_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated Sun, 7 May 2006 09:51:31 +1000
> From: <Beth.Fulton writes:
G'day,
You don't want to have to grapple with the models I use in my job, but I
do have some stuff I'm happy to hand out. Mass snipage>>
I would be glad to see the single excel page.. that seems simple enough..
<<
Ultimately though unless you really want to have the fun of playing with the
models Laserlight's plausible story telling approach is fine, just keep in
mind whats plausible given the colony size you're after;)
Cheers
Beth>>
Yes Laserlight's idea seemed good to...
Beth muttered:
> Laserlight's plausible story telling approach is fine
Let's say you start with 10,000 colonists, and add immigrants at the lesser of
60,000 immigrants or 10% of the base population per year. After 100 years,
with a 3% growth rate you get about 16 million; with a 2% rate you get 9.5
million.
G'day,
> After 100 years, with a 3% growth rate you get about 16 million...
You need to be careful of carrying capacity issues though. If you're bumping
around at near capacity (even if capacity is growing) you growth rate will be
constrained heavily.
P.S. Should be able to post the spreadsheets tomorrow.
Cheers
> After 100 years, with a 3% growth rate you get about 16 million...
Yeah, I'm assuming these are fresh planets where you just throw wheat seed
on the ground and jump back. :-) The point was that even with optimistic
assumptions, your population is just not going to very big--sixteen
millioin is enough to field an army but it's not going to compete with the
NAC, NSL, etc.
> P.S. Should be able to post the spreadsheets tomorrow.
Send me a copy too, please..
> Yeah, I'm assuming these are fresh planets where you just throw wheat
Sixteen million is enough to field a pretty fair sized army, if you're willing
to take the hits to the productive part of your economy with a large number of
people off fighting.
Canada put 600,000+ people into uniform during WWI, with a national
population around 7 million. We had over 1.5 million people in uniform during
WWII, with a population of 11 million.
Now, supporting a modern military force with the *much* higher
cost-per-trooper than back in the WWI era would make it much harder for
a
16-million population colony to support a 600,000 person military force
-
but it could support brigade and perhaps divisional-level forces.
Certainly enough to make things interesting in a DS or SG game!
And as for competing with the NAC - not very likely in a grand,
strategic sense. But if you had a few hundred thousand in uniform, the NAC
would probably be hard pressed to land a force big enough to make a dent. Now,
sitting in orbit and bombarding away is a different story
In the end, a colony with 16 million people could do a credible job of
ensuring local defense...
OTOH, who knows what a starship costs relative to the GNP of that 16 mil
population.
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Adrian Johnson
"Now" as opposed to "back then" is a higher cost in dollars, of
course--everything is--but is it a higher cost as a percentage of per
capita GDP? And it depends on what type of troopers you're
fielding--light infantry, or heavy armor, or orbital assault, or elite
commandos?
> But if you had a few hundred thousand in uniform, the NAC would
That assumes the chokepoint is the transport--which I agree seems
reasonable, since the canon invasions have regiments and brigades, not corps
and armies. Of course, that being the case, you may feel than you
only need a few brigades yourself, rather than a 600,000-strong force.
> OTOH, who knows what a starship costs relative to the GNP of that 16
Traditionally a capital ship is the equivalent of a division. If it's a lot
cheaper than that, people will make it bigger and add shiny kit. If it's a lot
more expensive than that, it'll be too expensive to risk in combat.
> From: john tailby
a) that assumes that military duty is unproductive, but troops can be used for
emergency respons, construction, and other duties.
b) If you have aggressive neighbors, you may well feel that that 1% --
or 10% -- is a necessary expense.
> Would colony planets be able to earn hard currencies by supplying > fit
Yes. It's canonical that the New Israelis, Islamic Fed, Saieed Khalifate,
Swiss, and others provide mercs.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lgzg-l-bounces@lists
.csua.berkeley.edu wrote on 08/05/2006 20:33:01:
> Beth muttered:
Many estimates of growth rates seem unreasonable to me. If we take Earth as an
example, UN figures show that world population growth peaked in about 1970 at
2% per year. Prior to 1950, it never rose about 1% and since 1970, population
growth rate has been at a steady decline. In 2000, annual growth was 1.39%. UN
forecasts: 2010 1.15%; 2020 0.98%; 2025
0.86%.
Of course, growth rates vary considerably by country - but typically,
the better educated, richer, more technically advanced countries have lower
growth rates. In fact, if it were not for immigration, many western countries
would see populations declining.
Therefore, I suspect that the above example growth rate is highly
unlikely. Let's take some extreme figures - lets say the population
doubles every generation. (i.e. every person finds a partner and they have 4
children who all survive) Lets have a new generation every 20 years. Starting
with the 10000 colonists, mentioned above, that would mean that
after 20 years - you'd have 20000, after 40 years 40000, after 60 years
80000 after 80 years 160000 and after 100 years 320000. Now that's an
astronomical rate of increase for a population - but it's nowhere near
16
million. Of course - there may have been massive immigration and for
any kind of 'population growth' model, it's the immigration that will be the
key growth driver - rather than natural growth.
Laserlight said
> Let's say you start with 10,000 colonists, and add immigrants at the
Paul J Foster said:
> Many estimates of growth rates seem unreasonable tome. Â If we take
Take individual countries, you get a broader range.
> I suspect that the above example growthrate is highly unlikely.
You saw the part about "60,000 immigrants or 10% of the base population"? That
works out to about 4.5 million. Plus all their kids and grandkids.