|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 24, 2003 7:03:31 GMT -5
What is (again) the official percentage of hive-systems (or would that be more approriately hiveworlds? you never know given the 'fluff' - see zholud's question on quantification of the 'fluff' on Portent) in the Imperium again? The "hiveworld subsector" was conceptualised to create a focus for the hiveworlds in the Anargo sector, but that doesn't mean that every world will be a hiveworld... Nor does it mean that no hiveworlds will be present outside of the subsector. So, what were those numbers again. I wouldn't want someone going off half-cocked and end up creating 5+ hivesystems if this is deemed by project members to be inappropriate. All that work gone to waste (well, not truly but there we go)... Kage |
|
|
|
Post by ZoomDog on Dec 24, 2003 10:53:23 GMT -5
140,000 I think. According to the rulebook, the aggregate for Hive worlds is 1,400. The total aggregate for all the worlds is 10,000, so I'm assuming that it means that out of every 10,000 worlds, 1,400 are Hiveworlds. Which means in the million worlds of the Imperium, there's 140,000 Hive worlds. Seems quite unrealistic to me, but then again, they also say there's 100,000 Forge Worlds   |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Dec 24, 2003 15:04:41 GMT -5
140,000 I think. According to the rulebook, the aggregate for Hive worlds is 1,400. personally I prefer that aggregate in this case means 1,400 Hiveworlds, or 0.07% of total number of worlds. I just cannot imagine a lot of hives in stagnant Imperium, as it depicted. But the individual sectors have from zero (especially most borderline sectors) to 20 (Sol sector)… |
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 24, 2003 20:36:49 GMT -5
If there are 1400 hiveworlds in the Imperium, and 1000 forgeworlds... which sounds good, I admit... there would be 400 feudal worlds and 600 death worlds, which sounds like a very small number when you consider how many Imperial worlds there really are. It also means that there are a hell of a lot worlds that don't belong to any of the classes presented in the Worlds Of The Imperium article, which is unlikely. I think the question of how many hiveworlds there are in the Imperium is an impossibly difficult one (because of our limited knowledge of the Imperium, as well as the questionable realism of these numbers), so the best thing for the project would be to choose a number that we're comfortable with, whilst trying to safeguard ourselves from the most likely alternatives. For example, we know that there are seven hiveworlds in the Gothic sector, where there are two forgeworlds. We have two forgeworlds, so a number close to seven would be a safe bet, and it will save us the time of a lengthy discussion with a number of advanced calculations of theories. It's not as if we don't have anything better to do in this project. PS: Did anyone notice that one of the forgeworlds in the Gothic sector was called Zpandex? |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 26, 2003 19:46:29 GMT -5
I still cannot see the Imperium as static/stagnant, but rather homeostatic... A darned good suggestion! <sigh> Well, the lengthy discussion is where the fun happens. I've always felt that if GW could get it's act together and actually talk out the concepts then they wouldn't be in the conceptual mire that they are... With that said, this is definitely a reasonable solution to the problem. I would, however, personally ere on the side of the caution and suggestion less than seven hiveworlds... I'm sure that Aun'Aart'al/Shamus might ind find this a bit problematic but still... And, related to this, when do we mean worlds and when do we mean systems? Might seem an obvious question but thought that I would ask it anyway. Nope. That would require access to that product... but it really doesn't surprise me.  Kage |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Dec 27, 2003 8:37:35 GMT -5
PS: Did anyone notice that one of the forgeworlds in the Gothic sector was called Zpandex? Could you answer on what is the joke in it?! I don’t get it  |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 27, 2003 11:27:45 GMT -5
Could you answer on what is the joke in it?! I don’t get it Spandex is, I believe, a material related (or is in fact the material) to lycra. It's basically a highly-stretchable material. If you've seen X-Men they make another reference to it when Wolverine comments on the black uniforms, saying "You guys actually go out in these!"? Cyclops quips back: "What would you prefer? Yellow spandex?" in reference to the tight, form-fitting yellow uniform he had in the comics. A remarkably OffT comment... Kage |
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 27, 2003 17:42:47 GMT -5
Yes, less than seven sounds reasonable. But definitely more than one. Now to find a good compromise. Hmmm.... (1+7)/2=4. How about four? Yes, it's very apelogic, but I feel that it's as good a number as any considering the fact that we're basically throwing away GWs unrealistic number whilst trying not to deviate too much from the fluff. As with the orks, we do have to accept some situations in 40k that we're not overly happy about if we want this Project to be of use to people, so I feel it would be wrong to go with one or two. I'm sure that Aun'Aart'al/Shamus might find find this a bit problematic but still...  Probably. How many hiveworlds are actually taken anyway? Not counting that Shamus wanted three or four, and that several people have shown varying interest in taking one. We have Meksum 1 from zholud, and Shamus almost finishing doing the numbers for one more... anything else? And, related to this, when do we mean worlds and when do we mean systems? Might seem an obvious question but thought that I would ask it anyway. Hypothetically, I don't see anything wrong with more than one hiveworlds in one system, but I still think four hive worlds is a reasonable number for the entire sector. |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 27, 2003 21:12:45 GMT -5
