Really Big Hexes

[ShapeShifter]

I'm new to the game, but the moment I heard about the 6-psec jump max, I fell out of my seat! o:

Given how vast the universe is, I knew that not only I but my players would inevitably feel "cramped" by these limitations.

I'm tinkering with an upper limit of 1 kiloparsec/jump for human technology (restricted to military, scout service, ultra-big corps, etc.), and 1 gigaparsec/jump for the most advanced races (perhaps dusty, vacant ghost-ships of the Ancients...).

I also plan on using info on the known universe instead of the default maps, e.g. the Local Group and the Virgo Supercluster (=the name of my campaign).

I may also consider the possibility of realistic 3-d space instead of the puzzling 2-d (a la Planiverse).

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm new to the game, but the moment I heard about the 6-psec jump max, I fell out of my seat! o: ...I may also consider the possibility of realistic 3-d space instead of the puzzling 2-d (a la Planiverse).

The main game effect of a 2D map is to limit the number of neighboring systems. A 3D map will *dramatically* increase the effective stellar density.

Assuming standard CT system density of 50% per parsec, here are the average number of neighboring systems for a 2D map vs. 3D map:

2 parsecs-: 9 vs 16
3 parsecs-: 18 vs 56
4 parsecs-: 30 vs 134
5 parsecs-: 45 vs 231
6 parsecs-: 63 vs 452
7 parsecs-: 84 vs 718

(EDITED)

In other words, a 14 parsec diameter sphere would have almost the same number of systems (718) as a typical CT sector. A 36 parsec sphere would have more systems (12,214) than the Third Imperium. This would be a profoundly different setting, primarily because communications time from the capital to the frontier would be far shorter in the 3D setting (5 weeks at Jump-4 vs 18 months in CT's Third Imperium). In addition, there would be far more trading partners (for Jump-2+ ships), so I'd expect much more homogeneity in tech levels, population and the like. In general, a more boring setting IMHO.

If you reduce stellar density to mirror CT levels, I don't see the point of using a 3D map.

 

[tbeard1999]

Here's an idea; think it over.

Instead of just rescaling jump, go with a sector map being measured in Jy, and having its hexes (henceforth megahexes) subdivided into y hexes across... you can thus increase the effective size. I'd say, J3 across, so each hex has 7 full hexes, arranged much like TFT megahexes. A "system" hex gets 1d6 systems, within the hex; a no-system megahex gets nothing, except empty space. And for good measure, make deep space jumps harder and mishaps worse on them.

I must be missing something here. How do the megahexes change the way jumps are done in CT?

Given a typical megahex, this means a j5 might be able to cross an empty hex, and a J6 can. Makes threading over much harder.

It also creates mains much easier.

If you go with J5, instead, your megahexes are 17 sub hexes; put in 1d10, 2d6, 3d6-2 or 1d12 systems in... and an empty megahex is likely uncrossable without a calibration point.

(TFT megahexes are a roughly hexagonal structure comprised of 7 hexagons. for larger, say dungeon scale, the hex was a 9' center-center megahex, while tactical scale used 3' hexes, arraged to match the megahexes.)

Ah, someone who remembers TFT. See my TFT website:

http://www.reese.org/tft/index.html

It even has a TFT/Traveller conversion.

 

[ShapeShifter]

tbeard1999: I see your point. However, it would be hard to suspend disbelief if I presented to my players a campaign wherein our 3D universe (and I'm quite aware that, in truth, it is 4D) was inexplicably compressed into two dimensions. It would raise too many questions as to why such a phenomenon occured. Therefore, I will maintain the extra dimension to avoid confusion. The salient point of my previous post was to raise my objections to the six-parsec limitation on traversing space in the default ruleset. By expanding the overall size of the campaign and expanding the jump-range of some vessels, I certainly don't think that will break the system.

