travellerrpg: Traveller in 3D page 1

BetterThanLife

April 13th, 2006, 05:17 PM

With the new Astro Synthesis we now have a tool that will allow rapid system generation, with Traveller values. Even the import of existing Traveller Data is possible. All of this on a nice 3D map.

The question I have is as follows. The best thing, IMHO, about Traveller is the setting and the rich history of the setting. (Including contradicting stories.)

Can you go 3D and keep the setting pretty much intact? Has anyone done this? DO you expand greatly the number of systems in the Imperium or does the Imperium get smaller, communication time wise? How have you handled Jump Drive, without the nice hexes for distance?

Obviously there would need to be some historical revisions. Jump Physics would need a closer look. Trade implications can get even nastier.

Has anyone really taken a good look at this?

Some insight and thoughts would be good before I jump in with both feet.
smile.gif

parmasson

April 13th, 2006, 07:56 PM

How about a reworking of the way jump is worded for 3D? Jump 1 means the ability to jump over one parsec (hex) to your destination? (Origination hex, jumped hex, destination hex). Terminology is preserved with a rule tweak. Makes the free trader more useful and the maps easier to navigate. I use a homebrew starmap with the OTU history and setting. My sector is just not on the big map. smile.gif

I am apologize for sounding like a one issue voter here but it really is the only thing that really bugs me about the OTU.

I guess on reflection it would be a bit of work and would change a number of things.
I donâ€™t know about anyone else but I would be willing to pay extra for it as an add-on module.

Laryssa

April 13th, 2006, 10:32 PM

Well you know that about 90% of all stars are red dwarfs. If you assume that each subsector map shows only hexes with habitable or likely habitable planets with stars that are class K and higher, you are leaving out 90% of the stars.

Here's what you can do. Assume that each subsector is 10 parsecs deep and take each hex with a planet in it and roll a 1d10 for the numbers 1 through 10, this will tell you how deep into the subsector the world is.

I have some planets you can play around with.
These are the middle settled subsectors on a full sector map that I'm working on. If you don't like the American, you can substitute your own names if you like. Its simple, take the planet Alabama for instance:

0914 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0

Roll a 1d10 and add another 2 digits to the hex number. I'll roll a 1d10 and I got 2, so now the new entry for the planet Alabama is:

091402 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0

And I can now go down the hex column rolling a 1d6 and every time I roll a 5 or a 6 I place a red Dwarf (Class M) in that hex.

091401 Red Dwarf (Class M)
091402 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
091403 Red Dwarf (Class M)
091404 empty
091405 empty
091406 empty
091407 empty
091408 empty
091409 Red Dwarf (Class M)
091410 empty
And you delete all the hexes that say empty listing only those that have something in them. There is nothing particualry interesting in a red dwarf system, so its just listed as a red dwarf, its a place to jump to on the way to someplace else.

The America Sector
The United States of America
California Subsector Data Table
Hex Name Alg Type Dia Grav Atmosphere Hydr Climate RVM AFF Population Port Government CR TL Trade WTN
0913 Unexplored Non Glacier 6,000 miles 0.68g Toxic 0% Frozen +0 0
0914 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
0916 Alaska Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 50% Chilly +0 8 660,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 3.5
0919 Unexplored Non Greenhouse 7,500 miles 0.95g Suffocating 0% Infernal +2 2

1011 Arizona Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.82g Standard-Tainted 10% Hot -2 4 5,700,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
1012 Unexplored Non Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Thin-Tainted 0% Chilly +0 0
1015 Unexplored Non Barren 1,500 miles 0.17g _0% Cool -1 -1
1017 Unexplored Non Barren 2,500 miles 0.25g _ 0% Cool +0 0
1019 Arkansas Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Thin-Tainted 80% Cool +0 7 2,800,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

1111 Unexplored Non Barren 1,500 miles 0.15g _ 0% Frozen +1 1
1115 Unexplored Non Garden 7,500 miles 0.85g Very Thin 40% Cool +0 0
1116 California Am Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Dense 30% Normal +0 9 36,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.5

1214 New Terra Am Garden 7,900 miles 1.0g Standard 72% Normal +1 10 1,000,000 A RepDem CR 5 TL 11 Ri 4.0
1220 Colorado Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Thin 40% Normal +0 8 4,600,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

1316 Connecticut Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Dense 40% Cool +0 9 3,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1320 Unexplored Non Pre-Garden 6,000 miles 0.68g Suffocating 80% Normal +1 1

1414 Delaware Am Garden 5,000 miles 0.82g Thin 40% Chilly -1 7 830,000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag 3.5
1416 Indiana Am Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Dense 60% Cool +0 9 6,200,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1419 Unexplored Non Barren 1,000 miles 0.11g _ 0% Frozen +0 0
1511 Georgia Am Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Dense-Tainted 30% Warm +0 8 8,800,000 B RepDem 5 11 4.0
1512 Illinois Am Garden 7,500 miles 0.85g Standard 40% Normal +0 9 13,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5
1513 Idaho Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Dense 0% Tropical +0 7 1,400,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.0
1516 Unexplored Non Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Thin 10% Cool +0 0
1519 Hawaii Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Standard 80% Normal -1 8 1,300,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0

1616 Florida Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Dense 70% Hot +0 7 17,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5

Lincoln Subsector
1714 Iowa Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.82g Dense-Tainted 70% Normal +0 8 3,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0
1715 Kansas Am Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Standard-Tainted 20% Cold -1 5 2,700,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0

1811 Kentucky Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Standard-Tainted 10% Tropical +0 7 4,100,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
1812 Maine Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Standard 60% Cool +0 9 1,300,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1817 Unexplored Non Barren 2,000 miles 0.23g _ 0% Infernal +1 1

1914 Maryland Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Thin-Tainted 50% Warm +0 7 5,600,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0
1918 Unexplored Non Pre-Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Suffocating 30% Warm +1 1

2012 Unexplored Non Barren 1,500 miles 0.15g _ 0% Cool +0 0
2017 Unexplored Non Barren 1,000 miles 0.10g _ 0% Normal +0 0

2112 Louisiana Garden 5,500 miles 0.69g Standard 60% Tropical +0 9 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
2113 Unexplored Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Very Thin-Tainted 50% Normal +0 0

2213 Massachusetts Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Thin-Tainted 50% Normal -1 4 6,400,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

2313 Michigan Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Standard 50% Cool -1 8 10,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0

New York Subsector
1022 Unexplored Garden 7,500 miles 0.85g Very Thin-Tainted 80% Chilly +0 0
1025 Missouri Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Dense-Tainted 50% Warm +0 7 5,800,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1030 Unexplored Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Very Thin 50% Cool +0 0

1127 Unexplored Barren 2,000 miles 0.25g _ 0% Infernal +0 0
1128 Unexplored Garden 6,000 miles 0.61g Very Thin-Tainted 50% Cool +2 2
1129 Unexplored Garden 6,500 miles 0.90g Very Thin 80% Chilly +0 0

1222 Mississippi Garden 6,500 miles 0.90g Standard 60% Chilly +0 9 2,900,000 C RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1228 Unexplored Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Very Thin 10% Normal +0 0

1321 Minnesota Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Standard-Tainted 30% Warm +0 8 5,100,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
1329 Montana Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Standard-Tainted 60% Cool +1 9 930,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

1425 Nevada Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Standard 60% Warm -1 8 2,300,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1426 Nebraska Garden 7,000 miles 0.71g Dense 80% Cold +0 8 1,700,000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1430 Unexplored Asteroid Belt _ 0% Frozen -2 -2

1522 New York Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Standard 60% Warm +0 9 19,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5
1524 Unexplored Asteroid Belt _ 0% Frozen +2 2
1525 Unexplored Barren 1,000 miles 0.10g _ 0% Infernal +0 0
1529 Unexplored Pre-Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Suffocating 60% Tropical +0 0

1626 New Jersey Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Thin-Tainted 80% Cool +0 7 8,700,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0
1628 New Mexico Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin-Tainted 30% Tropical +0 7 1,900,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
1630 New Hampshire Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Dense 20% Cool +0 8 1,300,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.0

Washington Subsector
1723 Carolina (North/South) Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Thin 20% Warm +0 7 8,500,000/4,200,000 B/A RepDem 5/5 11/11 4.0/4.0
1725 Dakota (North/South) Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Standard 10% Cool -1 7 630,000/770,000 A/B RepDem 5/5 11/11 Ri 3.5/3.5
1726 Ohio Garden 6,500 miles 0.82g Thin-Tainted 60% Chilly +0 7 11,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.5
1727 Unexplored Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Thin-Tainted 60% Cool +0 0
1729 Oregon Garden 6,500 miles 0.90g Thin 60% Cool +0 8 4,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

1822 Oklahoma Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Dense 50% Tropical +0 9 3,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
1823 Pennsylvania Garden 7,000 miles 0.71g Thin 90% Warm +1 9 12,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.5
1824 Washington Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Dense 20% Chilly +0 8 6,200,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.0
1827 Unexplored Asteroid Belt _ 0% Cold +1 1
1828 Texas Garden 6,000 miles 0.83g Dense 60% Normal +0 9 22,000.000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5

1921 Unexplored Desert (Rock) 4,000 miles 0.45g Trace 0% Infernal +0 0
1922 Utah Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Dense-Tainted 20% Warm +0 7 2,400,000 B RepDem 5 11 4.0
1923 Unexplored Desert (Rock) 3,500 miles 0.44g Trace 0% Cool +0 0
1924 Unexplored Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Very Thin-Tainted 50% Warm +0 0
1925 Unexplored Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Very Thin-Tainted 0% Normal +0 0

2024 Unexplored Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Very Thin-Tainted 80% Warm +0 0
2028 Vermont Garden 7,500 miles 0.76g Thin 70% Cool +1 9 620,000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0
2030 Unexplored Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very-Thin 90% Normal +0 0

2124 Virginia (/West) Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Dense-Tainted 60% Normal -1 7 7,500,000/1,800,000 B/A RepDem 5/5 11/11 Ag 4.0/4.0

2221 Rhode Island Garden 6,500 miles 0.82g Thin-Tainted 30% Tropical +0 7 1,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
2225 Unexplored Pre-Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Toxic 60% Warm +0 0
2230 Unexplored Desert (Ice) 1,500 miles 0.15g Corrosive 30% Frozen +0 0

2326 Wisconsin Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Thin-Tainted 20% Cool +1 7 5,500,000 B RepDem 5 11 4.0
2327 Wyoming Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Standard 50% Cool +0 9 500,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 3.5
2328 Columbia Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Standard 40% Warm -1 8 550,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 3.5

2422 Puerto Rico Garden 8,500 miles 0.96g Standard 50% Tropical +1 9 3,900,000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
2425 Unexplored Desert (Rock) 4,500 miles 0.45g Trace 0% Infernal +0 0
2426 Guam Garden 9,000 miles 0.90g Thin 20% Warm +0 7 170,000 B RepDem 5 11 3.5

Golan2072

April 14th, 2006, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
With the new Astro Synthesis we now have a tool that will allow rapid system generation, with Traveller values. Even the import of existing Traveller Data is possible. All of this on a nice 3D map.Is it a free program? If not, how much does it cost? What I was looking for was a simple program that'll contain all GLISE data in 3D, allow you to select your jump destination from a system, and, if possible, store Traveller data. If Astro Synthesis is free, I'll get it ASAP; otherwise all I'm looking for is a simple navigation program (I know that there are web-based programming languages that allow you to build a 3D map).

a 3D universe without a navigation software of some kind seems to me as a headache. Flat maps exist for a reason - to make the Referee's and the Players' lives easy when there is no such software around (I don't think such a program would've been possible in the 1970's anyway, atleast with gamer-accessible resources).

Berg

April 14th, 2006, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
What I was looking for was a simple program that'll contain all GLISE data in 3D, allow you to select your jump destination from a system, and, if possible, store Traveller dataHere is a link to a bunch of 3-D Starmaps Software (http://www.projectrho.com/smap07.html)

Most is Free smile.gif

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
With the new Astro Synthesis we now have a tool that will allow rapid system generation, with Traveller values. Even the import of existing Traveller Data is possible. All of this on a nice 3D map.Is it a free program? If not, how much does it cost? What I was looking for was a simple program that'll contain all GLISE data in 3D, allow you to select your jump destination from a system, and, if possible, store Traveller data. If Astro Synthesis is free, I'll get it ASAP; otherwise all I'm looking for is a simple navigation program (I know that there are web-based programming languages that allow you to build a 3D map).

a 3D universe without a navigation software of some kind seems to me as a headache. Flat maps exist for a reason - to make the Referee's and the Players' lives easy when there is no such software around (I don't think such a program would've been possible in the 1970's anyway, atleast with gamer-accessible resources). [/QUOTE]It isn't free but it is reasonably priced and will do exactly what you are looking at doing. You can do navigation with it. It will either import data (And the GLISE data is available for it.) With a little tweaking you could even import Traveller System data to it, or use the Traveller System to generate the systems. 3D navigation is a dream in it. It calculates distances, etc. YOu can generate a J6 map for a system in a heartbeat, provided you have a definition for J6 in the first place.

You can find out more on NBOS Astrosynthesis (http://www.nbos.com/products/astro/astro.htm) webpage.

All of the old headaches are gone in terms of dealing with a 3D map. Oh I almost forgot, if you happen to have Fractal Terrains from Pro Fantasy it will use that to generate your world maps within your systems. (Which can then using CC2 and Cosmographer, generate nice Traveller World Maps. So with this, powerful, combination all of your Traveller Referee Mapping headaches are gone.

However unless I can figure out a way to convert Jump Drive in a consistent and reasonable way that retains the flavor of Traveller it will just collect dust on my HD. smile.gif

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
How about a reworking of the way jump is worded for 3D?One method that preserves the number of systems reachable by each jump number is:

Jump distance = (Jn + 2) * 0.6 pc

That is:

Jump-1 = 1.8 pc
Jump-2 = 2.4 pc
Jump-3 = 3.0 pc
Jump-4 = 3.6 pc
Jump-5 = 4.2 pc
Jump-6 = 4.8 pc

This keeps the drives' commercial usefulness relatively about the same. It also helps explain why the Xboat network is still Jump-4: diminishing returns. [/QUOTE]The problem is that there isn't much advantage in running anything over J2 with your system. (Especially with the fuel consumption on the higher JDrives.) Your Military vessels, especially major combatants will be J2-J3.

Actually I like the MT answer for why the XBoat Network is J4. It is to give the Government an advantage in terms of Information management. I personally was looking at

J1 = 0-1.9pc
J2 = 2-2.9pc
J3 = 3-3.9pc etc.

I first looked at simply doubling the range but that got really nasty in a hurry.

It keeps a speed advantage with specialized couriers and Military vessels keeps the lower Jump vessels commercially viable, but it does tend to cause you to either expand the Imperium or accept drastically reduced communication/military response times.

On most OTU Sector maps there are around 400-500 systems. On Most OTU Sector maps the average system density is about 1 per 2.5pc. And on most OTU Sector Maps a J2 ship can eventually get almost anywhere. For example in the Spinward Marches there were only about 4 systems, out of 440, that a J2 ship couldn't get to (Eventually).

I want to keep the feel and I really want to keep the rich history. (Otherwise I might as well just look for a new set of rules.)

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 09:17 AM

Generating the Map isn't the issue. (The software does that rather nicely.) Dealing with the implications of taking it 3D is the problem. Though I like the concept. How does Jump Drive work in your Universe? If you have a planet that is 8 PC below the base and the nearest planet is 1PC Coreward but only one pc below the base?

Originally posted by Laryssa:
Well you know that about 90% of all stars are red dwarfs. If you assume that each subsector map shows only hexes with habitable or likely habitable planets with stars that are class K and higher, you are leaving out 90% of the stars.

