in certain situations, yes it is.

To find good pop bankers, look in MW top ranks (Andro is done).

Or you could talk to me (Im actually serious here ).

[/cockiness]

I've been looking into how pointless pop banking really is lately.  I like the idea but even at 700% OB your still paying out the same or even more /building than a CF strat at 1500%OB so all in all, the very idea of a pop based system is pointless because you think your saving money because of lower OB% but you are not.  Hardest thing is also the fact that networth build deficiencies in play also effect a pop growth strat as well.  Your super high net/income ratio vs income/net makes it take longer and longer for a pop based banker to pay off their buildings in comoparison to a CF banker so you may be first in the galaxy on a surpurb pop based strategy but your actual advantage is far less in comparison to a CF'er that makes top 10.

Even a good pop based banker starts out at only a 1.5GC/net.  With TO's in play at max efficiency(which is actually not less than 50% TOs because you have to concider food prices involved in every LQ negates the advantage you gained from the extra higher gains of a 66LQ/34TO) your still at a 2.44 GC/net at best.  After you buy research to 66%+ you can push that up to 4+ gc/net.  But to do so means your building strat just took more than 48 ticks without OB to actually pay for itself.

CF strat with atleast 50% bonus you start out making 3GC/net.  Paired up with RC's instead of actually buying research, you can easily push that up to almost 5GC/net with less than 40% of the construction cost of LQ/TOs and a steadily decreasing % of RC's to maintain a high economy bonus.  OB asside, your buildings will take as little as 18-20 ticks to pay for itself.  Even after OB, you can have as much as 2.5X the OB of a pop strat paying simular prices on construction and making even more income with savings on food consumption and also be alot harder to kill.  There is no advantage to LQs except for the large net it brings and makes you look alot bigger than what you really are economically.

Not required, but certainly helpful.

Hehe, its not helpful to have during a war, it's a reliability. But, yes, from an eco standpoint it is the best way to go.

> Ironwill wrote:

> I've been looking into how pointless pop banking really is lately.  I like the idea but even at 700% OB your still paying out the same or even more /building than a CF strat at 1500%OB so all in all, the very idea of a pop based system is pointless because you think your saving money because of lower OB% but you are not.  Hardest thing is also the fact that networth build deficiencies in play also effect a pop growth strat as well.  Your super high net/income ratio vs income/net makes it take longer and longer for a pop based banker to pay off their buildings in comoparison to a CF banker so you may be first in the galaxy on a surpurb pop based strategy but your actual advantage is far less in comparison to a CF'er that makes top 10.

Even a good pop based banker starts out at only a 1.5GC/net.  With TO's in play at max efficiency(which is actually not less than 50% TOs because you have to concider food prices involved in every LQ negates the advantage you gained from the extra higher gains of a 66LQ/34TO) your still at a 2.44 GC/net at best.  After you buy research to 66%+ you can push that up to 4+ gc/net.  But to do so means your building strat just took more than 48 ticks without OB to actually pay for itself.

CF strat with atleast 50% bonus you start out making 3GC/net.  Paired up with RC's instead of actually buying research, you can easily push that up to almost 5GC/net with less than 40% of the construction cost of LQ/TOs and a steadily decreasing % of RC's to maintain a high economy bonus.  OB asside, your buildings will take as little as 18-20 ticks to pay for itself.  Even after OB, you can have as much as 2.5X the OB of a pop strat paying simular prices on construction and making even more income with savings on food consumption and also be alot harder to kill.  There is no advantage to LQs except for the large net it brings and makes you look alot bigger than what you really are economically.

Yes... But once you consider the fact that a pop banker builds in jumps, it kinda makes a lot more sense econ wise. Yes... Building at 700% is expensive. More so than a cf banker at 1500%, especially if you consider the higher nw. But once you consider that the banker will build only till 300%, up con bonus, drop nw and JUMP to 700% (which is ridiculously high for a pop banker but lets say it for the sake of argument), a one time investment will pay far more than than any cf banker around.

i dont do pop banking in PW anymore because rounds are short there
i still do pop banking in MW switching from CF to pop after expo-phase because there is still long time to go in the round.

I did some calculations on what is cheaper - to build TO/LQ having lower OB or to build TO/CF having higher OB. Both are more or less equivalent at TO/LQ OB being 1.5 times smaller than TO/CF OB. the thing is CF bankers get to higher OB faster than pop bankers.

All of your points are good points ironwill, every respected strategist in the galaxy will tell you you are right... BUT... for most of these difficulties are solutions making most of them invalid points.
Now, whether a pop banker is really worth it I don't know, it depends on so many circumstances that I think NOBODY will ever know 100% for sure if it is "worth it" in a certain round before they actually played the round. It's a guess to have one or not to have one, I had rounds where I fully used a pop banker, and rounds where I barely got him over the same income as my top cf-banker.

well the fact is that if you keep a pop banker close to the inner core, and protect them, then it can be quiet lucrative.
but a pop banker is at a disadvantage when you talk banker raids, and the most successful start out with half and half CF/LQ so that they don't hinder their growth.
the switch out the CF's for TO's later, and as well welfare/economy research is a must and i can't preach this enough "POP BANKERS NEED WIZZE'S".
it also helps to build a lot of fighters to keep attackers from ever hitting the ground, in the long run it will cost you less to have 300k fighters, and destroy more transports on the way down, than to keep 600k droids which you will constantly loose.
the idea is to cost your opponent more than it cost you to attack, or cost them more in the attack than it does for you to defend.
but i agree that having your total income based on pop-bankers is not advised, most don't do it right, and the are very vulnerable to all kinds of attacks.

Its simple math really, you guys make it too advanced..

There are two things that makes pop banking the best eco powerhouse in the game

1. Science because of welfare science, any pop banker will get a bonus (towards the end of the round) of about 50% over the CF banker.

2. Building in jump. This makes sure the pop banker builds with almost the same efficency and con science as the CF banker does.. And it removes much of the nw disadvantage created by huge pop.

As ppl point out, YES CF banking is easier, and its easier to combine with an inactive family, or constant harrassment or fighting. But purely eco wise, there is nothing a CF banker can do to keep up. Its not because its bad or they suck etc.. its just cause mathematicly, the pop banker can reach a higher income with the same investment.

i disagree..

when i played with damon a few rounds ago (around easter) i was about 3x the next banker for about 4 weeks of the round (at the end) making 20 mills compared to about 6 for the others.. Ofc i had a good fam to back me up, but the properly planned and executed jumps is what makes the difference.