Sources for sector information

[Elliot]

I will have a go when I get home from work comparing AotI and MTJ3.

I think the reason for the Deneb data is that the Domain of Deneb was given to DGP as part of their coverage of the Rebellion (Hence Deneb Dossiers). Hence the official data was Rebellion era (Deneb was done before by some British publishers but I don't think this stuck as 'the' Deneb)

 

[mike wightman]

This is from AotI for Deneb sector:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0701 na
0702 va
0803 va
0902 va
0903 cs
0905 va
1001 va
1004 va
1202 va
1203 cs
1301 na
1302 na
1303 va
1403 na
1502 cs
1504 na
1601 va
1603 va
1704 cs GRAEK
1802 va
1902 cs
1903 va
1904 cs
2001 va
2202 va
2204 va
2234 cs
2403 cs
2502 na
2603 va
2702 va
2704 va TALON
2734 na
2802 na
2804 na
2903 na
2904 va
3004 va
3031 cs
3104 cs
3201 va</pre>[/QUOTE]The two named are high population worlds.

Hope this helps.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hope this helps.

Immensely!

Thanks much!

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Universe and H&E have the same allegiencies, but with names & UWPs.

 

[Elliot]

Sigg you beat me to it - teacher's holidays an' all....

 

[mike wightman]

Loads of time to plot and scheme...

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by daryen:
He and I are going in slightly different directions. There are several reasons for this.

The first reason is that he is taking the oldest data as correct, then going from there. I, instead, am starting with the Regency Sourcebook data, then checking for errors. The reason for this is that they obviously worked hard to clean up the stellar data. Hemdian catagorically rejects that revision.

The second reason is that he is trying to make an online resource. I am trying to do something a bit different.

The third reason, and the reason I can't really even leverage his effort, is that he has done a single subsector in two years. I am trying for a slightly quicker pace.

I do wish I had his Traveller library, though.

Just a quick update: Progress has been slow until recently due to problems in RL (at its worst I was homeless for a few weeks). Now everything seems to be recovering I am able to spend some time doing important stuff like this.

Into my special data cleaning database I now have all Supp 3 stats for SM entered, all SMC stats for SM entered, and stats for subsectors A-C for Regency (both periods) entered. Its very tedious work but if I can maintain the current rate then I should have the whole SM done in the next 30 days ... but no promises.

The plan (still) is to produce data sets for each time period ... classic, post-5FW, pre-Rebellion, mid-Rebellion and TNE. While some values may change from time period to time period, where a particular value is different in one source only then it is probably a mistake. Where an invalid star is listed it is a mistake. Where a world's physical characteristics don't agree with Book 2 rules this is a mistake. Where a world's social characteristics don't agree Book 2 rules (or alien module variants where appropriate) then this is tolerated but flagged. (The analysis of Chronor subsector will be republished accordingly.)

I have tended to reject Regency alterations to star data as it is one source verses SMC and DD (MT1's pullout).

Like I said, give me another month and I should have the whole SM done and ready for comment.

Regards PLST

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Hemdian:
...

I have tended to reject Regency alterations to star data as it is one source verses SMC and DD (MT1's pullout).

Like I said, give me another month and I should have the whole SM done and ready for comment.

Like I said, different goals.

BTW, while it may only be "one source" the reason for the change in stellar data in RSB was to try and fix the original stellar data. As bad as they got it in RSB (e.g. Mithral), it was far worse prior to that.

Quite frankly, all published stellar data needs to be completely flushed and regenerated with Malenfant's tables.

That all said, I will gleefully pillage his tables for access to the data I just can't get (e.g. SMC).

 

[Malenfant]

Where a world's physical characteristics don't agree with Book 2 rules this is a mistake.

I take it you mean Book 3, since that was the one that had the rules for generating worlds in (Book 2 was Starships).

However, I would strongly recommend NOT using Book 3 rules as a basis for world generation. The rules for generating hydrographics are wrong in that - they say that hydrographics are 2d-7+ATM, when it should be 2d-7+SIZE if it's to make any kind of sense.

This is corrected in Book 6, and lots of other stuff is added there too, like the stellar generation which is unfortunately completely and utterly incorrect as I have explained in the deluxe version of my revised stellar generation tables.

