End result is CA for my two cities is slightly more efficient. Though I suppose the real question you pose is whether my HMA city should stay in HMA or move to CA. I'll have to run those numbers when I finish the prescribed HMA park and see if I wanna extend it. Interesting option. I'll compare my HMA city to the same city size in CA. My reservation is still if they complete equal numbers of quests each day, I'd prefer to be doing that in CA. I guess the arc rush can happen in either age so medals are moot.
The comparison between your 2 cities is very unfair for different reasons, and I think you are not aware about all of them. I like the approach you took with the sheet though.
1. I don't know how you define your "feedback ratio" and how it interacts with the rest of the spreadsheet, but I get a different number of feedback UBQs (slitghly higher).
2. Your are comparing a "developed" CA city to a "new" HMA city.
3. Your CA city seems to be much MUCH larger than the other (and I don't mean the expansions from just 2 eras). Not sure about how many medal/diamond expansions you have unlocked there during your on/off periods.
4. Coins generation - Houses - Inno Tower (everything is related).
-After camping for not that long, your coin production will vastly overpowers supply production (as you will get some SoKs/SSW). This means that the biggest advantage of HMA doesn't show in the comparison of your 2 cities. Moreover, in CA you have StM at a mid lvl, which balances coins and supplies there, skewing even more the comparison in favour of CA.
-Houses... don't you have too many? You should build the minimum houses necesary to hold your production buildings, nothing more. Even if it seems you are stockpiling lots of supplies, that pool will eventually become empty.
-IT. Same thing. In HMA we have less space, but that space is more efficient because we can do more quests/tile while in HMA.
5. You are missing donate FP quests, and posible snipes which results in more quest as well.
6. I think you overleveled LoA. In your sheet, change the LoA bonus for the previous lvl, then see how much the FP production drops. Finally, think if that was a good investment, compared to other ways of increasing FP production.
If you haven't recommend you to read my arc 80 guide, FAQ section. Might shed some light into the topic.
Think of the CA rush as a 1000 FP investment, and think of it in terms of ROI. Will I get better ROI putting 1000 FPs into the rush, or into my Arc? It helps put your options in perspective.
Yep, I agree that it should be looked in terms of ROI. However, it is much more than 1000FP. 1000FP is only the cost to go through LMA. Then you have the end of HMA research, the beginning of Colonial, and all the resources spent in rebuilding the city that could be spent in UBQs. From the top of my head, I think it was closer to 2.5k FP.
Do you all fight/negotiate through GE? Seems if one prefers fighting, then HMA has that added bonus of being easier? Also does one build the ToR in HQS?
Fighting in HMA is much much easier, not only because you fight against lower bonuses, but because rogues oneshot mounted archers, archers (except in lvl 4) and if lucky enough, fast units too. But anyway, RQ in both eras produces so many goods that I would go as far as saying this is irrelevant.
About the TOR, according to CR words guild expedition is a "big gamble" that doesn't worth the resources spent, and ToR just makes it worse. Something along these lines at least, he even recommended someone to delete ToR xD.
According to almost anyone else who has spent weeks doing RQs in either era, GE are almost free gifts, and ToR should be build and kept lvl 1 (the lvl 1 is my thing, everyone has different opinions on that).
