If playing as a CF banker, what are some good CF/TO/RC ratios?
Pass rc planets to attackers midgame and start funding from there.
So, 1. I should not hold onto RC planets, and 2. I’m guessing passing RC planets to attackers means they can cheaply build military.
No, that isn’t really true. There are a variety of ways that you can play it.
65/25/10 works so you can push your eco up. And it does work!
75/25/0 works and then you have someone with good con build about 30 planets to 700% with rc’s and you hold them for 3-5 days for eco
70/30/0 works if your family is making strong iron and can support the extra TO’s
You can choose to fund your science with cash but typically you will want to use that gc for something more beneficial and the long-term benefits of having rc planets to pass around the fam far outweigh the more immediate gains you may get from funding your research with gc (not to mention being cheaper)
I’m not the most experienced cf banker but have done a couple of recent rounds now, before switch to pop
Answer depends on your growth rate, CFs payoff the fastest then RCs then TOs
Typical start is 100% cfs
Introduce some RCs around 5-10 planets into the round. I don’t like to start adding TOs till about 50 planets.
Once growth really slows down and Econ % is high I like to ditch the RC planets and move to 25% TOs and then fund the research assuming your 50-60% income bonus.
If banker don’t bother exploring RC planets. Build your RC’s on all of your other planets once you hit 700% OB. Double them up so that build 700-1400% is RC’s. Too expensive to build any other building once you hit 700. Never fund RC. Your money is better spent building RC’s IMO.
IMO if you aren’t going to build RCs on RC planets, you might as well just fund. Having your cons builder build up RCs for the family is the best way of doing it. After explo phase when attackers are attacking portal to portal, RC planet should be passed to them to boost their military % and cons%. The income boost from not having RCs drag down your ratio alone would pay for the needed funding.
i think we proved a round that 19% ish TO was optimal when cost for the TO is calculated in… 25% is optimal for income but with iron cost and ob, we landed on 19%… @Orion confirm?
I think this is the discussion might be what you are referring to, is worth a read if people want to get an idea of the things to consider.
Pretty sure O’s math was 16 was best short term return on investment, 26 was best later on when you are building less.
Im sure I could dig up the math but that would require digging up the math
If you look at maximum production, than 25% is the best to ratio.
I can imagine for short term the ratio will be lower because of higher investment costs.
So it all depends on: how long will your to be operational? The longer they are in use, the more the optimal ratio converges to 25%.
What happens if I hold onto those planets longer than 3-5 days? I’m asking to understanding why I should give them up after that time.
These are all excellent responses. Thanks, guys.
Your main attacker will spam you ingame and on discord asking if they are clear. And after 59 minutes of waiting he’ll trigger his feet just before tick to maximize science growth.
Why would he trigger his feet? Does he have athlete’s foot?
@Airwing, did you just awaken me from my winter sleep?
The sad truth is that there is no ideal %.
Important to know is that the first percentages are the most important. 5% TO will give you an actual bonus of 4.5% income per building, while the 5% between 20 and 25% only boost your income with 0.5%. When you understand that, you’re basically golden, because it doesn’t take a great mind to know that the 0.5% can never make up for the extra costs TO’s ask, and the longer building time.
Income per building (so costs excluded) it’s 25%, which gives you an actual bonus of 12,5% per building
When costs are taken into account the optimum is 11%, which would result in 8.6% actual income increase per building.
When you would take building time into account too, this would be even lower than 11%, depending on what timeframe you’d be calculating on this would be 9~10% probably.
Because OB costs are in play also and you can build TO’s on fresh planets, and OB with CF’s, my advice is to stay anywhere between 10 and 16%. Everything from 17 up is very unlikely to earn itself back.
Now there’s a myth that when RCs or even have any other type of building for that matter come into play, TO’s are of less an importance. That’s as wrong as you can get. The percentages above do not necessarily apply to ‘percentage of all buildings’, but they apply to ‘percentage of income producing buildings’ - CFs and TOs in the case of a cf banker.
Let me explain.
If you have for example 15% RCs, that means you have 85% left for CFs and TOs. That means you’ll want (say 15%) TOs of that 85%. So basically you just multiply the desired % with the percentage of income producing buildings you have. So that’d be 0.15 * 0.85 = 12.75%. So in that case you’d go for 13% TO’s, 15% RCs and 72% CFs.
Hope that helped.
I am going to explain through scenarios what Orion is saying above. You will see the difference in increases of money by % when you crunch the numbers.
A small breakdown of costs and incomes for the a few different ratios of CF/TO based off of 114 planets at a average size of 219 buildings per planet: (Keep in mind that these numbers are literally best case scenarios. As in, no empire size costs and we build TOs on empty planets instead of OB costs.)
Total cost of 80,256 cfs and 20,064 TOs from empty to 300%
27,186,720 gc, 2,232,120 iron, 213,180 endurium
Income (50% racial bonus and multiply TO % by 2): 1,348,301 - 100,320 (building upkeep) = 1,247,981 gc per tick
Total cost of 75,240 cfs and 25,080 TOs from empty to 300%
27,588,000 gc, 2,257,200 iron, 213,180 end
Income: 1,354,320 - 100,320 = 1,254,000 gc per tick (.5% increase from the 80/20 ratio)
Total cost of 89,285 cfs and 11,035 TOs from empty to 300%
26,464,400 gc, 2,186,975 iron, 213,180 end
Income: 1,307,132 - 100,320 = 1,206,812 gc per tick (8.6% increase from a 100/0 ratio)
Total cost of 100,320 cfs from empty to 300%
25,581,600 gc, 2,131,800 iron, 213,180 end
Income: 1,203,840 - 100,320 = 1,103,520 gc per tick
I am not going to say my numbers are perfect here. As I stated above, lack of sleep! But based on those perfect scenario numbers one could make the claim that building TOs is pointless at all simply due to the time it takes to get in the TOs. I might would consider going over 300% there with RCs and get my ratio to 15% rcs and run it up to 50/60% economy. That would make my income a lot more interesting than running TOs period.
For those of you who ever want to know how I got as far as I have in this game with my “stupid races”.
This is why:
@Orion learned to play from the same group I did 20 years ago.
He was (deep) in the conversation at the inceptions of these concepts, there is original thought there too (as this is CF opposed to p0p).
You would see them talk about it in chat, it was waaay past my ability to process back then - I was far more into learning about getting them more planets to do all that shit on.
Sounded really cool!
I mean boring and involved, but really cool.
Which brings us back to the start, and a general theme I have been harping on the last few days in this break where I had some time to type.
Know what you are about!
I play “Cashtaker” (thanks @Random for giving it a slick name) because when you see guys like this get fed planets, in secure systems - pretty much everything you see after it is remarkably pedestrian econ wise.
Thanks, I will make my own cash and feed my fam planets till the core is smashed until the day I see a banker this fluid, this versed, this idk… logically artistic again?
So all you aspiring bankers out there - save that post!
Try not to simply understand the math, but the reasoning that makes it unique.
That is why they are legends.
This is why we play.
If nothing, for the chance to pit your will against players like that.
Or if you are lucky enough… watch 'em do it live.