raxes which are part of the group, and to produce divided attention amongst the enemy forces, easily counterable by someone on the other side saying "focus fire front rax". Lone Raxes, unlike MGRs, only serve the function of providing a spawn point for the teams forces.

Science.

And since a lone rax' spawning capabilites aren't compromised when it is turned into an MGR, it is therefore non-redundant.

Dubs comfirmed.

 

I know you are. Which kind of confused me. But that's what I thought it referred to.
I see no benefit at all to put 2 barracks immediately adjacent to each other that can't be achieved by playing them far enough apart that they cannot be simultaneously hit by mortar/seismic/ugl. Unless you don't have much space to work with.

Unless it simply means having more than one barracks in a general area. Which is obviously a good idea.

 

Really? I hear them all the time...

Well, turtle not so much unless it's money. But turtling is jargon from just about any RTS game.