Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Strategy → The ideal TO%
Went through a couple of pages and didnt see a topic right away, has gotta be there somewhere but w/e
I was wondering what you guys think the best ideal TO% is and most of all WHY?
Mainly talking about cf banking here.
Do mind To's only give 12.5% extra income, but whoever is gonna post in here probably already did the maths. So convince me! Please?
25 % give s highest groos income in basis, but there are some other factors to include
Big:
TOs are more expensive
TOs take longer to build
Small:
TOs gives higher income for pop on planets
The more TOs you have the worse they stack with RCs
Overall i find that i prefer to use some RCs first and then when i have gained a decent eco science (40%ish) i get to about 20% TOs to a slightly adjusted optimal income
Like noobr said.. excel proves 25% to makes Most.. but when you consider cost, time to build and possible rc strts it becomes slightly less.. especially when with high enough science, a 50% cons bonus can often save you more than say 20-30% to bonus...
Yea sure, thats not what Im asking 
Everyone knows 25% is the 'optimal' % for your income/building
But then again Im quite doubtful about the real optimalization. Example (these are all relative numbers. Meaning they are income/building)
5% TO gives 4.5% extra income
10% TO gives 8% extra income
12.5% TO gives 9.375% extra income
15% TO gives 10.5% extra income
17.5% TO gives 11.375% extra income
20% TO gives 12% extra income
25% TO gives 12.5% extra income
Now... Is it even worth going higher than 15%? Im quite doubtful about that. Considering they're more expensive and take longer to build. Though that last one is - certainly later on the round - not a big deal.
As i said, aslong as you hover around 15-20% i think youre pretty safe
i think what matters more is what your replacing the to with?
now that planets can have giant research bonuses, your research % of your total planets can be lower..
Indeed if you have maybe, 7% of your infra as rc building only on the rc bonus planets it is now equivalent to having like 11-12% from before.. On top of this, your costs to build are lower as you arent adding rc to all planets, just research bonus ones..
Using this strat i would say 7% rc, 18% to 75% cf...
As the round progresses drop rc to 5% and up tax office to 20%...
nearer eor - swap the rc planes to some other guys who need research - maybe attacker or new guy..
This will jump your to and wont require you to delete any infra 
Im rly not convinced to up To's above 15%. Id even dare to say Id be a happy banker to have them at 13%, 12% Rcs and 75% Cfs
In return for 12% Tos you get a 'free' 75% econ and 75% con in no time. What you lose? 3% income max. On top of that Tos are more expensive and they take longer. I think that's the 3%.
Seems something alot of bankers should think about. Allmost all bankers want to aim for that 'perfect 25%', but its nowhere perfect.
do the math pls.
I dont say u are wrong, but since it has always been 75/25 with funding.
I was about to tell you how all your calcs were wrong but....
i just went back through the strat and found the income formula is multiplicative? i thought it was cumulative.. This changes things dramatically...
i need to go do some calcs...
Case.
Banker,
Income bonus: 50% (income/cf = 12)
Research bonus: 50%
Networth: 500.000
Total amount of buildings (no lasers): 100.000
Construction bonus: 50% - 35.000.000 Rcs points
Economy bonus: 70% - 60.000.000 Rcs points
.:: Option 1. CF/TO (with funding) ::.
75.000 Cfs
25.000 Tos
Income without funding = 75.000 * 12 * 1.5 = 1.350.000
Income with funding = 2.295.000
funding cost: 300.000
Actual income (income - costs of funding) = 1.995.000
.:: Option 2. CF/TO/RC ::.
RCs on research bonus planets, avg 50%
67.500 Cfs
22.500 To's
10.000 Rcs (450.000 Rcs points/tick)
Income = 67.500 * 12 * 1.45 * 1.7 = 1.996.000
So I think we can conclude none has the real advantage in total end income. A small difference in favour of the Rcs. But still you can question yourself whether you do need 1/4th of the buildings (excluded rcs) being To's as they are more expensive . I think this clarifies alot.
I was lazy and thus wrong in earlier calculations by not thinking it through. Yet the Rcs solution has the benefit through costs, but not the total income.
Conclusion:
- Cheaper
- Income is comparable, no huge differences.
- In both cases we have been looking for optimalizing income. Still there is no way 1/4th of your buildings (rcs excluded) should be TO's. 13% is enough. 3% less income, but lower costs.
Yeah the reason TOs are so good is the reason that revs are so good - the income formula is multiplicative.
The other reason that people prefer CFs/TOs only is that its much much better later on in a round. Imagine the situation where you are already at 70% eco science and you're at 1100% OB so you're not going to be building any mroe. Your RCs are fairly worthless as it is going to take a lot of RPs to get any higher than 70% eco. It is also useless to get any construction at this point because you're not building enough fleet to make it worthwhile and no more buildings. So at this point you would stop funding if you are using TOs and CFs only. So you get 300k income more than the person with RCs in your example. It just happens that most cancel wars will usually happen at this stage, where the extra income is really needed.
I agree though, people should use RCs a lot longer than they do as a CF/TO banker. But there will come a point where it is better to switch to pure CF/TO once you're got the desired level of research.
It is also important to note that a lot of people will overbuild with RCs at really really high percentages of OB late on in the round. This is actually a really bad idea as the RCs are unlikely to pay themselves off. Lets try an example:
Assume 5m NW (for large size calc), 0% cons (simplicity), and that you have 50% race bonus for science, and NO science planets:
You're going from 1000% to 1500% OB with RCs as a CF/TO/RC banker:
Average cost is at 1250% ob:
1 RC costs 8100gc 81 endu --> lets assume 9000gc with the endu cost included in that
This returns 30 RP per tick, so it repays itself in 9000/30 ticks --> 300 ticks, or 12.5 days
When this is compared to just funding the research yourself and getting the bonus a lot faster, its further evidence that RCs aren't that great late in the round.
