OTU Only: T5SS Semi-Official Thread

[whulorigan]

The Beyond - Zydarian Codominium

I am currently auditing some of the entries on the TravellerWiki for The Beyond and the Vanguard Reaches in light of the "In Review" T5SS data on TravellerMap.

Does anyone know if the spelling Zydarian Codominion appears anywhere other than on the TravellerMap (whether in canon, non-canon or "fanon" sources)? The spelling in the original The Beyond publication by Don Rapp is consistently Zydarian Codominium.

At the moment there are entries on the wiki that utilize both spellings, and I want to have all entries point consistently to a single orthography. My hunch is that the T5SS "In Review" spelling is an accidental misspelling, but I want to check with others to see if someone knows something I don't. I already asked inexorabletash, and he is unsure.

 

[Whipsnade]

I've searched the thread and most likely overlooked it, but how were the Squanine/Burtson in issues addressed?

 

[tjoneslo]

I've searched the thread and most likely overlooked it, but how were the Squanine/Burtson in issues addressed?

For those of us not up on every single discussion, can you give us a little more context?

 

[tjoneslo]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v88n8h8jkrdt6td/AACoVZrR8SPrC6kzqRW68W2Ia?dl=0

I have updated the Mendan.tab file for the Mendan sector in the link above.

The largest change was redoing the Ports in the Julian Protectorate worlds, re-randomizing them according to the standard, rather than the backwater, distribution. This has the affect of increasing the TLs of most worlds, and by extension many of the Economic values. There is some increases of the population as well.

One suggestion for the sector linter: Verify if the TL of the world in the range of 1D plus modifiers. The only exception I have found is the barren worlds.

 

[Whipsnade]

For those of us not up on every single discussion, can you give us a little more context?

Sorry.

When discussing the Trin's Veil subsector, BtC has Burtson owned by Squanine, specifically by the Marquis of Squanine. Burtson was initially settled by people from Squanine, there still is some movement of people from one to the other, and the colony long ago grew larger than the mother world. Burtson basically pays all the bills which allows the remaining elites on Squanine to live in luxury.

I know BtC has mostly been decanonized for T5SS and rightfully so. However, I think that the "Squanine owns Burtson" angle - not the details above, just the "owns" code - dates from MT or TNE. I don't have easy access to DGP's various sector/domain maps or RSB to check my memory.

Travellermap has Edenelt owning Burtson and no marquis on Squanine. There's no problem with that. In fact, it make much more sense than the BtC info (and the possible MT and TNE info.)

I'm just wondering whether the change between BtC and T5SS was a deliberate retcon or something which was overlooked. If it wasn't a retcon, it should be one, because, IMHO, Burtson being colonized/owned by Edenelt is better.

All this has come about because I've been puttering around in my slush pile. I came across an adventure set on Burtson and realized it would fit very well into the Active Duty IISS campaign I'm sure everyone is tired reading about. While the adventure presumes the Burtson-Squanine link, that link isn't necessary and can easily be rewritten as a Burtson-Edenelt link.

The more closely an adventure sticks to canon, the more useful it can be to more people.

So, retcon or slipped through the cracks? If the latter, maybe it should be a retcon?

 

[tjoneslo]

Sorry.

When discussing the Trin's Veil subsector, BtC has Burtson owned by Squanine, specifically by the Marquis of Squanine. Burtson was initially settled by people from Squanine, there still is some movement of people from one to the other, and the colony long ago grew larger than the mother world. Burtson basically pays all the bills which allows the remaining elites on Squanine to live in luxury.

The more closely an adventure sticks to canon, the more useful it can be to more people.

So, retcon or slipped through the cracks? If the latter, maybe it should be a retcon?

I can confirm that RSB has Burston owned by Squanine. I can't find any of my MT sources which include that, but still has Burston with a Gov 6.

Your assertion about BtC being decanonized is correct.

I know that as part of the T5 Second Survey one of the global changes was to require that owning worlds meet specific minimum standards. Pop 6+, TL 9+, Port A,B,C. Since Squanine doesn't meet that standard (pop 5), Burston owner would have been updated to the nearest, highest population valid world. This would be deliberate retcon.