As always, YMMV.


~~~~~SS.

 

[aramis]

Ty:
1) your TFT site's been bookmarked for a while.

Ok, I was thinking that, by making the sector and subsector maps akin to the TFT dungeon level maps, and thus each map hex is a megahex (possible a TFT style 7 hex, or a larger, 5-across, 19 hex), but rolling for system presence on the larger map, you can get the effect to be clusters and mains, but with larger, harder to cross gaps, and more systems on the map. Essentially, it rescales the Subsector to be 24x30pc... but keeps the empty spots larger and thus harder to cross.

So, you roll for system presence on a normal SS map. You then plot it out on MHx, with 1d6 systems per MH with system presence. You thus get larger gaps.

 

[sid6.7]

tbeard1999: I see your point. However, it would be hard to suspend disbelief if I presented to my players a campaign wherein our 3D universe (and I'm quite aware that, in truth, it is 4D) was inexplicably compressed into two dimensions. It would raise too many questions as to why such a phenomenon occured. Therefore, I will maintain the extra dimension to avoid confusion. The salient point of my previous post was to raise my objections to the six-parsec limitation on traversing space in the default ruleset. By expanding the overall size of the campaign and expanding the jump-range of some vessels, I certainly don't think that will break the system.

As always, YMMV.


~~~~~SS.

nice thing about traveller you can make any rules you want concerning
any part of the game you want. so no it wont break the system but it
might increase your paper work on the GM side to make all the peices fit.

 

[tbeard1999]

tbeard1999: I see your point. However, it would be hard to suspend disbelief if I presented to my players a campaign wherein our 3D universe (and I'm quite aware that, in truth, it is 4D) was inexplicably compressed into two dimensions. It would raise too many questions as to why such a phenomenon occured. Therefore, I will maintain the extra dimension to avoid confusion.

I've always maintained that CT maps are like subway maps or somesuch. I.e., they don't actually represent the real universe. Rather, they represent the "hyperspace distance", which can be accurately represented in a 2D map. Since there's virtually no STL interstellar travel, this works.

I have experimented with a 3D mapping system using a 5 hex wide megahex, stacked 5 deep. But I abandoned the idea when I realized that this would radically alter the speed of communication.

EDIT: Here's a link to a 3D mapping form I developed: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=273796#post273796

The salient point of my previous post was to raise my objections to the six-parsec limitation on traversing space in the default ruleset. By expanding the overall size of the campaign and expanding the jump-range of some vessels, I certainly don't think that will break the system.

Me neither. And if I'm correct, it may enable some desirable elements.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty:
1) your TFT site's been bookmarked for a while.

Ok, I was thinking that, by making the sector and subsector maps akin to the TFT dungeon level maps, and thus each map hex is a megahex (possible a TFT style 7 hex, or a larger, 5-across, 19 hex), but rolling for system presence on the larger map, you can get the effect to be clusters and mains, but with larger, harder to cross gaps, and more systems on the map. Essentially, it rescales the Subsector to be 24x30pc... but keeps the empty spots larger and thus harder to cross.

So, you roll for system presence on a normal SS map. You then plot it out on MHx, with 1d6 systems per MH with system presence. You thus get larger gaps.

OK, I see what you're getting at. The result would be clusters, with considerable gaps on average, between them. There would be very few "main" (and those that existed would be extremely important).

I don't know if this addresses my concerns, but it is an interesting way to create a universe.

 

[aramis]

It allows a lot of small mains, if you wish, by not specifying random placement within the megahex.

 

[whartung]

My objection is not limited to gas giant hopping. That, combined with the fact that there are a very modest number of systems in a typical CT subsector, makes exploration-type campaigns implausible IMHO. With only 16-20 systems, a typical subsector could be easily explored and mapped within a few years. It's hard for me to imagine how *any* subsector could remain isolated and mostly unexplored for very long in CT (especially if you allow jumps into and out of empty hexes).

There's a fundamental problem with your trying to reduce that problem by making the jump drives jump farther.

The only way to "slow down discovery" is to simply increase the number of systems and/or INCREASE the travel time. Speeding up jumps doesn't help that problem. Speeding up jumps just changes the scale of the map. There's no difference between a Subsector map of 1 parsec per hex and map with 10 parsecs per hex, even if there are more stars in a hex. If I have a "10 times as far/faster" jump drive, then the 10 parsec/hex map, in terms of travel, is identical to the 1 parsec per hex map, particularly if you argue that it's a "jump map" with each hex showing Jump numbers needed to get there.

