I've been wondering about this question for a while and I have no idea how I could find the answer aside from posting it here. Everyone noteworthy (top players, commentators, etc.) says that Zerg need to be ahead in number of bases when facing T or P. I'm wondering: this can't be purely for larva since internal hatcheries would do the job better, so does this mean that Zerg units are weaker relative to their cost*? In other words, do they actually need the additional income just to be on a par with their opponent and stand a chance at winning? Or could Zerg win a game on 1 base if they created enough internal hatcheries? * I realise this could be interpreted differently than what I mean. What I meant to say is that 100 minerals worth of Zerg units are weaker than 100 minerals worth of T or P units. I know comparing is virtually impossible due to the many roles units fill, but I hope I got the point across. Because this, as well as its implications (i.e., more bases required, added vulnerability for multi-pronged attacks, drops, more attention to rally points required, etc.) seem, to me, to make Zerg fundamentally disadvantaged. This seems to be supported by the fact that I have seen plenty of games where Zerg with 2 additional bases was beaten (high-end games, no A-move into chokes tomfoolery), even though that is a huge advantage, and it wasn't a one-sided game. I understand that the units themselves are weaker. My question is, if they are weaker by X%, do they cost X% less or are they more costly than that?
Zerg units generally cost less than other races' units because, individually, they suck. Zerg are typified by a large sarm of units creating an effective army. So, simply put, however you can create that swarm in as little time as possible, that.
Basically, the answer is No. Zerg units cost less and are weaker on average, but they are NOT weaker for their cost. a 3000 resource Zerg army vs a 3000 mineral Terran or Protoss army would likely favor the Zerg. Some other things that need to be considered tho - that 3000 mineral Zerg army would take up much more supply, would take up a lot of larva that could have been used for drones, and would likely be much more difficult to build unless the Zerg has plentiful expansions. Zergs also have a somewhat easier time expanding, as the expansions serve as unit producing structures and generate creep. All of that adds up to making it a good idea for Zerg players to keep an expansion ahead of their opponent at all times. The thing is is that if a Zerg can keep one extra base for any decent amount of time they will likely be ahead. If the Zerg is contained to the same number of bases they won't necessarily be behind, but more on par. I think the casters exaggerate a little bit.
Yeah that. Everything other than Zerglings and Drones requires Gas, and you're not going anywhere with just zerglings, unless you're playing a team game and your teammates have your back with armored support of some kind.
I guess this is where the "More or less" comes into play. I do tend to get mineral heavy pretty bad into later stages of the game. I've always wanted to learn more about when to place a macro hatch in the matchups, but that's for another post since it's off topic.
Those things don't make expanding easier in any way, they constitute the reason to expand. I want to highlight this because I can't see how it's easier to expand with Zerg. The main building costs 350 minerals + larva + temporary loss of income. Maybe people get the impression that expanding is easier because it's common? But the reason for that, imo, is that Zerg can defend their (early) expansions more easily than T or P and that they can produce drones faster and thus get an economic advantage early on (the spending of which can be troublesome if you don't expand). What I'm really considering now is that Blizzard was aware of the reasons for early expansions I listed above (obviously you can't remove the unit production mechanic which allows multiple drones to be trained since that is a unique racial trait) and balanced the units with those in mind. Because if Zerg units were balanced exactly like T and P units then an early expansion would boost Zerg too much (because the units would cost less or punch more [compared to our current ones]). About the 3k army thing, that's interesting as I wouldn't have thought Z would win. I thought that if T and P both beat Z with maxed supply armies then the same is true for resources... although you did mention the additional control needed, so the 200/200 all>Z makes sense and so does the 3k army bit. But then (since we can't really fine-tune balance with control because of integers) wouldn't that mean that Zerg are weaker for their cost? Say you have 20 workers each, the same rate of income, and from then on you see how strong an army you can get for a set amount of resources (irrespective of how long it takes to build the army). Then Zerg would evidently lose because of needing to invest more into supplies. Build time is the key here I think. The reason Zerg need more expansions is because of larva and income. Both larva and additional income are needed to replace your army and fast, the former stemming from weaker individual units (but not more costly as the additional income is not needed to buy your army but to replace it as it dies more easily). T and P rarely need to replace their armies, they just reinforce, which obviously costs less. Sorry for the stream of consciousness but I think I have a better understanding of it now. Unless I'm completely wrong.
its simple, more bases > more drones > more resources > more bases > more units non-stop yes the concept of zerg is to make swarms of units, but its also sending waves of units to slow your opponent down. Just like a viral infection. @zaner123 a 3000 Zerg army does not beat a 3000 T/P army. When the zerg army goes into a fight, usually the other race comes out on top, but the zerg can replenish his army back to being maxed in no time and overwhelm his opponent. Note: internal hatcheries are called macro hatches
It's very hard for a zerg to win against an army that's similar size (200 zerg vs 200 T or P)....so zerg needs the extra base and resources to pump out another army instantly after they lose the big fight. If you watch VODs of pro zerg players, even if they lose the big engagement they already have another 200 army coming out.