Here's what you can do. Assume that each subsector is 10 parsecs deep and take each hex with a planet in it and roll a 1d10 for the numbers 1 through 10, this will tell you how deep into the subsector the world is.

I have some planets you can play around with.
These are the middle settled subsectors on a full sector map that I'm working on. If you don't like the American, you can substitute your own names if you like. Its simple, take the planet Alabama for instance:

0914 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0

Roll a 1d10 and add another 2 digits to the hex number. I'll roll a 1d10 and I got 2, so now the new entry for the planet Alabama is:

091402 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0

And I can now go down the hex column rolling a 1d6 and every time I roll a 5 or a 6 I place a red Dwarf (Class M) in that hex.

<SNIP>

JAFARR

April 14th, 2006, 11:40 AM

I think I'll stick with 2D for now, but thanks for introducing us to NBOS software. I looked over these programs and think they could be highly useful to most of us. Hopefully I will have my newer computer (read "My PIII 600mhz is getting outdated.) out of layway soon and can purchase several of them.

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
The problem is that there isn't much advantage in running anything over J2 with your system. (Especially with the fuel consumption on the higher JDrives.)Actually, there is: the average separation among stars in the local part of the galaxy is 2.5 pc (8.3 ly), or slightly greater than Jump-2. Jump-2 ships will often have to follow tortuous routes to get where they are going, if they can get there at all. Jump-3 ships have far fewer problems, and Jump-4+ should have hardly any at all. Most canonical warships are Jump-4.

Making stellar masses necessary to anchor jump routes (i.e., eliminating deep space jumps) enforces these relationships, and is a useful modification for Traveller in 3D. [/QUOTE]I thought about that after I wrote it. On a 2D map there is very little use for the increase but getting back to the 3D map, where this is intended anyway, it gives a much bigger range of choices without seriously inflating the size of the Imperium. My way either seriously inflates the size of the Imperium or grossly reduces communication time.

So how big, using your system would the 3rd Imperium be? Approximately of course. And would you go Spherical or more of a cube. Spherical might make more sense, but a Cube is easier to divide into Domains, Sectors, and Subsectors. smile.gif

Obviously you have put more thought into this over more years than I have. smile.gif

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
I think I'll stick with 2D for now, but thanks for introducing us to NBOS software. I looked over these programs and think they could be highly useful to most of us. Hopefully I will have my newer computer (read "My PIII 600mhz is getting outdated.) out of layway soon and can purchase several of them. Hi Andy,
Actually I was amazed how well Astro 1 ran on my old PIII 500mhz. smile.gif My game is played online. Graphics are the order of the day. I have found that it helps to give the players something to look at and keep their attention, since they aren't actually looking at you, or warming up their dice. smile.gif

If there was a neat program that generated world maps, orbital diagrams, with neat pics of planets, showed the sector and subsector map well then I would probably stick to 2D but since I haven't found one that works well. Scans of the Sector Maps are absolutely huge, or so low res that they are useless, etc. I need more than a generic bar, office, the interior of their ship and a couple of interesting 3D renders of ships. This way they get to see new stuff all the time. smile.gif Silly isn't it? I want to use the software simply because I can't get software designed to do the job, or put the same tools together.

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
So how big, using your system would the 3rd Imperium be?Using GT: First In, there is one habitable planet per 15.8 systems and one system per 11.5 cubic parsecs. For 11,000 habitable worlds, this results in an Imperium of a little under 2 million cubic parsecs. I set it up as an oblate spheroid, 200 x 150 x 150 pc, which allows 10% for internal voids and irregular boundaries. At 3.6 pc per Jump-4, it takes at least 10-12 months for an Xboat message to cross this Imperium from one side to the other, or from the center to the frontier and back. [/QUOTE]Ack! And I thought using a sphere would be a mess when it came to assigning Domains, sectors and subsectors.

By the way, habitated and habitable are two different things. More than half of the inhabited worlds of the Imperium are not what one would normally consider habitable.

Laryssa

April 14th, 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
[QB] Generating the Map isn't the issue. (The software does that rather nicely.) Dealing with the implications of taking it 3D is the problem. Though I like the concept. How does Jump Drive work in your Universe? If you have a planet that is 8 PC below the base and the nearest planet is 1PC Coreward but only one pc below the base?The jump drives work the same way as in the old Traveller except they now can move in 3 directions as opposed to two. This means that some starsystems are now farther apart than they were under the old 2D maps, and that is where the Red Dwarfs come in handy, they act as stepping stones to get to the planets you want, the habitable ones. About 90% of all stars out there are red dwarfs. Red Dwarfs are though of as unsuitable places to place habitable worlds, so under this system were assuming that all Traveller mainworld entries have stars that are main sequence type K, G or F stars. The stars more massive than type F are included anyway on the typical 2d Traveller star maps as they are so rare that it makes no difference whether they are included or not. Red Dwarfs however act as stepping stones To go from a type K system to a type G with main worlds in each, one would typically jump to a red dwarf system, and then to another red dwarf sytem and then finally to the type G system, with the mainworld in it that is of interest. Red dwarfs have gas giants too, and the chances of them having gas giants are about the same as in a system with a mainworld in it. The habitability zone of a red dwarf is so small that its unlikely that a planet would fall within in it, and if it did, the planet would be tidally locked, and only a small protion of the planet's surface would be habitable. So I figure instead of having 90% of all traveller worlds being tidally locked with red dwarf primaries, why not 3D it, give each subsector 10 parsecs of depth and fill in all empty spaces with red dwarfs at the same density as the original 2D subsector. With the red dwarf systems containing nothing useful except as a place to jump to and perhaps a gas giant to skim for refueling. in a word, Red Dwarfs are "stepping stones" in a 3D map. You might represent this by only showing the mainworlds in the hex collumns and then in the side information list each hex in the Subsector and in the information for each hex collumn list the main world first with collumn depth followed by all the Red Dwarf systems that share the Hex column with an indicator as to whether they have gas giants, or if there is no main world in that hex column simply list the red dwarfs and the gas giants that may or may not accompany them.

BetterThanLife

April 14th, 2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
By the way, habitated and habitable are two different things. More than half of the inhabited worlds of the Imperium are not what one would normally consider habitable. 44% atmosphere types other than 4-9, actually, according to Book 3. I chose "habitable" deliberately, for two reasons. One is to produce the volume needed to preserve communications lags. The other is that Book 3 population figures are nonsense, since there is no correlation with habitability whatsoever. Correcting this implies that only habitable worlds are likely to have sizeable, permanent populations. [/QUOTE]Size is another issue, when it comes to habitable, as is hydrosphere. As far as long term high populations, that would depend on what was there and the reason anyone would go there in the first place. Glisten, for example is a very rich asteroid belt. Therefore there is a reason for a population. I find the population vs. the starport type being interesting. Then there is the case of RETINAE (or however it is spelled. High Pop, decent tech, class E starport, no water and no gas giants. Jump-2 from anywhere. I know how the population got so big, it is all the people that got stranded there over the years. smile.gif

JAFARR

April 14th, 2006, 11:12 PM

BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem?

Laryssa

April 15th, 2006, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem? My system is not completely 3D, the subsectors are only 10 parsecs deep, and I don't show the red dwarfs on the map. If it weren't for the depth, I'd have no place to put the red dwarfs, or else 90% of the Traveller Worlds would have to be Red Dwarf Worlds that are tidally locked with their primary and very close in to their suns, sometimes less than a million miles. On just about every plant the PCs land on they'll see a huge bloated red run hovering permanently over the horizon. There would be a narrow band of habitable area, toward the sun it becomes infernally hot and away from the sun it becomes freezing cold in a permanent night. What would be unusual would be when the sun wasn't red.

If the long travel times bother you, well were changing one thing about Traveller by making it 3d, I see no reason why you couldn't change another by reducing the time spent in Jump. Lets say the duration of a Jump is 2 days instead of 7, then the average time between destinations might average around 7 days.

Laryssa

April 15th, 2006, 05:53 PM

Here is a 3d map of a sub sector preceded by a timeline. I've included red dwarf data including whether each system has a gas giant (GG) or no gas Giant (NG).
The America Sector â€“ A History
To c. 900 B.C. Vilani Exploration
c. 900 B.C. â€“ c. A.D. 500 The Consolidation Wars
c. A.D. 500 and later The Ziru Sirka
c. A.D. 2000 â€“ 2024 The Treaty of New York
A.D. 2024-2050 The Quest for Stability
A.D. 2050 â€“ 2088 The First Colonies
A.D. 2088 â€“ 2098 The Jump Drive Invented
A.D. 2098 â€“ 2114 The Contact Era â€“ Terrans meet Vilani
A.D. 2114 â€“ 2122 The First Interstellar War
A.D. 2124 The Development of First Jump-2 Drive.
The Phoenix Dawn, an American financed interstellar Ark, is retrofitted with an experimental Jump-2 drive.
A.D. 2125 The Phoenix Dawn Departs the Solar System in search of a Pre-Garden World to be terraformed
A.D. 2125-2134 The Second Interstellar War. The Phoenix Crew and passengers go into low berths.
A skeleton crew working in rotating shifts in and out of cold sleep operates the shipâ€™s systems.
The majority of the ships occupants stay in low berths to conserve life support resources.
Also frozen in cold sleep are samples of genetic material from an exhaustive sampling of Terraâ€™s species.
Even frozen animals and pests like mosquitoes, and flies are kept in frozen storage, down to bacteria.
Everything that was needed to reconstruct Terraâ€™s biosphere was stored in the ships cold watch.
A small biosphere was maintained in the shipâ€™s interior.
A.D. 2937 New Terra Discovered
Over a period of 812 years thousands of probes were dispatched by the Phoenix dawn.
By 2937 a pre-garden planet was discovered with seven continents in approximate positions matching those of Terra, the planet also orbits a G2 V star, has a similar orbital period, rotational period and axial tilt as Terra.
New Terraâ€™s atmosphere is initially suffocating, but work is done by seeding the oceans with genetically modified Terran plants and algae to convert the atmosphere into a breathable untainted mixture for humans.
This work is done by robots and human crews rotated in and out of low berths.
A.D. 4000 The first milestone is reached.
A standard tainted atmosphere is created, various advanced life forms are introduced to remove the taint.
Forests are grown and an ecosystem is established modeled after that on Terra.
A.D. 5200 The taint is completely removed from the atmosphere, the forests and other biomes have reached maturity.
It is determined that the ecosystem established is stable after many fits and starts.
The vast majority of the human passengers and crew are finally brought out of their low berths and revived.
For the majority of those revived, this is there first look at New Terra and their first awareness since they were put under in 2125. The United States of America is reestablished in this new sector, which they promptly name the American sector.
There were other similar efforts established by other nations of Terra in 2125, but none of them took so long to bring to fruition as this one. The fates of the other Phoenix missions are unknown to these present Americans.
A.D. 5200 â€“ 5631 Other planets are colonized in the four inner subsectors, these planets are named after the states of the United
(Imperial 1110) States and US territories.

The America Sector
The United States of America
California Subsector Data Table
Hex-Column-Level Name Alg Type Dia Grav Atmosphere Hydr Climate RVM AFF Population Port Government CR TL Trade WTN
091303 Unexplored Non Glacier 6,000 miles 0.68g Toxic 0% Frozen +0 0
091409 Alabama Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 30% Normal -1 7 4,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
091602 Alaska Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Thin 50% Chilly +0 8 660,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 3.5
091908 Unexplored Non Greenhouse 7,500 miles 0.95g Suffocating 0% Infernal +2 2

101108 Arizona Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.82g Standard-Tainted 10% Hot -2 4 5,700,000 A RepDem 5 11 4.0
101202 Unexplored Non Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Thin-Tainted 0% Chilly +0 0
101505 Unexplored Non Barren 1,500 miles 0.17g _0% Cool -1 -1
101707 Unexplored Non Barren 2,500 miles 0.25g _ 0% Cool +0 0
101906 Arkansas Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.97g Thin-Tainted 80% Cool +0 7 2,800,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

111108 Unexplored Non Barren 1,500 miles 0.15g _ 0% Frozen +1 1
111504 Unexplored Non Garden 7,500 miles 0.85g Very Thin 40% Cool +0 0
111608 California Am Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Dense 30% Normal +0 9 36,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.5

121405 New Terra Am Garden 7,900 miles 1.0g Standard 72% Normal +1 10 1,000,000 A RepDem CR 5 TL 11 Ri 4.0
122009 Colorado Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.79g Thin 40% Normal +0 8 4,600,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag 4.0

131608 Connecticut Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Dense 40% Cool +0 9 3,500,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
132006 Unexplored Non Pre-Garden 6,000 miles 0.68g Suffocating 80% Normal +1 1

141405 Delaware Am Garden 5,000 miles 0.82g Thin 40% Chilly -1 7 830,000 B RepDem 5 11 Ag 3.5
141609 Indiana Am Garden 5,500 miles 0.62g Dense 60% Cool +0 9 6,200,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0
141903 Unexplored Non Barren 1,000 miles 0.11g _ 0% Frozen +0 0
151104 Georgia Am Garden 8,000 miles 1.0g Dense-Tainted 30% Warm +0 8 8,800,000 B RepDem 5 11 4.0
151202 Illinois Am Garden 7,500 miles 0.85g Standard 40% Normal +0 9 13,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5
151310 Idaho Am Garden 6,000 miles 0.76g Dense 0% Tropical +0 7 1,400,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ri 4.0
151601 Unexplored Non Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Thin 10% Cool +0 0
151910 Hawaii Am Garden 6,500 miles 0.74g Standard 80% Normal -1 8 1,300,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.0

161607 Florida Am Garden 7,000 miles 0.88g Very Dense 70% Hot +0 7 17,000,000 A RepDem 5 11 Ag, Ri 4.5

Red Dwarfs
0911.. 01 (NG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) 07 (GG) 08 (GG) _______ _______
0912.. 01 (NG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 10 (GG)
0913.. _______ _______ 03 Unex _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) _______ 10 (GG)
0914.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 09 Alab _______
0915.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (GG) 04 (GG) 05 (NG) _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
0916.. 01 (GG) 02 Alas _______ 04 (GG) _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
0917.. _______ _______ 03 (NG) 04 (GG) 05 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 09 (NG) _______
0918.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
0919.. _______ 02 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ 08 Unex 09 (NG) _______
0920.. 01 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 08 (NG) _______ _______

1011.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 Ariz 09 (NG) _______
1012.. _______ 02 Unex _______ 04 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (NG) 09 (GG) _______
1013.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (NG) _______ _______ 07 (GG) _______ 09 (GG) _______
1014.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) 05 (GG) 06 (GG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1015.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 Unex _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (NG)
1016.. _______ 02 (GG) 03 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1017.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ 07 Unex _______ _______ _______
1018.. 01 (GG) _______ _______ 04 (NG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1019.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (NG) _______ 05 (NG) 06 Arka _______ _______ _______ _______
1020.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ _______ 08 (GG) _______ 10 (GG)

1111.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 08 Unex _______ 10 (GG)
1112.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1113.. 01 (GG) 02 (NG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 10 (GG)
1114.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) _______ 06 (GG) _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1115.. _______ _______ _______ 04 Unex _______ _______ 07 (GG) _______ _______ _______
1116.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ 04 (NG) 05 (GG) 06 (GG) 07 (GG) 08 Cali 09 (GG) _______
1117.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (NG)
1118.. 01 (NG) _______ _______ 04 (GG) 05 (GG) _______ _______ 08 (GG) _______ _______
1119.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) 05 (GG) _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (GG) _______
1120.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (GG) 05 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______

