The Worlds We Seek

[Supplement Four]

Here's an idea for Traveller. I'm sure it's not unique (but, I haven't seen it on these boards before, either).

Look at a lot of other science fiction universes. Star Trek. Alien. Dune. There's a bias towards Earth-type worlds (Std. Atmo, 1 G fields).

And, that makes a lot of sense, if you're colonizing worlds. A standard atmosphere and standard gravity field solves a lot of problems from the get-go.

What would a Traveller space hex map look like if only worlds of this type were connected by the jump lanes? Sure, you'd have a space station or a few. You'd have a moon base or a few. But, the vast majority of populated systems would be connected Earth-type worlds (which are few and far between).

This would make for a fantastic version of the 3I, wouldn't it? Think of how it would change the Empire's infrastructure. You'd have to have some time of refueling stations along the way. Different jump routes would require minimum J-Drive classes: "The Hyndin Way? Yeah, it's a buggered trip. Requires a J-3 at least." There'd be a whole new motivation for players to upgrade drives. GM's could use this to his story-telling advantage. J-1 ships would be "land locked" between few worlds.

And, think if the journey times. The expense. It'd make for a much, much smaller universe in which to play (yet still large enough to spend the rest of your real life gaming in).

Because of the journey length, maybe cold berthing would become the norm as it is in the Alien universe.

Automation of the starships would be a major change for Traveller. Traveller's universe encourages keeping the sentient being included in the system. The Alien universe (and these long journeys) encourage automation while the PC's are in cold berth.

I've just touched on the possibilities here, but I think this is a fascinating idea on which to build an alternate TU.

And...I relinquish the floor to the next speculator...

 

[far-trader]

I have kind of hinted at this concept (or something like it) as being behind the main world generation scheme of Travller (CTB2 anyway).

You have a (slight) bias for T type worlds, though the size is smaller than Earth standard (leading me to suspect the Vilani were transplanted to smaller worlds and adapted over millenia, and that the reasons were that the Ancients preferred smaller T type worlds (which makes some sense if they are the small lizardy flyers).

Of course it's a notion predicated on a few presumptions. A couple off the top of my head:

One, that the mainworld as generated is in the habitable zone of the star. Pretty sure that's the rule in CT. Not so sure it was made as clear in later editions. Certainly somebody somewhere (I hesitate to say goofed, but... ) decided against that in declaring that Regina is a mainworld orbiting a gas giant as one example of breaking that rule :file_28:

Two, that the generation rules were ever intended to be so deep I'm not saying it's impossible, only that I'd be extremely suspect of any such claims by the designers at this time. If they said so early in the production somewhere I'd swallow it and heap kudos on them. As it stands I just like to think I've come up with a clever hand-wave for the odd randomness of it

That said, there would be value in colonizing, at least as outposts or waypoints, even marginal worlds outside T type status. I have a hard time seeing a good reason for putting anything on a world with an atmosphere that is going to eat it though. I think such atmospheres should have been left off the table for mainworld generation. I don't think I'm alone in that either.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm curious if we took a sector, like the vernerable Spinward Marches, and eliminated all worlds from the map except those that are habitable by humans (throwing in a few odd, non-inhabital worlds just for good measure).

What would the map look like?

We'd need to look at world sizes 7, 8, and 9. And, atmosphere codes: 6-7.

When the whim strikes us, we can expand our world size a bit to size 6 and size A worlds, and we can include dense and thin world atmos: 4-5 and 8-9. These will be our more exotic worlds, like the one shown in the first Alien movie.



Using the first criteria above, and just looking at the Aramis subsector in the Spinward Marches, the only worlds that suit our needs is Jesedipere.

Many of the wrolds open up using the less stringent requirments above, but these would not be ideal based on the world's conditions.

Using this new method of defining Known Space, two things become clear: Travellers will travel farther than normal, because there is so much space between habital worlds. Second, journeys will be much longer, encouraging use of the cold sleep pods.

 

[aramis]

Keep in mind, Dan, it is theoretically possible that Regina is still in the hab zone, even tho' it orbits a GG.

After all, most of the known extrasolar planets are hab or hot zone GG's.

Part of such a change would require a change to UWP generation:
my suggestions:
If world is size 4-A, Hyd 4-8, ATM 3-A, pop is 2D-2 base with
• DM -2 tainted atm,
• DM -2 Hyd 3-4 or A
otherwise: pop is 1d-1
• DM -1 for tainted ATM
• DM -1 hyd A
• DM -1 for size 3-
• DM -1 for SP X

somewhat harsher than MGT provides

 

[Supplement Four]

Keep in mind, Dan, it is theoretically possible that Regina is still in the hab zone, even tho' it orbits a GG.

I believe that's canon, isn't it? Regina is a moon of a GG, but it's also a moon with a standard atmosphere, in the habital zone of the system (not unlike the moon of Yavin where the Rebels are hiding. ).