Also, consider, there's nothing to actually LOOK for, it's more just a matter of GOING. With jump drives we can explore the nearby star systems faster than we can explore the darkest parts of the Amazon basin, simply because it's easier to get to a star than the deep Jungle.

Need somewhere to go? Look in the sky, find a light, point the ship and GO. Now, finding something with NO star is completely different. That's in the deepest darkest space with problems of detection (if you could detect it, you'd just go).

Let's take a simple example. The Near Star list from 2300AD has something like 630 stars in it. All within 50ly, or 15-16 parsecs from Earth. Now on the crass assumption that you could get to any star in a week, you could easily crunch a "traveling salesman" routine to minimize the route traveled. In the best of circumstances, you could hit a star a week. Spend a week taking quick sensor readings, and moving on. 2 Weeks per star. 1260 Weeks. 24+ years for a single ship. 10 ships, 2.5 years. 100 ships? 3 months.

Any society with the scale and scope of the Imperium is going to be mapped pretty fast, at least by SOMEONE. I mean, how many Scout Ships does the IISS have deployed anyway? Likely enough that they can hit every backwater system once every year or two years if they had the mind to. The rest they don't need to, as tramp freighters and X-Boats carry the news.

Now, if you look at something like what happened with TNE after the Collapse, you can see how the party gets restarted. The problem there is simply that they don't HAVE a lot of ships anymore, and the lines of communications went dark with these planets in The Wilds. We know where to go, we know how to get there, we even know what used to be, but we haven't the resources to send a new crew over and get an update or to make contact.

But, give them 10-20 years. Get the shipyards fired up again and some resources flowing, and the ships will start exploring again. Within 50 years, it will all be mapped out again with reasonably recent maps. But that's only because they're boostrapping the whole thing again as part of the recovery and are shore of resources.

I mean, heck, that's why WE, planet Earth haven't mapped the nearby stars -- we simply can't get there yet. Instead we point Hubble at them, one by one, to find the Interesting ones.

So, if you want a borderland, undiscovered area in your campaign, there needs to be a reason why folks aren't or can't go there, or haven't been there yet. I don't think scaling the jump drives really solves that problem.

Perhaps the IISS has given up, they no longer patrol other systems any more. Or they do, but they keep all of their findings secret. But it's too expensive for a private firm to do that themselves without a guaranteed payday at the end of the flight.

If you've ever played one of the 4X Galaxy Building games (Reach for the Stars, Masters of Orion, etc.), you know how slow the start of exploration begins, but also how fast it finishes when industry comes on line.

So, there needs to be a limitation that keeps the folks from doing that kind of exploration. Which is difficult with "cheap" space flight.

 

[tbeard1999]

There's a fundamental problem with your trying to reduce that problem by making the jump drives jump farther.

The only way to "slow down discovery" is to simply increase the number of systems

Which is what happens when hexes are assumed to be 8000 cubic parsecs. The result is that thousands of systems -- of which few contain anything worthwhile besides gas gianst -- exist in each hex. This, rather than the expansion of jump range, is the primary reason that "lost colonies", "strange new worlds", etc., can exist.

Add in a penalty for unmapped jumps to most systems (1 month transit time instead of 1 week is what I'm considering), and it becomes pretty plausible for lost colonies, etc., to exist.

 

[whartung]

Which is what happens when hexes are assumed to be 8000 cubic parsecs. The result is that thousands of systems -- of which few contain anything worthwhile besides gas gianst -- exist in each hex. This, rather than the expansion of jump range, is the primary reason that "lost colonies", "strange new worlds", etc., can exist.

Using our neighborhood as a reference, we average about 250 systems in that much space (at least at magnitude down to +7.5).

Potentially habitable systems (i.e. stars that we seem to think would most likely support habitable planets) would be between 4-5 in that space, so, 4-5 per hex.

Add in a penalty for unmapped jumps to most systems (1 month transit time instead of 1 week is what I'm considering), and it becomes pretty plausible for lost colonies, etc., to exist.

Why the penalty? That's like penalizing a plane for flying in to the Amazon. He may not be able to land, but the flight time should be the same whether going to the River or LAX.