I'm quite sure you can concoct background where Squanine still claims Burston, the control by Edenelt is a compromise to avoid the unpleasantness between Squanine and Burston.

 

[Whipsnade]

I can confirm that RSB has Burston owned by Squanine. I can't find any of my MT sources which include that, but still has Burston with a Gov 6.

So, I wasn't hallucinating? Good to know.

I think - think mind you - that one of DGPs' sector/domain maps from TD/MTJ show a O:XXXX code for Burtson.

Your assertion about BtC being decanonized is correct.

Good to know.

I know that as part of the T5 Second Survey one of the global changes was to require that owning worlds meet specific minimum standards. Pop 6+, TL 9+, Port A,B,C. Since Squanine doesn't meet that standard (pop 5), Burston owner would have been updated to the nearest, highest population valid world. This would be deliberate retcon.

Good to know.

I'm quite sure you can concoct background...

I don't want to. IMTU as in canon, Burtson is owned by Edenelt. Squanine may or may not have begun colonization there, but it doesn't matter one little bit. The adventure in my slush pile gets a few words switched around and more people can then use it.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Qstor2]

Getting in this late but where's the T5 standards? I wanted to update my work on the Kaa G!'kul sector.

 

[inexorabletash]

Getting in this late but where's the T5 standards? I wanted to update my work on the Kaa G!'kul sector.

Welcome back! The first step is to grab Traveller 5. This introduces extension fields into the data that need rolling - Importance (Ix), Economics (Ex), Cultural (Cx). In addition there is a total world count for the system.

There are additional remarks codes that can be computed, as well as other computed fields like Resource Units. For the T5SS process here the allegiance codes bump up to 4 characters and there are more restrictions on stellar codes than are present in the rules. https://travellermap.com/doc/secondsurvey has some details on how to read the data but won't say how to make it.

 

[inexorabletash]

I have updated the Mendan.tab file for the Mendan sector in the link above.

The largest change was redoing the Ports in the Julian Protectorate worlds, re-randomizing them according to the standard, rather than the backwater, distribution. This has the affect of increasing the TLs of most worlds, and by extension many of the Economic values. There is some increases of the population as well.

Imported! I also realized I was overwriting Ex/Cx/Worlds improperly when importing if they were already present in the data, so I re-imported Arzu/Amdu/Star as well.

One suggestion for the sector linter: Verify if the TL of the world in the range of 1D plus modifiers. The only exception I have found is the barren worlds.

I do have that check implemented but disabled; UWP linting was too noisy when I first tried it:

https://github.com/inexorabletash/travellermap/blob/master/server/World.cs#L373

Mostly TL violations (TL=0 for Barren being the worst offender but plenty of others).

A few in the data:

Amdu:

Error: UWP: TL=5 out of range (mods=-3 + 1D), line 27: Amdu A 0205 Geiger X540346-5 De He Lo Po Fo Varg1 R 613 JuPr F0 V M8 V { -3 } (521-4) [2144] 7 -40

Arzu:

Error: UWP: TL=9 out of range (mods=2 + 1D), line 2: Arzu A 0106 Rutagh E6A6112-9 Fl Lo Varg1 810 JuPr M4 V { -2 } (901-2) [316A] 12 0
Error: UWP: TL=13 out of range (mods=4 + 1D), line 15: Arzu A 0207 Agha C210635-D Na Ni Varg5 213 JuPr F9 V { 0 } (E56-3) [963C] 13 -1,260
Error: UWP: Law=7 out of range (Gov=13 + Flux), line 16: Arzu A 0210 Shaka C4455D7-A Ag Ni Varg1 322 JuPr F9 V { 1 } (945+2) [7637] 7 360
Error: UWP: TL=10 out of range (mods=2 + 1D), line 16: Arzu A 0210 Shaka C4455D7-A Ag Ni Varg1 322 JuPr F9 V { 1 } (945+2) [7637] 7 360
Error: UWP: TL=1 out of range (mods=1 + 1D), line 25: Arzu A 0305 Khaz E68727B-1 Lo Ga 403 JuPr F7 V { -3 } (911+1) [6151] 9 9
(more skipped)


