OTU Only: T5SS Semi-Official Thread
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
Graham2001
SOC-12
This is a small request, for when T5SS gets to Astron, Fulani, Theron, Iphigenaia (Aka 'The Back of The Beyond').
There are 25 systems, some of which appeared in Amber Zone scenarios in JTAS 1-24, Challenge 25-32 as well as several of the Mercenary Tickets in 76 Patrons, which were provided with UWPs, but were never given a formal place in the Traveller Universe.
It might be worth going through them and seeing if any of them are suitable for placement. I have emailled inexorabletash with a few suggestions. I know for a fact not all of them are, "Bellevue" ('Military Academy' by Marcus Rowland) for example is stated to be located within an Imperial subsector.
Similarly the very first of these worlds to be published, "Sharmun" ('Salvage on Sharmun' by Jeff May) has to be located inside the Imperium due to the nature of the scenario.
There are 25 systems, some of which appeared in Amber Zone scenarios in JTAS 1-24, Challenge 25-32 as well as several of the Mercenary Tickets in 76 Patrons, which were provided with UWPs, but were never given a formal place in the Traveller Universe.
It might be worth going through them and seeing if any of them are suitable for placement. I have emailled inexorabletash with a few suggestions. I know for a fact not all of them are, "Bellevue" ('Military Academy' by Marcus Rowland) for example is stated to be located within an Imperial subsector.
Similarly the very first of these worlds to be published, "Sharmun" ('Salvage on Sharmun' by Jeff May) has to be located inside the Imperium due to the nature of the scenario.
T5SS Progress
After a long break, I can announce some progress on the T5SS effort.
Marc continues to have a high level mandate to create a stable, consistent data set for the OTU as a tool for authors. This allows him (and others) to e.g. understand the impact of the Wave on charted space from 1105 to 1900, or figure how how the Vilani formed the Ziru Sirka along J-1 mains thousands of years earlier.
The canonical data set resides in Marc's hands. I've spent time over the last few weeks reconciling it with changes made by DonM between October and December 2015 (discussed on this thread) that never made it back to Marc, as well as a handful of corrections applied directly to TravellerMap for issues noted on this thread. We now once again have a consistent basis for the T5SS, and I can make updates to TravellerMap from it.
Over the last few days I tackled three big additions to the T5SS data set. These are all now considered "In Review":
Feedback on those additions is very welcome and this thread is a good place for it. I still need to go back through this thread and make sure everything noted here as an issue is tracked and fixed or discussed appropriately.
(I should note that a world was deliberately moved in Gashikan to alter the J-1 main structure. Some of you out there care about such details.)
After a long break, I can announce some progress on the T5SS effort.
Marc continues to have a high level mandate to create a stable, consistent data set for the OTU as a tool for authors. This allows him (and others) to e.g. understand the impact of the Wave on charted space from 1105 to 1900, or figure how how the Vilani formed the Ziru Sirka along J-1 mains thousands of years earlier.
The canonical data set resides in Marc's hands. I've spent time over the last few weeks reconciling it with changes made by DonM between October and December 2015 (discussed on this thread) that never made it back to Marc, as well as a handful of corrections applied directly to TravellerMap for issues noted on this thread. We now once again have a consistent basis for the T5SS, and I can make updates to TravellerMap from it.
Over the last few days I tackled three big additions to the T5SS data set. These are all now considered "In Review":
- Garnfellow's Solomani sectors: Canopus, Aldebaran, Neworld and Langere
- GypsyComet's Zhodani sector: Tienspevnekr
- FreeTrav's Julian sectors: Gashikan and Trenchans
Feedback on those additions is very welcome and this thread is a good place for it. I still need to go back through this thread and make sure everything noted here as an issue is tracked and fixed or discussed appropriately.
(I should note that a world was deliberately moved in Gashikan to alter the J-1 main structure. Some of you out there care about such details.)
Four general comments:
Worlds with the bases KM (Non-imperal Navy + Military bases) should not get a +1 to importance. At least according to a strict interpretation of the Importance calculation on p411 of T5 5.09 rules.
Worlds with a pop of 1 (and there seem to be a number), have the EX wrong. The L (second column) should be 0. (Pop - 1, 0 is allowed).
The Infrastructure (third column) for Lo worlds should be 1. The table on p. 411 says Lo pop worlds have an infrastructure of both 0 and 1. I recommend the value of 1.
Canopus:
1838 Ualyuliiys BABA248-B Fl Lo Tz -> Should have a trade code of Oc
2820 Billow X8CA000-0 Ba Fl Fo Tz -> Should have a trade code of Wa
This seems to be general omission.
Worlds with the bases KM (Non-imperal Navy + Military bases) should not get a +1 to importance. At least according to a strict interpretation of the Importance calculation on p411 of T5 5.09 rules.
Worlds with a pop of 1 (and there seem to be a number), have the EX wrong. The L (second column) should be 0. (Pop - 1, 0 is allowed).
The Infrastructure (third column) for Lo worlds should be 1. The table on p. 411 says Lo pop worlds have an infrastructure of both 0 and 1. I recommend the value of 1.
