AstroSynthesis v2.0
- Thread starter Enoff
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
The problem is the formula is a band-aid and the patient, in this case is, hemorrhaging.
It works for a 3D universe with the same density of stars in 3D. (Astrosynthesis isn't going to give you that density easily.
I can verify that!Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
-clip-
It works for a 3D universe with the same density of stars in 3D. (Astrosynthesis isn't going to give you that density easily.)
The one draw back I've found with using Astrosynthesis so far is that the density is hard to control. I think this is a function of a large random element - to get the results I'm after I've had to play with the density setting and then generate multiple sectors until I've gotten what I'm after.
Boy, I'm missing something here, as I crash in later as I'm wont to do.
What specifically about the Jump drive is tied to 2D again?
Far as I recall, J1-J6 is equivalent to jumping 1 to 6 parsecs. Why you can't go 3 parsecs "up" instead of "north" is the detail I'm missing here.
Or is the problem simply that the normal universe doesn't splat star a mere parsec or two apart normally, and rather has them scattered about a bit more loosely.
Sooo...you tweak how far a J1 goes (2 parsecs, 10 parsecs, whatever). Nothing else need change, since systems are still, essentially, impossible for normal sublight travel. Who cares, really, how far a J1 can go as long as it takes a week to get there, and what does it matter if the vector of travel has a Z component to or not?
So someone please explain to me how the J Drive is fundamentally broken as a mechanism for transport in a 3D galaxy vs a 2D galaxy.
What specifically about the Jump drive is tied to 2D again?
Far as I recall, J1-J6 is equivalent to jumping 1 to 6 parsecs. Why you can't go 3 parsecs "up" instead of "north" is the detail I'm missing here.
Or is the problem simply that the normal universe doesn't splat star a mere parsec or two apart normally, and rather has them scattered about a bit more loosely.
Sooo...you tweak how far a J1 goes (2 parsecs, 10 parsecs, whatever). Nothing else need change, since systems are still, essentially, impossible for normal sublight travel. Who cares, really, how far a J1 can go as long as it takes a week to get there, and what does it matter if the vector of travel has a Z component to or not?
So someone please explain to me how the J Drive is fundamentally broken as a mechanism for transport in a 3D galaxy vs a 2D galaxy.
jfetters
SOC-14 1K
Yeah, I would like a little clarification here myself. I definitely see the impossibility of reshaping the OTU into 3D - it breaks just about everything.
But if you are starting your own universe, how do things break? The playable environment becomes infinitely larger from the point of a manageable universe (although programs like Astrosynthesis can help a lot with that), and granted, some tweaking may need to happen to make sure there are refueling stations, etc, at certain points. But then again, the current 2D sectors inevitably get some manual tweaking as well.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
It is broken because there isn't a nice neat way to make jump drive work consistently, and still keep the relative amount of systems available to the different jump numbers consistent. But don't take my word for it. Play with it, run the numbers yourself, run some AS sectors and experiment a bit with Jump Drive. You either have no use for a Jump-1 or Jump-2 drive or you have no real communication lag. Neither choice keeps the the Traveller flavor even in an ATU.
I'd have to disagree with the statement on Traveller flavor - 3rd Imperium Flavor is a real problem, but Traveller flavor is not.
ATU's do not all rely on large empires with nearly a year travel time from the capital (in fact in cannon TNE doesn't even rely on this - the pocket empires are fairly small.) In an ATU the capital may only be one or two months travel away. You can get that type of flavor in a 3D universe without too much difficulty with jump drive.
The usefulness of J1 and J2 depends on the local density of the systems and whether or not you allow jumps to empty space.