I'd ditch book 3 completely given the existence of book 6 - there is nothing in book 3 that needs to be retained, given the rules in the latter. There is no point in using older books just for the sake of it when newer material clearly supercedes it.

Plus of course, most of the UWPs in the sectors out there were generated using flawed algorithms that don't agree with what the results of either book 3 or book 6 should be in the first place.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'd ditch book 3 completely given the existence of book 6 - there is nothing in book 3 that needs to be retained, given the rules in the latter. There is no point in using older books just for the sake of it when newer material clearly supercedes it.

The main advantage of Book 3 is that it doesn't have all the superfluous detail of Book 6.

Stellar types? Who cares?

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by alanb:
Stellar types? Who cares?

I do.

Look at it this way. If stellar data is irrelevant, don't list it.

If, however, stellar data is listed, it is, by definition, important to some level. And if stellar data is important enough to list, then the least that can be done is to make it reasonable.

GDW tried to fix the stellar data of the Spinward Marches (at least as much as they knew) in the RSB. The least I can do, if I am trying to construct a definitive canon listing of the sector, is recognize that effort.

(The best I can do is, if given permission, correct it again.)

For another example, consider the tech level of Regina. What is Regina's TL in 1112? If I go by the "most references", then I am stuck with TL A, when it is quite clear that GDW "retconned" Regina's TL from A to C. Ergo, in my listing, Regina will have a TL of C.

 

[flykiller]

Stellar types? Who cares?

"hurry tom, we've got ten seconds. cut the red wire or we're all gonna die!"

tom looks up at the cold red sun, then down at the mass of wires. "they're all red!"

there's different levels of relevance. if you're a hack-n-slash grab-the-loot traveller then stellar types may not be relevant. others like scenery and a sense of being somewhere else, different from their ordinary world.

and sometimes a trivial detail, casually tossed out, comes to affect the course of an entire game.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by alanb:

Originally posted by Malenfant:
[qb]The main advantage of Book 3 is that it doesn't have all the superfluous detail of Book 6.

Stellar types? Who cares?

If you don't like the "superfluous detail" (I guess your Traveller universes must be like Elite, huh? One habitable world with one star and that's it? ) then fair enough. But that doesn't change the fact that Book 3 is still flat out wrong about the hydrographics. Hell, it had rules for generating size 8-A worlds but neglected to mention what happens when you roll high enough to get a atmosphere result of D-F - what are you supposed to do then if you don't have Book 6? Assume that every such world has an Insidious atmosphere?

I don't think that Book 6 is at all "superfluous" (but then, I wouldn't would I ). The star types are important - they tell you pretty much everything about what the world is like, for starters. A world orbiting an M5 V primary is going to be vastly different to a world orbiting an F5 V primary, or a red giant for that matter. Plus it also tells you about the other worlds in the system that Traveller usually conveniently ignores but that could be good adventure sources.

Thing is, with Book 6 Traveller made the attempt to be realistic. Since I first saw that, I've decided that means that Traveller was basically intented to be a realistic universe (this doesn't change anything about how people run games though. They can be gritty or cinematic, the realism of the physical universe doesn't change that at all). Of course, Book 6 fails in several regard (star types being the most noticeable) but at least it tried. The way I see it, if it hadn't tried to do that then maybe you'd be right in saying that stellar types don't matter - if the game didn't make a big deal out of it then it's fair to say that the implication is that GMs don't need to either... but it did make them an issue.

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Where a world's physical characteristics don't agree with Book 2 rules this is a mistake.

I take it you mean Book 3, since that was the one that had the rules for generating worlds in (Book 2 was Starships).
</font>[/QUOTE]

Err ... yes, Book 3.

However, I would strongly recommend NOT using Book 3 rules as a basis for world generation. The rules for generating hydrographics are wrong in that - they say that hydrographics are 2d-7+ATM, when it should be 2d-7+SIZE if it's to make any kind of sense.

This is corrected in Book 6, and lots of other stuff is added there too, like the stellar generation which is unfortunately completely and utterly incorrect as I have explained in the deluxe version of my revised stellar generation tables.

