Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument

It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?

Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:In short the IOM is exactly how the designers wanted it to be in order to have a tabletop WAR game not a tabletop diplomacy game.

Oh, so they wanted a fairly stupid game with unbalanced rules and poorly planned fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Seric wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?

So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)

Yes, while also producing evidence for my claims and backing them up with facts. Also, I used to play 40k, waste of money that was, I now only use the models I have and the books that I can get for free. Inow have much more fun proxying and playing whatever I want to try.

Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.

but he is playing it still. Just his version of it anyways

Commisar Wolfie wrote:I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"

I've cited my sources actually and if you dispute any specific point on the grounds that it isn't factually accurate then call me on it and I'll find the citations. Also, GW has ran in the red more than a few times the past few years, hence the cutting stores and raising prices. They have a player base, but it's kids with spending cash and people with too much free time and money and both are shrinking classes of people.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:I'm pretty sure you just proved Seric's point. Well done. And seeing how no game is perfect 40K is fine. Plenty of people still enjoy it since they are still putting out updates and sites like this are still around so I guess GW is doiing something right. Or do you want me to search google scholar to find you some facts that I may or maynot have twisted/made-up to try and prove my point. Also all of your "facts" have been provided by nothing more then you saying it and not with any evidence of where or how you came to these "facts"

I've cited my sources actually and if you dispute any specific point on the grounds that it isn't factually accurate then call me on it and I'll find the citations. Also, GW has ran in the red more than a few times the past few years, hence the cutting stores and raising prices. They have a player base, but it's kids with spending cash and people with too much free time and money and both are shrinking classes of people.

Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money

REally. too much free time and money? I play and have been playing. I started while serving in the navy on board a submarine. Guess how much free time I had? Not much, I had about every other saturday free in which to play, build, paint. Too much money? I think not Im still playing while now only having scholarship money from my GI Bill so I don't buy very much new stuff and actually most of my new stuff is from trades. And your citations I really haven't seen any. Do I feel like dredging through all your hate to search for the few kernals of what may be true. No I don't unfortuantly for you im not really into causing myself pain. If you really have so much hate for the game why don't you just leave since you really are not contributing anything useful to any conversation.

Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.

No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.

If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.

Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.

Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money

Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.

ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
all hobbies are for free time, it is called free time because you can do what you want during it. and what hobby does not take time?

Commisar Wolfie wrote:REally. too much free time and money? I play and have been playing. I started while serving in the navy on board a submarine. Guess how much free time I had? Not much, I had about every other saturday free in which to play, build, paint. Too much money? I think not Im still playing while now only having scholarship money from my GI Bill so I don't buy very much new stuff and actually most of my new stuff is from trades. And your citations I really haven't seen any. Do I feel like dredging through all your hate to search for the few kernals of what may be true. No I don't unfortuantly for you im not really into causing myself pain. If you really have so much hate for the game why don't you just leave since you really are not contributing anything useful to any conversation.

Oh wow, a really navy vet! Of course you played a time consuming game, what else were you going to do on the ship? I know they're better these days, but activity choices tend to be limited shipside, submarines are even worse.

You must not look at my posts very hard. You claim that my posts are made up and that I twist facts. Back it up by showing where I've done so or back off.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.

No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.

If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.

Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.

Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money

Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.

It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.

Bully, hardly, a person who enjoys debate and expects people to post sources. Certainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Seric wrote:It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.

Pick a specific claim and I'll drown you in sources.

Actually you might want to re-read my post. At no point did i say i played on ship, because i never did. 1)subs are to small to be able to play a game 2)not nearly enough free time to play a game 3)plenty of work to be done to allow a game like 40K to played while onboard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ya, so far all of your debate tactics are more appropriate to a bully. you take yourself way to serious. this particular forum is meant to be more on the fun side. you however turn every topic into a debate and anyone who dares to disagree with you opinion you turn around and try to blast them and your pretty quick to turn to insults.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Actually you might want to re-read my post. At no point did i say i played on ship, because i never did. 1)subs are to small to be able to play a game 2)not nearly enough free time to play a game 3)plenty of work to be done to allow a game like 40K to played while onboard.

I know the boys on the ground play in theater, and I bet the guys on nicer posts like carriers can play on ship. You kinda got the shaft.

Ya, so far all of your debate tactics are more appropriate to a bully. you take yourself way to serious. this particular forum is meant to be more on the fun side. you however turn every topic into a debate and anyone who dares to disagree with you opinion you turn around and try to blast them and your pretty quick to turn to insults.