Using a 3D map of the area around Sol (real star locations) J2 produces some very interesting "main" trade route possiblities. If you add the ability to jump to empty hexes, then even J1 allows significant exploration as long as you have the fuel capacity. And it would still take a month or more to reach several stars within a 20 light year radius - particularly if there are fuel constraints and a preference for jumping to a system instead of an empty hex. The number of stars within that radius shoots up dramatically from 2D, but there would still be very real time constraints in reaching them with a 3D jump drive. The Solstation web site (http://www.solstation.com/stars/s20ly.htm)places the number of systems within 20 light years at 129 or 131 (I think the variance depends on how you count them and the degree of confirmation required as well as whether or not you include Sol)
Of course, once you bump this up to J6, there are very few places in that 20 light year radius that you can't reach in one jump (6 parsecs is roughly 19.56 light years.) So within a weeks travel time at J6 you have roughly 10% of systems required to make up the 3rd Imperium.
For a density of space with workable J2 mains (roughly the density in our local neighborhood), J6 would proably provide contact to 1100 plus systems within one to two months max time - as opposed to 6 months to a year for the OTU. While this is significant enough to mean that the cannon 3I can't be ported and even come close to retaining it's integrity (even if it's J2 mains instead of J1), I don't think it causes the flavor of traveller for ATUs to be lost - other than the portion that has 2D maps.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
There is of course nothing to stop you from changing jump *duration* in an ATU. As an example, changing jump duration to be 1 week per LY with a 1 week minimum puts the stellar density around Sol in a workable range for the travel time for the 3I.
IIRC one of the issues with counting the number of systems in "Real Space" within 20 LY is whether you count "distant binaries" as one or two systems...
Scott Martin
IIRC one of the issues with counting the number of systems in "Real Space" within 20 LY is whether you count "distant binaries" as one or two systems...
Scott Martin
I mean, to me, the fundamental detail of the Jump drive is the "1 Week" part, the actual distances traveled is kind of arbitrary.
There's nothing really tying a specific distance to a J1 in OTU, save the "1 Hex == 1 parsec" and "1 Jump == 1 Hex". Scale the "hex sizes" to better match the density of your 3D-ATU and let fly. Everything else should Just Work.
There's nothing that says you can't have mulitple systems per hex. We jumped that shark a long time ago with binary systems, or even with detailing multiple worlds per system. That combined with "micro-Jumps" within "systems" all pretty much works out. Simply, either I can accelerate to my destination and get there within a week, and if not, then I can jump -- whether from star to star or from earth to neptune. Whatever is faster and more efficient.
Within system, you may not be able to fly faster than light communication. But that's not a big deal either.
So, I just don't see the J drive breaking much of anything, in 2D or 3D. It's simply a mechanism to get from pt A to pt B within a week.
There's nothing really tying a specific distance to a J1 in OTU, save the "1 Hex == 1 parsec" and "1 Jump == 1 Hex". Scale the "hex sizes" to better match the density of your 3D-ATU and let fly. Everything else should Just Work.
There's nothing that says you can't have mulitple systems per hex. We jumped that shark a long time ago with binary systems, or even with detailing multiple worlds per system. That combined with "micro-Jumps" within "systems" all pretty much works out. Simply, either I can accelerate to my destination and get there within a week, and if not, then I can jump -- whether from star to star or from earth to neptune. Whatever is faster and more efficient.
Within system, you may not be able to fly faster than light communication. But that's not a big deal either.
So, I just don't see the J drive breaking much of anything, in 2D or 3D. It's simply a mechanism to get from pt A to pt B within a week.
Moving on from the jump issues, is there anyone else interested in a 3D traveller setting with Astrosynthesis?
I'm considering developing an exploration campaign - most likely T20, with an early interstellar flavor combining near Sol aspects and the infamous "gateway" (alien gate - natural wormhole - haven't really decided which) to a more populated (people wise - not necessarily system density) area. I've got a long way to go before it's viable - but it would end up being either PBeM or play by post.
I'd also be interested in playing if anyone else is developing a similar campaign.