1211.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) 07 (GG) 08 (GG) _______ 10 (NG)
1212.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 (GG) 06 (GG) 07 (GG) 08 (NG) 09 (GG) _______
1213.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1214.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 New 06 (GG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1215.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1216.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (GG) 05 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1217.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 (NG) _______ 07 (GG) _______ _______ 10 (NG)
1218.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) _______ _______ _______
1219.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______
1220.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 Colo 10 (GG)

1311.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
1312.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1313.. 01 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
1314.. 01 (GG) 02 (NG) _______ 04 (GG) _______ 06 (GG) _______ 08 (GG) _______ _______
1315.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 (GG) _______ 07 (GG) _______ 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1316.. 01 (GG) _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 (GG) _______ 07 (GG) 08 Conn _______ _______
1317.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
1318.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (GG) _______ _______ 07 (NG) _______ _______ 10 (NG)
1319.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
1320.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) _______ 06 Unex _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) _______

1411.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (NG) 10 (NG)
1412.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (GG) 05 (GG) 06 (NG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
1413.. _______ 02 (NG) _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) _______ 10 (NG)
1414.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 Dela 06 (GG) _______ 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
1415.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) _______
1416.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ 04 (GG) 05 (NG) _______ 07 (GG) _______ 09 Indi 10 (GG)
1417.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) _______
1418.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
1419.. _______ _______ 03 Unex _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______
1420.. _______ 02 (NG) _______ _______ 05 (GG) 06 (GG) _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (GG)

1511.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ 04 Geor _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
1512.. _______ 02 Illi 03 (NG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) 07 (GG) _______ 09 (GG) _______
1513.. 01 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) 10 Idah
1514.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) 04 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (NG) 10 (GG)
1515.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ 10 (GG)
1516.. 01 Unex _______ _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ _______ 08 (GG) _______ 10 (GG)
1517.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) 03 (GG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
1518.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 (GG) _______ 07 (GG) _______ _______ _______
1519.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) _______ 10 Hawa
1520.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______

1611.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) _______ _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______
1612.. 01 (NG) 02 (GG) _______ 04 (NG) _______ 06 (GG) _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______
1613.. 01 (GG) 02 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1614.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ 04 (GG) _______ _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (GG) _______
1615.. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 10 (GG)
1616.. _______ _______ _______ 04 (GG) _______ 06 (GG) 07 Flor 08 (GG) _______ 10 (GG)
1617.. 01 (GG) 02 (NG) _______ _______ _______ _______ 07 (GG) 08 (GG) 09 (GG) 10 (GG)
1618.. _______ 02 (GG) _______ 04 (GG) 05 (GG) _______ _______ 08 (GG) 09 (NG) _______
1619.. _______ _______ _______ _______ 05 (GG) 06 (GG) _______ _______ _______ _______
1620.. _______ _______ 03 (GG) _______ 05 (NG) _______ _______ _______ 09 (GG) _______

Border Reiver

April 15th, 2006, 09:41 PM

i'll refer you all to Malenfant's attempts to make 3D space workable in 2D here (http://www.evildrganymede.net/rpg/rpg_f.htm). It mainly concentrates on realistic portrayal of near Sol space.

It also has a handy travel distance calculator for working out distances between layers.

Tom, is there not a better place for your "American" universe? It received both praise and criticism over at SJG but this thread is not the place for long histories and sector data. Why not start your own thread over at the IMTU forum? It will probably garner much more views and comments.

Laryssa

April 15th, 2006, 10:08 PM

It was just an example of a 3d Subsector. I will start my own thread, or better yet, I would like to arrange for a downloadable setting. Basically what I want to do eventually is create an entire sector map of this sector, mayba Adobe or something. I'm not sure how to get a mpa up on this site. Has anyone done this sort of thing before?

I'm almost finished with the sector data. Soon I'll have all 16 subsectors plotted out. Doing this one subsector was alot of work, especially placing all the red dwarfs. You realize there are about 800 hexes to roll a die to determine system presence for. I rolled two other dice at the same time to determine Gas Giant presence with a 9- on 2d6 meaning that there is a Gas Giant and a 10+ meaning that their isn't. It is a whole lot of work just to do one subsector in 3d. I think I'll just do a 2d Sector map for now and complete the project.

Too bad they banned me over there. I was about to complete the Sector there, so I guess now I'll post it here. It uses the GURPS Interstellar Wars Format, but it is just physical descriptions of the planets, its not like the RPG system used matters. One does not engage a planet in combat after all.

SJGames treatment of me there has taken down my opinion of them a few notches, but it is their loss I suppose.

BetterThanLife

April 16th, 2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Laryssa:
It was just an example of a 3d Subsector. I will start my own thread, or better yet, I would like to arrange for a downloadable setting. Basically what I want to do eventually is create an entire sector map of this sector, mayba Adobe or something. I'm not sure how to get a mpa up on this site. Has anyone done this sort of thing before?

I'm almost finished with the sector data. Soon I'll have all 16 subsectors plotted out. Doing this one subsector was alot of work, especially placing all the red dwarfs. You realize there are about 800 hexes to roll a die to determine system presence for. I rolled two other dice at the same time to determine Gas Giant presence with a 9- on 2d6 meaning that there is a Gas Giant and a 10+ meaning that their isn't. It is a whole lot of work just to do one subsector in 3d. I think I'll just do a 2d Sector map for now and complete the project.

Too bad they banned me over there. I was about to complete the Sector there, so I guess now I'll post it here. It uses the GURPS Interstellar Wars Format, but it is just physical descriptions of the planets, its not like the RPG system used matters. One does not engage a planet in combat after all.

SJGames treatment of me there has taken down my opinion of them a few notches, but it is their loss I suppose. If you are making stops in between, then it will destroy the Economics of Traveller. Further, communication times, Naval Deployment times, etc. go through the roof, so while you aren't taking up any more area, and could, in theory convert the whole 3I to 3D using this method, it wouldn't be playable in a general Traveller sense.

While I do appreciate the input, and you have obviously put lots of work into this. I can already create a 3D universe In fact yours might occupy 3 dimensions but is more of a 2.5D Universe. I am more interested in making a 3D Universe playable, keeping the Traveller feel, and if possible keeping the bulk of the OTU setting, than in how to give a flat map 3D coordinates.

BetterThanLife

April 16th, 2006, 09:56 AM

BetterThanLife

April 16th, 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
i'll refer you all to Malenfant's attempts to make 3D space workable in 2D here (http://www.evildrganymede.net/rpg/rpg_f.htm). It mainly concentrates on realistic portrayal of near Sol space.

It also has a handy travel distance calculator for working out distances between layers.

Thanks. Interesting. But I am actually trying to make Traveller workable in true 3D, not trying to convert 3D to a 2D representation. smile.gif Distance calculators is a function of the software. It doesn't need layers because it is stored in a 3D format. Well perhaps if you want to actually print flat maps. In my case though there is no reason to print the maps. The screen works fine, as does the output I can send to my players.

BetterThanLife

April 16th, 2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Size is another issue, when it comes to habitable, as is hydrosphere.Not really. The atmosphere definitions in Book 3 are functional, not physical: atmosphere 4-9 worlds are habitable using at most filter masks, by definition. This doesn't always track with reality as we know it, of course, nor does it guarantee they will be pleasant places, but there it is.
As far as long term high populations, that would depend on what was there and the reason anyone would go there in the first place.I did say "likely." The problem isn't anomolous high populations in inhospitable systems, it is when high populations occur precisely as often in inhospitable systems as in those with perfectly Earthlike environments. [/QUOTE]Actually, when it comes to Traveller, and most things, size DOES matter. After all you have to deal with Gravity as well as Atmosphere and Hydrosphere. Further there will be populations on inhospitable worlds, because of economic factors, (mining operations for example), or just because of location ( Ie. only stop along a major communication route). In the latter case there might be nothing more than a large highport or two and nothing on the planet at all.

Laryssa

April 16th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem? I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a system where the economics break down because you have to take extra jumps in between destinations. That is the type of issue I am trying to avoid.

I think Thrash's model of how to deal with Jump Drives in 3D is more workable. (And it is true 3D.) It works better than my first two impulses. Now to look further into basic sector data, borders and the like. (3D space tends to complicate that as well.) [/QUOTE]Isn't the key factor about how long you space? OTU says you spend about a week in jump space, but what if in 3d Traveller you spend only a day in jump space and then you were there? You can work out the length in jump space so you end up spending a weeks travel time on average between two habitable worlds, with a lot of refueling stops at gas giants between. An interesting way to progress the jump drives would be instead of each drive jumping further, they just take less time to make the jump. So heres how it would go. With Jump-1 you spend 2 days in jump space to jump 2 parsecs, with jump-2 you spend 1 day in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With Jump-3 you spend 16 hours in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With jump-4 you take 12 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-5 will take 10 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-6 will take 8 hours to make a 2 parsec jump.

BetterThanLife

April 17th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Laryssa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. The bit about jumping to 2 red dwarf systems between desired stops means 2 wilderness refuelings, 2 more weeks in jump as well as 2 more jumps to be made. We are effectivly reducing income by at least half if not more. There has to be some amount reality to make a SiFi game remain true to it's basis. There also has to be a certain amount of playability to keep it a game. As someone else has stated in this thread, the purpose of 2D was for playability, not reality. AD 2300 had a 3D system that worked within reason, but it also had a much more limited area of space to cover. After all, wasn't the matter of playability what got MT the most critizem? I agree, and I personally wouldn't use a system where the economics break down because you have to take extra jumps in between destinations. That is the type of issue I am trying to avoid.

I think Thrash's model of how to deal with Jump Drives in 3D is more workable. (And it is true 3D.) It works better than my first two impulses. Now to look further into basic sector data, borders and the like. (3D space tends to complicate that as well.) [/QUOTE]Isn't the key factor about how long you space? OTU says you spend about a week in jump space, but what if in 3d Traveller you spend only a day in jump space and then you were there? You can work out the length in jump space so you end up spending a weeks travel time on average between two habitable worlds, with a lot of refueling stops at gas giants between. An interesting way to progress the jump drives would be instead of each drive jumping further, they just take less time to make the jump. So heres how it would go. With Jump-1 you spend 2 days in jump space to jump 2 parsecs, with jump-2 you spend 1 day in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With Jump-3 you spend 16 hours in jump space to jump 2 parsecs. With jump-4 you take 12 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-5 will take 10 hours to make that 2 parsec jump. Jump-6 will take 8 hours to make a 2 parsec jump. [/QUOTE]Actually the key factors are, how long you spend in Jump (And I like the one week in Jump.), how much fuel you have to go through, how you refuel, and you charge per jump (OTU) or per Parsec (MTU and many others.)

The other difficulty, in YTU is that some planets will be unreachable, and you are using the old, the shortest route between two points is an angle. (Which is why I call it 2.5D.) Besides I have great 3D software, which will calculate distance and display in 3D. Other mapping ideas aren't really the issue. The issue is if it is possible to run a 3D Universe within the framework of the OTU history.

Laryssa

April 17th, 2006, 10:11 AM

Fuel consumption is about the same as in the 2d Traveller Universe, except the fuel is used per type of jump. Using more fuel will get you their faster and you'll spend less time in jump space. Some worlds will be unreachable if you have a limit of 2 parsecs per jump no matter how sort the travel time is, but keep in mind, in a 3d universe there will be more stars within that 2 parsec range than in 2d Traveller. In 2d Traveller the maximum jump range is 6 parsecs, but in 3d space, I think a 6 parsec range is too much. A starship can just about travel in any direction as there will be stars above and below as well as along the sides. I think a 2 parsec or perhaps 3 parsec range is perhaps the equivalent of a Jump 6 in terms on the number of stars than can be reached. It seems more sensible to me to make the Jump levels affect the amount of time it takes to complete a jump rather than how far the ship can jump. In most cases, the starship won't be able to travel directly from origin star to destination star without having to make intermediate refueling stops at various red dwarf systems and this is true whether it takes 2 days to make a jump or 8 hours. Red Dwarf Star systems then become strategic as higher jump-capable starships cannot skip over them.

BetterThanLife

April 17th, 2006, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Laryssa:
Fuel consumption is about the same as in the 2d Traveller Universe, except the fuel is used per type of jump. Using more fuel will get you their faster and you'll spend less time in jump space. Some worlds will be unreachable if you have a limit of 2 parsecs per jump no matter how sort the travel time is, but keep in mind, in a 3d universe there will be more stars within that 2 parsec range than in 2d Traveller. In 2d Traveller the maximum jump range is 6 parsecs, but in 3d space, I think a 6 parsec range is too much. A starship can just about travel in any direction as there will be stars above and below as well as along the sides. I think a 2 parsec or perhaps 3 parsec range is perhaps the equivalent of a Jump 6 in terms on the number of stars than can be reached. It seems more sensible to me to make the Jump levels affect the amount of time it takes to complete a jump rather than how far the ship can jump. In most cases, the starship won't be able to travel directly from origin star to destination star without having to make intermediate refueling stops at various red dwarf systems and this is true whether it takes 2 days to make a jump or 8 hours. Red Dwarf Star systems then become strategic as higher jump-capable starships cannot skip over them. Fuel has always been per distance of Jump. (One of the reasons I have, and many others have, adopted the per parsec method of charging for passage.) Your method of determining star and system position means you can't go straight line, your stars are evenly scattered and a Jump 1 ship is useless.

If you use a true 3D program to do your Universe instead of your fudge, it will fix all sorts of issues. WIthout a total rewrite though it won't have a traveller feel. (Which is one thing that I am definitely interested in keeping.)

aramis

April 18th, 2006, 03:18 AM

Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW...

robject

April 18th, 2006, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. [...] Off-and-on, I've wanted to introduce 3D elements to the Traveller maps. I already assume that the map is a flattened representation of wavy space (but big deal).

Something that struck me in this thread is that 3D is difficult, due to current technology. You need a table or a computer to look up distances, neither of which are friendly enough.

But you could introduce a few elements that add a 3D feel without wrecking the OTU and adding the pain of a 3D map.

For example, add a couple of systems more per subsector, and place them 'beyond' the map at random vertical offsets (1d6 parsecs?), representing targets that could not be accomodated by Vilanic starcharts. Use simple addition to calculate distances for everything except extreme cases. Since they're not "on the map", you might decide that the systems are off the beaten track a bit, too.

It's not difficult, but it's not 3D.

BetterThanLife

April 18th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by robject:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
BetterThanLife,
Even with the computer's aid, I'll stick to 2D just because of the simplicity. [...] Off-and-on, I've wanted to introduce 3D elements to the Traveller maps. I already assume that the map is a flattened representation of wavy space (but big deal).

Something that struck me in this thread is that 3D is difficult, due to current technology. You need a table or a computer to look up distances, neither of which are friendly enough.

[/QUOTE]Actually that is the point I was making. With AstroSynthesis 2.0 it is pretty easy and friendly to generate a true 3D map, calculate distance, show possible jump routes, etc. The tools are now available to do a true 3D Universe. I mean we all obviously have a computer and some knowledge of how to use one. smile.gif It isn't Rocket Science. smile.gif (I studied Rocket science for a little while and I can categorically state this definitely isn't it. smile.gif ) Some of us actually play Traveller using a Computer interface via the Internet, instead of a table face to face. (My campaign falls into that category.) So for us the NBOS software is slick and works well. I can export from Astro Synthesis to Klooge easily enough, Screen Monkey, Fantasy Grounds and most others also have the capability. (Grip is showing its age as HTML is not one of the share with the players options, unless I missed it in the docs.)

So with that hurdle overcome the question becomes, now that we can do the Universe in 3D, can we do it and not lose the Traveller feel, and rich history that only comes from developing the setting for almost 30 years. Or is it so tied to a 2D map that a reasonable conversion is impossible.

