CT Era Spica sector UWP data, by subsector

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Malenfant,

As an actual player of Traveller, I'm not interested in changing the format of the UWPs. I don't mind a "realistic" (at least as far as we can guess things work this year) method of generating UWPs, but I still want to be able to read them and use them with applications like Galactic or Heaven & Earth. Adding, deleting and modifying the format of the UWP removes that possibility, and makes the data unusable for that purpose.

Your comment above indicates that this isn't your desire or intention. Please clarify for me: Is it your intention to modify the UWP format itself?

No, the basic 8-digit UWP (starport, size, atm, hyd, pop, gov, law, and TL) would stay the same (except that size can go up to C, and atmosphere can go up to H). The codes would also mean different things in some cases (particularly atmospheres).

I was wanting to tack the density and orbital zone at the end like the PBG numbers. They could go after the stellar data though.

As far as I'm concerned, the basic UWP is what is in the Traveller books that I have (the CT books didn't have all the extra PBG data after all). I'm not really bothered about keeping things compatible with computer programs - ideally it'd be nice if someone would update the programs to work with the UWPs, but my base assumption is that a person is reading the UWPs and not a computer program.

But either way, the different stellar data format makes compatibility redundant anyway.

 

[Klaus]

slightly different point, but are we going to have world write ups too, possibly with the woefully under-used world map?

I don't know about anyone else, but without some kind of description, the bare UWP's are a bit like unsweetened porridge, somewhat bland. What made the Spinward Marches come alive was all the other stuff found in the adventures, and JTAS, and even this could be sometimes thin. More seasoning and flavour would be nice

 

[far-trader]

Personally I'd like it about 50/50, or maybe 60/40 for details/basic.

Some people will want to personalize the space themselves and some will want the whole thing detailed. Better to try to strike a balance I think.

The detailed worlds would be great for people wanting to do adventures and such for publication or posting while the less detailed ones can be officially left alone to allow referees to make their own adventures without fear of someone coming along later and publishing or posting something "official" that is incompatible with all thier work.

 

[Klaus]

Thats a good plan.

It would be nice to have few richly detailed worlds, some more with brief entries, and the rest the raw data.

It'd be also possible to have some systems with more than one planet, as long as the second one of a lesser habitablity to the mainworld.

 

[Malenfant]

I can probably come up with stuff about the physical side of most systems...

 

[Flynn]

Does anyone mind if the subsectors I redo are done using other generation methods besides the as-yet-completed Malenfant method?

Or should I need to wait a bit before tackling these bad boys?

-Flynn

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Personally I'd like it about 50/50, or maybe 60/40 for details/basic.

Some people will want to personalize the space themselves and some will want the whole thing detailed. Better to try to strike a balance I think.

The detailed worlds would be great for people wanting to do adventures and such for publication or posting while the less detailed ones can be officially left alone to allow referees to make their own adventures without fear of someone coming along later and publishing or posting something "official" that is incompatible with all thier work.

I know I definately want to detail some worlds in the sectors King Dan and I have nabbed in our Land-Grab . I agree with Dan though, most of it should just be basic description so people can still develop their own bits but a few fully detailed ones with maps are always fun to do as well.

-W

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I can probably come up with stuff about the physical side of most systems...

Let us have some fun too

That said, when doing the detailed bits I would definately want some feedback to insure some realism.

-W.

 

[LcKedovan]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Does anyone mind if the subsectors I redo are done using other generation methods besides the as-yet-completed Malenfant method?

Or should I need to wait a bit before tackling these bad boys?

-Flynn

I think we are still going to work out historz, politics, etc. before drilling down. (last I heard)

-W.

 

[Flynn]

Here's my understanding of the plan:

Updated 04 Sept 2004

1) The sector's name and subsectors names will all remain as they are, as they have previously been published in other places;
1a) The era is confirmed as the 990s.

2) Using the 1065 AotI map, the Solomani border will be adjusted back by no more than 3 parsecs to take it back to how it *might* have been in the 990s;
2a) Anyone interested in having a go at this is welcome to contribute their design/concept of the adjusted map;

3) The Hiver Federation border remains as it was;
3a) The Hiver Federation border has been confirmed as a relatively static border, via an excellent group effort;
3b) However, a slight variation in the border at one point has been noted across the different eras and this will need resolving.

4) All system locations are to be kept as they are in the AotI;
4a) Systems should not be moved or deleted from the hexes they occupied in the AotI when transferred to the new 990s map;
4b) Susector capital systems should not be renamed;
4c) The majority of other systems will have new names, except those of significance or importance (i.e. like Prt'aow, or where a system has been referred to in canon documents, i.e. Book 8);

5) Barring a few exceptions (i.e. like Prt'aow, or where a system has been referred to in canon documents, i.e. Book 8), all UWPs will be newly generated, then adjusted:
5a)To make sense;
5b)To take into account stellar data/effects;
5c)To take into account the history of the sector.

I thought we were at this point.