Anyway, again, with cheap space flight, even 250 systems per hex isn't "a lot". With your 1 month penalty, 10 ships have those mapped in 4 years. That's not a lot of ships, and not a lot of years. It's a lot of backwater planets, that's for sure. Will they be meticulously explored? No, of course not. But they'll be categorized enough for a UPP, with the "obviously profitable" ones floating to the top quickly (i.e. you'll know about the habitable ones quickly). Lots of rogue mining operations, perhaps, but I think that's even possible today with standard CT. Not everything needs to be on the sector map.

So, it comes down to limiting resources to actually do that exploration in some way. (Time can be such a way -- a "young empire", whatever).

 

[tbeard1999]

Using our neighborhood as a reference, we average about 250 systems in that much space (at least at magnitude down to +7.5).

<sigh>

Who cares? If that's your stellar density, then make the hexes bigger. I based the estimate of ~3000 system on CT densities. If it's "really" less, then use bigger hexes. It's a dramatic device, for heaven's sake.

IIRC, there are 998 stars within 50 light years (15.33 parsecs) of Earth. That's a stellar density of about 1 per 15 cubic parsecs. One of my RBHs is 8000 cubic parsecs, so it would have about 519 stars. But what's interesting is that the stellar density appears to increase the closer you get to Sol:

Distance..Stars..Density (Cu Parsecs/Star)
20LY.......111...8.71
30LY.......277...11.78
40LY.......572...13.52
50LY.......998...15.14

I suspect that this discrepancy is largely due to the fact that stars get harder to find as range increases. So using the 20LY density, one of my RBHs would have about 918 stars. If you make the RBHs 30 parsecs across, then there will be about 3000 systems per hex. <poof> Problem solved.

If the HabCat database is reliable, the percentage of stars likely to have habitable planets is about 15-20% of the total. I choose, for dramatic purposes, to assume that the total is FAR lower (~1% or so).

These numbers are hard to reconcile with the oft-quoted assertion that local stellar density in the Sol area is about 1 star per cubic parsec.

And if there are ~3000 systems per hex, and if it takes 2 months on average to get to a new system, explore it, etc. (recall my 1 month penalty for unmapped jumps), then a scout ship will take 500 years to explore a single hex (assuming no breaks for refitting, repair, etc.). A sector would have about 3.84 million stars. A fleet of 100 ships would take 6400 years to explore that sector. That leaves plenty of unexplored territory for my Commonwealth campaign (which has existed for about 300 years).

Potentially habitable systems (i.e. stars that we seem to think would most likely support habitable planets) would be between 4-5 in that space, so, 4-5 per hex.

Until we actually find habitable planets, I am perfectly comfortable with making whatever assumptions are necessary to make the milieu more dramatic and interesting.

Why the penalty?

Because it adds drama to the setting. Is this really that hard?

That's like penalizing a plane for flying in to the Amazon.

Since jump drives are dramatic devices, your objections are kinda irrelevant, seems to me. Unless, of course, you find this undesirable from a dramatic standpoint.

Anyway, again, with cheap space flight

Yeah, I understood your argument the first time around. I just don't find it persuasive.

 

[captainjack]

<sigh>


These numbers are hard to reconcile with the oft-quoted assertion that local stellar density in the Sol area is about 1 star per cubic parsec.

About the only source for that that I recall is from EDG - the planetary sciences PhD- over on the mongoose boards. I was having a hard time pinning him down to an exact answer (I think he wanted to discuss stellar type distribution rather than stars per hex) - so perhaps he was including brown dwarves and the like. Looks like you've got the right data - and if anything it looks like the traveller density is WAY low compared to the real world. Which is fine, 'cause it helps buttress a pet theory of mine....

 

[aramis]

Whartung: Adding a penalty to empty hex and non-established route jumps makes excellent dramaturgical sense. Whilst I argue against it for even the ISW period (it's not cogent with the theory of jump for the OTU), I do think it makes a lot of sense for non-OTU Traveller with OTHER jump ephemera.

It logically puts a penalty on "off-the-route" travel, and makes exploration a real pain.

Ty:
Exploring a single hex isn't 500 years, it's 500 ship-years, which, given a 1% budget, of a reasonably populous homeworld (Pop 8+) is going to be able to afford a dozen a year until the fleet's at least a hundred scouts (assuming a more capable 200Td scout ship than the canon Type S)... so the first hex is a decade for first survey. The second and later are 5 apiece, if that. The limit I'm using is the pilot limit from TCS, which, while bogus, is the only decent reference available in rules-canon.