Star:

Error: UWP: TL=11 out of range (mods=4 + 1D), line 3: Star A 0102 Kakunasgup C524314-B Lo 404 JuHl K7 IV M6 V { 0 } (821+1) [833B] 13 16
Error: UWP: Gov=4 out of range (Pop=10 + Flux), line 10: Star A 0208 KHAKA C667A48-A Hi Ga 114 JuHl F5 V { 2 } (D97+4) [8C48] 17 3,276
Error: UWP: TL=11 out of range (mods=2 + 1D), line 11: Star A 0209 Ishgadugis E9B45BA-B Fl Ni Varg4 304 JuHl F0 II { -1 } (B44-3) [644E] 10 -528
Error: UWP: TL=10 out of range (mods=3 + 1D), line 13: Star E 0216 Uushakinkush E230313-A De Lo Po 521 JuHl M9 V M2 V { -1 } (C21-1) [1219] 8 -24
(more, this is snipped)

Mendan is clean!

If this is helpful I will enable it.

 

[inexorabletash]

And of course I may have the mods computed incorrectly. Feedback welcome!

 

[tjoneslo]

I do have that check implemented but disabled; UWP linting was too noisy when I first tried it:


Mendan is clean!

If this is helpful I will enable it.

I know Mendan is clean because I implemented the check because I regenerated the Ports across the JP worlds. Ports are the biggest modifier to the TL, so I regenerated TLs as well, and couldn't resist making sure they were all correct.

Could you add a checkbox to enable/disable the TL check?

 

[inexorabletash]

Could you add a checkbox to enable/disable the TL check?

Done. Also added summary of error/warning counts.

 

[Taav]

Importance {Ix} Drives Capitals; Capitals DO NOT Drive Importance

As the T5SS (T5 Second Survey) "is an effort to stabilize, correct, and control the UWPs of the OTU so that there's a solid canon base of data for future reference it is important, by its very definition, to correct the UWP of the worlds to comply with T5." (Post #1)

T5 defines subsector and sector capitals as the "most important" (T5.09, p 402) world in that subsector and sector it is important to make sure the canonically identified capital worlds are actually the most important.

As an example, Lagash (Solomani Rim) was returned to a subsector capital over Agidda, an Ix+4, (not, mind you either Terra Ix+4 or Ember Ix+4) with an importance of +3.

Therefore, such a world needs to be modified to become the most important world in the subsector (or sector) to comply with the T5SS. In Lagash's case, the easiest method is to add a scout base to that world and remove the naval base at Ember. (That option assumes we still don't want to bite the bullet and make Terra the subsector capital.)

There are other methods to "shoe-horn" all these situational planets into the role of most important. For instance, we could add a Scout Waystation to Lagash and reduce the population on Ember, change Ember's atmosphere to a warmer climate to remove Ic. Fewer changes the better, otherwise, we are just adding more work to the T5SS process.

Mostly, we just need to capture the worlds in question and make sure Marc is aware of the T5 conflicts. (He gets to be the referee is this case, not the voluntary labor/posters in this forum with our personal opinions.)

 

[Garnfellow]

T5 defines subsector and sector capitals as the "most important" (T5.09, p 402) world in that subsector and sector it is important to make sure the canonically identified capital worlds are actually the most important.

I think importance is a great addition to Traveller and has a lot of handy applications. I even think it is useful as an indicator of the most likely capital in a region. But it is an extremely coarse mechanic. The way T5 is written using importance to drive capitals is far too deterministic for my tastes, just like how law level and government are used to drive travel zones.

Is Washington D.C. the most important city in the U.S.? Is Ottawa the most important in Canada? The reason that state capitals are such a chore for schoolchildren to memorize is because most of them are second- or third-tier cities, chosen as a political compromise or for logistics or historical reasons.

Importance changes, and capitals change, and there is no reason to expect them to change at the same rate. Does the IISS recommend a capital be moved based on quarterly GDP?

