|
Post by CELS on Dec 1, 2004 8:43:36 GMT -5
Since the Anargo sub is disturbingly small and poor compared to other subsectors, and since there's no chance in hell that we're going to change its location, let's look at possible solution to this situation or alternative situations.
1) Is there a chance that instead of relocating the Anargo sub, we can just enlargen it? In other words, do a query on a larger area, so that we have still have the current worlds, but also a lot of new (hopefully wealthy) worlds?
2) What about changing the current UWP of the worlds in the Anargo sector? The Meksum subsector is, in all likelyhood, ten times wealthier as it has (supposedly) 48 systems. And the Dorvastor system has seven or eight systems with a resource value of A or above. For comparison, I believe the Anargo subsector has none.
3) Are there any logical explanations as to how the Anargo sub can be the center of the sector, when it clearly has very little in the way of resources? Perhaps we can find similar situations in terran history. What about Europe in colonial times?
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 1, 2004 9:40:24 GMT -5
That would be my first choice, if it was my decision That would also work, if they were all enlarged or had there resources increased I think you would end up with a good core of worlds, which would be on a par with the core worlds of all the other subs, Meksum might have 48 stars but they are not all going to be suitable, the same is true of all the other subs aswell. So if you were to make all the worlds in Anargo...more...beefy then I think it would be more balanced in comparison with the others. Its unlikely to stand up to A) the vast number of worlds in Meksum and B) the extremly rich worlds of Dorvaster
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Dec 1, 2004 13:44:10 GMT -5
I think it is fine the way it is. One of the main things that Anargo has going for it, is the fact that it is one of the few places in the Sector that manufactures starships. This is a highly valuable commodity.
It may also be that out of the chaos of the Age of Apostasy that saw the destruction of the old capital (in the Sargassos Subsector), he who controled the fleets could place the capital wherever he wished.
I think we need to better flesh out the Age of Apostasy and the destruction of the original captial...as well as what side each of the sub-sectors supported. This may give us a better understanding or at least a better explanation of why the capital is in the Anargo Subsector.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 1, 2004 13:50:13 GMT -5
Well I think we need to do that anyway, the point is why is it still the capitol, yes it has starships but so could Meksum, Dorvaster and Archaios, all or which have the manpower and resources in abundance. And are warships the only reason a world becomes a capitol world, would not extreme wealth also attract that kind of prestige.
Plus no one else is allowed to construct new star ships as the cost of warp drives is to prohibitive, so its hard to understand how anargo could be producing enough of them to warrent its high status, it would have to be something else that puts it at the top of the pile.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 1, 2004 22:15:40 GMT -5
Remember that the original goal of the project was to realistically (plausibly, anyway) 'colonise' the Anargo sector. Look through the 21,000 systems and find the greatest concentrations of F-K system and target the as the foci of the subsectors. Unfortunately there was at that point a 'rush' to get some formo f subsector up there and, foolishly, I capitulated and located the subsectors based upon desired characteristics that were randomly generated.
That's why the subsectors are located where they are located (with the obvious exception of Sargassos because of the recent relocation). Kind of reminds me of why American railroads have such an unusual guage distance! Anyway...
Expanding the Anargo subsector... This is something that I have never really considered. Anargo is roughly the same size as the other subsectors but just happens to be in an area of the sector that doesn't have a great deal of stars. It has very little to do with 'wealthy' stars.
Moving the Anargo subsector... I had considered doing this, i.e. to the old Other subsector but decided it was far more trouble than it was worth.
The real reason, when it comes down to it, that Anargo has many 'poor worlds'? People have, for the most part, been concentrating on the other subsectors. Furthermore, the concept of the hive world is inherently destabilising...
'Plausible' colonisation would more than likely link the capital with both the Forgeworld and the major 'hiveworlds' of the subsector. The 'themed' subsector approach was a means by which people were meant to be drawn into the project...
