|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 23, 2004 1:36:41 GMT -5
Generally this is quite in line with other random musings, but I wish you to discuss on some matters of relative importance, which could affect an overall picture of the sector. Alas after this post I gonna leave you all for two weeks, so will be unable to defend my points… ok, without further ado - what is an average number of planets per sub-sector I go with Abnett and BFG on it and say about 100 but others hit me hard saying it should be about 20
- what is an average number of sub-sectors per sector? – again Abnett’s 6-10 subs is appropriate figure for me. Thus sector is 600-1,000 imperial planets strong, not 50-120…
- Are sectors really cubic? – I guess generally yes, but there are cases when width of galaxy falls below gradient of 50 parsecs, meaning that some are ‘squatter’. Do they get less volume then but keep other sides 50 ps long, or they keep volume. This affects our neighbouring sectors idea because I think that just having cubes above and below is not too unarguable idea.
 |
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jul 23, 2004 6:14:03 GMT -5
Well... one of the cornerstones of the Anargo Sector Project is the assumption / estimate that the average sector has 100 worlds, and that each subsector has 5-15 Imperial systems (which can each have a number of planets). So, no, it could not affect an overall picture of the sector, because we've already decided on what we want the average sector to look like, and we're now working on that image. Even if ten members discuss this matter in this thread, and all come to the conclusion that the average sector should have thousands of Imperial worlds, the fact remains that we've taken a stance and now we stick with it.
Ugh... I've discussed this so many times with you guys that I feel I'm just coughing up the same arguments... ANYWAY...
Zholud, you can't go with Dan Abnett and BFG, because these are opposite extremes, as far as I know. According to the BFG maps, a typical Imperial subsector has 2-15 systems. Dan Abnett doesn't really say anything about 'typical' subsectors, but he does mention the Helican sub, which has about 100 worlds.
Now, I don't have the Xenos novel with me, but could someone check if Abnett writes 100 worlds or 100 systems?
Basically, GW should have taken a stance about this crap long ago. If the Helican subsector is 100 Imperial worlds, why does the Scarus sector have twelve systems according to BFG: Armada?
Discussing all this is pretty useless, considering
A) We've already taken a stance
B) There is no right answer
So.. are sectors cubic? Yeah. Anything else would be silly, in my opinion. Do they all have sides that are 200 light years long? Maybe not, but I don't see why they shouldn't. So what if the galactic disk is thinner some places? It just means those sectors will have less systems in them. Not really a big problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 23, 2004 6:43:27 GMT -5
the only number i could find, after much searching was three dozen worlds in reference to the sub sector but it implied there was more than that
|
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 23, 2004 8:33:59 GMT -5
The size of sectors is an arbitrary thing and would most likely be kept consistent. So what if one sector doesn't have any stars in it!  And, yes, we've discussed this to death. Anargo currently has 6 potential subsectors. The number of worlds? I don't know. Anargo itself has seven 'worlds' (actually, that includes a planetoid belt), and not including the ?7 satellites. This also doesn't include the Far Companion system which has six 'worlds' (including two planetoids) but excluding the 11 moons. So Anargo has 6, or 11 if you include the far companion; if you include asteroid belts that goes up to 13... if you include satellites that goes up to 30... Let's stick to worlds alone. That's 11 words for two systems. If we see that as 'average' then that's another 27 worlds, for 38. If you include moons that goes up even further... It all depends on what you define as a 'world'. And, to be fair, it's it's not going to drastically impact upon the project... in the slightest, in fact. The project is based on creating a basic number of worlds and then subsequently including other worlds if and when an interesting submission is forthcoming. |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Aug 7, 2004 1:07:09 GMT -5
And, to be fair, it's it's not going to drastically impact upon the project... in the slightest, in fact. The project is based on creating a basic number of worlds and then subsequently including other worlds if and when an interesting submission is forthcoming. [glow=red,2,300]Exactly!!![/glow] As I said this does not affect the ASP in any way, because we always can count satelites or say that several worlds are unimportant to mention. And I still want to hear definite answer from Kage on the question - how many worlds are in the sector, give or take... another problem, that CELS, quite rightly points on problems... we can go the only true way if we want to find out the number of forlds. Take volume 70,000 l.y. in diameter (cf. Astronomican) times average width of galaxy. This should be equal to voume for 1-2 mn worlds of Imperium. And the sector is defined in l.y. already, so we can guestimate worlds per sector... By the way, I'm back  |
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 7, 2004 1:23:30 GMT -5
So is this the place to ask why the subsectors don't fill the entire sector and seem to be squashed into tiny clusters of stars, what is the rest of the sector just empty space i'm finding that rather hard to swallow, wouldn't that have an effect on the number of stars/planets Oh and welcome back zholud you have a fair bit of catching up to do |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 7, 2004 13:25:56 GMT -5
If the systems of the Anargo sector have not yet been created, how is it possible to state a definitive number of 'worlds' within the sector!? So at present it is not possible to produce a definitive answer. And the production of a definitive answer is actually pointless...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 8, 2004 0:07:25 GMT -5
