PDA

View Full Version : Imp Scholar



Andrw
26 March 2002, 05:09 PM
Ok i was wondering wasnt it something like in a Imperial Sector 50 habital planets per sector but you could increase your sector to up to around 100 habital planets if your the (grand) moff of the sector. If so that would make 50 habital planets per sector say about 25billion beings on the capital world and the surrounding space about another 10 major planets with 15 billion people and say 25 planets with aound 7 billion (these planets probably recently habited) people and say the remaining 14 planets with what 3 billion people to make an average sector of around a population of 392 billion living beings. Correct me if this seems wrong or IS wrong But if a sector did have these populations then the planets could be able to in a time of war be able to make hundreds? of Star Destroyers. That seems reasonable dont you think. Our planet if we where in the space- age equal to the Star Wars Universe could be able to make many Star Destroyers using resources from our neighboring planets and moons and our own planet. Also if im correct in WW2 in 1943? the United States made an amazing 100,000 air craft in i think 7 months? If say a TIE Fighter was equivelant to 10 airplanes of our day and a planet would still be able to make 10,000 TIEs in only a samll continent of a planet. Now if this is amking sense to anyone dont u think a sector could make huge masses of space forces

What do u think a sector is capable of

P.S. a habitable planet is 1 in about 1000 so a sector would have around 50,000 unhabital planets full of resources
Ok if my imperial teachings do not fail me and id hope not isnt a regular imperial Sector consisting of 50 habitable planets and around 50,000 unhabitable planets (chances of habitable planet supposably 1 in a 1000) And say each planet in this space-age contains a very low death-rate to a very high-birth rate because of medicines and ect. and the many thousands of years the habitable planets have been migrated for or already sustained i say many Star Wars planets contain very high populations. Now lets say an average sector has a capital world with a population of 40 billion on the planet and its in the surrounding space. This sounds reasonable dont you think...
Ok lets also say that they is also 10 major planets with heavy populations of 28billion.
Also then 20 medium population planets with 16billion population
Then say 12 planets that where recently migrated to but still have high populations compared to our earth of say 5billion
Then lasts the last 7 planets are low-populated for various reasons, planets only populated for scouts, personal owned planets, and ect. having only on average 1.5million.
Now that sounds fair of the planets dont you agree
Well if this is true an average sector having over 640billion people per sector
It may seem impossible for 640billion people to be sustained by only 50 planets. So here is a conclusion:
this inner rim sector must live off of outer rim planets whose vast food/farming complexes must sustain the inner population. or because of technology of the SW universe they could have quite a few inventions to feed these high population planets including closely packed farming products, bioengineering including the ability to grow faster, space stations full of farming complexes.
So we could say that 640billion people can be sustained on these planets now for the production matter.
I beleive that the Star Wars universewould put heavy amounts of of their resources to building military weapons. I beleive that in this state of Galactic Cival War that planets economy would be the military productions.
And if this high of population depending mostly on military power for its economy then the productions of a sector would be incredible each planet dishing out TIE Fighters by the hundreds or thousands and Star Destroyers at its lowest one per month.

Dont you agree the many sectors in the SW universe would create huge amounts of military power
Please leave your opinions


Edit: text from thread with same name pasted in

darth maim
26 March 2002, 08:45 PM
In order for this to even be a possibility you'd need access to the resources, people with the know how to use them and the money to pull such a feat off. The resources alone will not do it.

Deck
27 March 2002, 12:45 AM
Correct. Resources are the big deal. Not only are they rare, they are expensive and difficult to mine, too. So you would need lots of people to mine the sources, to sihp them, to refine them etc. Furthermore, construction facilities are difficult to manufacture themselves, and are pretty expensive. Another fact is that you haven't already a complete ISD only having enough ores. There need to be special pieces of equipment such as power generators etc. And Turbolasers are strictly controled by the Empire. Of course I'd love to see many ISDs still out there... ;)

Chris Curtis
27 March 2002, 06:53 AM
I also have to say that I think your estimates for planetary populations bight be a little optimistic. With the exception of Coruscant, none of the planets we've seen in the movies have had anything resembling a large planetary population.

Some planets from other sources seem more along the lines of Coruscant in that they have very large populations. However, I think that planets like these are probably closer to the exception than the rule. I'd personally say that the majority of planets would have populations in the hundreds of millions instead of multiple billion range. Only the oldest/most important/most heavily settled planets would probably have populations in the tens of billions.

