Is Bigger better

Trek Books, Games and General chat
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by McAvoy »

stitch626 wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:
stitch626 wrote:The more space you have, the less proportional resources you have available.
Not necessarily. More space means more systems to exploit for resources.
Yes but it isn't proportional.
Your resource to useless space ratio will drop as you increase the volume of space occupied (barring lucky finds such as Earthlike planets). So as you increase the volume, you have a greater increase of patrol necessary space with a smaller increase in the amount of resources to make said patrols.
I see what you are talking about. You are talking about occupying space that includes useless systems as well as resource rich planets.

You could say the same for a small minor power as well. They could be in an area where valuable resources are rare and habitable planets are few.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Graham Kennedy »

stitch626 wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:
stitch626 wrote:The more space you have, the less proportional resources you have available.
Not necessarily. More space means more systems to exploit for resources.
Yes but it isn't proportional.
Your resource to useless space ratio will drop as you increase the volume of space occupied (barring lucky finds such as Earthlike planets). So as you increase the volume, you have a greater increase of patrol necessary space with a smaller increase in the amount of resources to make said patrols.
Really? Why wouldn't it be proportional?

Star systems are scattered very roughly evenly - sure there are clusters and gaps between galactic arms and whatnot, but on the scale of a few thousand lightyears it's roughly even spacing. So if you control twice as much volume you control twice as many systems with twice as many resources. Seems proportional to me.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by stitch626 »

GrahamKennedy wrote: Really? Why wouldn't it be proportional?

Star systems are scattered very roughly evenly - sure there are clusters and gaps between galactic arms and whatnot, but on the scale of a few thousand lightyears it's roughly even spacing. So if you control twice as much volume you control twice as many systems with twice as many resources. Seems proportional to me.
Yes that is proportional. But what isn't is the amount of resources needed to make enough ships to suitably patrol the space (not even taking into account the fuel needed for travel whatever that may be).

The issue comes when there are gaps in sensor nets (which there would be for anything beyond system range). A larger volume means more gaps which means more space for invaders to succeed.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Graham Kennedy »

stitch626 wrote:Yes that is proportional. But what isn't is the amount of resources needed to make enough ships to suitably patrol the space (not even taking into account the fuel needed for travel whatever that may be).

The issue comes when there are gaps in sensor nets (which there would be for anything beyond system range). A larger volume means more gaps which means more space for invaders to succeed.
Again, why? Twice as much space means twice as many resources, which means twice as many ships and twice as many sensor nets. What exactly is it that isn't scaling in proportion here?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by McAvoy »

Well there is my explanation....
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Graham Kennedy »

McAvoy wrote:Well there is my explanation....
But what you are saying is that a small power could have a higher proportion of useful systems and planets whilst a large one could have a lower proportion. That's certainly true... but if so then the advantage really has nothing to do with the relative sizes, it's about how lucky each one got. So it's nothing to do with "is bigger better".
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by McAvoy »

Well a resource rich area of space which technically would be smaller than the much larger but resource poor area of space would be at a greater advantage because it would be covering a smaller area of space. Higher concentration of ships and such.

Though it seems that a huge area that the Federation would be a great disadvantage over a much smaller empire but having a higher proportion of ships in comparison.

So while technically the Federation has a larger fleet but it would take a much longer time to mobilize.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Coalition
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Coalition »

McAvoy wrote:Well a resource rich area of space which technically would be smaller than the much larger but resource poor area of space would be at a greater advantage because it would be covering a smaller area of space. Higher concentration of ships and such.

Though it seems that a huge area that the Federation would be a great disadvantage over a much smaller empire but having a higher proportion of ships in comparison.

So while technically the Federation has a larger fleet but it would take a much longer time to mobilize.
Yes, if the smaller empire got lucky.

That is why I didn't try to include all those variables. Assume two empires, one twice the length/width/height as the other, for 8 times the volume and 4* the surface area, all else being effectively identical, and the larger empire will defeat the smaller. The smaller empire needs to get friends to help attack the larger.

There is only one definite case where a smaller empire will always have more systems in its volume compared to the Federation. That is a single star system empire that only claims out to its Oort cloud. In absolute industrial terms, it is a minor distraction for the local Federation fleet.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Graham Kennedy »

McAvoy wrote:Well a resource rich area of space which technically would be smaller than the much larger but resource poor area of space would be at a greater advantage because it would be covering a smaller area of space. Higher concentration of ships and such.
Yes. But again, this is nothing to do with this power being smaller, it's to do with this power having a higher concentration of good planets. If the question were "is a higher concentration of good planets better" then absolutely it is.
Though it seems that a huge area that the Federation would be a great disadvantage over a much smaller empire but having a higher proportion of ships in comparison.

So while technically the Federation has a larger fleet but it would take a much longer time to mobilize.
Stars are around 5 light years apart. One star per 125 cubic light years.

If the Cardassians measure 12500 cly then they have 100 systems. If the resources in each system can build 10 ships then they have a 1000 ship fleet - and any given ship has, on average, to patrol 12.5 cly. Ships will be 2.3 light years apart on average.