BetterThanLife

April 18th, 2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).Ooops. I forgot. You are of course absolutely correct. It has been so long since I have used LBB2 without LBB5, (used it for about a week before I bought LBB5 back in 1980 (?).)

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW... Item 5 makes Jump-2+ Ships, at any size unprofitable, further travelling someplace slower is more expensive than getting there faster, hence one of the most common house rules, is to charge per parsec. But that list is the essense of Traveller space travel. Though I should like to add.

6)A trip is defined by a single jump from point of origin to point of destination, regardless of distance.

7)The fastest method of interstellar communication is Starship, there is no FTL radio, video, etc.

Bearing this in mind. The issues that you run into when you create a 3D Universe with the same number of stars as a 2D universe are as follows.

Distance from center to edge or edge to edge is is much shorter. Which means, unless you change how Jump Drives work that Communication is much faster allowing more centralized control. Warships can be kept at more central locations because communication from point to point is faster as is reaction time for the Navy. Further Jump 1 Drives are going to have less usefullness as they will be restricted to single clusters. The likelihood of a long main is slim to none. So Jump 1 ships don't go far enough Jump 4-6 ships go too far.

Going edge to edge with the same distance and a reasonable depth will increase the number of systems exponentially, virtually destroying any ability or even pretense of centralized control. Too many stars, too many Nobles, etc. Dukes become a dime a dozen. (Forget about lesser nobility.)

So a solution like Thrash's that adjusts Jump Drive geometrically should provide what is needed to use the same number of stars in 3D space. (Though I will have to playtest the results once I generate a Sector as it appears that this is pretty much virgin territory.) Then we can keep 16 Subsectors per sector and 4 sectors per domain. 7 Domains make up the Imperium. (What it will look like is next on the list.)

Should you go a Sector is 4x2x2 Subsectors? Or perhaps 3x3x2 (And add 2 subsectors per sector?) You can't stack spherical Sectors next to each other but perhaps Spherical domains? Then each Sector would be .25 of the Sphere. (Or 2 per hemisphere.)Then each subsector could be 22.5 degrees by 45 degrees, by whatever your radius of the Domain is.).

Then I started to remember Spherical Geometry, as one of my co-workers is taking an advanced Calc class. If you shape the Imperium as a rough Sphere. With one domain in the center, (roughly half the diameter of the sphere, then you can spread the other domains around the center. Say 90 degrees by 90 degrees, yielding a total of 9 Domains. Sectors at the Core would be similar to those described above for the Spherical Domain. Exterior Domains could have sectors of 45 degrees by 45 degrees (Yeilding 4 per domain.) Subsectors, stack them 2 deep, and then go 22.5 degrees, by 22.5 degrees for the close ones, and 11.25 degrees by 11.25 degrees for the far ones. (Giving you 16 subsectors per sector.)

Subsectors or Sectors on the edges might not belong to the Imperium. Pull a domain out for the Part of the Solomani Sphere that the Imperium didn't keep, and you are down to 8 Domains in the Imperium.

How does that sound? Workable?

Polar Coordinates still give me a headache though. Someone please check my math on this. If the Imperium was about 11,000 systems, with an average system spread of 2.5 parsecs and with a diameter of about 200 parsecs, leaving room around the edges for areas not controlled by the Imperium, that should mean that the subsectors are roughly equal size as are the sectors and domains.

Does that even sound right?

Of course other empires would use a different mapping technique, centered on something other than Capital/Core which would intersect with the Imperium's Sphere but running a Sphere of roughly 250 parsecs should give me a piece of each of the other empires without complicating my map too much.

It almost sounds too simple.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Math corrections?

BetterThanLife

April 19th, 2006, 07:57 AM

Nope, I checked my math and the size is wrong. :(
That size puts me over 4 million systems. The Imperium has about 11,000 to 12,000 systems.

aramis

April 19th, 2006, 08:09 AM

BTL: J2 and J3 ships I have found make FAR MORE than J1, IF ONE IS ON A SPECULATION DIRECTED COURSE... let the available goods take you where you need to go, and profits soon will follow.

But that also is reliant upon a non-route-bound ship, too.

ALso, with good passenger loadouts and Bk5 designs, one can get profitable J2 designs under the per-time fees listed. I have never been able to figure a reason for non-speculators to need J3... but for speculators, it puts a +3 or better resale DM worlds in reach almost every jump in the central sectors.

As for 3d space, the economics of operation don't change, merely the odds for finding a good speculation run IF one is willing to follow it.

robject

April 19th, 2006, 10:10 AM

BTL: Yes, Astrosynth is superb.

In our games, we now regularly have at least one laptop attending, and often have one guy phoning in from Louisiana. So technology has enabled us.

But I feel that either computers haven't come quite far enough, or I'm stuck in the 70s and 80s, because I still want something that's more like paper. Although we're close -- for example, hooking my computer up to our TV lets everyone see the same thing. That would work.

The only other thing is probably that I and my group are old fogeys, and to us new whiz-bang tools are seen as TOYS to play with and not tools to use, at least for now. So a groovy 3D sector viewer would distract us from actually playing a game.

So I'm holding off on declaring us 3D universe-ready.

Laryssa

April 19th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, under Bk2, fuel was per maximum jump of the drive, ignoring the distance actually jumped (provided it didn't exceed the rating of the drive...).

Key elements, as I see it:

1) Time Taken = fixed range 168±10% without regard to distance covered
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit time, rather than distance.

YMMV, and YMMPDVW... Key elements, as I see it:

1) Distance Traveled = up to 2 parsecs without regard to time taken.
2) Rate of Fuel Used (10% for J1; MT & TNE +5% per additional Jn; rest +10% per additional Jn)
3) Incommunicatability of J-Space (You can't talk to, from nor through it to N-space, nor even to other craft in J-Space)
4) Inability to jump to/from steep gravity wells. (Approximated by 100 Diameter limit.)
5) Pricing of Travel per unit distance, rather than time.

J1 = 2 parsecs in 2 days 10% volume in fuel
J2 = 2 parsecs in 1 day 20% volume in fuel
J3 = 2 parsecs in 16 hours 30% volume in fuel
J4 = 2 parsecs in 12 hours 40% volume in fuel
J5 = 2 parsecs in 10 hours 50% volume in fuel
J6 = 2 parsecs in 8 hours 60% volume in fuel

A jump 1 isn't exactly useless, you can still jump 2 parsecs with it.

If something is further away than two parsecs, you have two options, you can travel the remaining distance at sublight speed, or you can find a jump point in between, jump to that and from that jump again, taking twice as long.

aramis

April 19th, 2006, 04:31 PM

Reducing those jump times does drastic damage to the expectations of communications and trade. It' puts J2 in the "Wait for confirmation" reach, being that at two days to round trip, that's well under the response times modern business will tolerate.

BetterThanLife

April 19th, 2006, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL: J2 and J3 ships I have found make FAR MORE than J1, IF ONE IS ON A SPECULATION DIRECTED COURSE... let the available goods take you where you need to go, and profits soon will follow.

But that also is reliant upon a non-route-bound ship, too.

ALso, with good passenger loadouts and Bk5 designs, one can get profitable J2 designs under the per-time fees listed. I have never been able to figure a reason for non-speculators to need J3... but for speculators, it puts a +3 or better resale DM worlds in reach almost every jump in the central sectors.

As for 3d space, the economics of operation don't change, merely the odds for finding a good speculation run IF one is willing to follow it. We have had the conversation on Spec Trade. smile.gif And yes I can agree that a lucky roll or two will throw your profits through the roof. As far as that being bread and butter for all the freighters out there... smile.gif But lets leave that discussion aside. It doesn't help the 3D Universe construction. smile.gif

I agree with you that those are the basics and part of what I am trying to preserve. The History is the other part I am trying to preserve. The Issues I am running into is size of the Third Imperium. At the approximate system per 2.5 parsecs average which appears to be standard and the size of approximately 11,000 to 12,000 systems in the Imperium. Long Distance communication goes way down. As does Naval reaction times.

1 system per 2.5 cubic parsecs (approximate average) means that 12,000 systems will take up, 30,000 cubic parsecs. 30,000 cubic parsecs is a Sphere with a radius of 21.21parsecs. Ooops. Too small. Or is my math still fragged.

BetterThanLife

April 19th, 2006, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Laryssa:

A jump 1 isn't exactly useless, you can still jump 2 parsecs with it.

If something is further away than two parsecs, you have two options, you can travel the remaining distance at sublight speed, or you can find a jump point in between, jump to that and from that jump again, taking twice as long. Well that totally frags up the standards of Traveller economics, Warship design, etc. But lets look at one of your suggestions, continue at sublight. OK. Sure.

If your destination is 3 parsecs away and you have a 6G maneuver drive. After Jumping 2 parsecs, you still have a parsec to go. 3.26 light years is one parsec. It is also 3.0842x10^16 meters. (Approximately) Rounding 1G to 10 meters/sec^2 Using 6G constant accelleration and turning around at the halfway point for 6G constant decelleration. Assuming unlimited endurance. It would take 2x(D/A)^-2 in seconds to get there. Or 45,344,759.34 seconds to get there. (Or just under a year and a half.) However, during that flight you will exceed the speed limit of 3x10^8 meters/second. (It will take your radio message that you jumped short 3.26 years to get there.)

aramis

April 19th, 2006, 11:06 PM

BTL:
3 D makes speculation EVEN better, because twice the distance isn't 4 times the systems , but 8.... It's also not about lucky rolls, BTL. the system is set so that tramp speculation is a key element to finance.

Laryssa:
When you muck with the basic assumptions of jump, you fundamentally alter the nature of the setting. Your "lots of short jumps" isn't something I'd want, especially given the slim but ever present chances of misjump. Even given the generous nature of how mild most jump errors are, in MT, one in 36 jumps will have an error of some kind, if not more; most will be harmless, if you don't mind not being the same age as the universe.

Nathan Brazil

April 20th, 2006, 12:21 AM

BTW I have Astrosynthesis 2.0 and have a LBB Book3 ASTROSCRIPT working (yes, it plots planets without stars!). I will post it when possible.

To preserve long communications and travel times in a smaller sphere:

Has anyone considered that Red Dwarfs, other stars and other major stellar objects (insert phenomena here) may actually interfere with travel paths? The change would involve changing the 100 diameter limit when objects are beyond a certain mass (say large brown dwarfs or red dwarf sized) are changed to some other standard. From a realspace prospective, J-Drives only work in a straight line of travel, stars you do not want go to might act as roadblocks and detours to the ones you do want to get to. Same long travel time in a smaller 3D space.

"Going thru hyperspace ain't like cropdusting, boy..."

BetterThanLife

April 20th, 2006, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL:
3 D makes speculation EVEN better, because twice the distance isn't 4 times the systems , but 8.... It's also not about lucky rolls, BTL. the system is set so that tramp speculation is a key element to finance.

Laryssa:
When you muck with the basic assumptions of jump, you fundamentally alter the nature of the setting. Your "lots of short jumps" isn't something I'd want, especially given the slim but ever present chances of misjump. Even given the generous nature of how mild most jump errors are, in MT, one in 36 jumps will have an error of some kind, if not more; most will be harmless, if you don't mind not being the same age as the universe. Again, lets not go back into the to speculate, not to speculate Merchant rules. smile.gif

The idea is to get the same 4 systems per jump in 3D not to expand to 8. As soon as you expand to 8 you have upset the balance of the Universe. Besides, so far, in any combination I can come up with, it is more like expanding from 4 destinations to 16. 8 I could probably live with. smile.gif That is where the major problem in converting to 3D lies. Until we can figure out how to fix that part we aren't going to find the minor problems. smile.gif

I know that we can just scrap the OTU and start over, perhaps with a bunch of pocket empires, in a Small ship Universe, using Thrash's Jump Numbers, and Astrosynthesis, but that is what I, personally, would prefer to avoid. After all the OTU, IMHO, is the major reason to play Traveller, everything else is just rules. I am sure I can find a rule set that works fine in a 3D Universe. With all the tools that are available, creating a 3D Universe is the easy part. (Down to the Planetary maps, simple.) Randomly generating Empire names, basic characteristics, etc, again, simple. It would take a weekend of a Computer running and number crunching. (Roughly.) I personally don't have time to write the History of the Universe though, nor do I know anyone with that kind of time on their hands. The, almost 30, years of development, the continuity, the "Historical Errors" etc. are what give playing Traveller an edge over the more recent stuff that isn't developed.

The one thing I have seen in the recent past that comes close to having enough background to roleplay in a Universe is the Honor Harrington series, and that doesn't have enough information to gut it out on a small party level, yet.

The Firefly series has potential but ties you to one System. (Granted a huge, complex system but a single system nonetheless.) It could use some fleshing out. It is, relatively, easily enough adopted using any set of Traveller Rules, or other rule system. If it hadn't gotten cancelled it would probably make a great Sci-Fi RPG backdrop. In a few years it might yet, provided that people continue to develope "The System." The problem with playing within a single system is things like Orbital Mechanics. Anyone know of a good piece of software that will handle Orbital mechanics and travel time well enough to do that? smile.gif Still gaming in "The System" doesn't let me travel to the stars.

The Star Trek Universe is the only real other choice as far as detailed Universe development, and it has had a few more years than Traveller (though not that many) but it is too clean for the typical RPG and certainly for my Refereeing style.

BetterThanLife

April 20th, 2006, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Nathan Brazil:
BTW I have Astrosynthesis 2.0 and have a LBB Book3 ASTROSCRIPT working (yes, it plots planets without stars!). I will post it when possible.
Kewl!

To preserve long communications and travel times in a smaller sphere:

Has anyone considered that Red Dwarfs, other stars and other major stellar objects (insert phenomena here) may actually interfere with travel paths? The change would involve changing the 100 diameter limit when objects are beyond a certain mass (say large brown dwarfs or red dwarf sized) are changed to some other standard. From a realspace prospective, J-Drives only work in a straight line of travel, stars you do not want go to might act as roadblocks and detours to the ones you do want to get to. Same long travel time in a smaller 3D space.

"Going thru hyperspace ain't like cropdusting, boy..." Possible. However, now we are into the Software doesn't exist yet category. AS is great for generating a Universe, calculating distances, showing jump routes and possible destinations, but not for blocking some routes. One other point, a Star is small, on a Galactiv scale anyway. The chances of one getting into the actual line between two systems in 3D especially on the scale we are talking is very slim (Anorexic (SP?)) to none.

aramis

April 21st, 2006, 12:41 AM

BTL: You can't separate the effects of 3d from effects upon merchant rules, nor travel from them... they are direct impacts.

Further, the expectations of shipping determine exactly what level of shipping should exist.

BetterThanLife

April 21st, 2006, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL: You can't separate the effects of 3d from effects upon merchant rules, nor travel from them... they are direct impacts.

Further, the expectations of shipping determine exactly what level of shipping should exist. True. But that is true in 2D Traveller as well.

However the idea is to keep the number of systems reachable by Jump and communication times roughly the same. Otherwise you have to dump all the history and background and the feel of Traveller. So playing the Merchant rules one way or the other doesn't really matter as long as the Universe doesn't change in a way that drastically effects how Jump works in relationship to the number of stars available. Making the systems too far apart so that you have to take a series of intermediate jumps to get to your destinations, and making systems too plentiful both seriously break the rule system.

I am almost at the point of giving up anyway and looking for another backdrop and different FTL rules. Because I can't seem to find a middle ground that doesn't break the rule system beyond salvage. :(

Plankowner

April 21st, 2006, 08:40 AM

The core issue seems to be that if you go 3D, the systems are now going to be farther apart (using Mv stars to fill the holes), or you have way too many systems within a short distance.