Calling for sources is being a bully? Sourcing my own posts and doing research isn't fun now? Oh, and it's hard not to insult people who can't capitalize words like we were taught in grade school when text is the communications medium. It's like mumbling, people consider it rude.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:Not satisfied. You still didn't answer my question and saying same stuff over again for every argument. It might be easier to build stuff in space, but the point was gathering resources is cheaper and easier on a planet. Their are ways to make these things in space which you said earlier, but not on the scale needed to support the entire population of the IOM. This is why I suggested a combination of the idea with the military based in space stations and civilians farm the planet for resources. I'm not sure what you mean by fitting the entire population of a planet in Beijing, maybe just communication error.

No it isn't. Take fossil fuels for instance and the damage they're doing on Earth, if you had a space based infrastructure you could mine all the energy you could want from Titan with no risk of harm to people or food stocks if a spill were to happen. Setting it up would have a high starting cost given that we can't even build ships in space yet, but if we could then you could build tankers that would make the Emma Maersk look like a toy and that could nearly for free due to burning the now plentiful Methane and then drifting the rest of the way. No crew is even needed as we've shown that robots can pilot advanced courses, setting up an unmanned mining post is harder, but by the time we are able to exploit those resources that won't be an issue.

If you did some basic math for my earlier population density numbers you would see that I pegged them at 2,000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. Beijing has a population density of roughly 1,000 people per 0.14 cubic meters if you take the population density per square kilometer and then take the average building height in the city.

Your answer does not explain why you post so heavily in the Warhammer 40k section if you dislike it so much and have stopped playing it.

Why not, beating up people who can't even cite real sources is too easy to pass up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nicholas wrote:Aren't hobbies for people with free time and money

Not all of them, most take time, not all need to take money.

Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.

Actually I voluntered for that duty. As to playing on ship it might work but i kinda doubt you could really find enough space to play anything much more then kill teams. I don't know for sure though since i never was stationed to a carrier.

So not using capital letters are rude? how is being a condescinding, arrogant, prick not being rude. You say you do all this research but yet most of your stuff does not cite anything at all. Plus your so called researched material comes pretty quick back to back to be properly researched.

Nicholas wrote:Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.

So, why use the planet at all when it really has very few advantages over a space habitat? Sorry, most moons are trapped debris from the formation of the solar system. Unless you think sending an asteroid into Saturn will net you rocks now?

As for cost, to leave your home planet you need a good space infrastructure anyway, once you have that why bother landing again? I question the need for an agriworld when high density hydroponics and waste recycling should cover them easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:So not using capital letters are rude? how is being a condescinding, arrogant, prick not being rude. You say you do all this research but yet most of your stuff does not cite anything at all. Plus your so called researched material comes pretty quick back to back to be properly researched.

Yes, typing like a slob is rude. We learned these skills in grade school so please use them. Also, when did I say I wasn't rude?

If you doubt me then ask me to cite a claim I've made. If not, sit down and be silent.

Why should I sit down and be silent. why don't you do your research and prove to me why I should. I tell you what I'll give 24 hours to come up with a good arguement and plenty of your "sources" to prove it too. And I doubt all of your so called facts. So far the only facts that you have bothered to say where you got your information from was so you could insult someone else. Otherwise nothing else has been cited. There is your challange, meet it or sit down and shut up.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:Remember my entire idea was to use both moon and planet. There are definitely more resource on the entire planet compared to a moon, which are usually a small piece broken off the planet, and the moon or station is probably more defendable. Why even take the expensive start up cost if you can get the resources you want much easier on the planet your already on. Also remember that most world in the IOM are specialized like forgeworlds or agriworlds so the ones that grow the food burn almost no fossil fuels if they even use them. The world that do burn them, forge worlds and hive worlds mostly, either don't care because the work force is mostly servitors or have forms of environmental control.

So, why use the planet at all when it really has very few advantages over a space habitat? Sorry, most moons are trapped debris from the formation of the solar system. Unless you think sending an asteroid into Saturn will net you rocks now?

As for cost, to leave your home planet you need a good space infrastructure anyway, once you have that why bother landing again? I question the need for an agriworld when high density hydroponics and waste recycling should cover them easy.

Your saying that hydroponics on a small moon would be able to out produce an entire planet that produces crops for itself and most planets near it. The planet has tons more resource than that small moon and recycling only goes so far. This argument could really be situational too as every planet and moon is formed differently with different resources, but I guarantee the majority of planets have more resource that are easier to acess than any of their moons

Canadian 5th wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:ah so you admit to the only reason for you posting in what is supposed to be a fun forum is so that you can be nothing more then an arrogant jerk. you got beat up a lot as child didn't you, you brave little internet bully.

Bully, hardly, a person who enjoys debate and expects people to post sources. Certainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Seric wrote:It's funny you say that, I have not scene you site any sources for your space argument, and you have made some claims about real world things in it with no proof.

Pick a specific claim and I'll drown you in sources.

Ok, who's to say that living on moons would mean there are more resources than on the planet? Also is it possible to have extensive enough hydroponics on a asteroid to replace a world meant for farming? I would like to see specific sources proving these, as so far your entire argument for this has been these main points with a few known facts thrown in as secondary.