If one has a dedication culturally to exploration, or a paranoid mentality about buffer zone defenses, then several thousand scout ships are not undreasonable for a TL9 Pop 8.... as even at 200 Td, they have crews of a handful (3-5). As such, a world in the 10's of millions could probably muster a 10,000 man scout service fairly easily, and a truly competent one of 3000 or so... and rapidly scout every world in a year or so.

So how do you keep the culture from just building a huge fleet and "crash-mapping" each hex. (Twas a constant problem in Starfire New Empires campaigns...)

 

[whartung]

Whartung: Adding a penalty to empty hex and non-established route jumps makes excellent dramaturgical sense. Whilst I argue against it for even the ISW period (it's not cogent with the theory of jump for the OTU), I do think it makes a lot of sense for non-OTU Traveller with OTHER jump ephemera.

It logically puts a penalty on "off-the-route" travel, and makes exploration a real pain.

If the definition of "Jump" is "getting someplace interesting" vs "put ship at X, Y, Z galactic coordinates", then, sure. Maybe it takes a couple of jumps to get in to the system and get the coordinates down, with the jump being refined as you close in to the system and "properly map the gravitic swells that adjust the navigational equations when you're this close to the galactic axis". But, I have problems swallowing that it takes that long to get back. Nothing unknown about that destination, IMHO.

Ty:
Exploring a single hex isn't 500 years, it's 500 ship-years...

<snip>

If one has a dedication culturally to exploration, or a paranoid mentality about buffer zone defenses, then several thousand scout ships are not undreasonable for a TL9 Pop 8.... as even at 200 Td, they have crews of a handful (3-5). As such, a world in the 10's of millions could probably muster a 10,000 man scout service fairly easily, and a truly competent one of 3000 or so... and rapidly scout every world in a year or so.

That was my point about cheap space travel. When ships and travel is cheap, you get a lot of it. Throw in a potential profit incentive, or maybe an exploration bounty (50K credits to the first person with detail system maps of any new system), or whatever, and the race is on.

If the ships are more limited, or the culture isn't expansionist (or hungry for raw/new materials) then, yea, it will take forever to map the stars, not because they can't, mind but because they don't want to. We've sent probes to pretty much every major body in this solar system, save Pluto (and one is on the way as I recall), and we've done that in less than 50 years. And that's with very slow ships/probes.

Look at that Google Street View system, where they take photos of places on Google Maps. In the beginning it was San Francisco or some other select town, with a couple of photo cars.

Now it's a small contract industry, and very large chunk of the heavily populated urban areas of the country are mapped and photographed. It's creepy to see my house on the web.

If we could build a ship for $1B, Bill Gates would have 5-10 of his own crawling the galaxy. And if NASA wouldn't let him, he'd build them in Ecuador or wherever.

If you want to have unexplored areas, slow down travel, remove the desire to explore, or reduce how long the "age of exploration" has been so far. Saying "My God, it's full of stars" isn't a good rationale, IMHO, in an area with a large civilization and ready access to travel.

 

[tbeard1999]

Whartung: Adding a penalty to empty hex and non-established route jumps makes excellent dramaturgical sense.

If "dramaturgical" isn't a word, it oughta be.

It logically puts a penalty on "off-the-route" travel, and makes exploration a real pain.

Yup. There needs to be some additional barriers to exploration (IMHO) if you want plausible unexplored turf.

Ty:
So how do you keep the culture from just building a huge fleet and "crash-mapping" each hex. (Twas a constant problem in Starfire New Empires campaigns...)

I'm leaning towards the idea of making jump solutions perishable. (This idea also appears in Chris Thrash's followup JTAS article, but I don't like his execution.) So while a fleet of (say) 1000 ships could theoretically explore a hex in 6 months, it will have to re-explore those systems every X months to keep the jump solutions intact. If the solutions require updating (say) every 6 months, then 1000 ships per hex would be required to keep the jump solutions intact.

(In civilized systems, starships would be required to download their jump solutions to the starport on arrival. Thus, a well-travelled route will be constantly updated.)