To keep the travel and # of systems together, you probably need to tweek a couple of things at the same time.

How about:
Jump Times: 1 day per Jump
Jump Fuel: 1% per Jump (min fuel for 10 jumps).
Plot the other 80%-90% of the stars Red Dwarfs as suggested above.

I THINK this would keep the inhabited systems far enough apart that you would keep the same relative system density. The lower fuel requirements would allow you to not have to hop between stars just for fuel. The reduced Jump Time would keep the travel distance about the same (assuming 4-5 jumps between inhabited systems).

There would still be the issue of justifying higher jump numbers, but on the surface it MIGHT work.

It just seems that a 3D universe would require changing several parameters to get an equivalent feel of travel times.

BetterThanLife

April 23rd, 2006, 09:57 AM

You could also just change the range of how far the inhabited systems are supposed to be apart and adjust the range a Jump number actually goes. So in your case change the Jump number to 10 times the number of parsecs. (Same issue, your fast ships still make communication times too short.) It is going to probably require a inverse geometric progression for jump numbers. The key is to find the right combination.

It has to take about a year to cross the Imperium (edge to edge) still contain about 11,000 to 12,000 systems without destroying the economic viability of a Free or Fat Trader.

aramis

April 24th, 2006, 03:37 PM

Not systems BTL, Worlds.

The actual OTU 2-D imperium is well less than 11000 systems.

BetterThanLife

April 29th, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
Not systems BTL, Worlds.

The actual OTU 2-D imperium is well less than 11000 systems. Supplement 8 States over 11,000 Worlds and over 700 parsecs across. I accept the distinction between Worlds and systems.

Though with approximately 18 sectors (Combining partials and accounting for rift areas perhaps 17 would be closer, though an argument could probably also be made for 19, and this is done by eye with the maps from the same supplement.) with an average density of 500-650 (Supplement 11, call it 575) worlds per sector, that puts the number of worlds at over 10,300. These are definitely rough numbers, but so is over 11,000 worlds.

Now there is a 50-50 chance of a world per hex. (LBB3) A Sector has 1280 hexes. Or roughly 640 Worlds. If you call it 18 sectors in the Imperium at 640 worlds per sector that gives you 11,520 Worlds in the Imperium. (At a rate of each "World" occupying its own hex.) So therefore it follows that the term world is meant to be Main World.

I personally have been using the terms World and System interchangably for years. According to Supplement 11, the term System is defined as
A star and its family of planets and satellites. The term system denotes a major world and its associated star, plus any other planets, satellites, asteroids and other bodies. Given that and the system generation rules are concerned with generating major worlds first and the rest of each system is secondary that would seem to imply that there are 11,000+ main worlds in the Imperium and therefore 11,000+ systems. Though I will admit that the statement of "over 11,000 worlds" is still a bit vague. The distinction between worlds and systems appears to be nil.

Now distance is another matter. But distance is more important in how long it takes news to travel than actual Parsecs. And "over 700 parsecs across" is extremely unhelpful and gives no clue as to size since it is only one dimension. So lets look at distance in terms of the X-Boat network. Using the ripples in the Rebellion Sourcebook. An X-Boat message takes roughly 52 weeks to get from Ley to the Spinward Marches (Trailing to Spinward distance.) and roughly 58 weeks from the Vargr Border to the Solomani Border. (Coreward to Rimward distance.) So the 3rd Imperium is roughly a year in diameter for the X-Boat Network. The xboat network averages between 2.6 (Supplement 8) and 3.2 (Actual math, based on Rebellion Sourcebook, see below) parsces per week. So the diameter of the Imperium would be between 135 and 170 parsecs. Where the 700 parsecs across comes from is beyond me.

Now the Coreward/Rimward distance is actually fairly easy to measure. A Subsector is 10 parsecs coreward to rimward. There are 18.75-19 subsectors coreward to rimward. Call it 188 parsces. (Which gives us just over 3.2 parsecs per week coreward-rimward X-Boat traffic, based on the ripples.)

We now have 11,000 systems or Main worlds and a year edge to edge travel time for the Imperium.

The average distance between worlds, using the 50-50 chance of a system, means that the average distance between stars is closer to 2 parsecs instead of the 2.5 that I have been assuming, based on observed data of published OTU sectors.

BetterThanLife

April 29th, 2006, 01:28 PM

Now a Naval task force would take longer to cover the same distance. The 1100 Imperial Navy Standard of Jump-4 and 6G, but a Naval Task Force has to actually stop at each jump point for refueling purposes where a message only stops for between 7 minutes and less than 4 hours while it is transferred to the next boat. Refueling operations are rarely mentioned in any of the books, except for Supplement 5 where it takes about a week insystem for an AHL to refuel (Actually 4 to 10 days.). A fast moving Jump-4 Task force can probably go edge to edge of the Imperium in 18 months.

A Jump-6 naval Courier route (similar to the X-Boat route but using Couriers and only sending couriers as required.) Takes about 37 weeks from Spinward to Trailing and 38 weeks Rimward to coreward. (Rebellion Sourcebook) or roughly 70 percent of the X-Boat time. So it would take that fast moving Task Force roughly 117 weeks (2 years and 3 months) to react to a Crisis on the far side of the Imperium. (Which is why the Navy is dispersed so much.)

OK so Jump-3 has to take a year from edge to edge and Jump 4.5 has to take 9 months to cover the same distance. (Or should we crank that all the way up to Jump-6 and assume the military has the resources to make their routes super effecient.) The Average System seperation is Jump-2. There needs to be about 11,000 systems. If we bump the number of systems up to 12,000-16,000 we can make the shape fairly regular and cut away sections to make an irregularily shaped Imperium.

Is anyone's math less rusty than mine? There is a formula here. I can feel it but I can't get a handle on it. I think I have all the needed variables defined.

Is it an inverse gemoetric progression? Or are we dealing with exponential?

aramis

April 30th, 2006, 04:05 AM

cubic parsecs = Length (Pc) * Width (Pc) * height (Pc)

6 months at J4 at standard ops rates (1 wk n-space, 1 wk J-space) is 12x J4= 48 Pc; at 9 days and 3 Pc per jump 3* 6 * 28/9 * 3=1*2*28/1=56 parsecs from capital to the far edge of the marches (or the Solomani Sphere). so... if we give the imperium a sphere 56 parsecs radius, that's a cube with a volume of 56^3; for simmplicity 50 Pc cube. 125000 cubic parsecs. To hit 11000 systems, that's a 10% density... Or, we up the imperium to 62500 systems. Or we shorten to X Boat routing.

To keep the number of systems, only 1 in 5 can be workable, and then we have 5x the distances to cross.

BetterThanLife

April 30th, 2006, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Aramis:
cubic parsecs = Length (Pc) * Width (Pc) * height (Pc)

6 months at J4 at standard ops rates (1 wk n-space, 1 wk J-space) is 12x J4= 48 Pc; at 9 days and 3 Pc per jump 3* 6 * 28/9 * 3=1*2*28/1=56 parsecs from capital to the far edge of the marches (or the Solomani Sphere). so... if we give the imperium a sphere 56 parsecs radius, that's a cube with a volume of 56^3; for simmplicity 50 Pc cube. 125000 cubic parsecs. To hit 11000 systems, that's a 10% density... Or, we up the imperium to 62500 systems. Or we shorten to X Boat routing.

To keep the number of systems, only 1 in 5 can be workable, and then we have 5x the distances to cross. Those are pretty much what I am looking at. Which is why I am looking at something like an inverse geometric progression for the Jump Drive. Otherwise your Jump-1 drive is absolutely useless and while Jump-2 is useful it isn't very. It would also follow why there isn't anything above Jump-6 as it is definitely hitting the point of dimminishing returns. (With an inverse geometric progression the aditional distance gets smaller while the fuel consumprion keeps getting higher.)

Given the density of the Imperium, if the Imperium was a circle, then it would be a circle with a radius of 44.95 (89.9 pcs diameter), at the given density. (It obviously isn't a circle.) A Circle with the right year, edge to edge travel time, is a radius of about 78 pcs and has the same density has 16552 stars. (The Density works out to .577 systems per square parsec or 1 star per 1.733 square parsecs.) This is a Flat Imperium, obviously and is based on the fact that a Sector is 1108.513 square parsecs, has 1280 hexes in it and half of those have stars. (LBB3 density.)

I guess the first step for the formula is to get the equivalent density figure for cubic parsecs. This is where my mind has turned to mush. Or is it simpler than that? Just changing that to 1 star per 1.733 cubic parsecs feels wrong, but is it?

BillDowns

April 30th, 2006, 01:23 PM

Let me toss out something for your thoughts. Go ahead and create sub-sectors in 3d. Then, smile.gif and this may be covered in use the thread - make a sector 4 subsectors deep, preserving the 4x4x4 concept. Finally, make the Imperium only 1 or 2 sectors deep, based on the idea of keeping things within the galactic plane.

That should cutdown on your volume over pure cubes for the Imperium as a whole. It is also more accurate as the Milky Way is planar in structure. Not entirely, I grant you but close enough for game play purposes.

aramis

April 30th, 2006, 01:33 PM

that's roughly 40%...

So, assuming a progression of

J6 = 3Pc
J5=2.9Pc
j4=2.7Pc
j3=2.4Pc
j2=2.0Pc
j1=1.5Pc
J0=0.9Pc
You should have j6 is only twice J1, so for 6months at J4 at 9 days each (Fast XBoat) 2.7 * 6 * 28/9=0.3*6*28/1=1.8*28=36+8+6.4=50.4 Pc radius, whereas J4 x 12 = 2.7 x 12=24+8.4=32.4 Pc across.
To get J1 separation, 1.5^3=(1.5+.75)*1.5=2.25*1.5=2.25+1.125=3.375 CuPc per system
So, using the cube (for simplicty) of 30Pc Radius= 27000 and rounding up just a bit, we want a system every 4 cubic parsecs, that gives us 7000 systems.

aramis

April 30th, 2006, 01:42 PM

bTW: the merchantile impacts will be huge, in that J6 will have far less gain over J5, etc. The speculation advantages of J4 are lost
using 3.3 CuPc per "Space" (avg sep of about 1.4Pc)
<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">JN Pc Volume Ot.Sys
J6 3 113.1 33.3
J5 2.9 102.2 30
J4 2.7 82.4 24
J3 2.4 57.9 16.5
J2 2 33.5 9.2
J1 1.5 14.1 3.3
J0 0.9 3.1 -0.1</pre>[/QUOTE]as opposed to the 2d rates:
<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">JN Pc Hxs Sys
J6 6 126 63
J5 5 90 45
J4 4 60 30
J3 3 36 18
J2 2 18 9
J1 1 6 3
J0 0 0 0</pre>[/QUOTE]

BetterThanLife

April 30th, 2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
that's roughly 40%...

So, assuming a progression of

J6 = 3Pc
J5=2.9Pc
j4=2.7Pc
j3=2.4Pc
j2=2.0Pc
j1=1.5Pc
J0=0.9Pc
You should have j6 is only twice J1, so for 6months at J4 at 9 days each (Fast XBoat) 2.7 * 6 * 28/9=0.3*6*28/1=1.8*28=36+8+6.4=50.4 Pc radius, whereas J4 x 12 = 2.7 x 12=24+8.4=32.4 Pc across.
To get J1 separation, 1.5^3=(1.5+.75)*1.5=2.25*1.5=2.25+1.125=3.375 CuPc per system
So, using the cube (for simplicty) of 30Pc Radius= 27000 and rounding up just a bit, we want a system every 4 cubic parsecs, that gives us 7000 systems. Actually I assume that X-Boat messages are virtually 100% jumpspace time. (As the next ship jumps between 7 minutes and 4 hours from when the last boat arrives.)

What if we went a little less radical. Thrash's jump formula gives us.

Jump distance = (Jn + 2) * 0.6 pc

That is:

Jump-1 = 1.8 pc
Jump-2 = 2.4 pc
Jump-3 = 3.0 pc
Jump-4 = 3.6 pc
Jump-5 = 4.2 pc
Jump-6 = 4.8 pcwhich would still give us a Diameter of 156 pcs. (Jump-3 is his break even point.)

A Sphere with a Diameter of 156 has a volume of 1,490,849 cubic parsecs. Which at .577 systems per cubic parsec gets us, over 860,000 systems!

Your formula, given the same density, and a 52 week edge to edge, gives us 440433 systems.

My density numbers have to be off.

If you go one dimensional, it is a straight line of 22000 parsecs for 11000 systems. The Density is .5 per parsec. When you do the same thing in 2D it is .577 systems per square parsec. So the same thing in 3D is what?

BetterThanLife

April 30th, 2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by BillDowns:
Let me toss out something for your thoughts. Go ahead and create sub-sectors in 3d. Then, smile.gif and this may be covered in use the thread - make a sector 4 subsectors deep, preserving the 4x4x4 concept. Finally, make the Imperium only 1 or 2 sectors deep, based on the idea of keeping things within the galactic plane.

That should cutdown on your volume over pure cubes for the Imperium as a whole. It is also more accurate as the Milky Way is planar in structure. Not entirely, I grant you but close enough for game play purposes. Actually I wasn't planning on a pure shape for the Imperium. But we have to start with some shape that you can calculate the volume for. I think the best thing would be to get a regular shape then cut away parts so you are down to the right number of systems.

Your way is a good idea. In fact it is what I first thought of as well. The issue is that communication times go way down or number of systems, sectors and subsectors goes way up if you keep your sectors at the same size. I was actually looking at cube sectors of 3x3x2 subsectors, which gives you 18 subsectors per sector and messages go zipping right across, as do military forces. You can keep the local economy about the same and it will run fine, no matter the shape you eventually choose. It is the larger Universe that fails miserably and the History and Background, that go with it. If all you want is a backdrop for pocket empires then any shape you choose is fine. Provided that you set your system density and jump drive ranges to fit, it would work.

Does that make sense?

aramis

May 1st, 2006, 12:33 AM

well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Numbers
Jn Pc CuPc OtSys
J6 4.8 463.2 139.4
J5 4.2 310.3 93.0
J4 3.6 195.4 58.2
J3 3.0 113.1 33.3
J2 2.4 57.9 16.5
J1 1.8 24.4 6.4
J0 1.2 7.2 1.2</pre>[/QUOTE]Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).

Using the 9 day J4 6month (it is 8 days maximum jump time; for reliability and capture, you need a day of maneuver time. Which is why I use 9 days.), that's 2427715.584 CuPc and 719323.136 systems.

Using the J4 14 day travel cycle: 644972.544 CuPc, 191102. Systems (at 1 per 3.375 CuPc/Syst...) You'd need a 10% solution to get 11000 systems, which puts average separations at double (2.15, really) the 1.5Pc cube used (10^(1/3)), for an average separation of J4!

My rates at least will preserve the relative size of the imperium.

BTW, the disc of the galaxy near earth is rather thick. Our radius of 43-50 parsecs is less than 1/3rd the thickness.

From http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_milky.html
Disk:
The disk of the Milky Way has four spiral arms and it is approximately 300pc thick and 30kpc in diameter. It is made up predominantly of Population I stars which tend to be blue and are reasonably young, spanning an age range between a million and ten billion years.So, The Imperium is unlikely to span the full height of the disk.

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Aramis:
well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Numbers
Jn Pc CuPc OtSys
J6 4.8 463.2 139.4
J5 4.2 310.3 93.0
J4 3.6 195.4 58.2
J3 3.0 113.1 33.3
J2 2.4 57.9 16.5
J1 1.8 24.4 6.4
J0 1.2 7.2 1.2</pre>Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).