I am not convinced of the last statement, but I agree on the above. Why dont I agree? because simply... no sane man would build rcs that late in the round.
Also I am - as maybe some of you know - a big fan of an indepent research system, intra fam.
This includes all the rcs planets within core and possibly other safe spots, up to 5-7% of total fam's planets with the double OB of the other planets. Obviously these planets are built up by small attacker with high cons.
So if ur fam's size is 2000 planets and ur avg OB 500:
- 120 planets
- OB1100
- Avg research bonus being 40% (estimate)
- Total Rcs being 315000 (estimate)
- Total Rcs points being +- 12.5 mil/tick - depends on research bonus
You can just pass these around, quite handy. Bankers dont lose their precious TO% (unless for the ticks they're holding the planets) and they get whatever boosted they want. Also for those massive pop bankers to stop their funding they love that much. Resourcers always get benefit out of Rcs, so they can have some theirselfs since there never are enuf iron planets anyways.
Benefits:
- Empire size costs are smaller (no rcs on anyone)
- Rcs basically are free
- No screwed up TO%
- When necessary, attacker can hold it to boost military bonus enough to benefit from it after his jump for a war.
Downsides:
- Demands a certain amount of coordination, not alot, yet often it appears to be too much
- They're easy to be taken away (Do mind, they're spread out over ur core, so you can retake. Infra costs are almost non existing, so not a big deal).
Apart from that. 75/25 gives you 12.5% extra income and 87/13 would give you 9.62%. Meaning 75/25 gives you a surplus income of 2.6%. Now lets see how much more it costs.
Relative cost 75/25 per building
140 gc
11.25 iron
1 end
Considering iron is 15/gc each and end 17.5/gc each
Total of 326.5 gc/building
Relative cost 87/13 per building
130.4 gc
10.65 iron
1 end
Considering iron is 15/gc each and end 17.5/gc each
Total of 307.65 gc/building
This means 6.12% extra for only 2.6% additional income.
Not too big differences, but Id go with 87/13.
Case.
.:: Option 2. CF/TO/RC ::.
RCs on research bonus planets, avg 50%
67.500 Cfs
22.500 To's
10.000 Rcs (450.000 Rcs points/tick)Income = 67.500 * 12 * 1.45 * 1.7 = 1.996.000
So I think we can conclude none has the real advantage in total end income. A small difference in favour of the Rcs. But still you can question yourself whether you do need 1/4th of the buildings (excluded rcs) being To's as they are more expensive . I think this clarifies alot.
I was lazy and thus wrong in earlier calculations by not thinking it through. Yet the Rcs solution has the benefit through costs, but not the total income.
Conclusion:
- Cheaper
- Income is comparable, no huge differences.
- In both cases we have been looking for optimalizing income. Still there is no way 1/4th of your buildings (rcs excluded) should be TO's. 13% is enough. 3% less income, but lower costs.
10K RCs give you 300000 Rc point per tick, not 450000.
Well with science planets you can maybe go to 450000.
The thing is that during a war you can stop funding your science to pay jumps and upkeeps, when you cant have additional cash with RCs at this period.
And RCs are slow to boost you science, when funding you can have a rapid boost on ur science
Maybe that's true Kollop. But considering you can build more in first instance you can make extra cashies. With more cash you can build more, so you get to build even more next time, and so on..
Though this thread was mainly intented to see what % would be better considering costs and income.
So, forget about the Rcs and look at the post after that one, where Im stating 87/13 is better than 75/25. Thats actually the essence of the thread
And Yea that's megaman, inactive megaman actually.
87X8gc(CF)X1.5(income)X1.5(eco)X1,26(TO)=1973.16
75X8gc(CF)X1.5(income)X1.5(eco)X1.5(TO)=2025
400pltsX220sizeX8(700% OB)=704000 buildings
1973.16X704000/100=13891046.4gc
2025X704000/100=14256000gc
14256000gc-13891046.4gc=364953,6gc a tick
makes 8758886,4 gc less income a day
You guys are talking out ur asses!
Aslong as u need science, RCs outperform TOs, BY FAR
But at some point in round you do not want to keep growing, but you want to have income to spend on wars.
Thats when bankers (CFers) should switch their RCs for some TOs to maximize income in terms of cash. By that time we can off argue the ratio of TOs, but 15-20% seems reasonable and will leave u with the best overall income. Ofcourse at this point you will be so outperformed by any popper that it hardly matters 
@Kollop
I think it is more usefull to take a look at the relative costs/building
Which are 6% higher when using 87/13. Only 2.6% income bonus in favour of the 75/25.
Giving the oppurtunity to build 6% more, oviously means making 6% More. So 87/13
![]PW[ Forever](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/42357.jpg)
> Noir wrote:
> Ofcourse at this point you will be so outperformed by any popper that it hardly matters
hehe
Good to see others actually attempting to make calculations, i do really wonder tho, if u can make accurate calculations, why u all suck so much
touche!
Some amazıng amount of calculatıon ın here, and ı agree that RCs are underused for CFers, but you need to look at thıs agaın ımo, because wıth research planets you need to buıld RCs dıfferently and ın the end you want TOs to replace them, alternatıvely just stay wıth CFs and RCs just dont buıld more RCs after a whıle.
ive always done the cf/rc to cf/to switch, and it has always worked for me at some point those rcs would make only one or two extra % eco per day due to the formula used (high percentages are ridiculously expensive in RPs), and then you better dont grow too much nw. TOs will give an immediate 50% increase in base income (so actually even a bit more net) at that point. Not a lot of math involved in that, just simple plain common sense
Imperial Forum → Strategy → The ideal TO%
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