 

[far-trader]

Keep in mind, Dan, it is theoretically possible that Regina is still in the hab zone, even tho' it orbits a GG.

Possibly, though...

After all, most of the known extrasolar planets are hab or hot zone GG's.

...as I understand it those examples are unlikely to have T type worlds (like Regina). More likely they will have moons (not nearly as big as size 7 like Regina) with inhospitable gas mixes (not a breathable dense standard mix atmo like Regina).

Of course our knowledge is limited and our examples few. And it is just a game (I need to remind myself of that now and then )

More changes in the UWP generation for both narrower more habitable results for the mainworld (where the population and starport are), and wider less habitable results for other worlds (where resources and adventures may be) would be a good thing imo. But we missed that chance with MGT as they tried to stay close to CT.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Here I have to take an opposing view...
Not so much as Far-Trader's view on initial seedings go and I agree that many of the known seeding points used by the Ancients were quite nice compared to the average ball of rock out there...

But the truth is that we never go where we are supposed to. And we never go where we do go for the expected reasons. I am certain that once the English learned where the blasted Hugonauts paid the Mayflower's master to land them they said, "Why the devil did they go all that way up north?" Admittedly, part of the answer was that they got lost a bit but the rest of it was for Sovernity. Even though the Brits let them flee religious persecution in Holland for a temporary landhold on English soil, it was made clear they had to leave or join the local flavor. So they begged the Crown for permission to settle under the Virginia company's charter and then Bribed Mayflower's master to land them outside that charter's borders. In that way they gained Royal sanction to settle land claimed by the British Throne but the rights to make local laws as they preferred.
Granted, much of this has been conveniently forgotten by modern day Americans.

So granted the above example is not so extreme but we Sophants can be found in the oddest places for the oddest reasons...

So take the small community of space hermits who settled rocks in an asteroid field and wetre content to show up and sell the odd gem clusters from time to time for "supplies money"..one wanders in with a ton of shiny metallic stuff and the word is out his home asteroid belt has lanthanum... Next thing you know you have the start of a Glisten-like system!

So where as the "ideal" may be to settle only worlds where the environment makes it safe and easy..and very very cheap...to colonize, the truth is that the end results will always be populations crammed into the weirdest places.

And the more you try to place restrictions, the more anti-establishment folks will slip between the bars and colonize those horrid dark frozaen(or molten) balls of "why do you live there?!?!?"

Marc

 

[far-trader]

I believe that's canon, isn't it? Regina is a moon of a GG, but it's also a moon with a standard atmosphere, in the habital zone of the system (not unlike the moon of Yavin where the Rebels are hiding. ).

Yes, expanded system generation allows the possibility. I just found it irksome because before that Regina was in the habitable zone by itself and a trip to the gas giant took days and getting to or from 100d of Regina only took a few hours. After the expanded system came along all of a sudden the GG is right there and the time to 100d doubled. I found it a disturbing change. Never mind the plausibility of a very large planet in orbit of a GG with a breathable atmosphere and the rest of it. Nice sci-fi maybe but the belief suspenders were dragging

 

[Commander Truestar]

Never mind the plausibility of a very large planet in orbit of a GG with a breathable atmosphere and the rest of it. Nice sci-fi maybe but the belief suspenders were dragging

Amen to that...
I love explaining to players the dynamic of constantly being hidden from the system's primary as you orbit the gg... That first led to speculation that the orbit around Asimbola(IIR the GG's name and spelling corectly[I hate all the hours spent at work]) is 90 deg off the orbital plan of the gg. and then further that the spin of the planet is in true with the gg's orbital plane and 90 deg off Regina's orbit of the gg!!!

Starts giving one headaches..

 

[sabredog]

Because I set up my universe pre-OTU, and have kept it that way, I set up the worlds with the idea that the colonists setting out had to get it right the first time and couldn't afford to mess around with exotic worlds. The companies and governments wanted a fast return on the investment and only a very few really weird places would be checked out for "pure science", but mainly to see if something profitable can be made of it. Like if the place had certain rare earths in massive amounts or something that made the extra expense worth it. Or was sufficiently hellish it made a good prison world. There are some rare places that ended up with military bases on them only because of strategic worth once the humans started encountering hostile races.

Colonists who went out in search of places they could stake a claim to that were private enterprises could only afford one shot, so they went to the places most likely to support them, too. The in between worlds with marginal livability were used as resources to help bridge some gaps until technology made it possible to bypass them and shorten the trip. The Route 66 Effect. Previously wealthy places made that way because of location withered and those who couldn’t afford to leave stayed behind to make the best of things. Starports that were A or B turned to C and D…reduced to pumping gas and fixing flats.

It does mean that my TU sector map has a lot less worlds in it than say, the Spinward Marches – I couldn’t believe how many worlds were in that when it came out. The average subsector probably only has about 16 worlds in it. I also have a lot of in between worlds in the gaps that are blank or only partially filled in in the player’s library files because of the ebb and flow of commerce. Some of these are more or less abandoned, or are being co-opted now by some alien races that are filling in where the humans are moving on. These create Fort Apache kind of situations where the colonists who want to stay and keep “their land and farms” are hiring mercenaries to help them fend off hostile natives.

