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.

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

It was an easy source to find, also potatoes and tomatoes are already grown at high density in hot houses. You'll also notice that I divide that 470 tons by 4.7 times to account for things that won't grow that densely.

Here's a source for hydroponic wheat. A bit of a read though.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900009537_1990009537.pdf

I wasn't going for a counter arguement i was asking for evidence of your "facts"

Then point out a specific fact that you want a source for? When others aren't sourcing anything I'm not going to source everything.

Well if you aren't going to source anything then you have no right to cry when people don't source anything nor can you demand sources from people when you yourself are refusing to provide that very thing. So far your entire arguement is holding everyone else to a different standard then what you yourself hold to. Why should I limit myself to just one fact when I asked for each one? Also again I am not the only person to have called you out on these things either. And yes i grant you that you did make a few alterations to your math to try and account for some things however your basing your math on a vegetable that was grown which does not have very much nutritional value to it. Which is why I asked about other plants as well. In order to maintain health you need a varity of different vegetables and fruits. That question was to further the discussion.

Sorry, I sourced the Japan issue, the Serbian education standards side issue, the hydroponics and habitats issue. Japan surrendering to the atom bombs is common knowledge. As is the 6 days wars, Iraq, and the Falklands.

I explained clearly why trench warfare is stupid and cited my source for it being able to stall the guards advance. So please, what didn't I source again?

You only cited one peice for the Japanese nuclear program, you cited you personal attack on another member, you did cite your hydroponics which I did agree you did, you did not really cite your habitats issue. Also with trench warfare it was stated by several people that you ignored (apparently because they disagreed with you) that trench warfare was not the only type of warfare the IG were capable of. Which you also did not cite at all but simply gave your opinion of. So you did cite a couple of things but barely your entire arguements.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:You only cited one peice for the Japanese nuclear program, you cited you personal attack on another member, you did cite your hydroponics which I did agree you did, you did not really cite your habitats issue. Also with trench warfare it was stated by several people that you ignored (apparently because they disagreed with you) that trench warfare was not the only type of warfare the IG were capable of. Which you also did not cite at all but simply gave your opinion of. So you did cite a couple of things but barely your entire arguements.

I didn't need to cite that they didn't have a program, can't prove a negative. Others would need to show that they had one worth worrying over.

Ceres masses 9.43 ± 0.07×1020 kg, a habitat little enough that you can build roughly 2523 habitats with a food base for every three habitats if as little as 0.1% of Ceres is usable to build with.

I showed why trench warfare was bad, and then skipped the rest of the way the guard fight because I made the assertion that they are stupid for fighting over planets at all.

Strategy? Possibly.

Strategery? Definitely.

and why is fighting over planets bad when they do hold resources, which if the IOM did not take then their enemies would. Also as I stated planets would hold more resources then any moon or other such heavenly body and seeing how the imperium can not make something from nothing they need those resources. Which then means they have to fight over planes, which then also means that in some circumstances they may have to resort to trench warfare.

Your assumption that all your "common knowledge" facts are actually common knowledge are misplaced considering that this forum site has members of various ages which means it is very possible for some people to not know everything that you are calling common knowledge. Which then means if you want your facts to actually be facts then you need to back them up with the evidence that you keep crying that nobody else is using.

All I can say is:

I wouldn't live in space, because moving the Dark Age of Technology gak up into space might break it, and it's already on the planets.

AND:

It's fictional. It doesn't make sense. So stop trying to make sense of it, and bring it around to:

IMPERIAL GUARD STRATEGIES!

About which I will say they are as diverse as the regiments that employ them.

Indeed. What is needed is for the BL authors to include a few more instances of different types of warfare then the standard trench and it's equalivents. Maybe some stories that have the Elysians or more tallaran and such. Just something more showing them employing more strats.

I like Canadian 5ths concept of orbital industry, makes sense vs a solid target like a forgeworld. Could help the hell out of ongoing campaigns by "moving" the forge to the front lines.

Could also go bad too though, a single fleet battle lost could cripple industry and cost thousands of conflicts.

I'm tired, so if that was someone else's idea kudos!

Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.

The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.

Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.

This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.

The same thing done for Canada looks like this:

Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD

There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.

Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.

Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.

Ok now this is insulting. And I don't get were did you find that data, it's years old. We have improved now, we are still at the near bottom for a way of life and all that - but it\n not that bad. People can take credits again, go without visa into EU, we are scheduled to enter EU in 2014-2015. Now, our politicians are bunch of greedy people ( they are spending so much that they put 60% tax on fuel ) and we have slight problem with nationalism ( more then any other country ). But it's not that bad.
On the other hand, it's common knowledge about Canada here that your country is 80% non-populated because of harsh environment. And you are speaking about our and your economy? Country that is 5x bigger then ours with gakload of resources with Serbia who is small, have few resources and get trough 3 wars during the 90-is?
Maybe we suck in some things, but we are great in others: tourism, great country to go out in the city and sport ( just see tennis ).