Using the 9 day J4 6month (it is 8 days maximum jump time; for reliability and capture, you need a day of maneuver time. Which is why I use 9 days.), that's 2427715.584 CuPc and 719323.136 systems.

Using the J4 14 day travel cycle: 644972.544 CuPc, 191102. Systems (at 1 per 3.375 CuPc/Syst...) You'd need a 10% solution to get 11000 systems, which puts average separations at double (2.15, really) the 1.5Pc cube used (10^(1/3)), for an average separation of J4!

My rates at least will preserve the relative size of the imperium.

BTW, the disc of the galaxy near earth is rather thick. Our radius of 43-50 parsecs is less than 1/3rd the thickness.

From http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_milky.html
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Disk:
The disk of the Milky Way has four spiral arms and it is approximately 300pc thick and 30kpc in diameter. It is made up predominantly of Population I stars which tend to be blue and are reasonably young, spanning an age range between a million and ten billion years.[/quote]So, The Imperium is unlikely to span the full height of the disk. [/QUOTE]Even using a 150 pc diameter sphere we are only going halfway. So I agree with that.

I also agree with the week down to week in Jump cycle. However that assumes that the xboat message travels aboard one ship. According to Library data each leg is carried by a different ship. The mail moves much faster than most ships can manage because of this. (Which is why I also treat the Military as having a similar setup.) In the old pony express days the rider switched horses at each station until he was exhausted then he passed the bag off to another rider. Each ship has time for maintenance between jumps and probably makes one jump every other week but the mail makes one jump per week. Which is why I look at message travel time. (Information travel time is as important as economic implications, if not more so for RPG purposes.)

I also realize that Thrash's numbers aren't ideal but it is a good inverse geometric progression and I thought it might make a good starting point. I think he has the right idea, but it isn't the right formula. smile.gif

What if the Jump-4 point instead of jump-3 was the break even point and we steepen the curve a bit. Then we could decrease the density without hurting things economically as badly. (Also make sense as to why the Military ships were J-4.)

Let me come up with a couple of formulas along those lines. smile.gif

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.One system (not star) per 11.5 cubic parsecs is closer to the real local density.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Real Numbers
Jn Std Pc CuPc OtSys Ratio
J6 63 4.8 463.2 40.3 0.64
J5 45 4.2 310.3 27.0 0.60
J4 30 3.6 195.4 17.0 0.57
J3 18 3.0 113.1 9.8 0.54
J2 9 2.4 57.9 5.0 0.56
J1 3 1.8 24.4 2.1 0.70</pre>[/QUOTE] Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).Huh? Thrash's formula was carefully crafted to preserve the effects of mobility and trade (including speculation).

The "Ratio" column (=OtSys/Std) demonstrates that the relative number of stars accessible at each jump number is +/-10% of standard density on the 2D map -- not bad for representing a cubic relationship with a linear formula. The actual base distance (2.4 pc = Jump-2) was set by comparison with the Known Star list, and is as close to canonical as you're likely to get.

If you prefer, you can pretend the density is 1/6.9 pc instead of the real figure, and obtain an exact match. [/QUOTE]Thrash,
The issue isn't the local merchant-trade stuff, at least as far as I am concerned, it is the longer range comms, and the size of the imperium. For local stuff, or for a whole new Universe, it is just about right, though military task forces, and message traffic will go zipping across a sector, provided you keep a sector about the same size, in terms of number of systems.

Since J-3 is your break even point, the Imperium, to preserve message time, would have to have a diameter of about 156 parsecs. In a 3D universe where a Jump-1 or Jump-2 ship is viable, that puts the Imperium at several million systems. Breaking the politics of the Imperium. If we cut it down to around 11,000 perserving the size of the Imperium, message travel time cuts down to 4-6 months (tops)also breaking the politics of the Imperium.

You have the right idea. The economic implications are absolutely correct. I may even be trying to squeeze more into the change than is possible. But I like the OTU background and a change to 3D for me has to retain more of that. (And yes, that would include not breaking the economics while I am at it.)

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Since J-3 is your break even point, the Imperium, to preserve message time, would have to have a diameter of about 156 parsecs. In a 3D universe where a Jump-1 or Jump-2 ship is viable, that puts the Imperium at several million systems.I get ~250,000 systems, using the more realistic figure of one system per 11.5 cubic parsec. So only one system in 22-23 is inhabited -- why not? Something has to change, to go from 2D to 3D. This would actually be a good change, one that makes it much more difficult for the Imperium to be everywhere at once and helps justify things like pirates and armed free traders. [/QUOTE]OK so how does the economics work if only one in 22 is inhabited? The problem is it no longer does.

I agree something has to change. Like I said your formula works great if all I was concerned about was local economics. And you obviously put lots of research into it.

If we switched to (Jn+4)*.5 for example, you get a steeper curve and should be able to decrease the density of systems. Can we get a uniform density that gives the same ratios using this? Not sure how that would effect the size of the Imperium yet, but if the density goes down then it would be less systems in the same volume. (Since it is 3D volume, it is significantly less systems.)

Do you see what I am looking for?

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 02:14 PM

OK I knew my numbers were off. Thanks to Nyath the nearly wise on the NBOS maillist.

Volume of a sphere is 4/3*Pi*r^3 So a Sphere with a Diameter of 156 parsecs has a volume of 1,987,799 cubic parsecs.

If we were to have 1 system per 2 parsecs then the Stellar density would be .239 systems per cubic parsec. (Nyath's number)

So in this case we have 475084 systems in our volume.

If we crank the average distance to 2.4 parsecs. That makes the system density drop to .138 and lowers our number of systems in the same sphere to 274625.

If we change the jump formula to (Jn+4)*.5, then Travel time across the Imperium of one year at Jump-3 increases the diameter to 182 parsecs, or a volume of 3156551 cubic parsecs. However if we at the same time increase the distance between systems to 3 parsecs (Still a Jump-2 apart.) Density drops to .071 systems per cubic parsec. Changing the number of systems in the sphere to 223280.

No real change. :( However if we allow the Imperium to shrink so that a message crossing the Imperium goes down to 10 months, then we keep the 156 parsec diameter and we are down to 141,134 systems.

Going the other way. (At 2.4 parsec seperation, using Thrashes formula for Jump). Running 33,000 systems so we can carve away chunks for the borders of the Imperium and come up with a different shape. the sphere is approximately 77 parsec diameter or about 6 months across.

Going with my jump formula then 33,000 systems at 3 parsec seperation for systems is a sphere with a diameter of 96 parsecs. message traffic adds just under 2 weeks. (Big deal.)

Going to an inverse exponential formula for jumps makes jump 5 and 6 virtually useless.

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 02:52 PM

Thrash if we are required to jump to 10+ uninhabited systems in between inhabited systems then there are no interstellar economics. So going to only one in 22 are inhabited can't work. Everything is isolated.

I think cutting the size of the Imperium to a 6 month message travel time would probably be my best choice. It allows for more centralized government, but if the local Nobles have a habit of blocking that type of Imperial involvement then it won't have as much of an effect.

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
If we were to have 1 system per 2 parsecs then the Stellar density would be .239 systems per cubic parsec. (Nyath's number)Winch is a good guy, but he's off: that's the inverse of the volume of a sphere of radius 1 pc; it doesn't account for all the empty space in between the spheres. The density should be 0.177 systems per cubic parsec.

What I'm not sure about is why 2 pc is the magic number? [/QUOTE]It is the LBB3 number for 2D system density. It is also the only number that gets close to the over 11,000 worlds based on the geography of the Imperium.

If we use your jump numbers then 2.4 becomes the magic number. For normal space.

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 02:59 PM

aramis

May 1st, 2006, 04:59 PM

Here's why I used the 3.3 CuPc figure: it directly compare to hexes, in that it's a cube 1J1 on a side under by proposal. (Chris' is a hare larger, so I used his).

SO we can directly compare hexes to volume chunks, and ignore (for the moment) stellar densities.

Once we have a volume in J1-units, we can figure the volume, and then the requisite density, and then by extracting the cube root, the average separation in terms of J1. If the cube root of the inverse of the density is more than the distance for J2, ALL the trade systems are affected by increased distance and thus decreased profits.

Also note that the OTU has many J-1 Mains. The real stellar density won't support the kind of mains that the OTU has, unless we far more steeply curve than any of the suggestions yet.

BetterThanLife

May 1st, 2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by thrash:
What I'm not sure about is why 2 pc is the magic number? It is the LBB3 number for 2D system density. [/QUOTE]Same problem, this time confusing area density with distance. Standard density is 1 system per 2 hexes; scattered is 1/3 (and actually a better match for the Spinward Marches and the Solomani Rim). At standard density, systems are 1.4 (square root of 2) hex-widths apart; at scattered, 1.7 hex-widths (sqrt 3). Based on the Known Stars List, this translates to an average real-space separation of 1.7 pc at standard density, and 2.1 pc at scattered.

Overall, this last isn't too bad a match for the real world, where the average separation is ~2.5 pc.

It is also the only number that gets close to the over 11,000 worlds based on the geography of the Imperium.Don't see how you conclude this, when that's what you're trying to determine, isn't it?

[/QUOTE]Actually The 11,000 worlds in the Imperium is Canon. The only to get close to that number, based on the 2D Map of the Imperium in the same source is to use the LBB 3 formula of one star every other hex on average. Which yields that, on average stars are 2 parsecs apart. Yes in the Spinward Marches they are farther apart. The same with Ley. However since the rules state 1-3 on a D6 +/-1 There also must be regions where the density is higher than 1 per 2 hexes. (Actually in those regions it is 2 stars per 3 hexes.) So the average overall according to the LBB3 rules is an average 2 parsec seperation between stars on the 2D map. The Shape of the 3D Imperium is what we are trying, or at least what I am trying to determine. But it is a shape based on information from the 2D Imperium.

As for closely packed spheres and determining distance, I read that, and remembered some of that class I took over 20 years ago. Though the math still eludes me. I guess I better get back to reading. smile.gif Though at this scale stars aren't spheres they are points. I guess though you can still only fit so many so the sphere would still apply. (Remind me to go back to school when I have time and can afford it. smile.gif )

If your numbers are more accurate then that greatly decreases the number of systems in the same radius. Let me get back to the math. smile.gif

aramis

May 1st, 2006, 10:47 PM

For reasons of packing math, as in, I don't want the headache of doing that, I use cubes in figuring.

It is a gross approximation, but it works. (note, for the tables, I did use sphere for the area covered by Jx, but not for the volume for average "cell" size. I also used a spreadsheet.)

BetterThanLife

May 2nd, 2006, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:

use the LBB 3 formula of one star every other hex on average. Which yields that, on average stars are 2 parsecs apart.No, it doesn't. This is math, so I can say unequivocally: you are wrong. Go back and look at my previous post, and think about what I just said. It's important because it's messing up your subsequent calculations.

[/QUOTE]Actually there are 1280 hexes in a 2D sector. Each hex has a 50-50 chance of having a system in it. (LBB3) Therefore there should be an average of 640 systems per sector. Each hex has an area of .866 square parsecs. Therefore a 2D sector has an area of 1108.513 parsecs and a density of .577 stars per square parsec on average. Or one star per 1,733 square parsecs. Since we are dealing with every other hex though our average seperation is should be 2 parsecs. Or is that math off someplace? With that number in 2D everything works based on the information provided in the CT books.

Obviously if these numbers are off then the conversion to 3D is starting with bad assumptions and would never work.

aramis

May 2nd, 2006, 03:12 PM

BTL: Several of the sectors are 1/3 density. A few are 1/36 (Reft).

The number of systems in reach from a given world and the distance from core to edge are the most important; anything else won't feel right, and will have drastic effects on what should happen in terms of the polity.

Chris' linear (but offset) approach produces a different ratio between J1 and J4 than does the classic 2d; mine does more drastically. Mine does, however, put about the right number of systems to preserve that as well. But it makes a huge difference for J2 traders, both in terms of how long it will take them to make the core (12 months instead of 30), What it doesn't do is provide far more target "chunks" (hexes or cubes) to which one can jump; therefore it does the least damage to all the trade systems.

BetterThanLife

May 2nd, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL: Several of the sectors are 1/3 density. A few are 1/36 (Reft).Yes, however since the average is 50-50 then there should also be sectors that are 2/3 density. (The Rift areas, in all honesty, in my eyeball number of sectors in the Imperium, I didn't count them.) Note that would be 2 out of 3 hexes and not an actual 2 per 3 parsecs, which Chris was quite right isn't mathematically a density.)

The number of systems in reach from a given world and the distance from core to edge are the most important; anything else won't feel right, and will have drastic effects on what should happen in terms of the polity.
Agreed though a reasonable ceiling on the number of Systems within that radius is also important or it will also destory the setting.

aramis

May 3rd, 2006, 02:15 AM

Funny, at standard density, I got a main running a winding 35 parsecs long, rolling dice. ANother of over 20 parsecs long, same 2.5x2.5 sector map. 3 of 10pc or so. (I was bored, had hexpaper, and dice, and time; wife was in ER for appendix removal. Didn't roll the worlds; just system locations.) Note that the map has a void in it, 6 parsecs in diameter, with a single world just off center... Dice (and statistics) can be way funky.

Odds or no, they are present in canon, and a real force to be reckoned with: how to represent such.

BetterThanLife

May 3rd, 2006, 05:57 AM

Actually, if we are dealing with simple shapes the closest approximation to the 2D Imperium is a Triangle. In fact a Right Triangle isn't a bad approximation.

I have no problem with the concept that there are uninhabited systems out there. In fact when Astrosysthesis generates the area, I expect quite a few uninhabited systems.

However to have all your systems as isolated as you propose, one system in 15 actually being habitated, that provides another problem.

The Jump-2 ship, under your formula, and under canon, can usually have several choices to get to another system. (In fact most systems in a 2D sector are accessable by a Jump-2 ship.) Normal cycle is one week in Jump, one week in system. If we cut it down to only one system in 15 are a useful destination, and we jump to less than useful systems in between destinations, and we cut the time in system, for the non-inhabited systems, down to 2 days for maintenance and wilderness refueling operations. (Because of the 100D limit, the size of gas giants and actual time refueling and refining fuel a typical 1G merchant is going to have to take closer to 3-4 days in system.) That means a trip from one port to another is going to take, typically, 15 jumps or 135 days, which is just over 19 weeks. So you go two systems and you are then in annual maintenance. (Because you can't make your next port in time.) How do you price the ticket for the trip? High Passage, Mid Passage, Low Passage and Freight. What do you do if your Spec Trade roll gets blown and you don't make much profit on that trip? How do you make your mortgage payments, with or without spec trade? Is every inhabited world at least a Class B Starport so you can perform annual maintenance?

On the higher traffic routes why isn't some Mega Corp putting in stations at the uninhabited systems and therefore inhabiting them? I mean canon lets a small population run a high tech class A starport, shipyard and fueling station. It seems to me there would be a bunch of those, and at many of those a service industry would grow up, from there a decent population, especially if there were discovered another reason to be there besides simply trade or being a way station. Suddenly your uninhabited systems are now inhabited.

With such travel times why is there interstellar trade at all? Much less a reasonable volume of trade. If there isn't a reasonable volume of trade how do you get a starship mortgage? (Who would finance it?) With all the wilderness refueling between stops and the ever present chance of a misjump, interstellar trade just got a whole lot more dangerous, without the fact that the Imperium can't even patrol the populated systems, so Piracy is a very real threat on every trip. Your interstellar trade will be virtually limited to large merchant vessels, that travel in convoy, typically with Naval escort and tanker support. Or will be virtually non-existant.