It's also relevant to note that in the real world, such things would cost money. Like most wargames, Starfire New Empires didn't directly model the cost of such expeditions. It was "built in" (IIRC) by a general maintenance cost that was the same whatever mission a ship performed.

Based on a service life of 30 years, a single Type-S scout would have an amortized cost of about Mcr1 per year. Add to that the TCS maintenance cost of Mcr2 per year (which I assume includes basing costs, etc.) So a 1000 ship fleet would cost 3 billion credits per year (and cost 30 billion credits to construct). Allowing for maintenance, shore leave, etc., I'd estimate that a ship would probably be deployed for 7-8 months of the year. Assuming 1 month to jump into system, and 1.5 months to scout the system, prepare for the next mission, refuel, etc., that's about 3 systems per year that such a ship could map. And of course, this assumes that you could meaningfully survey an entire solar system in a month or so with a Type S scoutship and 4 crew. At best, there would be little time for detailed surveys and landings.

And while the survey data itself isn't necessarily perishable, the jump solutions are.

So the cost to survey 1 Really Big Hex would be 3 billion credits per year. This would be about 1.2% of the total naval budget of a 500 million population world (per TCS). It would be 12% of the budget of a 50 million population world. If it takes (say) twice as long to survey a system, then the effective cost goes up by 40%.

That's a pretty serious investment, even for high population worlds. And consider that a subsector has 40 hexes, so it would take ten times the investment to explore the whole subsector in a reasonable period of time (4 years).

In my campaign, the Commonwealth is a democratic, free market state. Military spending is correctly seen as an economic drain, so the Commonwealth Navy, Army and Survey Service are not lavishly funded.

 

[aramis]

It all depends, Ty, on (1) how long it takes to survey a route, (2) how long it takes to get there, and (3) the economic incentives to keeping said routes surveyed.

If a system generates MCr1 more profit than getting the same stuff in a more "mainstream" system, it's worth it to time share your own scout to keep it open; The gov't will probably allow bids on 1/3 a scoutship to "insure" mapping...

And most colonies and outposts will be able to do an MCr or more... one major mine will be sufficient.

Especially if the route mapping can be a function of the mine ship, as well, in which case, your pair of mine ships, working 4-on 2-off keep a mining op on the maps; the license to travel could be easily a requirement to survey that and one other system annually, and migrate the cost to the private sector in lieu of tax on charts.

 

[tbeard1999]

If you want to have unexplored areas, slow down travel, remove the desire to explore, or reduce how long the "age of exploration" has been so far. Saying "My God, it's full of stars" isn't a good rationale, IMHO, in an area with a large civilization and ready access to travel.

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. While it's obvious that lowering the cost of any activity will tend to increase the occurence of that activity, I do not agree that low cost space travel inevitably leads to everything being explored.

That said, I *do* run the numbers on such things. And at the end of the day, there *is* a point at which there will be too many systems for an interstellar state to explore and settle all of them. <shrug> All that we have to do is determine the size of the Really Big Hexes.

If 3000 systems in a hex won't work, then increase the hex size to 10,000. Or whatever. In other words, I think that there are other solutions besides increasing the cost of space travel across the board. (Of course that strategy would work as well, but it is less finely targeted and would have undesirable effects on other things IMHO).

 

[tbeard1999]

About the only source for that that I recall is from EDG - the planetary sciences PhD- over on the mongoose boards. I was having a hard time pinning him down to an exact answer (I think he wanted to discuss stellar type distribution rather than stars per hex) - so perhaps he was including brown dwarves and the like. Looks like you've got the right data - and if anything it looks like the traveller density is WAY low compared to the real world. Which is fine, 'cause it helps buttress a pet theory of mine....

My numbers are for stars, not systems. Given the large number of binary stellar systems, the number of stars should be divided by ~1.5 to yield the number of systems. (So at least 2/3 of systems should be binary+; some estimates are higher -- 75%--if you believe that, multiply the number of systems by .89 and increase the Density by 12%).

Here's the revised chart:

Distance..Systems..Density (Cu Parsecs/System)
15LY........35....11.77
20LY.......111...13.07
30LY.......184...17.67
40LY.......381...20.29
50LY.......665...22.7