Pysadi Size Change

[Kakistocrat]

Suggested route fixes for Delphi etc are welcome (ideally as pull requests)

I’d be happy to suggest some route fixes, but I'm not sure what you mean by a “pull request”.

A “pull request” is GitHub terminology for proposing to merge a set of changes from one branch of source code (or in this case, X-boat route metadata) into another — see here for a fuller explanation.

 

[whulorigan]

If only they'd taken the time to review the X-Boat network routes and the Waystations. Of the latter, 32 out of 99 are not actually on a route (although 17 are within 1 parsec of an X-boat station; 7 are within 2 parsecs; 7 within 3 parsecs; the final one is 5 parsecs away from the nearest station). For one of the ones which is 3 parsecs away, the nearest X-boat station is another Waystation; for one of the 1-parsec distant ones there is another Waystation which is also 1 parsec away and on the route.

And then there is the strange case of the only X-boat route to Five Sisters subsector passing through an X-boat station located in the Sword Worlds.

Of course, most of the problems with the X-boat routes goes back to the fact that they weren't originally X-boat routes but were trade routes designed randomly using tables in LBB3(77) which only considered the starport classes.

If a re-mapping were to be done, the obvious scheme would be something like this:
1. map J4 routes from Capital to all the sector capitals
2. map J4 routes from sector capitals to adjacent sectors' capitals
3. map J4 routes from sector capitals to subsector capitals in their sector
4. map J4 routes from subsector capitals to adjacent subsectors' capitals
5. map J4 routes from subsector capitals to Important (Ix 4+) worlds (or high Pop, high TL, Naval/Scout base, etc)

And then do separate maps for trade routes.

Actually, there is no reason that the "true" Government X-Boat/Courrier/Packet network isn't like this (even at J-5 or J-6 rate). Perhaps it is only the "Public/Commercial" J-4 X-Boat network that follows the trade routes.

 

[TamsinP]

Actually, there is no reason that the "true" Government X-Boat/Courrier/Packet network isn't like this (even at J-5 or J-6 rate). Perhaps it is only the "Public/Commercial" J-4 X-Boat network that follows the trade routes.

That is indeed a very good point about the government networks perhaps following their own (higher jump) routes.

Now, if only the "trade routes" made sense for, errmm, [checks notes], oh yes... trade.

 

[TamsinP]

Following on from discussions about Delphi sector, I've taken a closer look at it and it's definitely a mess - the sector capital is in a subsector which is outside the 3I border, as are a significant number of other 3I worlds.

 

[PVernon]

If you go to the trade volume maps for each sector in the wiki you can see the trade modeled using the "Gravity Model" which is the standard trade modeling used by economists in the real world. Here is link to the "Spinward Marches" https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/File:Spinward_Marches_Sector.pdf

 

[aramis]

The reason for Don's «size instead of atmo» change protocol was to preserve the extensive descriptions of worlds in the marches. Changing size changes gravity only; changing atmo of Psaydi would result in significant portions of The Traveller Adventure needing revision. Several others, as well. The Spinward Marches and the Solomani Rim are the most affected, but adventures in other sectors do exist in the third-party canon.

Almost no published adventures make significant plot points on gravity/size; many do on atmosphere.

Likewise, routes are part of the setting canon and history; they're likely to be very different in M1900.

 

[TamsinP]

If you go to the trade volume maps for each sector in the wiki you can see the trade modeled using the "Gravity Model" which is the standard trade modeling used by economists in the real world. Here is link to the "Spinward Marches" https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/File:Spinward_Marches_Sector.pdf

Wow! I'd never noticed those before. What a handy resource.