CT Era Spica sector UWP data, by subsector

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
It's 1319 in both of my copies of Atlas of the Imperium

Fancy selling one of those?

For ummmm, the sake of the Spica project... yeah that's it... certainly not cause I want one

-W.

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Hmm. Tsent isn't hipop in the GENII data. Neither are Baren or Tritran.

I'll go with the AotI data anyway. Keep it coming Sigg!

So most of the AotI data that Sigg has seems to be unnamed. If that is the case I think we should in this case stick to Canon of AotI insofar as we should keep the hi-pop named worlds, plus it allows us to name the others whatever we want which seemed a popular choice, AND most of the UWP data plus stellar data needs to be made in that case. Thoughts?

-W.

 

[mike wightman]

And now, High pop. worlds for gamma quadrant:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0240 X***H**-* G so KEEPOUT
0339 E000H**-* G so DILN
0439 C**0H**-* G so FILE
0623 A**0H**-* G so BOREAL
0626 C**0H**-* G so TIGR
0634 A**0H**-* F G so TRILION
0822 E**0H**-* G so VITEK
0930 E***H**-* G so UGGI
1324 B***H**-* G hv BORDER
1335 C000H**-* so TOHIRA
1522 B***H**-* F G hv WAFT</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by LcKedovan:
So most of the AotI data that Sigg has seems to be unnamed. If that is the case I think we should in this case stick to Canon of AotI insofar as we should keep the hi-pop named worlds, plus it allows us to name the others whatever we want which seemed a popular choice, AND most of the UWP data plus stellar data needs to be made in that case. Thoughts?

Again, I have to ask - why do we need to keep the hi-pop worlds? Right now I'm plotting them out on a map and there appears to be little rhyme or reason to their placement. Like I said, I'd rather see some logic for their existence - they're potentially the most important worlds in the sector, I think it would be better to place them deliberately rather than just let them fall anywhere they like due to random dice rolls.

 

[mike wightman]

Would the Earth-like worlds not be distributed randomly.
As for patterns:

look at Bevin 1111, right in the middle of a jump 1 cluster

 

[mike wightman]

Lastly, High pop. worlds of delta quadrant:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">1721 D**0H**-* hv TASIMKIN
1828 B***H**-* hv TUASYE
2034 C***H**-* hv AMRAD
2529 A***H**-* G hv EREST
2725 C**0H**-* hv TORRENT
2823 C***H**-* hv UNTION
2828 D**0H**-* hv ITEM
3023 C***H**-* hv VENSEL
3238 C***H**-* hv OURN</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Malenfant]

Thing is, hi-pop worlds aren't necessarily important. that's why I'm against keeping them in the regenerated data. They'd be like pins placed into the map for no apparent reason. A TL 3 Hipop world is completely irrelevant as an interstellar or economic power. The hi-pop and[p/i] hi TL (say, TL C+) worlds are going to be the ones that are the major players in the sectors.

For example, as it stands in the GENII UWPs, Keepout has a population digit of 9 (4 billion people), but it has starport X and TL 1*. That would make absolutely no difference to any of its neighbours.

In the GENII data, Tigr is also a pop 9 world with 9 billion people on it and TL 8 (oh yeah, it's also an insidious atmosphere. Hipop worlds with insidious atmsopheres make Baby Jesus cry, dammit!!). It's not even interstellar tech, and while it could produce things that are vaguely useful to a TL C+ society, it probably won't be a major player in the interstellar economy.

See my issue here?

*: quite how 4 billion people can be supported at TL 1 population with no outside help is beyond me. Yet another broken UWP, methinks. But anyway...

 

[mike wightman]

I agree, so why not make a minimum TL for a high pop world, say a default of TL5?

 

[Malenfant]

Yeah... TL 5 might do it for pop 9. I'd say TL A is a mininum for pop A though.

 

[mike wightman]

The low end of pop A is 10 billion, not far off what we are at now at just over 6 billion. Some estimates put us reaching 10 billion by the latter half of this century.
How about TL9 as the bare minimum for population A, irrespective of starport type etc.?

 

[Malenfant]

I figured TL A would be mininum because if you have tens of billions of people you'll need to import lot of external resources to support them - hence you'd need to have an Interstellar TL (TL A is the lowest of those, IIRC).

 

[mike wightman]

Tut tut Mal, so knowledgable about stars and planets, and yet a basic gearhead error

Just kidding

The jump 1 drive is a TL9 invention (we'd better get working on it).

 

[Malenfant]

I'l be darned, so it is

. OK, TL 9 then!

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LcKedovan:
So most of the AotI data that Sigg has seems to be unnamed. If that is the case I think we should in this case stick to Canon of AotI insofar as we should keep the hi-pop named worlds, plus it allows us to name the others whatever we want which seemed a popular choice, AND most of the UWP data plus stellar data needs to be made in that case. Thoughts?

Again, I have to ask - why do we need to keep the hi-pop worlds? Right now I'm plotting them out on a map and there appears to be little rhyme or reason to their placement. Like I said, I'd rather see some logic for their existence - they're potentially the most important worlds in the sector, I think it would be better to place them deliberately rather than just let them fall anywhere they like due to random dice rolls. </font>[/QUOTE]I meant the names of those worlds not neccesarily the fact that their UWP is hi-pop, then we also get creative with the other system/world names. I think we should keep some ties to the AotI "canon" since the hi-pop ones are named we keep those names and locations, but change UWPs to make sense.

-W.

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'l be darned, so it is

. OK, TL 9 then!

You guys crack me up

-W.

 

[Flynn]

I'm all for supporting the AotI, when possible, just because it's already seen print. (Yeah, I know, I'm one of those; I like consistency between published products.)

I'll work towards that in the two subsectors I've volunteered to crunch...

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

I meant the names of those worlds not neccesarily the fact that their UWP is hi-pop, then we also get creative with the other system/world names. I think we should keep some ties to the AotI "canon" since the hi-pop ones are named we keep those names and locations, but change UWPs to make sense.

Well, OK I guess... but I still don't see the point of doing this. If the UWPs are going to be totally different, all it's going to do is confuse people who see the familiar names and expect things to be the same.

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Flynn:
I'm all for supporting the AotI, when possible, just because it's already seen print. (Yeah, I know, I'm one of those; I like consistency between published products.)

I'll work towards that in the two subsectors I've volunteered to crunch...

Enjoy,
Flynn

I think that's my problem too

. That and my current job

-W.

 

[mike wightman]

Here's a thought, worlds that are high pop by 1065 may well be only pop 8 in 990.

 

[Malenfant]

They'd increase their popoulation by a factor of ten (or more) in only 70 years?!