I'm considering developing an exploration campaign - most likely T20, with an early interstellar flavor combining near Sol aspects and the infamous "gateway" (alien gate - natural wormhole - haven't really decided which) to a more populated (people wise - not necessarily system density) area. I've got a long way to go before it's viable - but it would end up being either PBeM or play by post.
I'd also be interested in playing if anyone else is developing a similar campaign.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
The issue is that the J-Drive has to have, as defined, a correlation between Jump-1, Jump-2, all the way up to jump-6 and how they relate to the Universe that you are putting them in. You can say the distance is unimportant. Sure. But it isn't the distance that is important. It is the ratio of the different drives and the fuel requirements (And hence carrying capacity.) for the different levels.
It is also the economic viability of ships with differing Jump Drives.
So if you have a practical solution that works, in general, without scrapping economics and Starship design, I would be happy to hear it.
I'm thinking an ATU would scrap the economics to go 3D - for the reasons BetterThanLife has stated so well. A realistic economic model has never been the hallmark of traveller anyway.
However you could keep the design - just alter cargo and passenger rates (economics) - fuel costs (economics) or ship costs (economics - but kind of design as well - so the last option if you want "canon" design rules to apply).
But the real question is - is anyone interested in developing and playing an ATU in 3D? Astrosynthesis makes the mapping practical. As I indicated earlier, I'm considering it.
Steve B
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I'm thinking an ATU would scrap the economics to go 3D - for the reasons BetterThanLife has stated so well. A realistic economic model has never been the hallmark of traveller anyway.
However you could keep the design - just alter cargo and passenger rates (economics) - fuel costs (economics) or ship costs (economics - but kind of design as well - so the last option if you want "canon" design rules to apply).
But the real question is - is anyone interested in developing and playing an ATU in 3D? Astrosynthesis makes the mapping practical. As I indicated earlier, I'm considering it.
Steve B </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I was referring to Starship economics.
Actually I was referring to Starship economics.
Profitability issues would need to be addressed by either changing 1) the cost of the starship or 2) the costs for shipping or 3) both. To me these are economic issues - hence part of the setting.
All,
If I can learn enough to GM whose interested in play testing the system by PBeM a few months from now? Or does anyone else have a 3D system they want to GM so we get a feel for how it works?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I was talking about both. Profitability is directly tied to starship finance and component cost and size. It is more than setting, it is also inherent in the starship design process. (So if you are developing it you will want to take a very serious look at that and how it relates in your ATU.)
Enoff
SOC-13
I realized looking up info on the old SPI Starforce game that you could use this software in place of the old 2d game board.
Interesting to think how much this old SPI game might have influenced Marc. It was published in 1974. I found an article about traveller2300 were Marc mentions the Starforce map being an influence.
Interesting to think how much this old SPI game might have influenced Marc. It was published in 1974. I found an article about traveller2300 were Marc mentions the Starforce map being an influence.
I am actually running a game set in a 3D Universe using Astrosynthesis 2. It is set around Earth with a number of small interstellar states out to about 25 ly. I did away with jump drive entirely and use a FTL system called the "Hyperspace Translation Drive" This basically transports a ship at about 1 ly per day. Higher tech versions do not increase the speed of the drive but do decrease its volume. This seems to be working well and is developing a flavour similar to the game 2300. Eventually I'll post details on my website (it is the work on this that has meant no recent updates)
The site is
www.skaran.net
The site is
www.skaran.net
So, in Astrosynthesis is there no way to place all systems on a single plane? That way you would preserve the 2D nature of the Traveller universe...
I downloaded the trial version of Astrosynthesis to try out and I'm not sure if you can place all of the systems on a single plane. It is an interesting Idea though. I certainly like the editability of the Astrosynthesis systems and worlds and the automatic generation of world surfaces.
navywarlord
SOC-9
You can edit each individual system to a common "Z" coordinate, thus placing all the worlds on the same plane.... Its takes a bit of work though unless someone writes a modification that can change all systems at the same time.