We also rank 3rd in education standards, Serbia isn't ranked, the US is ranked 14th, and Germany is 16th. So when people from countries with world class institutions tell you wiki isn't valid, you should listen. Your country could use the help. I notice a lack of Serbian schools in the top hundred universities list as well...

Our student's from School of Electrical engineering are one of the best in the world in that area, and wanted everywhere. And what's your point? That we never donated anything to world improvement? See Nikola Tesla... And of course our university's are not in top 100 when you ruin half of the during 1999 bombing. And on a side note, every man that lives here and goes into USA or Canada or EU to study said that "studding there is 10x easier than here, because they have 10x less theory to study"
But I will drop now, there is no need to get this thread locked down, and plese - don't insult other countries no matter the size or the culture... it's just rude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

The true and source-full definition of Canadian 5'th: DELETED BY MODERATOR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

21 billion people? What, you get out there and measure it? We can't even go beyond our moon and we are talking about some dwarf planet that is between Mars and Jupiter? Well let me tell you something, theory is one thing and practical thing is something uterlly different. Those numbers up there are good, but they don't mean anything because we can't even get there and what country will invest into something like that? So your argument is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:Indeed. What is needed is for the BL authors to include a few more instances of different types of warfare then the standard trench and it's equalivents. Maybe some stories that have the Elysians or more tallaran and such. Just something more showing them employing more strats.

Maybe that was the point with them. Made several different Imperial Guard who will take use of certain strategy. ( Like Blood Angels and Templars using CC and Space Wolves using powerful range attacks ).

Canadian 5th wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?

The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.

The Viet Cong was in South Vietnam. And it was more of a matter of not knowing where the tunnels were, rather than not being able to damage them. And of course the US came off better in pitched battles, but even though they were the winner of almost every major engagement they lost the war by a mile.

The bombing campaign in North Vietnam and bordering countries was furious and unrestricted, and the US still lost. In fact, not only did the bombing fail to stop the flow of supplies and troops pouring into South Vietnam or destroy NV's infrastructure, it didn't even slow it (traffic reportedly increased as the war went on). I don't see how you can spin this case of glaring air superiority doing sod all into something that helps your argument.

I've also already shown that one object smaller than our moon can create enough habitats to house 21.7 billion people and provide food for them.

21.7 billion as opposed to, say, Trillions? Or hundreds of billions at the least. Why would the Imperium leave the natural resources of those planet, many completely capable of supporting life on their own, and go asteroid-hunting? It's not like asteroids are a treasure trove of resources (unless you've been playing SoaSE for too long).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

They see him trollin', they hatin'...

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.

You must be such a joy to play against!

As I said before the Imperium can easily use both to their advantage by hosting a military fortress on the moon while still using the planet. Someone would have to take out the heavily defended moon base first or be sitting ducks on the planet below.

Well this is pretty far off-topic...

iproxtaco wrote:^Correct. Guard tactics, which are often trench warfare, weight of firepower, outnumbering the foe are GOOD tactics to use against 40k enemies. Current tactics would be hopeless against a horde of Orkz.

Nah, I think the US army would do well against them. you don't need trenches to take care of orks, just napalm.

Um...yeah.

That doesn't work so great against Orks, because Orks aren't stupid and don't generally bunch up where airstrikes are effective.

Fast movers dropping napalm as well would be fairly vulnerable to Ork AA, which isn't entirely unheard of taking out things like Thunderbolts or Lightning Strikes.

Hell, they've taken out Marauders.

purplefood wrote:Well this is pretty far off-topic...

You're right, we should go back to addressing the OP.

I wonder if Imperial Guardsmen ever utiliste MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS DEVESTATING DEFENSIVE DEEPSTRIKES?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

purplefood wrote:Well this is pretty far off-topic...

You're right, we should go back to addressing the OP.

I wonder if Imperial Guardsmen ever utiliste MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS DEVESTATING DEFENSIVE DEEPSTRIKES?

Like this:

Yeah...except that's not what would happen, but eh.

The Guard has multiple ways of performing deep strikes.

There is a mention of a drop pod(not ship) in the Planetstrike book that is being used by Guardsmen, there's Grav-Chutes, dropships, etc etc.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah...except that's not what would happen, but eh.

The Guard has multiple ways of performing deep strikes.

There is a mention of a drop pod(not ship) in the Planetstrike book that is being used by Guardsmen, there's Grav-Chutes, dropships, etc etc.

You mean like in Retribution drop-troops? Drop-ship drop container full of solders...

We don't know what their drop pods are like. All that it pertains to is an entire squad being inside, with heavy weapons and all.

Nice....that sound like something Elysians would use. Haraconians to...
But I can't imagine for Krieg using this tactic...but I can imagine them using engineers and building bunkers right behind their won troops...

Harakoni and Elysian 'Drop' are airborne specialists that deploy from aircraft.