While it may seem more realistic to you to have the systems scattered more, and I am not saying it isn't, the playability of the system would require a total rewrite of the economics to the point where it isn't recognizable as Traveller.

As for mains, you have to have either mains or large clusters or J-1 ships are absolutely useless, instead of being the most economical ships to operate. A J-1 ship has the lowest overhead and the largest cargo capacity, for its size. If you are in the right cluster or making your run between the right 2-3 planets, then you don't have to worry about how many systems the ship can reach for either profitable freight/passenger carriage or Spec trade and a J-1 ship can actually turn a profit doing either, in 2D Traveller. In your model a Jump-1 ship will have to sacrifice 10% of its cargo capacity to carry additional fuel and make the same runs that a J-2 ship makes, but taking twice as long. So you get to go from one system to one other per year. You'll die of old age long before you do any real traveling.

A Scout Ship doing a Survey of the inhabited worlds within a sector would in 2D Traveller takes at least 17 years. (Yes I started Adventure 0 and did the math way back then.) In your universe it will take 15 ships 17 years or one ship 255 years!

With systems scattered so much you would be very hardpressed to run any kind of military campaign. Even if you figure that a Jump-4 ship is going to take less than half the time a Jump-2 ship takes to go from one inhabited system to the next, You are still looking at between 5 and 7 jumps just to get to the next system. So how the Imperium got so big, how the Interstellar wars got fought or the Solomani Rim war, none of it works.

When you broke the laws of supply and demand, did you expect there not to be any consequences? (Sorry couldn't resist.)

aramis

May 3rd, 2006, 05:41 PM

NotChris:

average separation = density^(1/dims)
where
- dims= is number of dimensions.
- distance is in linear units
- density is in dimensional units of linear units ^ dims (2d is sqaure units, or hexes or triangles; 3-d is cubic units, which may not be cubic in shape) per item. (Essentially, the inverse of the fraction of space measured to contain systems, in quatized units matching the linear units.)

For most of our purpose here, we can quantize space into units J1 in distance, since anything smaller is irrelevant. (I included J0 because I am a heretic on that score... I allow J0 drives IMTU.)

On multiple jump
If I understand Chris correctly, his basic assumptions will include that the megacorps will simply skip such requisite empty systems by either using drop tanks, longer jumps, or fuel aboard for multiple smaller jumps (demountable or collapsible most likely), whichever suits their current financial needs.

Establishing a population is often not going to be cost effective for a corporation.

For a government, however, it may be a different matter, since the bottom line considerations are very different.

And, to be honest, I can see the point quite easily.

Not every mainworld needs to be inhabited.

Chris Thrash:
Or, Chris, FT isn't Traveller... It's GURPS. BTW, GTFT is the official trade system for GPD now... Congrats.

Seriously, tho', most of us DO NOT WANT multiple jumps for inhabited world to inhabited world to be required. Many of us also don't want the massive-trade-flows imperium GTFT produces/derives-from.

Some of us even want to go so far as proto-traveller-style no-intentional-long-range-trade-exists but short-range-spec-exists models that work in 3d.

What many of us want, in short, is to do as little violence as possible to the fundamental assumptions of Marc Miller, as we each see them. (which varies wildly).

Bk 2 and T20 define what trade in traveller feels like to many. Sorry you disagree.

Sure, it's NOT your cup of tea, Chris. But it's what Traveller is to many. So, please, don't take it out on others that they reject your ruleset.

You and I both rightly get accused of "preaching" our economic paradigms. BTL already isn't interested in either, and I've tried to keep my comments here restricted to the fundamentals which are cross system since BTL objected.

BetterThanLife

May 3rd, 2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
That means a trip from one port to another is going to take, typically, 15 jumps or 135 days, which is just over 19 weeks.This is really getting frustrating. I'm trying to not take my frustration out on you, because I can see that it's because you simply don't understand and not that you want to be difficult.

Look: density is not distance. If I drop the average density by a factor of 15.8, I only increase the average distance by a factor of the cube root of 15.8, which is 2.5.

So instead of the average voyage taking 14 days from portcall to portcall, it now takes maybe 30 days: three jumps, with two intermediate stops to refuel.[/QUOTE]You are right, I am messing up here, unintentionally, but my math skills have obviously gotten fuzzy. (3D math was so long ago and hardly used since, I am relearning things as we go for some things and learning new things as well. Thanks for that.) However if only one planet in 15 is habitated, it feels like you would have to make, on average quite a few more stops in between systems. The fact that it only adds a stop or two in between intuitively feels wrong. Not saying that it would, just that is what it feels like.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How do you price the ticket for the trip? High Passage, Mid Passage, Low Passage and Freight.Per parsec, not per voyage, which is the only way that actually makes sense under any circumstances. The only effect is that the costs to the shipper or passenger are increased by a factor of 2.5 or so, which reduces the overall amount of traffic by maybe a factor of 8. This just reinforces the "frontier" feel of the original descriptions of the Traveller universe. [/QUOTE] I agree that per parsec pricing makes more sense, to ma anyway, however I would prefer that be left up to individula GMs as some would prefer not to change that part of canon.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What do you do if your Spec Trade roll gets blown and you don't make much profit on that trip?Don't engage in speculative trade if you don't have the margin to absorb the inevitable losses.

On the higher traffic routes why isn't some Mega Corp putting in stations at the uninhabited systems and therefore inhabiting them?They probably would -- so what? The life support costs in canon also imply that maintaining such a station is relatively expensive, which limits their size to a few thousand. As long as the Imperium does not consider these "member worlds" per se, but only "temporary outposts," nothing has changed. They are like the outposts that are currently assumed to exist in the outer parts of most inhabited systems: present, but generally ignored.

With all the wilderness refueling between stops and the ever present chance of a misjump, interstellar trade just got a whole lot more dangerous, without the fact that the Imperium can't even patrol the populated systems, so Piracy is a very real threat on every trip.Exactly! Suddenly, the canonical existance of pirates and the need for wilderness refueling coincide with the observable facts of the setting, which they don't right now.

Your interstellar trade will be virtually limited to large merchant vessels, that travel in convoy, typically with Naval escort and tanker support.You mean, like the Gazelle-class "route protectors" run by Al Morai (SMC, p. 31)? Or the reason that the Imperium even allows private merchant ships to be armed at all, when outlawing offensive shipboard weapons would be a clear way to distinguish pirates from legitimate merchants?[/QUOTE]Actually with Merchants getting scarer and merchant shipping getting larger per ship and travelling together 400 ton pirates would either work in packs or not exist. Bigger ships and ships working in concert would be the order of the day. (As a 400 ton pirate is a flea to a large merchantman.) Destroyers, Destroyer Escorts and Cruisers would have to be the order of the day.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> the playability of the system would require a total rewrite of the economics to the point where it isn't recognizable as Traveller.I submit that the result is more recognizably "Traveller" than the current situation.

The rest of your objections either I've answered (above, to Aramis) or are irrelevant because you don't understand the actual effects of distance.[/QUOTE]Perhaps but I am learning. Thanks again for your patience.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When you broke the laws of supply and demand, did you expect there not to be any consequences?Don't talk to me about supply and demand unless you're willing to discuss Far Trader-style economics. The rest of Traveller is manifestly broken in this regard. [/QUOTE]Actually I was just paraphrasing your tag line. It was meant in fun.

But since Gurps never interested me. I actually never even knew, until after I purchased T20 and went in that direction that SJG had even published any Traveller material since their 15mm Cardboard heros. (Which I do own.) Since they use an alternate history, and history, IMHO, is what holds the OTU together, I have pretty much ignored their material. Since MWM has stated that their material is alternate canon and since I don't own much of their material (mostly because of that and the fact that many of the key books are out of print) I am incapable of discussing the merits or lack thereof of their material.

BillDowns

May 3rd, 2006, 07:55 PM

Guys, I've been reading the posts, but not contributing for several reasons.

:D First, I think you have discovered why MWM doesn't want to mess with 3D and still try to keep to game design. It doesn't appear to work.

:confused: Second, why does sector, subsector, whatever, mapping need to be 3D? Whats-his-name at Project Rho has a very good discussion on this. somwhere - you'll have to look for it.

smile.gif Just curious.

BillDowns

May 3rd, 2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by thrash:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BillDowns:
Second, why does sector, subsector, whatever, mapping need to be 3D?Because canon refers to those divisions, separate from their purely astrographic functions.

Whats-his-name at Project Rho has a very good discussion on this. somwhere - you'll have to look for it.Save your patronizing. "Whats-his-name at Project Rho" is Winchell Chung, whom you would have seen us all quoting if you had been paying the slightest bit of attention. How do you suppose "rhombic dodecahedrons" came into the discussion? [/QUOTE]I wasn't patronizing, I couldn't remember his name and really feel like searching a 7 page thread for it.

Second, lighten up.

TheEngineer

May 4th, 2006, 02:08 AM

Hi !

Some questions

Would it need some more alien empires to preserve the "surrounded" nature of the Imperium ?

Or is it intended to take those "empty borders" as frequently missed "frontier areas" (well, as it is seen in previous posts the in border volume already provides a kind frontier feeling) ?

If moving to a 3D TU (or 3D jumpspace) and real star list relations, could something there still be something like the cut off Spinward region ?

Regards,

Mert

TheEngineer

May 4th, 2006, 07:21 AM

Hi !

Sorry, mind focusing problems, but I do not really understand 'There isn't much room in the disk "above" or "below" a 140 pc thickness'...
I'm not so sure about the shape of the 3D TU Imperium now.

Do you expect to have large border areas (like the intersection of two spheres) e.g. between the Imperium and the Aslan, or would you keep those areas smaller (a merely careful touching zone between two empires) ?

Its in fact the vast amount of border area (compared to the 2D version), which strikes me most. Guess that needs a completely different amount of naval forces to provide some kind of safety here.

Is there any rough visualisation, how the 3D TU universe could look like ?

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 08:16 AM

We have hit on a couple of options for it so far. Nothng concrete yet. But in general, looking at Thrash's idea and the one I have been toying with, it does retain basic shape. As for more empirse, possible but the areas between empires aren't likely to have anything with much juice. Mostly Pocket Empires similar to the Gateway region is how I see it. (Where three major powers come together.) The longest Contigous border between the Imperium and another hostile power (or potentially hostile power) is the Solomani border. There is the long Vargr border but the Vargr aren't a cohesive power. Now the Solomani have a bigger border with the Aslan, and the K'kree and the Hivers have a nice big border, but in general the Imperium doesn't have that big a border with its neighbors. I figure we could extend those borders a bit and put a bunch of pocket empires around similar to the Gateway Domain, or Fasa's Reavers Deep Sector (What I recall of it.). Which if you wanted to play there would provide a nice frontier feel to it with influence from nearby competeing major powers. I think 6 is an important number to keep. smile.gif But that is the traditionalist in me.

Chris is right, with the Galactic disk roughly 300 Parsecs in thickness and things thinning out as we get closer tothe edge taking a big slice out of the middle to the tune of 140-150 parsecs pretty much uses up the disk in the Z axis.

As for shape, I have been topying with a sphere and cutting away sections, for rift, borders etc. Thrash is looking at an oblong shpere. The second issue when dealing with the shape of the Imperium is how to cut it into Sectors and subsectors. In 2D Traveller this is done in a regular draw lines in the sand fashion or on a map regardless of what is actually there. (Kind of like the way the Pope divided the Americas between Portugal and Spain all those years ago.) And those with more systems are more powerful. (Makes sense.) For example Several Subsectors in the Spinward Marches are under the domain of one of their neighbors or split among their neighbors. This may be due to lack of stars, lack of Imperial systems, or the fact that a hostile power controls part of the subsector. We could also compare Ley Sector, but for some reason QLI left out the Subsector Capitals. (OOOPS!)

Once we get the rest of it nailed down then I will be more than happy to generate and post a possibility in 3D. (Which will open a whole bunch of new comments, IMHO.)

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 08:33 AM

Another point since we are using up the disk in the Z-Axis there wouldn't be much above or below the Imperium, certainly not major powers so the Traditional Surronded would still be fairly easy to attain. We have basically eliminated 2 directions so the Imperium could still have enemies all around Spinward, Trailing, Coreward and Rimward. What terms do we use for the Z-Axis?

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 08:41 AM

One other point on Mains. I seem to recall that while generating hte Spinward Marches several subsectors were defined as different. For example in Supplement 3 it is stated that Lanth is a Rift subsector. The mains may have been caused by having higher density subsectors within the sector. A Long Main is more likely in an area that is 2 in 3 stars instead of 1 in 2. Just like Lanth subsector is impossible in even a 1 in 3 ratio.

AS generates, or rather tends to generate systems in smears, instead of giving it an even density anyway, so the concept of Rifts, even small ones like Lanth Subsector, will come out in generation as will large ones. I don't have all the mechanics in how to tweek the settings in AS to get a Traveller Universe yet, I was waiting to get useable parameters first.

TheEngineer

May 4th, 2006, 08:59 AM

Could one check this Z-axis dimension thing ?
Somehow I remember a thickness around 1000 pc.
Well, I'll check Hipparchos data...

Terms for the z-axis ?
Upwards, Downwards ? smile.gif

Plankowner

May 4th, 2006, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Another point since we are using up the disk in the Z-Axis there wouldn't be much above or below the Imperium, certainly not major powers so the Traditional Surronded would still be fairly easy to attain. We have basically eliminated 2 directions so the Imperium could still have enemies all around Spinward, Trailing, Coreward and Rimward. What terms do we use for the Z-Axis? Been lurking for a while, but thought I would chirp in here...

There is still quite a bit of room above and below the Imperium. Those regions are scatter, sparse or rift in density as you move away from the galactic plane. Lots of room for smaller and poorer pocket empires, but probably not room for a major power. I say poorer pocket empires because a PE out on the rim will have most of it's systems pretty far apart. At J1 or J2, they will have HUGE fuel costs to keep trade going, limiting their size. Then again, such a situation might be ideal for more isolationist factions of all the races who want to be left alone.

I recommend that we use "North" and "South" for the +Z and -Z directions. North would be determined by Magnetic Galactic North. In the old 2-D terms, use out of the paper as North and into the paper as South.

If you end up with a mapping scheme that requires 2-3 interim jumps between habitable systems, I suggest you REALLY look at the fuel requirements for jump. Leaving the jump distances the same but significantly reducing the fuel will help keep the economics similar.

On the issue of the shape of the sub-sector/Sectors, I think you will have to drop the standard 8x10 hexes. In 3-D, you really need a Cubic shape, perhaps 8x8x8 or 10x10x10.

(Sinks back into the muck, eyes peeking through the mist...)

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by thrash:

* Provide a rationale for the canonical but currently inexplicable presence of pirates and armed private merchant ships

If you think an extra jump or two is too much to pay, feel free to try and cover as many bases at once.
I know I snipped lots. I personally would prefer a way to get the jump from inhabited system to inhabited system to be the norm instead of the exception. As far as Pirates and armed Merchants go. If you don't make Military sensors all powerful and all seeing then there are plenty of places for Pirates to hide, base, and operate. A Star system is a big place. If a system doesn't have a large space presence, Starport class D-, TL 8-, then as long as the Pirates hide, for example, keep a Gas Giant, or similar heavenly body between them and the Naval ship they will remain hidden. Or perhaps sit in a cave on an Asteroid or other piece of Rock. Or they could simply Jump out if the Navy came in on top of them by chance. This would support the small independent pirate or small group of pirates which appears to be canon. So would situations where local governments are supporting pirates, either as Privateers in a local interstellar war, or actually taking kickbacks/bribes in return for basing there. Similar to Silesia in the Honor Harrington books.

