Sub-Sector / Sector Size
- Thread starter Plankowner
- Start date
My surmise: It provides a natural limit to the ambitions of Imperial dukes. A duke won't feel tempted to attack his neighbor, because he knows that the Imperium won't allow him to keep any gains he may make.Originally posted by Ptah:
I wonder about these things too. As I've gotten older I wonder why the sectors are so regular? Someone needs to introduce Gerrymandering to the 3I.
That said, the Imperium does display a modicum of flexibility. Aramis subsector is divided among three duchies. Jewell is a county under the Duke of Regina. Mertactor and Mille Falcs are governed from Glisten. But in all these cases, the subsector (or the Imperial worlds of the subsector) are too weak to make a credible duchy (Well, Jewell might work). I suspect that when a subesctor grows powerful enough to support a duke, it will get a duke.
Hans
Plankowner
SOC-13
THAT could make an interesting scenario! Honest Mr. Arch-Duke,we ARE rich enough to be a Duchy! See here are some... SAMPLES.... of our wealth!
Looking at the Spinward Marches and other known sectors, what do you think it would take to make a County into a Duchy? Population, Number of A/B Starports?
P
Pickles
Guest
Due to the geometry of hex-maps, the subsector borders bisect the outer ring of hexes. Thus, each subsector 'loses' some hexes to its neighbours.
It's actually a real pain in the neck working out the edges of hexagonal subsectors. No wonder there are so many border skirmishes in my ATU ...
Plankowner
SOC-13
So, this half-hexes problem at the borders doesn't happen in the OTU map? Have you LOOKED at it lately????
The top and the bottom of the 8x10 map are filled with half-hexes that have to be allocated to the neighboring sub-sectors. Seems like the hex-map only follows on that great tradition.
For a 3-D map, nothing beats a good old square. I played Space Opera for a while and it used a 3-D map. I just created a table that showed the distances between worlds. A similar idea could be used here. Simple sample below:
Alpha Beta Gamma Delta
Alpha - 1.1 2.3 4.5
Beta - - 0.8 2.4
Gamma - - - 3.7
These are made up numbers and you will not be able to make a plot work, but you get the idea. You could easily round up the distances to whole parsecs/jumps.
The top and the bottom of the 8x10 map are filled with half-hexes that have to be allocated to the neighboring sub-sectors. Seems like the hex-map only follows on that great tradition.
For a 3-D map, nothing beats a good old square. I played Space Opera for a while and it used a 3-D map. I just created a table that showed the distances between worlds. A similar idea could be used here. Simple sample below:
Alpha Beta Gamma Delta
Alpha - 1.1 2.3 4.5
Beta - - 0.8 2.4
Gamma - - - 3.7
These are made up numbers and you will not be able to make a plot work, but you get the idea. You could easily round up the distances to whole parsecs/jumps.
P
Pickles
Guest
I've been looking at it a lot lately, which is why I decided to go with hexagonal subsectors. It works because my ATU expanded from the centre outwards, and it's considerably smaller than the OTU.Originally posted by Plankowner:
So, this half-hexes problem at the borders doesn't happen in the OTU map? Have you LOOKED at it lately????
I can see a time in the not-too distant future when 3D space will be no problem in play due to personal electronics. But I personally can't be expected to calculate anything during late-evening game sessions with the odd pint or two under my belt.
A distance chart, now, that might be an idea ...
Plankowner
SOC-13
So, how to I get the columns to line up in the real post like they do in my little reply box?????
Plankowner
SOC-13
Bromgrev:
I would think that for a small universe like you are describing, it might work. You will probably have to break it down to smaller regions or the chart gets way too big. Perhaps a sub-sector size?
If you are trying to map something like the "real 3D space around Terra", going much past 10-12 ly is going to make for a big box.
Also, the formula for calculating distance is pretty easy:
D = SQRT{(X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2}
Sets up well on a spreadsheet.
I would think that for a small universe like you are describing, it might work. You will probably have to break it down to smaller regions or the chart gets way too big. Perhaps a sub-sector size?
If you are trying to map something like the "real 3D space around Terra", going much past 10-12 ly is going to make for a big box.
Also, the formula for calculating distance is pretty easy:
D = SQRT{(X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2+(Z2-Z1)^2}
Sets up well on a spreadsheet.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Plankowner - use the "code" feature in the Full Reply Form.
Bill, I was thinking in terms of the Aslan not building in a linear fashion (and, partly, just being facetious). The octagon/square model would not work if you were trying to achieve a uniform distance between the center of each bit. But, what might be other design drivers behind a map?
Bill, I was thinking in terms of the Aslan not building in a linear fashion (and, partly, just being facetious). The octagon/square model would not work if you were trying to achieve a uniform distance between the center of each bit. But, what might be other design drivers behind a map?
Fritz,
Population.
Imagine an interstellar polity in which political power was either wholly or partially based on population; representatives apportioned via population numbers.
In that manner you'd have 'subsectors' whose physical sizes were different but whose population sizes were roughly the same. Sort of like US House Districts before racial gerrymandering was made 'constitutional'.
You can use other 'social' measures; wealth, religious affiliation, etc., in a similar manner.
Have fun,
Bill
P
Pickles
Guest
In a similar vein, subsectors could simply be political boundaries. Size would vary enormously, of course, from single systems to sector-size or larger. For example, if your pocket empire encompasses 6 systems, would you really bother dividing up your star map into standard subsectors?
On the other hand, 'international' conventions may apply to star maps, as they do to air and sea traffic maps today.
On the other hand, 'international' conventions may apply to star maps, as they do to air and sea traffic maps today.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Well, I think they would still use 6 radii. They might number them 0 to 5, but they would definitely use 6 radii. (IMHO, of course.)
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Ah, I see!
Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fritz88:
Ptah, I don't think the Vilani could even grasp the concept of gerrymandering. I would think Vilani subsectors would be a precise size defined out to 8 decimal places, and based on the ratio of two nominally unrelated atomic elements. Even if the end result split a star right in half.
"Where are we?"
"Looks like we're right on the border."
"But the starcharts don't show any system here!"
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh man. And, imagine trying to "correct" the star charts, too....