Oh yes. Remember that the number of systems in a subsector does not translate to 'wealth'. After all, the concept of the 'subsector' is fairly daft in the first place, at least as described by GW. (It makes sense only insofar as one might consider 'micro-empires', but there we go.) Also, the 'resource' is a 'guiding statistic', meant to suggest a pattern of colonisation with the original premise (see above)...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 2, 2004 5:33:44 GMT -5
So basically your saying "bugger the lot of ye, nout's going to change" Fair enough You still stand by what you said about being more flexible in terms of altering UWPs in Anargo though right.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 2, 2004 7:24:32 GMT -5
I don't think Kage is telling us to 'bugger off' I think we should expand the Anargo subsector. As I understand it, it's not too much work, and it will allow a greater variety of worlds. For example, it might not be such a bad idea to have a productive industrial world or hiveworld in the Anargo sub. And those worlds need resources. I was actually left wondering what you wanted to do about this, Kage. Do you want to expand the Anargo subsector to possibly include worlds with more natural resources? If not, then how do you see the worlds of the Anargo subsector?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 2, 2004 21:42:55 GMT -5
Guess I wasn't being explicit enough... Oops. One of the reasons that I explained the initial means by which the Anargo sector's subsectors were to be located was to indicate the premise behind the statistics. The original premise that is.
Resources is useful in guiding the overall selection of a world and to ensure that not every single habitable world also happens to be a mining world, or whatever. It is to prevent GW-ism in terms of planet creation...
It is, however, just a 'guide' statistic. I've prevented people from changing it in the past merely because they were unwilling to negotiate the concept that they had with the UWP, not really due to any requirement that it remain unchanged. Thus if people wanted a Resource D system then they could technically have one... The real question is whether material resources really determine 'wealth', rather than the specific forces that actually produce something form the mineral wealth. In that regard then, yes, there needs to be some more civilised or industrial worlds. Which technically needs more 'nice' stars, but that was prevented by the 'rush'.
Again, though, if people are going to be post an interesting concept for a world which requires a warmer star then I'm more than willing to listen...
I do not think that it requires an expansion of the Anargo subsector, although that might not be necessarily inappropriate. Indeed, it might be interesting to see what it would throw out... CELS, feel free to post the UWP of an expanded Anargo subsector as a 'hypothetical' situation if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 3, 2004 2:19:42 GMT -5
By expanding the Anargo subsector I meant including the stars that our database has surrounding the current sub. In other words, I'd need the database of UWPs, which I don't have now. Therefore, any hypothetical subsector that I write would be mostly pulled from thin air.
I've wanted to make another world in the Anargo subsector for a while now, but I've been too busy. I've still got a lot of work to do, but I figure I might as well claim a world now and just put it on hold. Then we can see if it would be appropriate to modify the resource value or in other ways go with the concept I had in mind.
But if you would be kind enough to show me an example of an expanded Anargo subsector, by increasing the query from including 18 systems to 30 or 35, then I could always take a look at the UWPs and see if I can think of any interesting possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 3, 2004 17:00:38 GMT -5
Yes, I'd gathered what you wanted me to do... But the subsectors were not based on the number of systems and never were. Rather they were based upon the rough size of 10 light years in diameter (i.e. 3 parsecs in the three axes)... Expanding it by even one parsec in each axis can dramatically increase the number of stars. I was, however, suggesting that you do this yourself CELS. I'm fairly sure that you had a copy of the database, and the same with Zoom. It takes a while to format the database and I don't have the time to do that at the moment... Furthermore, I'm more inclined to have a historical situation create the 'rise of Anargo' than merely just up the Resource value of some worlds when there are other ways around it. That and change some star types, which is the main limitation. Sorry for the laziness, but it's been the equivalent of an 8 day week (!) so far of basically manual labour and, when combined with martial arts training, I'm a bit zonked. So, what would I ask? Simply this: - Before really requesting more stars, look at the UWP and see if there are alternatives.
- Consider a historical/economic explanation. Britain was not necessarily the 'largest' nation, but at one point it was the most powerful. Perhaps the same can be said of Anargo with sufficient justification? (This is what I would personally stress since it once again adds the UK-America analogy, with the change in Meksum as a 'powerhouse' because of the sheer size of the economy... Yes, it's not entirely how it happened but it is a possibility to be worked on.)
- Would some minor changes in the 'guide' statistics provide the alterations required, up to and including alteration of the star type?