Also your whole space argument is off topic, as this is a thread about the IG's strategy and tactics, not a discussion on how the role of the IG would change if everything was based in space.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Why should I sit down and be silent. why don't you do your research and prove to me why I should. I tell you what I'll give 24 hours to come up with a good arguement and plenty of your "sources" to prove it too. And I doubt all of your so called facts. So far the only facts that you have bothered to say where you got your information from was so you could insult someone else. Otherwise nothing else has been cited. There is your challange, meet it or sit down and shut up.

Oh, the sailor who can't type is calling me out because he doesn't have the balls to pick a real claim I've made to challenge. Piss off.

Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?

He didn't answer me at all...

And I did make a real claim or is all your "facts" to much for you to quickly find "sources" that agree with what you said to hard. And I'm not the only one to call you out. And since you said I didn't pick a real claim, I take it then that none of your claims are real.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Seric wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?

He didn't answer me at all...

Thats because he failed to rise up to mine so he couldn't even come close to meeting your challange.

Nicholas wrote:Your saying that hydroponics on a small moon would be able to out produce an entire planet that produces crops for itself and most planets near it. The planet has tons more resource than that small moon and recycling only goes so far. This argument could really be situational too as every planet and moon is formed differently with different resources, but I guarantee the majority of planets have more resource that are easier to acess than any of their moons

I've shown that Ceres, an object smaller than our moon can hold 21 billion people and enough space for food production. You see three habitats holding 870,000ish people and one smaller habitat around half as large as any single one of those can be made with the material that modern Earth mines in a year. When you replace digging for ore with blast apart a rock in space and sucking in the bits for smelting you can do this much faster. However we're not talking about mining, we're talking about feeding people. For that we need to look at hydroponics.

"Trials conducted by Cornell University's Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Commercial-Scale Lettuce Production Prototype has achieved soil-free lettuce yields equivalent to 470 tons (almost a million pounds) per acre. By comparison, typical production in California using traditional field agriculture is currently about 20 tons per acre."

So at minimum we can get 470 tons of produce of this type per acre. Just the surface of the inside of a cylinder 1km in diameter by 5 km in length is 3881 acres. So just that is 1,824,070 tons of food for just over 2.6 million people. Now consider that even giving three meters between layers you could have many concentric layers and that number rises by many many times as you can pack in 125 layers of 4m each with each getting smaller, so say you get 75x what that single layer can has for 291,075 acres, then say that you get roughly 100 tons per acre instead of 470 tons, you still get 29,107,500 tons of food, or 11 tons of food per person. Thus space isn't an issue.

Could water be the issue then? Nope, not when hydrogen is common and so is oxygen. That also solves air as water = air and air = water. Heck comets even come to you and most asteroids and even our own barren moon have water on them in large amounts.

So if space, food, and materials aren't an issue what might be? Power, nope solar energy works better in space and given that a 17km ship can produce petaton scale shots energy density can't be the issue. There try to follow that act.

Finally you actually showed some citation, congratulations. Now that only shows for lettuce what about other foods such as potato or carrots or corn. What do propose for protein. Also recycling air is not perfect and people contaminate it. I know for a fact that on a submarine even having an O2 recycle system could not stay under for an indefinte amount of time (that is not even taking other supplies into account), we are talking a small amount of people and let's say roughly a month was the most before the air started to have to little actual O2 in it for the purposes of working in that environment.

General Seric wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?

He didn't answer me at all...

Sorry, busy typing. My response above should answer your questions.

Also on such a "moon" the materials for production uses are finite, less then what would be found on an earth or planet. So why should the IOM give up those resources?

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Finally you actually showed some citation, congratulations. Now that only shows for lettuce what about other foods such as potato or carrots or corn. What do propose for protein. Also recycling air is not perfect and people contaminate it. I know for a fact that on a submarine even having an O2 recycle system could not stay under for an indefinte amount of time (that is not even taking other supplies into account), we are talking a small amount of people and let's say roughly a month was the most before the air started to have to little actual O2 in it for the purposes of working in that environment.

You'll note where I scaled down the production per acre by 4.7 times. That's assuming that other things grow much worse than lettuce, when potatoes have been able to feed more people per acre through out history.

Oh protein is even easier given that you can get it from things like soy beans. We can also make meat that is fine to eat, by recycling human waste, Japan has just done it. Air is also recycled by plants and while you will lose some, you can just bring in more from the nearest ice bearing lump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Im sorry the challange to hard for you to prove?

No just pointless as you have no actual counter argument for me.

Your above response does not provide evidence for anything more then that they could provide x amount of lettuce. Keep trying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wasn't going for a counter arguement i was asking for evidence of your "facts"

Again those sources are finite which would then mean that they can be used up. So what do you propose to do once that happens.