| Class | Diameter (mi) | Sphere surface area (mi.sq) | Discworld top side area (mi.sq) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 350 | 384845 | 96211 |
| B | 800 | 2010619 | 502655 |
| C | 1500 | 7068583 | 1767146 |
| D | 3200 | 32169909 | 8042477 |
| E | 8000 | 201061930 | 50265482 |
| F | 16000 | 804247719 | 201061930 |
| G | 32000 | 3216990877 | 804247719 |
| H | 80000 | 20106192983 | 5026548246 |
| I | 160000 | 80424771932 | 20106192983 |
| J | 350000 | 384845100065 | 96211275016 |
To try and visualise this - here is a cumulative area chart, assuming an Earth-like share of ocean coverage (70%) - red is Class E - Earth - down in the corner. Once you move up a planetary size class, you start getting some very large spaces to work with indeed.
The question that arose elsewhere was 'does this mean a planet is a mono-culture?' I see argument in some places saying that if you are running Spelljammer or any other inter-planetary game then there is no point creating highly detailed worlds because you want getting from point to point to be part of the fun of the setting. The detail and interest on a given world should not be so much that people decide to stay groundside and abandon the Spelljamming part of it all. Taking that on board, I think there is a question of versimillitude - I can see the typical table I run giving me a very hard stare if I said 'there is no geographic variation on this world' and 'a single polity rules everything' for a place the size of Earth.