Yes, less than seven sounds reasonable. But definitely more than one. Now to find a good compromise. Hmmm.... (1+7)/2=4. How about four? At the moment it would seem to put the upper cap of seven and just leave it at that... see what people - including zholud! - have to say on the matter... How many hiveworlds are actually taken anyway? Not counting Shamus' desire to make oodles of hiveworlds? One, including one other for Shamus. So nothing else at the moment... Hypothetically, I don't see anything wrong with more than one hiveworlds in one system, but I still think four hive worlds is a reasonable number for the entire sector. Given the tendency of GW 'fluff' to attribute a great deal of 'economic significance' to hiveworlds in terms of import, having more than one per system would, for me, be pushing things... Kage |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Dec 28, 2003 7:51:49 GMT -5
o.k. my quick post optimal number is 4 or 5, 3 of them already done my me and Shamus, and 1 or 2 as a safe additional to a list if someone will want to do only Hiveworld. General premise is one Hiveworld per sub-sector i.e. per hundred of imperial worlds. Remember, we are at well established sector, not on fringe… |
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Dec 29, 2003 6:40:15 GMT -5
Per hundred Imperial worlds?  Erm, zholud, I don't know about the Meksum subsector, but the Proteus subsector will probably have less than 10 imperial worlds all told. With six subsectors in the anargo sector, I'm not sure we'll have a hundred worlds in the entire sector! |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Dec 29, 2003 15:07:46 GMT -5
Per hundred Imperial worlds? Erm, zholud, I don't know about the Meksum subsector, but the Proteus subsector will probably have less than 10 imperial worlds all told. With six subsectors in the anargo sector, I'm not sure we'll have a hundred worlds in the entire sector! This is a vague part of GW writings: BFG states 200 l.y. cub = sector; 10-20 l.y. cub is sub-sector; sub-sector=1-20 imperial planets. Dan Abnett (who errs on constant basis ) states 1 sector = 7 subs with ~100 planets each. Now chose the truth. When ASP started I warned Kage that sector equals to roughly thousand world... |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 30, 2003 8:08:24 GMT -5
I think that people are going to have to be careful here since it is entirely possible that the seed of antagonism could be sown here. So let me state the following as a general guideline: An Imperial system is defined as any system which contains an Imperial presence. This makes no reference to the number of worlds within that system. An Imperial world is a planetoid within an Imperial system which may or may not be inhabited. Thus, the Anargo capital system is an Imperial system. It has two 'sub-systems', admittedly, but still only really counts as one system for the purposes of the project. In this system there are a total of, erm, IIRC 28 planetoid bodies and excluding the 3 planetoid belts (this number consists of 16 satellites/moons, out of interest). Of these worlds 10 are inhabited (and 3 of those are satellites/moons). Since they are within an Imperial system they are all considered to be Imperial worlds. Let me half this number of 28 and stick with 14 Imperial 'worlds' for the Anargo system. Expand this to five other 'systems' and we get 70 Imperial worlds within the Anargo subsector. That's just counting worlds that are within Imperial systems. Technicaly all systems within a subsector are Imperial territory even if undeveloped... Six subsectors could therefore lead to approximately ~200 'Imperial worlds'. Extend that to the volume/territory argument and you could be dealing with thousands. Now expand that to the astrographic concept of the sector. We have 21,000 systems of which 16,000 (ish) have planetary bodies. Now you've got you 80,000 worlds using the above figure although, self-evidently, not all of these are Imperial. Just a small fraction and a smaller fraction which might be considered truly Imperial... In other words, let us not go overboard on such statements in the 'fluff'. There is a great deal of lattitude in the GW constructed 'fluff' so let us not get mired down. Returning once more to the question of a hiveworld... No, let us refer to this as a 'hive system' meaning that there is at least one hiveworld within that system. The question might be best couched as to whether it is feasible to have more than one hiveworld within a system? I'd say that the answer is self-evidently yes, but that such a system is going to have a severe impact upon trade and tithe redistribution in the area. Sol (i.e. Terra/Mars) is one example of this economic black hole... Again, as with Extended System Generation and World Building, let us use the statistics as a guideline. That inclues the occassional and somewhat dubious attempts by GW to introduce 'statistics'. It cannot be escaped from the fact that the ASP will have to be an act of interpretation, otherwise there will be no foundation upon which to build, the 'fluff' being so fluid. Kage |
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Dec 30, 2003 16:26:55 GMT -5
Out of 16,000 systems with 1+ planets only 0.5% are inhabited systems with around 1.5 worlds per system giving us 1,200 inhabited imperial planets. Do you agree roughly on such math?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 31, 2003 3:08:40 GMT -5
No. There are only 166 systems within the Anargo sector that might be thought of as Imperial, i.e. all those within the 3 parsec 'diameter' of a central world of a defined subsector. Not all of these are inhabited, but if they were that would be - by your value of 1.5 - 250 Imperial worlds. As to your maths, above. 16,000x0.005 (0.5%) = 80, which in turn 80x1.5 = 120. Which when one takes into account the number of uninhabited worlds might be about right for the Anargo sector. So, no, I don't with the maths at this point. Furthermore as one can see sometimes they're not entirely appropriate... Kage |
|
Probably.
Erm, zholud, I don't know about the Meksum subsector, but the Proteus subsector will probably have less than 10 imperial worlds all told. With six subsectors in the anargo sector, I'm not sure we'll have a hundred worlds in the entire sector!