6) Stellar data will be generated for each system using Malenfant's much more realistic stellar generation system;
6a) Stellar data will be formatted as per Malenfant's system.

7) Allegiances will be assigned according to borders once the borders issue has been resolved.
7a) Generally, those on the inside of the Solomani border will be Solomani Confederation;
7b) Generally, those on the inside of the Hiver's border will be Hiver Federation;
7c) Those in the "gap"/buffer zone/neutral zone/soft zone will be assigned some form of allegiance further down the sector development pathway.

8) The historical aspects of the sector are being discussed as the development pathway progresses and will influence UWPs, allegiances, trade routes, etc;

9) The races in the sector are being discussed and a list compiled for reference for later use;

10) Polls will be used to resolve disagreements on aspects of the sector that cannot be resolved in any other fashion - polls can be requested/accessed via Malenfant, CSSP moderator.

11) Individuals can register their interest in re-generating a subsector or subsectors, using a standardised format;
11a) Individuals can collaborate on re-generating subsector(s).

If what you are saying in your post above, LcKedovan, is the actual approach, then that's cool. Me, I would rather have a foundation for my work, so I'd start with the ground up approach to spark the inspiration, then develop a good overview, then modify from the top down to match the concept I have. The original plan supports that approach. Your reported method does not. If the plan has changed, my apologies for misunderstanding.

Sadly, I am starting to get the feeling that my personal creative process may not be conducive to allowing me to contribute successfully to this fan-based project, based on various comments and feedback. If that turns out to be the case, I'm cool with it. That just means there's more time for writing on other projects such as Epic Adventures, etc.

I will continue to try to contribute to the Spica Sector Project, and see how it works out, though.

-Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

I don't know why people are considering what subsectors they want to build at this stage. I have always been under the impression that we were going to use a top-down approach, leaving the UWPs til last.


So in order, we figure out:

1) where the current borders are.
2) the history of the area
3) what minor races are in the area
4) what polities and important worlds are in the area
5) the UWPs and stellar data.

Right now we're at (2) - we still haven't even figured out a colonisation history for the sector yet, so why do people want to jump into making the UWPs?

 

[Flynn]

Maybe because that's what the plan indicated...

Seriously, I have problems working in a vacuum like that. Guess I've been playing the game too long, because that's how I learned to develop my concepts.

I've given everything canonical I know how to find to contribute to the project. I'm not seeing much in the way of history. I think it's hard to know where people would go without at least an idea of what's out there for them to find.

Without any knowledge of the clusters, the nice worlds to settle, etc., it's hard for me to see how detailed you're going to be able to get with the history section.

I think this may be a little bit about why some people want to have some UWPs now, at least of the physical traits. It's understood the data will change again, probably drastically, once you have a good overview. But without an idea of where settlements and explorations might go, it's difficult for someone like myself to envision any detailed history.

My two credits, for whatever they are worth,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Well, we know where the mains and clusters are from the maps that we have (see the top post of this thread).

We know that the Sollies are expanding from spinward in the past couple of hundred years and think that they're running into the Hivers who are already at their current border.

Surely we can deliberately place nice worlds as we see fit here, and then expand from those.

I suppose if people are that strapped for inspiration, we could say that the "colonisation hubs" - the really nice habitable worlds - are in the same places as the hipop worlds are on the AotI map? Would that make it any easier?

In which case, here's a list of locations that we can use for the nice garden worlds, adapted from the list that Sigg provided:

Alpha quadrant:
0313
0317
0416
0803
0917
1111
1319

Beta Quadrant:
1818
2003
2010
2314
2318
2401
2619
2714
3214

Gamma Quadrant:
0240
0339
0439
0623
0626
0634
0822
0930
1324
1335
1522

Delta Quadrant:
1721
1828
2034
2529
2725
2823
2828
3023
3238

 

[Klaus]

if we're keeping the starport data too then there's more clues there. Class A ports would often (not always) be the first settled words, and these would generally have the most clement conditions. Even if they're a good way trailing you can think of them as pioneer worlds, with the more marginal planets behind filled by the late comers.

Also trade routes. On that map that shows the whole domain (sorry can't remember who posted it) you can identify J-2 trade routes that will surely affect colonial development. The coreward end (indie space) has quite a few routes further coreward, and there's a string of J-2 routes connecting the CF worlds and the coreward border. On the trailing side I can see 3-4 J-2 routes heading deeper into Hiver space.

Does anyone have a map of the domain to spinward (Alpha Crucis?) so we can see where the J-2 routes into the CF Spica frontier from the interior are?

 

[Flynn]

Okay, Malenfant, so apparently we don't need UWPs. I stand corrected.

(As an aside, you are coming across a little heavy-handed, but I am willing to chalk it up to your personality and the vagaries of communication in this forum, and assume that it is not intentional. (It's one of the problems with e-communications. *sigh*) )

You are the project lead for this bad boy. Let's move forward.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

It's not intentional, no... I'm just trying to be the guy that asks "but why would that happen" when people propose something, so that what's proposed makes logical sense.