Canopus:
1838 Ualyuliiys BABA248-B Fl Lo Tz -> Should have a trade code of Oc
2820 Billow X8CA000-0 Ba Fl Fo Tz -> Should have a trade code of Wa
This seems to be general omission.
Do you see that occurring anywhere? (The Importance calculation comes out of Marc's spreadsheet, so I need to report it to him if so.)
Looks like either a bug in Marc's spreadsheet or a T5 errata item. (He has "if pop > 1 then pop -1 else pop"). That likely affects every T5SS world.
Agreed. Looks like it's correct for the Ex's I generated, incorrect in Garnfellow's. I'll work with him to fix.
Looks like either another bug in Marc's spreadsheet or a T5 errata item. The formula used is:
Oc: Siz > 9 and Atm < A and Hyd > 9
Wa: Siz < A and Atm < A and Hyd = 10
Note the Atm < A, which excludes Fl worlds from being Wa/Oc. (Which I agree with.) T5.09 has:
Oc: Siz ABCDEF, Atm 3456789ABC, Hyd A
Wa: Siz 3456789A, Atm 3456789ABC, Hyd A
(which is buggy for Siz A anyway as a world should not have both)
Got a ruling from Marc: T5.09 is right, spreadsheet was wrong. Fixed, updated data is pushed live.
It sounds like this is going to be an errata item; these should be exclusive.
According to my sector lint, part of the trade map generator, every world with the "KM" for bases has the importance off by one. There are several worlds in Canopus. My computer is charging so a full list will have to wait until morning.
Okay - that also comes from the spreadsheet. It gives +1 for any of the following bases codings:
NS NW W X D RT CK KM
T5.09 doesn't say anything about non-Imperial bases. Want to raise that with Marc? (In some ways that is beyond the scope of the rules and getting into setting, but the rules could mention "and apply similar +1 for equivalent bases for non-Imperial worlds" etc)
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Ah, that's what all this stuff on my hard drive is!
I agree, but I also think that this particular section of T5 needs some reconsideration for non-Imperial polities. As Joshua noted, the T5 Importance rules are silent on non-Imperial bases.
Neither the Hive Federation nor the Solomani Confederation, for example, have separate Scout services -- these activities are subsumed by their navies. So all their naval bases are also, in effect, scout bases. Never giving them a "base credit" in the Importance calculation seems wrong, but so does always giving them credit. Which is why I used an unofficial rule of "two bases (any type) equal +1 Importance" for non-Imperial systems. At the time it appeared Marc's spreadsheet was also giving KM combos a +1 credit.
Similarly, I gave Hiver worlds with embassies a +1 credit to Importance. Embassy codes are not described in T5 but do appear in the Spica data, so I included them in Langere.
Without a scout service or a TL of G+, there is no way a system can get an Importance of 5 using a strict interpretation of the Importance calc.
Last edited:
I think we should bring this up as errata. I added the "KM" (and the others on your list) as +1 importance, but when checking Knoellighz for The Pakkrat, I was informed of the stricter interpretation.
So the Vargr governments (as a rule) don't have a scout service either.
I would like to point out the T5 5.09 rules p411 has only four base types (Navy (N), Scout (S), Depot (D), and Way Station (W)).
And, as Garnfellow points out, the Hiver Embassaies (E) are not on the list anywhere. And I would like our rule sets to be consistent.
Complete list of base codes from the wiki, which is what I'm working from for the trade map sector lint code.
In Langere:
2919 Ziiping C546756-6 Ag Pi Pz HumaW { 0 } (86D+2) [8786]
According to the EX rules, the Infrastructure for this world can't be above 2D + Ix or 12, so the value of 13 (D) is too high.
Garnfellow, if you added a +1 importance for the Hiver embassies, the spreadsheet has stripped them back out again.
2919 Ziiping C546756-6 Ag Pi Pz HumaW { 0 } (86D+2) [8786]
According to the EX rules, the Infrastructure for this world can't be above 2D + Ix or 12, so the value of 13 (D) is too high.
Garnfellow, if you added a +1 importance for the Hiver embassies, the spreadsheet has stripped them back out again.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The Vargr might not an official Scout Service, but I'd imagine that every Vargr spacer might have some interesting stories to tell, or pass on, at the nearest bar.
As for the Solomani, their navy does everything, which I imagine is a deliberate policy, so that they know everything that goes in and outside the Confederation, spacetimewise.
As for the Solomani, their navy does everything, which I imagine is a deliberate policy, so that they know everything that goes in and outside the Confederation, spacetimewise.
Agreed, and I think I've brought this up in the Errata Discussion thread.
A good discussion about T5 base codes is probably long overdue. One of my pet peeves about the T5 rules as they stand right now is they are simultaneously modeling "any setting," "OTU circa 1105," and "Galaxiad," but don't clearly distinguish between rules and setting. Some T5 elements appear to reflect a setting far beyond the OTU in 1105, while other T5 elements are clearly restricted to the Third Imperium.