These Drop Pods suggest that there's another form of 'Drop' troop that is utilized for orbital-to-ground insertions and securing beachheads. So no, not Elysians/Harakoni.

And why are you bringing up Krieg? Their tactics are not relevant here, they are their own breed effectively.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wonder if Imperial Guardsmen ever utiliste MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS DEVESTATING DEFENSIVE DEEPSTRIKES?

To archive complete global saturation?

Devastator wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wonder if Imperial Guardsmen ever utiliste MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS DEVESTATING DEFENSIVE DEEPSTRIKES?

To archive complete global saturation?

Yes, the IG use their DOOMBREAD to power the deepstriking of their CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS.

General Seric wrote:
Yes, the IG use their DOOMBREAD to power the deepstriking of their CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS.

Brother Coa wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.

The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.

Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.

This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.

The same thing done for Canada looks like this:

Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD

There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.

Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.

Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.

Ok now this is insulting. And I don't get were did you find that data, it's years old. We have improved now, we are still at the near bottom for a way of life and all that - but it\n not that bad. People can take credits again, go without visa into EU, we are scheduled to enter EU in 2014-2015. Now, our politicians are bunch of greedy people ( they are spending so much that they put 60% tax on fuel ) and we have slight problem with nationalism ( more then any other country ). But it's not that bad.
On the other hand, it's common knowledge about Canada here that your country is 80% non-populated because of harsh environment. And you are speaking about our and your economy? Country that is 5x bigger then ours with gakload of resources with Serbia who is small, have few resources and get trough 3 wars during the 90-is?
Maybe we suck in some things, but we are great in others: tourism, great country to go out in the city and sport ( just see tennis ).

CI world factbook, most numbers are from 2009 to 2010. Also, your nation makes less from tourism than Canada does. We're ranked 3rd in North America with 15.74 million people visiting in 2009, what are the numbers for Serbia?

Our student's from School of Electrical engineering are one of the best in the world in that area, and wanted everywhere. And what's your point? That we never donated anything to world improvement? See Nikola Tesla... And of course our university's are not in top 100 when you ruin half of the during 1999 bombing. And on a side note, every man that lives here and goes into USA or Canada or EU to study said that "studding there is 10x easier than here, because they have 10x less theory to study"
But I will drop now, there is no need to get this thread locked down, and plese - don't insult other countries no matter the size or the culture... it's just rude.

Ah, so you have trades and many of your students still need to study abroad because your nation can't even handle its own security.

21 billion people? What, you get out there and measure it? We can't even go beyond our moon and we are talking about some dwarf planet that is between Mars and Jupiter? Well let me tell you something, theory is one thing and practical thing is something uterlly different. Those numbers up there are good, but they don't mean anything because we can't even get there and what country will invest into something like that? So your argument is invalid.

Notice the numbers for the internal volume of a cylinder 2km in diameter by 10km in length and then plug in 2000 people per 0.28 cubic meters. That will give you around 870,000 people per tube. The mass of each tube is such that you could make 3 habitats and one space farm with the amount of steel and iron earth makes each year. That is assuming 2m thick walls as well, which isn't how you build in space.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?

The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.

The Viet Cong was in South Vietnam. And it was more of a matter of not knowing where the tunnels were, rather than not being able to damage them. And of course the US came off better in pitched battles, but even though they were the winner of almost every major engagement they lost the war by a mile.

The bombing campaign in North Vietnam and bordering countries was furious and unrestricted, and the US still lost. In fact, not only did the bombing fail to stop the flow of supplies and troops pouring into South Vietnam or destroy NV's infrastructure, it didn't even slow it (traffic reportedly increased as the war went on). I don't see how you can spin this case of glaring air superiority doing sod all into something that helps your argument.

One nuke. Your argument is invalid.

21.7 billion as opposed to, say, Trillions? Or hundreds of billions at the least. Why would the Imperium leave the natural resources of those planet, many completely capable of supporting life on their own, and go asteroid-hunting? It's not like asteroids are a treasure trove of resources (unless you've been playing SoaSE for too long).

That's one tiny object. Not to mention that Trillions live in worse conditions that that space habitat. You want more habitats, you can double that by not making the hull out of 2 meter thick iron and steel. You can actually go even thinner, like down to ten centimeters thick. Then you have enough material to make hundreds of habitats per old habitat mean that 21.7 billion goes to 2.17 trillion or more.

Also, space has plentiful iron to make steel, lots of rare earth metals, water, and hydrocarbons. What does Earth have the space doesn't?

You must be such a joy to play against!

Nobody has yet complained.

<thread terminated; terminally off-topic>

I think it's rather silly to argue about realism in a fantasy universe full of walking fungi and space magic.

If you want to, it's worth considering that engineers calculate how to build all kinds of stuff that actually works, like cars and computers and bridges and power plants.

There's no particular reason to doubt their calculations about space habitats.

Killkrazy nailed it on the head. And on that note RIP thread.