If the Federation measures 50000 cly then they have 400 systems. If the resources in each system can build 10 ships then they have a 4000 ship fleet - and any given ship has, on average, to patrol 12.5 cly. Ships will be 2.3 light years apart on average.

If all else is equal then the strength of the sides scales exactly in proportion to volume and everything else remains the same. Distance between systems is the same, number of ships per system is the same, average separation between ships is the same, so response times are the same. You have exactly as many ships to defend each system as the smaller power does, and exactly the same distances to cover to do it in the same strength.

Yes, we can say that the Cardassians 100 systems contain 50 really fantastic resource rich systems whilst the Federation's 400 only contain 25 and 375 crappy ones. And that would indeed tilt the numbers. But that's not a question of smaller being better, it's a question of having a high proportion of nice systems being better. Certainly that's true, but it's nothing to do with the question of the thread. And actually, if anything, the larger power would likely have the advantage here because they would be more likely to have that lucky one in a million planet that has vast deposits of dilithium or whatever.

As a related aside, in the TOS era Trek novels it's often stated that the Federation covers an area of space very densely populated by resource rich planets, whilst the Romulans cover an area far less so. One character sums the Romulan hostility to the Federation as "the hatred that the poor feel as the rich go by, not even realising the difference is there."
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by stitch626 »

As we have seen in Trek, there are gaps in sensor and ship networks. So a larger empire (with all things proportional) would have more gaps, making it less secure than the smaller empire and easier to invade.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
Coalition
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Coalition »

stitch626 wrote:As we have seen in Trek, there are gaps in sensor and ship networks. So a larger empire (with all things proportional) would have more gaps, making it less secure than the smaller empire and easier to invade.
The problem is most of the gaps would be due to surface area of the empire. So a larger empire (2* L/W/H), everything else identical to a smaller empire, would have 4* the surface area and 8* the volume. This means it has effectively half the surface area per unit of volume to patrol, so it can allocate twice as many ships to patrolling its borders per square unit of area. The smaller empire might be able to respond faster by pulling ships from the far side, but distance wise the larger empire simply has more ships to call upon.

This does get funny when calculating scan radii, especially if a smaller empire can have its entire empire within the scan radii of a single sensor platform. You basically need a volume large enough that a single ship/sensor platform cannot patrol the whole area.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by stitch626 »

Just patrolling your borders (or focusing a significant amount of forces there) is a crap idea. Once someone gets in, they have a huge area to hide in with minimal patrols to worry about. And you must assume that at some point someone will find a way in, otherwise you are setting yourself up to be conquered (like Babylon did).
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
Coalition
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Coalition »

stitch626 wrote:Just patrolling your borders (or focusing a significant amount of forces there) is a crap idea. Once someone gets in, they have a huge area to hide in with minimal patrols to worry about. And you must assume that at some point someone will find a way in, otherwise you are setting yourself up to be conquered (like Babylon did).
A larger empire (all else being the same) will have the same number of ships per unit volume as a smaller empire. Also, due to distance, it can move ships from non-threatened regions closer to the danger area. The ships in the danger area can perform the same raiding capability as the smaller empire, or be repaired due to the surprise attack. So a raiding ship may get in, but it will do less damage (proportionally) compared to a single ship from the larger empire getting loose. (I.e. smaller empire ship destroys orbital infrastructure of one LE planet, out of 80. LE ship destroys orbital infrastructure of one SE planet, out of 10. Which one just got hurt worse?)

SE = Smaller Empire
LE = Larger Empire

If the smaller empire decides to posture, the larger empire can (temporarily) move a large fleet in range, essentially telling the smaller empire that if they try anything, their own empire will pay the consequences. Hopefully the leader of the smaller empire will see reason, or his successor will see reason instead. If the SE leader has allies, they will be called ASAP to save him.

The key is the larger empire will have an overall larger fleet, giving it more flexibility than the smaller. It will also have a larger infrastructure, economy, research capability, freight network, etc.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Also throw in that if anything things will likely scale even better than linearly. There are economies of scale to be considered, after all.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Is Bigger better

Post by McAvoy »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
McAvoy wrote:Well a resource rich area of space which technically would be smaller than the much larger but resource poor area of space would be at a greater advantage because it would be covering a smaller area of space. Higher concentration of ships and such.
Yes. But again, this is nothing to do with this power being smaller, it's to do with this power having a higher concentration of good planets. If the question were "is a higher concentration of good planets better" then absolutely it is.
If we are talking about averages then yes bigger is better. A small empire with the same proportions as a larger empire than yes, bigger is perhaps better. It means proportionally both empires are equal but you could assume the bigger empire could bring more ships into the theater and build more.

But that was my point though. Smaller can be better if the resources are heavily skewed to the smaller empire. For example they have the resources to build 1000 ships a year whereas hr larger empire could build more or less but because of the sheer size of their empire need more ships overall to cover a larger area. The smaller empire building a 1000 ships would do better than a large empire building even twice that number if the larger empire had over twice the area to cover.

The larger empire of course could empty its opposite borders or wherever to smash the smaller empire if they wanted to.

In the end, there are a lot of factors but if everything being equal larger is better.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Post Reply