So, while T5 population can range above A, in the T5SS 1105 dataset it should be capped at A. At the other end of the spectrum, T5 only has Imperial base codes but the T5SS features K, M, E, and maybe others.
Instead of having K and N codes for non-Imperial and Imperial naval bases, maybe we should just have N for all major naval bases.
Why should non-Imperial systems be able to distinguish non-naval bases with an M code but Imperial systems cannot? Given the T5SS format allows for 2 digit base codes, maybe we could show where all the Imperial army bases are located. While we could use the T5 rules to determine the presence of non-Imperial naval bases, how does one determine the presence of non-naval bases? (I went back to MT and CT for the Confederation sectors I worked on.)
Maybe E shouldn't be a base code, but a remark like Research Station. Or maybe Research Station should be a base code?
Last edited:
Let's see if this works.
I've attached to this post (I think) an owned worlds report for Canopus, Aldebaran, Neworld, and Langere. I would generate this report for Don when we were reviewing the other sectors. It serves as a double check and recommendation for the review process.
If you can download this and open it in Excel, the sheet consists of 6 columns.
Column A: one of the worlds (the name is in wiki format) which has a government type of 6. Hence an Owned world.
Column B: The owning world as listed in the dataset. This can be "Mr" for military rule (per the trade code), a world name derived from the hex location in the data set, or "None" meaning a value needs to be selected. Garnet (Neworld 0721) is the only "None" in this dataset.
Column C-F: A list of recommended nearby worlds which meet the criteria for being owning world. These are: Starport A, B, or C, Population 6+, TL 9+, within the same polity (no Imperial worlds owned by Zhodani), and nearby. The definition of "nearby" is a little vague because it requires a long explanation of the internals of the trade map generator. The list is sorted importance, distance, and population. This list can be empty.
If the world in column B isn't in the columns C-F it means either the selected world doesn't meet the criteria or (more likely) is not in the "nearby" list to the owned world.
I've attached to this post (I think) an owned worlds report for Canopus, Aldebaran, Neworld, and Langere. I would generate this report for Don when we were reviewing the other sectors. It serves as a double check and recommendation for the review process.
If you can download this and open it in Excel, the sheet consists of 6 columns.
Column A: one of the worlds (the name is in wiki format) which has a government type of 6. Hence an Owned world.
Column B: The owning world as listed in the dataset. This can be "Mr" for military rule (per the trade code), a world name derived from the hex location in the data set, or "None" meaning a value needs to be selected. Garnet (Neworld 0721) is the only "None" in this dataset.
Column C-F: A list of recommended nearby worlds which meet the criteria for being owning world. These are: Starport A, B, or C, Population 6+, TL 9+, within the same polity (no Imperial worlds owned by Zhodani), and nearby. The definition of "nearby" is a little vague because it requires a long explanation of the internals of the trade map generator. The list is sorted importance, distance, and population. This list can be empty.
If the world in column B isn't in the columns C-F it means either the selected world doesn't meet the criteria or (more likely) is not in the "nearby" list to the owned world.
That is pretty freaking nifty. I love that it provides cross-sector recommendations, which are otherwise painful to find.
If this criteria for owning worlds isn't in T5 (and I don't think it is), it really needs to be. I had imposed the polity piece myself and the other criteria are solid. I would also suggest Government <> 6, so you don't end up with an owned world owned by another owned world.
This is so much easier to review than what I was doing.
Last edited:
So, this analysis is definitely pointing out plenty of things to tweak. Where the formula is not generating a candidate for ownership, what has been done for other sectors -- change the government code? "Force" a solution?
With a quick spot check, I have a question about Vasil (Neworld 0909) and Iscariot (Neworld 1111), both members of the Kostov Republic. Their current owner is Kostov (Neworld 0910), which I believe meets all the criteria for an owning world. But Plamen 3 (Neworld 0808) is the only suggestion. Any idea why?
With a quick spot check, I have a question about Vasil (Neworld 0909) and Iscariot (Neworld 1111), both members of the Kostov Republic. Their current owner is Kostov (Neworld 0910), which I believe meets all the criteria for an owning world. But Plamen 3 (Neworld 0808) is the only suggestion. Any idea why?
Thanks, Thomas!
Yeah, flaw in the process right now - base codes don't get validated. (I may have let E slip in, since I allow it on the site for non-T5SS data.)
That's another problem with Marc's spreadsheet. It calculates some fields (e.g. Ix, Labor, Acceptance, etc) but relies on any fields with die rolls to be pre-calculated including modifiers based on calculated fields. If the modifiers change, the pre-calculated fields don't get updated.
We can be vigilant (e.g. lint tools) or explore process improvements.
Yeah, flaw in the process right now - base codes don't get validated. (I may have let E slip in, since I allow it on the site for non-T5SS data.)
That's another problem with Marc's spreadsheet. It calculates some fields (e.g. Ix, Labor, Acceptance, etc) but relies on any fields with die rolls to be pre-calculated including modifiers based on calculated fields. If the modifiers change, the pre-calculated fields don't get updated.
We can be vigilant (e.g. lint tools) or explore process improvements.
Similar threads