What Canon doesn't support is large pirate bands, except in special situations, large pirate ships, (Again except in Special Situations) and a general need to keep Pirate operations minor.

With lots of uninhabited, unpatrolable space, there is now a place for the large Pirate bands, the Large Pirate Cruisers, etc. Piracy stops being the occasional thing and becomes more of an Organized Crime problem. Look at the Canon Corsair. It is a 400 ton ship that isn't quite a warship but has enough juice to take on the typical Merchantman up to 400 tons. However it can't carry all the cargo of a 400 Ton Fat Trader. It is also a hit one ship then return home operation. Since Merchantmen obviously get bigger than 400 tons. If you give Pirates places to happily congregate and get up to no good in larger groups then you will see Corsairs in the Destroyer to Cruiser range. Running sweeps like the Navy and longer patrols picking up all sorts of merchants before heading home.

That is one of the issues I have with all the uninhabited systems in between the habitated ones.

The other issue is, that while it may not be profitable for Major Corporations to populate a system, or a Government might not for one reason or another. Establishing fueling stations along major routes for their ships, generally orbiting Gas Giants, would make sense. Then you could conduct minor repairs, load up on refined fuel without endangering your cargo with a fuel skimming operation. Generally keep the area around the fueling operation relatively safe. (well except against things like Destroyer+ Pirates operating in Wolf Packs.) Now a Megacorporation is likely to attempt to help realize a profit from such operations and would probably sell the same services to other merchants coming through. they might even have warehouse space and be set up as a transfer station for their goods that have to go in different directions. Some of that wharehouse space might be empty for periods of time, why not rent it out. Now some of these stations could be local operations. They are supplied with plenty of fuel. There is enough raw material to use fusion stills, for water. Ther is also sufficeint material for food sysnthesis. Now these stations would have to have a defense force, to keep themselves from being taken over by Pirates.

So now we have a bunch of people, which, in itself, qualifies under Traveller rules as an Inhabited system, sitting on their butts waiting for the next convoy to come through or the next Pirate attack. Mostly just sitting and waiting. Now an honest merchant minded individual such as myself, with access to a Small ship, say a Far Trader, sees an opportunity here. So I load up my ship with fresh food, the latest Holovids, and perhaps some passengers of questionable but buyable sexual morals and take a trip to this station. I sell the food, and the Holos, hang out for a week and return. (Passengers and all.) Some of the Passengers decide that they won't get bored for a while and stay there, others that I take on an earlier trip are bored and want to go home. Now I am making a nice profit but a friend of mine sees another possibility, he gets on as a passenger, rents out some empty space there, and some warehouse space and starts buying cargoes from Merchants passing through. Selling to others as they pass through. Suddenly we have spec trade going on here as well. The Station qualifies as, at a minimum, a Class B Starport. There is a population, rather quickly, in the less than 100 range but it still counts as Population 2. All driven by trade. Now if a Mega Corp doesn't see the profit in this but a local merchant from a nearby planet does then it could also be an independent operation. Since we have a defended base some Prospectoirs are likely to come through and take a look at the local Resource exploitation possibilities, ooops a Strike and within a short period of time you have a Major population.

But in anycase your uninhabited systems aren't likely to stay that way, especially if they are on Trade routes. And we are exploding the size of the Imperium. It might take a little time to get most of them with some kind of population on them, some of them might be military bases, some Scout X-Boat bases but they will all grow because where there is service to provide someone will provide that service. But in a period of less than 100 years they will virtually all be populated in one way or another.

Remember that Life Support costs occur when there is no access to resources. (Generally in Jump Space.) While there is some cost to lifesupport in a stationary orbit, there is also cost in systems with a Size 0 main world. Or on worlds with no or bad atmosphere. (Gateway, Stoner and Glisten come immediately to mind and there are dozens of others in the OTU.) Uninhabitable, in Traveller doesn't mean uninhabitated. So life support when you have access to resources has to be less than on a Starship, especially when you are on a starship in Jump Space.

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Plankowner:

There is still quite a bit of room above and below the Imperium. Those regions are scatter, sparse or rift in density as you move away from the galactic plane. Lots of room for smaller and poorer pocket empires, but probably not room for a major power. I say poorer pocket empires because a PE out on the rim will have most of it's systems pretty far apart. At J1 or J2, they will have HUGE fuel costs to keep trade going, limiting their size. Then again, such a situation might be ideal for more isolationist factions of all the races who want to be left alone.
There could also be client states of the major powers, encroachments, and trade routes between major powers that don't traverse the Imperium. Hivers and Aslan trading has some delicious possibilities and would be very scary for the K'kree. smile.gif

I recommend that we use "North" and "South" for the +Z and -Z directions. North would be determined by Magnetic Galactic North. In the old 2-D terms, use out of the paper as North and into the paper as South.

If you end up with a mapping scheme that requires 2-3 interim jumps between habitable systems, I suggest you REALLY look at the fuel requirements for jump. Leaving the jump distances the same but significantly reducing the fuel will help keep the economics similar.

On the issue of the shape of the sub-sector/Sectors, I think you will have to drop the standard 8x10 hexes. In 3-D, you really need a Cubic shape, perhaps 8x8x8 or 10x10x10.

(Sinks back into the muck, eyes peeking through the mist...) Actually I was thinking about using polar graphing for Sectors and subsectors, instead of cubes. That way you still get frontier subsectors without cutting around cubes. Cubes tend to cause you to think in terms of the shortest distance between two points being an angle. And, at least to me, it seems to make more sense to measure stars as Right ascension, declination and distance from a central point, (Core/Capital perhaps?).

Plankowner

May 4th, 2006, 12:53 PM

The RA-DEC stuff can get pretty fuzzy when you have a large area to work with. If you used Capital/Core as the "Zero" mark, by the time you got to Darrian space, the angle differences between the worlds would be pretty small. You end up with huge decimal places on your angles just to separate 2 worlds. Perhaps each Sector has it's own Zero Mark and only that mark is referenced back to the Prime Mark (Capital). This would make it similar to the hex coordinate used in the 2D model.

The Cube approach, IMHO, is the most straightforward and would allow you to map things on paper, if needed. Remember, not every map will be able to be projected from a computer monitor. Even then, you are still trying to show a 3-D map in 2-D.

BetterThanLife

May 4th, 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Plankowner:
The RA-DEC stuff can get pretty fuzzy when you have a large area to work with. If you used Capital/Core as the "Zero" mark, by the time you got to Darrian space, the angle differences between the worlds would be pretty small. You end up with huge decimal places on your angles just to separate 2 worlds. Perhaps each Sector has it's own Zero Mark and only that mark is referenced back to the Prime Mark (Capital). This would make it similar to the hex coordinate used in the 2D model.

The Cube approach, IMHO, is the most straightforward and would allow you to map things on paper, if needed. Remember, not every map will be able to be projected from a computer monitor. Even then, you are still trying to show a 3-D map in 2-D. I agree it might be the most straightforward. And other regular shapes don't work in 3D (except for Tetrahedrons and double Tetrahedrons.) Though maping Tetrahedrons and stars within one might be a royal pain as well.

OK So There are Domains, Sectors and Subsectors within the Imperium. To avoid changing the balance of Noble power too much we should keep close to the 2D sizes in terms of how the Domain/Sector/Subsector break down. I figure we can go either 4x2x2 subsectors per sector (Preserving 16) or 3x3x2 (giving us 18.) How do you stack sectors for the domains? 2x2x1, or 1x2x2 or do we go wild and go 2x2x2 and double the number of sectors per Domain? (Making the Archdukes really powerful especially compared to the Dukes.) If we try to maintain the general size of the Imperium at about 11,000 systems and not add an abundance of Dukes, we should keep about 4 Sectors per domain, Though 3x2x1 giving us 6 might work. In both cases Domains are pretty flat.

There are 7 domains, though before the Solomani Rim war there can be made an argument for one or two more.

If we call it 9 we can do a Rough Sphere, like I described earlier in the thread, and while it would be a pain in terms of coordinates locally, it makes nice 3D Imperium. Similar to Thrash's Oblong Sphere. Though I am not sure how to break that down, perhaps the same way as my Sphere.

Plankowner

May 5th, 2006, 09:46 AM

I am leaning towards the 2x2x2 scheme all the way up.
8x8x8 hexes per Sub-Sector
8 Sub-Sectors per Sector - Duke
8 Sectors per Domain - Arch-Duke
8 Domains per "Region" - Viceroy(?)

Depending on the Barren to Inhabited system ratio, the number of Main World systems within a Sub-Sector could be in the 40 range (Standard Density in 2D terms).

aramis

May 6th, 2006, 04:05 PM

Plankowner:

May I suggest regions be 8 sectors, with a Grand Duke, and domains 8 regions with an Archduke...

I've also been thinking a 2x2x2, with 8x8x8 subsectors.

Plankowner

May 8th, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Aramis:
Plankowner:

May I suggest regions be 8 sectors, with a Grand Duke, and domains 8 regions with an Archduke...

I've also been thinking a 2x2x2, with 8x8x8 subsectors. Aramis, Grand Duke, I like that!

When I threw this out last week, I didn't really look too much at the Span of Control (how many people report directly to you). That would need to be balanced in any polity. If you get more than about 10 direct reports, then the leader begins to loose control and you need to add an intermediary level. The 2x2x2 keeps the Span of Control at 8, which is pretty good.

aramis

May 9th, 2006, 11:44 PM

One other fun thing about the rank of Grand Duke: It is canonical, but undefined by SS. (IIRC, the explanatory is that it's for close relatives of the throne... demoted princes/princesses...)

BetterThanLife

May 10th, 2006, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Plankowner:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Plankowner:

May I suggest regions be 8 sectors, with a Grand Duke, and domains 8 regions with an Archduke...

I've also been thinking a 2x2x2, with 8x8x8 subsectors. Aramis, Grand Duke, I like that!

When I threw this out last week, I didn't really look too much at the Span of Control (how many people report directly to you). That would need to be balanced in any polity. If you get more than about 10 direct reports, then the leader begins to loose control and you need to add an intermediary level. The 2x2x2 keeps the Span of Control at 8, which is pretty good. [/QUOTE]Actually proper span of control is generally 3-5. 8 is rather large. However that is why I always assumed more local control and less hands on from above.

Plankowner

May 10th, 2006, 08:54 AM

True, 3-5 if normal now, but I figured that by TL 15, with additional computer resources, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to increase the span of control to 8. I read an Isaac Asimov article somewhere in the distant past where he discussed governing a galactic empire. I remember that he use 10 for the span of control. His bureaucracy for a 1 million planet galactic empire required something like a billion people to make it work. If Asimov can you 10, we should be able to use 8 pretty comfortably.

aramis

May 10th, 2006, 12:51 PM

Typical subinfeudation was 5-15 vauvasars (Vassals of Vassals) for most of the barons. The king held almost all the barons in fealty. A few great and powerfuls had dozens of vauvasars.

So in the traveller "Bastard Feudalism", we essentially have a 5 layer system defined:
Emperor
Archdukes
Sector Dukes
Subsector Dukes
All others.

So the 8 proposed is far from outre.

sarahnewton

October 13th, 2006, 07:31 AM

Hi all,

I've approached the issue of a 3d OTU from the simple point of view of dealing with the unrealism of trying to explain away a 2d starmap to players. In other words, I've always wanted a rationalisation of why the starmaps look that way, and why jump drive works the way it does. I've always avoided the crunch issue of redesigning the OTU maps into "true" 3d starmaps simply because of the destructive effect it would have on the rich Traveller background. What I've ended up with is a "pseudo-3d" rationalisation of the 2d starmaps, as follows:

i.) I've assumed that the starmaps have a built-in implicit Z-axis offset equal to the 2d separation between systems (ie two systems separated by 2 hexes have an implied Z-axis separation also of 2 hexes). Adjacent hexes imply a separation therefore of just 1 parsec.
This has led to the following "absolute" distance separations:
2D 2 hex separation = sqrt((2x2) + (2x2)) = 2.8 parsecs
2D 3 hex separation = sqrt((3x3) + (3x3)) = 4.24 parsecs
2D 4 hex separation = sqrt((4x4) + (4x4)) = 5.66 parsecs
2D 5 hex separation = sqrt((5x5) + (5x5)) = 7.07 parsecs
2D 6 hex separation = sqrt((6x6) + (6x6)) = 8.48 parsecs

ii.) I've then assumed the jump rating of a ship does not equal the hexes / parsecs covered, but the distances from the table above. Thus a J6 drive covers 8.48 parsecs, not 6.

iii.) I've then assumed the distances covered by jump engines are a RANGE rather than an absolute distance. Thus a J2 engine actually covers an average of 2.8 parsecs (so probably something like 2-3.5 parsecs). The J1 engine is assumed to cover a range up to 1.5 parsecs, which allows6 J1s to cover the 8.48 parsecs or so of a J6.

iv.) These numbers appear to work fine for Jump ratings up to 6.

Remember of course this is a pragmatic solution, and allows me to explain away the 2d starmaps. As far as the actual distances between a marker star in one (sub)sector and another is concerned, I don't actually need to know for game purposes. I retain the "almost-2D" shape of the Imperium and its sectors as the result of the linear spread of colonisation; Imperial space then becomes something of a "crumpled sheet" with a thickness of 12 parsecs or so - subsectors and sectors sit adjacent to one another rather than on top or beneath.

I've never tried it, but I get the feeling I should be able to use Astrosynthesis for subsector and sector maps (although sectors will look a bit "flat").

Just how I've approached it!

Happy Travelling!

Sarah

mike wightman

October 13th, 2006, 03:10 PM

Welcome aboard Sarah smile.gif

Interesting idea. Have you considered keeping the 1-6 parsecs as final results and then calculating the separation in light years?

sarahnewton

October 13th, 2006, 06:17 PM

Hi Sigg,

Have you considered keeping the 1-6 parsecs as final results and then calculating the separation in light years?If I understand you correctly, then it's not something I've considered - I wanted to keep the "easy to read" bit of the maps intact (ie 1 hex = 1 parsec, and if there's a 6 hex separation, it needs a jump 6 - doesn't really matter what the parsec distance is at that stage). I guess you could turn the calc around, but I can't see it'd be all that clear what each hex would then represent. But then again it's a bit late here and my already-feeble maths brain switches off early these days! :)

Happy Travelling,

Sarah

Icosahedron

October 14th, 2006, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Shaira:
I've approached the issue of a 3d OTU from the simple point of view of dealing with the unrealism of trying to explain away a 2d starmap to players. In other words, I've always wanted a rationalisation of why the starmaps look that way, and why jump drive works the way it does.

<snip>

Imperial space then becomes something of a "crumpled sheet" with a thickness of 12 parsecs or so - subsectors and sectors sit adjacent to one another rather than on top or beneath.

I've never tried it, but I get the feeling I should be able to use Astrosynthesis for subsector and sector maps (although sectors will look a bit "flat").
I'm sure I read somewhere in the canon that the official explanation for the 2d maps IS a crumpled sheet, just in a different way. It was explained that Jump Space maps 3d space the way a crumpled ball of paper represents a sphere. This means that stars that in reality are only a parsec or two apart may be many hexes apart on the 2d Jump Space map and it may take longer to travel to a star 1 parsec away than to a star 6 parsecs away, because the local 'curvature of Jump Space' may not allow a direct route and you have to travel through perhaps 10 parsecs of Jump Space to reach the nearby star. Of course the 'real' separation doesn't matter to the game, all that matters is how many jumps you need to get there.

I'll probably go for Astrosynthesis myself when it gets more Travelleresque features.

travellerrpg

Thứ Ba, 31 tháng 10, 2017

Traveller in 3D page 1

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét