Defining the 990 borders for the Solomani and Hiver states in Spica sector

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Interesting. Sigg posted this while I was typing my reply. If this is the case it points to a very different politic. More of a melting pot, maybe even a friendly border (a soft border) of systems with an official allegiance but in reality equally open to either power and the citizens. A whole region of systems built on cultural exchange and trade perhaps. A market bazzar of the Sol and Hive cultures. Great for intrigue and trade. I prefer this to some arbitrary gap. [/QB]

Well, to be fair, the gap isn't "arbitrary" - it's quite obvious on the maps of Charted Space that I have access to, and that have been quoted earlier.

My idea of a "buffer zone" just came from trying to explain that. Of course, it could just be a small (subsector-scale) rift - a natural boundary with no worlds in it, that both sides come up against.

 

[mike wightman]

Notice that if you look at the large Known Space map in Supplement 8 that the Spinward Marches show the same sized gap between the Imperium and the Zhodani

Atlas of the Imperium is the canonical source only for the snapshot in time that was/will be the second survey. The border can change before 1065 and after 1065 (although the GT AR3 map looks like it agrees with AotI).

The problem is we need a map as a base we can all see and then adjust it for the time period chosen.

Would MWM let me send you all a jpeg of my coloured in map I wonder.

Or better yet could Hunter persuade MWM to let him post the AotI Spica sector map here somewhere and then we can take it from there.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Looking at Sigg's AoTI map, the empty refts/ gaps between the two major states do support the buffer zone style border. in subsector K I note six systems [three each] aligned against one another in a tic-tac-toe arrangement Hv and So. Looking along the divide, several places where J-2 and J-3 ships would be necessary.

 

[Gruffty]

I feel that there should be 4 or 5 parsec buffer zone/soft neutral area between the Solomani and Hiver states, as the CT Supp 8 .jpg I posted has a "gap" between the two states. Admittedly, we can't actually tell how big that gap is, but it doesn't appear (to my eyes, anyway) to be any bigger than 3 parsecs.

I don't think it would be unrealistic, or unreasonable, to pull back the borders a little for the 990s.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Looking at Sigg's AoTI map, the empty refts/ gaps between the two major states do support the buffer zone style border. in subsector K I note six systems [three each] aligned against one another in a tic-tac-toe arrangement Hv and So. Looking along the divide, several places where J-2 and J-3 ships would be necessary.

Aren't we ignoring the allegience of existing worlds though? I thought that the general consensus so far was to just keep the world placements but redo all the details (including UWPs, stellar data, and allegience)

 

[mike wightman]

How much will starport type and military bases change in 75 (or however many) years?

In the 990s the Solomani are hardly likely to be expanding to trailing as they are tied up with the 3rd Imperium.

Following the Solomani Rim War they may decide to expand to trailing as they see it as an easy option, even though Rimward is uncontested by any major polity.

The Hivers don't force worlds to join their Federation , their member worlds think they join freely (not by military conquest).

Or, put another way, how do you get to the 1065 border if there is a 5 parsec buffer between them in the first place?

Are the indepedent worlds so frightened of the Solomani they go over to the Hivers, are the Hive Federation borders static and it is the Solomani that expand to meet them, or vise versa, is there a gradual coming together, or is it all of the above???

 

[mike wightman]

And another thing, AotI gives us the high population worlds. They aren't going to change much

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Looking at Sigg's AoTI map, the empty refts/ gaps between the two major states do support the buffer zone style border. in subsector K I note six systems [three each] aligned against one another in a tic-tac-toe arrangement Hv and So. Looking along the divide, several places where J-2 and J-3 ships would be necessary.

Aren't we ignoring the allegience of existing worlds though? I thought that the general consensus so far was to just keep the world placements but redo all the details (including UWPs, stellar data, and allegience) </font>[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------

I cited an example where there were several planets in the AoTI map abutting/ adjacent, as well as some of the stellar gaps along that map's borders.
It was not my contention Mal, to say "Use these borders", but to point out that the map's borders has both adjacent systems and stellar gaps along it.
As for the general consensus...fine./me shrugs. BUT when ye redo allegiances as the example I gave shows; K subsector, some random toss/ process will have to decide who owns what/ is claimed by whom, etc. Then we are left with explaining how the border came to be...

My .000000125Mcr, YMMV

 

[Gruffty]

Sigg - is there a date/timeline available for your quote from Journal 13?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'm sat here looking at a colour coded version of the map frm AotI (I photocopied it and coloured it in , there is no gap.
In fact the border worlds are very mixed.

Interesting. Sigg posted this while I was typing my reply. If this is the case it points to a very different politic. More of a melting pot, maybe even a friendly border (a soft border) of systems with an official allegiance but in reality equally open to either power and the citizens. A whole region of systems built on cultural exchange and trade perhaps. A market bazzar of the Sol and Hive cultures. Great for intrigue and trade. I prefer this to some arbitrary gap. </font>[/QUOTE]Re: Border Gap

I prefer this idea, too. Many cross-cultural worlds in the gap between the borders, with populations of both humans, hivers, and minor races.

But still, I'd like it 50/45/5.

50% Less important worlds with E, D and a few C starports, pops 4-6 and a few 7, TLs mostly 6-9 (75%) and some 0-5 (25%).

45% Cross-Cultural worlds with many races and moderate to heavy traffic between nations. C & B starports, pops 5-7 and a few 8, TLs 8-12.

5% Big worlds. Pop 8 or 9 (no Pop A *at all*), TLs 11-12, Atmos 5-9.

I'd just like to say again, I prefer there be no pop A worlds in the gap.

 

[Gruffty]

Just so people are aware, I've carried out a rough division into subsectors of the copy of the OTU map with my "pretend" 990s border in red on it.

I make the "gap", using the red borders, to be nearly 10 parsecs wide (i.e. nearly a whole subsector!!) at it's narrowest point (at the bottom of the sector).

So I don't think we'll be using that map......

 

[Gruffty]

However, my experiment did give me a more accurate assessment of the "official" 1107 "gap" - I made it out to be varying between 2 to 3 parsecs wide, at the thin part at the bottom of the sector.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Oooo!

CT:Alien Module 6: Solomani, inside front cover, has a map of central rimward Charted Space circa -2204!

Hiver space is already in Spica (gamma quadrant) and Langere (1/2 of alpha, all of beta, and most of gamma quadrants), according to this.

There is another map of charted space on the back inside cover, circa 1111, and it shows a deep division in the border between Solomani and Hiver space until right next to the Langere sector.


And, to further muddy the waters, CT:Alien Module 7: Hivers, has a map on the inside back cover, circa 1111, as well. It shows yet another division of the border than the other maps (all the border placements are, in fact, somewhat different that in Alien Module 6's circa 1111 map ).


I think the state of the border between the Solomani and Hivers is sufficiently confused that anything we come up with will be ok.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Just a suggestion: Why don't we use the AotI alliance info to set the borders between the Sols and Hivers? (Assuming they don't cause the borders to overlap.) Then to represent 993, pull each border back n parsec(s)? With n being no larger than 3 (that's a total of 6). System density will change the border by more and/or less in some areas.

Also, what about keeping the AotI alliance codes for this project? I know we are going to change the UWPs, but keeping the alliance codes of the systems may help maintain the proper "feel" for the sector, along the Sol-Hive border in particular.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, it may be that we'll just have to come up with something ourselves for the border. It seems that things are really confused when it comes to what canon says about it.

Re: Alliance codes. As in So, Hv, etc?

I'd rather ditch them. I've yet to see any evidence that they weren't randomly determined around the border regions (or that they were for that matter), but I'd rather we did explicitly choose which worlds are aligned with which nation based on local factors that we come up with in the history, rather than make a history based on what could have been determined by random rolls of the dice.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

Re: Border Gap

I prefer this idea, too. Many cross-cultural worlds in the gap between the borders, with populations of both humans, hivers, and minor races.

But still, I'd like it 50/45/5.

50% Less important worlds with E, D and a few C starports, pops 4-6 and a few 7, TLs mostly 6-9 (75%) and some 0-5 (25%).

45% Cross-Cultural worlds with many races and moderate to heavy traffic between nations. C & B starports, pops 5-7 and a few 8, TLs 8-12.

5% Big worlds. Pop 8 or 9 (no Pop A *at all*), TLs 11-12, Atmos 5-9.

I'd just like to say again, I prefer there be no pop A worlds in the gap.

I like these percentages, and also agree that there should be no high pop worlds in the gap.

I also like the concept of mixed-culture market worlds in the gap. Upon looking at the AotI maps closely, there are areas where the Sol-Hive border seem to overlap. Maybe some of these worlds along/near the border are more correctly termed Client States than actual Confederation/Federation members.

 

[Gruffty]

OK, so we've got maps from:

1125 (MT Hard Times)
1120 (Rebellion era)
1111 (CT Alien modules)
1107 (CT Supp 8)
1065 (CT AotI)
-2204 (CT Alien modules)

The 1065 map is closest to the 990s, timeline-wise. Paraquat's idea of tweaking the 1065 map's borders by 3- parsecs makes sense to me.

 

[Gruffty]

As for the Allegiance codes, they can be assigned to each system once the actual borders have been agreed, at least certainly for those on the *right* side of the Solomani and Hiver borders (i.e. those systems inside the borders).

 

[Gruffty]

So then: sub-plan no.1:

1) The 1065 AotI map is the "baseline map";
2) The borders should be drawn back for the Solomani and Hiver states by no more than 3 parsecs;
3) All systems (irrespctive of allegiance on the 1065 map) remain in their 1065 map locations;
4) Allegiance codes are asigned to systems within the Solomani and Hiver borders.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Well, it may be that we'll just have to come up with something ourselves for the border. It seems that things are really confused when it comes to what canon says about it.

Re: Alliance codes. As in So, Hv, etc?

I'd rather ditch them. I've yet to see any evidence that they weren't randomly determined around the border regions (or that they were for that matter), but I'd rather we did explicitly choose which worlds are aligned with which nation based on local factors that we come up with in the history, rather than make a history based on what could have been determined by random rolls of the dice.

Yup, if we're goint to invent this stuff from scratch, let's invent it, but intelligently, this time. It's going to wind up looking something like *one* of the various maps, no matter what we do.