I'd ditch book 3 completely given the existence of book 6 - there is nothing in book 3 that needs to be retained, given the rules in the latter. There is no point in using older books just for the sake of it when newer material clearly supercedes it.

I hadn't realised Book 3 and Book 6 were different. I've just checked my data cleaning program and I'm use 2d-7+SIZE. Actually, I don't mind dropping Book 3 in favour of Book 6 ... the actual decision was to give preference to CT over over versions and fixes.

Plus of course, most of the UWPs in the sectors out there were generated using flawed algorithms that don't agree with what the results of either book 3 or book 6 should be in the first place.

That's part of the reason for the exercise. That, and the mixed time periods for different sectors. I've reporting the H&E sector data (typical electronic file) in the analysis for contrast but I'm not using it to influence the final product.

As for using alternative fixed tables (fine though they may be) ... then this is a case of different goals: if realism by current standards was the priority then I'd probably ditch the Traveller rules (and the 2D universe) altogther!

Regards PLST

 

[Malenfant]

Well, my point is that "cleaning up the data" may be futile, at least for much of the "unofficial" GENII data, because the statistical distribution of systems and UWPS in those generally don't agree with the expected distribution if you'd rolled dice using the Book 6 tables. That's because the algorithm used to make them was broken and didn't produce statistically reasonable results - therefore those results don't agree with canon expectations anyway.

If you wanted to clean up the data, you'd be better off just re-rolling all the UWPs so that they did conform to canon expectations.

I don't think the Marches or the Rim suffer from this (apparently they were hand-generated), but certainly some of the GENII data does.

 

[daryen]

While I can't speak for Hemdian (I think he is only working on the Spinward Marches), I am only looking at the Domain of Deneb in 993 and 1112.

And for "correcting" a sector, I am purely looking at the Spinward Marches in 1112, within the standard presentation of a sector. (I.e. I want to fix stellar, size/atmosphere etc. data, but am not worrying about "empty hexes", 3D, etc.)

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by daryen:
While I can't speak for Hemdian (I think he is only working on the Spinward Marches),

For now. I'll do any others its possible to do after I have finished SM.

Regards PLST

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
This is from AotI for Deneb sector:

[snip]

Hope this helps.

Well, it upsets a nifty piece of chrome I'd come up with for the history Behind the Claw, but OTOH it does away with something that has bothered me for years (Norris abandoning a good chunk of the worlds that are his responsibility to the Vargr (No, I don't believe the Vargr could have taken them away from him against his will)). So on the whole I'm happy to learn of it.


Hans

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
This is from AotI for Deneb sector:

[snip]

Hope this helps.

Well, it upsets a nifty piece of chrome I'd come up with for the history Behind the Claw, but OTOH it does away with something that has bothered me for years (Norris abandoning a good chunk of the worlds that are his responsibility to the Vargr (No, I don't believe the Vargr could have taken them away from him against his will)). So on the whole I'm happy to learn of it.</font>[/QUOTE]The only worlds Norris really lost were in Million (D) and Atsah (H). Both of those were apparently to actual Vargr states, not "raiders". (Their allegiance codes are "Vu" and "Vf", not "Va".) So, while he probably could have still defended them, the attacking forces were probably much more concerted and powerful than you are thinking.

(But, please, don't get me started on the Aslan silliness. )

 

[robject]

Getting back to the original post in this series: I'm looking for suggestions as to the proper way to spell the sector rimward of Core.

Is it 'Massilia' or 'Massila'?

Massila is a proper Vilani spelling. Massilia is not proper. But then, there are many Vilani dialects centered on interstellar neighborhoods, so I can't use that as an argument. And so I turn to what sources I have:

Massilia: Survival Margin. Knightfall.

Massila: MT Imperial Encyclopedia (only a chart)

Both (!): Hard Times, Rebellion Sourcebook, MT Referee's Manual (Massila in the charts, but Massilia in the text).

OK, it looks to me like the typo was in the master chart from which all charts noted above inherited. When text exists, the correct spelling is used, without exception.

Fine. The correct spelling is Massilia, which is obviously either a dialect of Vilani, Sylean, or the like.