Now, many people would argue that since SW has had a spacefaring society for thousands of years, that they've had plenty of time to settle worlds and populate them. This is certainly rue to some extent. However, I would also argue that because they've been in space for so long and they've been exploring and colonizing new planets, that poplations would tend to grow much slower on worlds simply due to the fact that so many people would emigrate off planet.

darth maim
27 March 2002, 09:32 AM
Let's not forget that a good deal of the resources available will be used up by these billions and billions of people. Also trade between planets could be tough. I mean we have resources onearth to do a lot but we use them for other things and have a hell of a time getting them from other countries let alone other planets of people.

Emperor Xanderich II
29 March 2002, 11:16 AM
I think the figure of 1 inhabited planets in a 1000 is too high. Aliens who can live on more hospitable planets probably won't 'breed' as much as humans. And the humans will onlt be able to live on very few in any great number.

The Admiral
31 March 2002, 08:29 AM
On a contrary note to Emp Xan, 1:1000 is, IMHO, too low.

If you take the galaxy as a disc of stars 100,000 light years in diameter (SW:RPG 2nd Ed R&E) and the usual quoted 'thousand thousand worlds' of the Galactic Empire, then, assuming comparable star density to the Milky Way, the ratio is approximately 1:204,082

Ok I was wondering wasn’t it something like in a Imperial Sector 50 habitable planets per sector but you could increase your sector to up to around 100 habitable planets if your the (grand) Moff of the sector.
The original definition of a Sector under the old Republic was an area of space containing 50 inhabited systems. Some Sectors have grown as a result of colonisation within their borders, or as a result of exploration. Moffs cannot choose the number of worlds in their sector.
You may be referring to the practise of creating priority sectors, (or oversectors) which are an area of space deemed of special interest to the Empire. These Sectors can be of almost any size, and include two or more normal sectors. The priority sectors were temporary, established only as long as the area remained of special interest. Priority Sectors were the purview of Grand Moffs (Grand Moffs did not exist before the practise started, and they have no other role than to control priority sectors.) Normal sectors are led by Moffs.


And say each planet in this space-age contains a very low death-rate to a very high-birth rate because of medicines and etc, and the many thousands of years the habitable planets have been migrated for or already sustained I say many Star Wars planets contain very high populations.
Whilst it's certainly true that some SW planets have high populations, this is certainly not true of most. What I think you may be missing, is (as others have pointed out) that a population cannot grow beyond the resources required to sustain life. As a model, consider that this planet has around 5 billion human inhabitants, and we will very soon have depleted many of our available resources. Even if many Star Wars worlds are able to ship in resources in excess of those produced locally, that still requires other worlds to produce resources for consumption. That in turn means those production worlds would have to have commensurately low populations in order to be able to produce said resources. As an example, a world with 40 billion inhabitants would need (roughly) sixteen worlds with a population closer to two billion, that ONLY produce resources for their own population, and the forty billion world. A world with fifteen billion inhabitants would need (roughly) six such worlds.


a sector would have around 50,000 uninhabitable planets full of resources
That is a very debateable point. If by resources you mean raw materials, minerals and metals, then yes, probably. However, the main resources required to sustain a population are air, food and water. A planet which has an abundance of air food and water would most likely also be perfectly habitable. Also, even for minerals and metals, you would still require the planet to be inhabited. Inhabiting and uninhabitable world is an oxymoron.

this inner rim sector must live off of outer rim planets whose vast food/farming complexes must sustain the inner population. or because of technology of the SW universe they could have quite a few inventions to feed these high population planets including closely packed farming products, bioengineering including the ability to grow faster, space stations full of farming complexes.
Whilst I'd certainly agree that the high technology of the Star Wars universe could be argued to dramatically increase production, the kind of logistics required to simply move these resources would be staggering. I mean staggering to the point of impossibility.

I see basically two theoretical models for most worlds.

1: Your model: Populations expand to gargantuan proportions over a long time with increased longevity, and to support those populations virtually every system in the known galaxy does nothing but produce resources for those worlds, and the incredible infrastructure to do the supplying.

2: My model: The majority of worlds are largely self-sufficient. As in concordance with pretty much every organic species on this planet; populations that grow in size beyond the capability of their territory to support them do one of three basic options;

A: Maintain a static population below the resources threshold. (This is China's solution. Also, due to de-forestation, there are reports that Chimpanzee colonies have been experiencing a higher rate of violence, especially at new-borns, often resulting in death.)
B: Divide the group, and relocate to another area. (Most grazing herbivores are known to do this)
C: Aggressively seize territory from another group, usually ensuring that quite a lot of the other group perish. (Both pack predators and apes do this quite often.)

Rouge8
31 March 2002, 11:09 AM
Wow! You guys are good at this. I think maybe that there can be anywhere from 25 to all the planets in the sector that are habitable.