How so, you could say that about the whole project kage but thats not very helpful, It might only be acedemic but the more detail their is to the project the better it will be. Also you didn't answer my question why are the sub sectors tiny little specks compared to the actual sector itself whats the point in that, whats in the rest of the sector, we are supposedly in a fairly dense portion of the galaxy so the number of stars would be more than we have at the minute. |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 8, 2004 1:12:08 GMT -5
Afraid that I'm not quite sure whether that was a joking post, so I'll reply to it as if it was serious. How so, you could say that about the whole project kage but thats not very helpful, It might only be acedemic but the more detail their is to the project the better it will be. Erm, you do understand the point don't you? That as of yet the number of 'systems' in the Anargo sector have not be fully determined awaiting future submissions or detailing with the production of SRs? If the total number of systems has not, as of yet, been determined (ish; their are 'guestimates' but also people may be adding and/or changing these until a final subsector is determined) and those systems have not been generated, how is it possible to determine the number of 'worlds' within the sector? If each subsector had all the systems generated and the SRs produced, this would be a trivial calculation. Any number that I produce at this point would be subject to immediate change at any given point in the near future of the project. Consider Invictonberg. If we assume at the moment that it as an "accepted" then that's another system. But how many worlds in that system? What if it is a binary system? How many worlds in the other system if one assumes that there is actually something there worth colonising... That is why - self-evidently - it cannot at this point be done without imposing a specific number. Also you didn't answer my question why are the sub sectors tiny little specks compared to the actual sector itself whats the point in that... Sorry, I must have missed it or been surprised at the question itself. whats in the rest of the sector... You do realise, of course, that the 'temporary maps' only represent the important stars of the subsectors (and the odd interesting feature that I felt like adding in) and not the total stellar composition of the subsector. That stars aren't actually that big? That there are around 21,000 objects (stars, nebulae, lost planetoids, etc.) in the Anargo sector, it's just that they are at present 'unimportant' and therefore not represented? |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Aug 8, 2004 1:14:02 GMT -5
So is this the place to ask why the subsectors don't fill the entire sector and seem to be squashed into tiny clusters of stars, what is the rest of the sector just empty space i'm finding that rather hard to swallow, wouldn't that have an effect on the number of stars/planets There are several reasons – - Age of Strife micro-empires were limited by warp storms, so long routes were extremely dangerous. The Imperium just swallowed them.
- Easiness to monitor – if you have a large sub that actually borders another the patrol routes/defence are much harder to implement.
- Calculated jumps are the major way for traders and even now they don’t like to jump far because the risk is higher
- Sub-luminal travel, especially during warp-storms, similar reason to N1.
- Fluff from original space travel that indicated that subs are tiny clusters and there is a lot of wilderness space between them.
- suited for the ASP where we want to add some aliens or unexplored stuff.
- Main argument – Kage sayeth so
Oh and welcome back zholud you have a fair bit of catching up to do Thanks… what I have to catch up first? Kage, On importance/unimportance…. Oh dear boss, you misunderstood my question (or I did it with your answer). I ask you opinion on - How many world are per average sub-sector? Not in the ASP, your guesstimate for the wider picture… at least limits. Is it possible to have a sub with only one world, just a score of them, a hundred, a thousand?
- How many subs per average sector? One, five, fifty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 8, 2004 1:25:43 GMT -5
Ahh right now I see where your coming from, so to take that to its logical conclusion, if at some point all the SR's were done for a subsector you would then look at all the other stuff Right thanks Kage, Zholud you both cleared that up nicely for me lol all my stuff of course |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 8, 2004 1:31:55 GMT -5
You're talking generally and not with specific reference to the Anargo sector? That's an entirely different matter...
What is an average number of planets per sub-sector? No idea. Depends on the number of systems and the type of system (i.e. number of planetoids therein). If you work on the premise of around 1-10 'inhabited' systems per subsector, with an average of around 5-6 with each system having an average of around the same worlds then 25-30 sounds reasonable. Of course, do you count satellites, in which case this number could dramatically increase... If you did, then it would be feasible to up the number of 'worlds' up to 50-70.
Of course, this is using the Guide as a, well, guide and guestimating the 'average number of planets (note satellites' in systems thus far generated. To get 100 worlds you would need (ish) 20 inhabited star systems per subsector or, alternatively, increase the number of planets within a subsector to around 15! (Which is possible in certain star types... at least, again, according to the Guide.)
Basically it's a labelling exercise? What things do you label as a 'planet' and what do you not? Furthermore, what do you label as an Imperium planet and what do you not?
What is an average number of sub-sectors per sector? Again, too variable and dependent upon the location, density of appropriate stars and worlds within their systems... The 'fluff' seem sto work on, again, the 1-10 approach with 5-6 as average. This means that you do get to the '120 worlds' figure unless you monkey around with the number of stars/systems within a subsector or the number of planetoids within a system.
Are sectors really cubic? Yes. Why must the astrographic system be form fitting rather than an abstraction for purposes of mapping?
|
|