"Crap, we're sorry but you need to pack again -- it turns out the Q2 planetary agriculture report didn't take into account the correct aquaculture yields from the southern hemisphere. Once you factor that in, it turns out Valusia really is the most important system in the subsector!"

The T5SS needs to reflect the T5 rules AND the extant canon. Where they conflict we have an opportunity to have an interesting discussion about which should take precedence. For Agidda/Lagash, we have a canonical explanation for why they are what they are. Terra is purposefully not a capital for political reasons. No need to make another world more important just so it can be called a capital: the current data comports with both T5 rules and canon.

Particularly for something as squishy as social data, I don't think we need to automatically override canon just because T5 gives us a new algorithm. I think the current importance formula is solid, but it's fairly new and is not necessarily definitive.

 

[Taav]

Particularly for something as squishy as social data, I don't think we need to automatically override canon just because T5 gives us a new algorithm. I think the current importance formula is solid, but it's fairly new and is not necessarily definitive.

It is not just social data. It is an allocation of political leadership in a subsector/sector. In this example, the Subsector Duke is on an Ix+3 world.

T5SS (TRAVELLER5 Second Survey) guidance from Marc, as stated in post #1, was to review and correct the UWP to make worlds comply with T5 rules/canon. If Marc wants a Subsector Duke on a world that is not Ix+4, fine with me; he is the keeper of Canon. It makes better sense to apply the rules rather than ignore the rules and higher's guidance.

Is it going to break something to add a scout base to one system and remove a navy base from another? Acts similar to those have been done over the last 555 posts.

 

[Garnfellow]

T5SS (TRAVELLER5 Second Survey) guidance from Marc, as stated in post #1, was to review and correct the UWP to make worlds comply with T5 rules/canon.

Sure. But are the T5 worldgen rules prescriptivist, or are they descriptivist? Are they guidelines, or ironclad law? T5 itself vaciliates on this point: on page 411, "Important worlds are more likely to be Capitals of subsectors and sectors [emphasis added]."

Let's take that thing about bases, for example. A naval base alone doesn't affect the Importance score. Neither does a scout base. But if you have two together, that's worth +1 to Importance. What about polities without a Scout Service, or for which the Navy does double duty. Shouldn't research stations influence Importance? What about travel zones -- shouldn't all red zones be automatically unimportant?

My point is, the Importance rules are handy but they are coarse, and maybe too coarse to do anything but suggest where the capitals and nobles are located.

 

[inexorabletash]

Is it going to break something to add a scout base to one system and remove a navy base from another? Acts similar to those have been done over the last 555 posts.

It might be useful, Taav, if you were to compile and prioritize list of the places of places where you see a disagreement between your interpretation of the rules vs. what's currently present in the T5SS data and what your suggested tweaks are, so that others can review and see how widespread this disagreement is and what the impact of such changes would be on the existing data.

 

[Taav]

It might be useful, Taav, if you were to compile ...

I, self-admittedly, am a computer-user vice computer programmer. The only T5SS data I have access to is your TravellerMaps.

Would you be willing to change the experimental filter for {Ix}/Importance to glow "blue" ONLY if it is an Ix+4 or Ix+5 and force worlds with a "REMARK" of Cp or Cs to glow "yellow" on the same filter so by extension all T5 compliant "capitals" would glow "green?"

 

[inexorabletash]

Would you be willing to change the experimental filter for {Ix}/Importance to glow "blue" ONLY if it is an Ix+4 or Ix+5 and force worlds with a "REMARK" of Cp or Cs to glow "yellow" on the same filter so by extension all T5 compliant "capitals" would glow "green?"

Computer colors don't work like paints, but I won't bore you with the details of compositing.

I've added a temporary "Capitals/Candidates" experiment for this. (You may have to reload the map page to get it to show up). I followed your scheme - yellow is capitals, blue is high Ix, green is both.

Results are... interesting. At the very least, it highlights a few subsectors missing capitals (e.g. in Deneb). I find I need to squint and look for yellow (low Ix Capital) with no blue (high Ix) nearby to spot problems. It's not extremely rare, but it's not a common occurrence either.

Again, it would be appreciated if you could compile a list.