I seem to be taking the lead here on things like sorting out the evolution of the Major Races borders over time. Nobody appears to have complained about that so far, so I'm assuming that people are OK with what I've proposed.

I just want to see the basics hammered out so that we can then move onto things that people can work on based on the common background (like designing individual polities and worlds). Otherwise I can see us wandering around in circles and not getting anything done as everyone has conflicting ideas of what to do.

Perhaps part of the problem is that I'm posting so much on these threads

. All I want to see from this project really is something that's more realistic, logical, consistent, and sensible than has been produced for other sectors. I see this project as a golden opportunity to see what a realistic Traveller Universe would look like, that retains what people like about playing the game while ditching those parts of canon that are just plain silly or contradictory or needlessly restricting.

So far I think we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Tony Canopus]

Not to be a jerk or nothing Mal, you do come across heavy handed. If you are Project Leader, that's fine, but already this project is a mess.

There are so many topic headers that I don't know where to start in figuring out what's going on.
We need to Regroup.

I think its a bad idea to not use uwp's. I know you don't like the system, or it doesn't make sense to you, but it is the standard for the game. I can see from your site that you have a background in Astronomy, and that's cool, but this IS a game, after all, and we should try to make it fit with that Game's "reality".

There should be a point of reference that we can all understand. I think the Systems of Spica were there long before the History. We need to start with a good, solid Map. That data will aid in visualizing the History...

 

[Malenfant]

If you think this project is a "mess", then I invite you to attempt to do better. Right now everything is still being discussed, which is why there are so many headers (because, like, this IS a discussion board). If you want to charge blindly into doing something without waiting for discussion with others, be my guest.

I have no interest in fitting the UWPs and stellar data in with the game's version of reality, because the game's version of reality is quite clearly massively at odds with what we know about how the physical universe works. That's why I spent all that time figuring out the Revised Stellar Generation System. That seems to have been embraced by people here, so I figure I can come up with a Revised UWP Generation System too. If people don't want that here then say so and I can stop wasting my time working on it. But as it stands, the format is basically going to be the same as existing UWPs anyway, with a couple of extra digits tacked onto the extra data at the end.

If people want to use the default UWP and stellar data systems and other wacky Traveller standards for putting in random worlds with random societies in random places with little consideration for what's around them then there's little point in me continuing to contribute. I don't want to see something produced here that's like what came before. As it is I've spent a lot of my time over the past week or so making maps and digging up dates and going through books in an attempt to uncover what we know about this part of the Traveller universe and trying to hammer that into something realistic and consistent. A few other people (like Sigg) have also done a decent amount of work on this too, which is appreciated.

We have a good solid map. We have two, in fact, on the map thread I linked to above. We have, as far as I can see, a plan for how we're going to approach this. There are world locations listed above for habitable planets. As far as I can see, pretty much everything is in place to start figuring out the history of the sector fom the top-down. Except that now it seems that people are getting cold feet about taking the top-down approach that I thought was agreed on earlier. What seems to be the problem here?!

When I came into this project I pretty much did so with the assumption that getting people to agree on things would be like trying to herd cats. That's not meant out of disrespect, that's just from what I've seen of Traveller fans generally - most people tend to have their own strong ideas on how canon should be or what should be stuck to and what should be thrown out. So far I don't think I've been mistaken in that assumption - that's just the way Traveller fans are.

Perhaps part of the problem is "too many cooks spoiling the broth" - this project is currently open to allcomers and it seems inevitable that as people join there will be more and more varied opinions and visions of how to proceed, and this will only bog the project down. If this is the case, perhaps it may be better to allocate the most qualified people for appropriate tasks and decline any further input from outside.

I think that if this project is to get anywhere, it needs to be firmly guided and basic assumptions need to be defined at the start and rigidly adhered to throughout. Otherwise we end up with lots of conflicting ideas going on as different authors end up doing things their way. If that comes across as heavy-handed then I apologise, but I think that's the only way this is going to work. If people think that I'm not fit to take the lead this project then say so and I will gladly step aside.

But by all means, if anyone has any ideas about other ways for we should approach this project that could work, then go ahead and propose them. But please - don't just say "it's a mess" and not propose or contribute anything meaningful or constructive to support your statement or to improve the situation.

 

[Flynn]

Malenfant,

Let's move along. This isn't getting us anywhere. Please update the plan to reflect the appropriate approach agreed upon by the Powers That Be, and continue in the direction you were going.

There are a good number of people who have put in a significant amount of effort here, and I don't want it to fall to the wayside because of misunderstandings. You see a plan, you see forward motion, you have an agenda, that's what's important... make it happen.

I will stop pushing for UWPs, as you've volunteered to do them using your Revised UWP Generation method, and it will happen only once the top-down view is established anyway.

Let me know when I might be of assistance,
Flynn

 

[Tony Canopus]

Hey listen, sorry if I ruffled feathers by sayin its a mess, I tend to speak plainly. I thought this was supposed to be a group project.