Basically, is it really necessary to increase the size of the Anargo subsector beyond the (admittedly average) normal size of an Imperial subsector?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 4, 2004 6:22:20 GMT -5
Kage, I assure you, I'm not trying to sneak away from the job. You and Zoom are the only ones with the UWP database as far as I know. When we created the Ork empire, it was you that found the worlds, not I. And even if I'm wrong, and even if you did send me the database a long time ago, I still don't have it with me now, because I do not currently live at home. I live at my school, remember? I don't have my computer here. So... if you want me to do this, then you'll have to mail me the database and that means 1) The file can't be ridiculously large. 2) The file has to be in a format that I can read on a random school computer with Microsoft office. Before really requesting more stars, look at the UWP and see if there are alternatives. Done. I believe I've already presented some alternatives. Done. Unfortunately, I'm no expert on history or economy. I chose economy instead of ancient history in secondary school, and now I can't even remember much of the basic macro economy lessons either. In other words, I'd need help from the likes of zholud, Destecado and yourself. What we need is a subsector that can realistically grow to be a 'powerhouse' dominating the sector. With the low resource levels and poor living conditions (obviously making the worlds less productive as more resources are spent on basic survival) in the Anargo subsector, I'm not sure that is possible. Where does the fluff give us the normal size of an Imperial subsector? Could someone give a full quote from the fluff?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 4, 2004 12:32:35 GMT -5
Kage, I assure you, I'm not trying to sneak away from the job. You and Zoom are the only ones with the UWP database as far as I know. I was sure that I sent you the datebase... Ah well. When we created the Ork empire, it was you that found the worlds, not I. That I can remember, definitely. Must be going insane. 1) The file can't be ridiculously large. The Access database is, I'm afraid, 5Mb. Done. I believe I've already presented some alternatives. And I reconformed them suggesting also that me might turn to history as an additional means of dealing with the situation. Citing Britain as an example, it's one major 'resource' that it could be said to have in the Empire days was coal... one resource, but it was the choices that they made that allowed a full expansion. As a means of detailing the Anargo sector's history - something that Destecado has been rightly talking about recently - in an interesting fashion... What Anargo probably needs is probably just more changes to the UWPs... Although I strongly disagree that the number of systems automatically translates to wealth (see above), if things need to be changed, then fine. But, yes, Anargo does need more industrialised worlds, etc. And that needs more favourable conditions in terms of star, etc. Just run them by me first. Now that I've got a bit more time for world developing, I'm going to be doing a bit more with the Anargo subsector since most people seem to jump towards Castellan, Meksum and Archiaos for obvious reasons. What we need is a subsector that can realistically grow to be a 'powerhouse' dominating the sector. One thing that you're going to have to keep in mind was that one of the concepts of Anargo was that, in terms of economy and production, it was meant to be less 'powerful' than Meksum. That was the whole point of creating a tension between entrenched government and the 'new power'. Again, UK and America spring forth as an obvious real world analogy. With the low resource levels and poor living conditions... Again, the Resource statistic is something that is more of a guideline than anything else. That means you shouldn't read too much into it. Or the number of stars, more so when you remember that not all of the worlds that have been developed are not necessarily going to be including in the Archive. Where does the fluff give us the normal size of an Imperial subsector? Could someone give a full quote from the fluff? The quote that you're after is:
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 6, 2004 11:18:09 GMT -5
The Access database is, I'm afraid, 5Mb. Please try to e-mail me the bugger, and I'll see if I can use it. What changes to the UWPs? I just thought that it was better to work around the UWP than to change it, even in a case like this. Sure, the average subsector is 10 LY, but we're talking about one subsector in the Anargo sector, and the capital one even. Indeed. I'll post a concept for an industrialised world shortly. Yeah, I remember. But right now, Anargo seems less powerful than Meksum and Archaios in terms of economy (granted, Anargo only has one world), and less wealthy than Meksum, Archaios and Dorvastor in terms of natural resources. But, let's make a few world concepts and see where they take the Anargo sub.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 6, 2004 11:32:16 GMT -5
And if I can get that star changed I might have a civilised world for Anargo, unless you would prefere an agri world of course, as i've never done one of those(they start out as agri worlds but end up changing for some strange reason)
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 6, 2004 21:08:57 GMT -5
While you do have a point about the resources, I will once again mention that the presence of natural resources (especially on a 'guide' statistic such as Resource, just as with Population) does not strictly define wealth. Just as cities are not necessarily constructed on mines, or sometimes not even that close to natural resources, and yet may become significantly powerful thus with a subsector.
Heck, I'm severely tempted to shift the Anargo sector to stop this equation.
But since it was requested, I'll expand the sector by one or two parsecs even though that will by completely weird in terms of the 'appearance'.
Might send it to you CELS since I don't have the motivation to reformat the Query result for another subjector at this precise moment in time.
|
|