It also means I have some unexplored worlds scattered throughout that are marked on the player maps as empty circles. They were place deemed unimportant for commercial or colonial exploitation for various reasons, like they were to hard to get to with the technology of the time when they were first mapped. Now they are so off the beaten track of the commercial spacelanes that they are still unexploited. At least as far as common knowledge goes...rumors abound about some.

 

[epicenter00]

Here's an idea for Traveller. I'm sure it's not unique (but, I haven't seen it on these boards before, either).

I don't think anyone has seriously discussed doing this, but it certainly comes up anytime the discussion about the screwier elements of the TU come up, especially UWPs.

I, for one, welcome our insect...waitasec. Lemme start over.

I, for one, don't have a problem with people living on worlds that are otherwise unhabitable. There's plenty of reasons why people could come to live an unfriendly planet (though I agree with far-trader - worlds with aggressive insidious or hostile atmospheres are going to be unappealing). My primary issue are the population patterns of the Imperium and, to steal a riff from Hard Times, why a world with drinkable water and breathable atmosphere could ever be called "Poor."

I see nothing wrong with people settling in a place like Glisten or something - provided there is some ulterior motive for settling there. However, once that something dries up, places like that going to experience a steady net loss in population, I think, since there's nothing except that particular industry (usually mining/gathering) holding them there. Even on our own Earth, there's plenty of mining, fishing, farming, or automaking towns where once the jobs dry up, everyone leaves or the community changes focus. In Traveller, where a world is a hellhole besides rich deposits of Whateverium Ore, once that ore runs out, besides oldtimers (who eventually die out) everyone is going to leave in search of jobs or simply a more pleasant place to live.

The OTU should (I think) have a ton of "ghost-town" worlds. That is, they were once inhabited - worlds where the population moved on and worlds that are gone or nearly gone. Once-proud worlds that once boasted a population in the millions but now nearly deserted except for a few employees who do the equivalent of "operating the local gas station and 7-11" (and even they would be rotated out after perhaps a year or something) and a few loners. These would most likely be the hostile or vacuum worlds (I mean, let's face it, even if you lived in a pressured hab city your entire life, ultimely one pre-manufactured hab city is pretty much going to be like another) where whatever resource that was being exploited dried up.

Basing a TU on that, I'd think you'd have the widely distanced habitable worlds connected by strings of "caravansary" worlds which provide lay-over spots for ship crews to get repairs done, entertainment, and a place to stretch their legs. Alongside these habitable worlds, you'd have worlds which are being actively exploited (mined or whatever).

 

[mike wightman]

Very random thought follow.

A low stellar society (TL9-11) may struggle with colonising inclement worlds, but by TL12 dealing with an inhospitable world in not even a challenge anymore.

Why bother colonising worlds at all when an artificial world can be built, a TL15 society could easily manufacture space habitats.

So why go down to a planet when the junk in a system provides all the raw materials you need and ship tech allows for it to be easily gathered?

Planets concentrate mineral ores and may be the only source of complex organics (although organic sysnthesis by YL10 should be able to duplicate anything nature throws up). An inhospitable world is ideal for industrialisation because you don't have to worry about the ITHBTBSTW types protesting against your shameless destruction as you let your full industrial might take whet is needed.

Then move on to the next.

 

[epicenter00]

Your thoughts aren't really random at all, to me. I've never understood the purpose behind people living in these hell-hole worlds in the OTU where conditions make it worse than living in vacuum. Why bother? Just live in orbit where the 3I has centuries of experience in shaping habitats required - but again, I don't think people would do it unless there was some purpose for it on the planet below or in system - almost always mineable materials.

An inhospitable world is ideal for industrialisation because you don't have to worry about the ITHBTBSTW types protesting against your shameless destruction as you let your full industrial might take whet is needed.

That's one thing I've always thought was sort of neglected in a lot of sci-fi universes, including Traveller. While pages and pages are devoted to terraforming worlds in a lot of games, what about other kind of planet-shaping once you have the technology for it? Like "industrio-forming"? Everyone knows how much of a pain it is to get rid of waste heat in space. What if you took an unhabitable world and changed it, not so humans could live on it, but so it'd provide a better place to make your dirty industrial processes more efficient? Fluid oceans that you could use as solvents in industrial processes. You just dump the end result onto the world (nothing lives there anyway) where your engineered natural processes cleans up your solvent oceans so it's always clean enough to use - who cares if the oceanbottom sediments are so toxic they'd melt a man into a puddle of flaming goo in seconds? Atmospheres that are suited to be heat-sinks. You deliberately engineer the world to be suited to your industrial needs and deliberately make it inhospitable so that no life ever develops on your carefully made industrial reactor world.

 

[Supplement Four]

I, for one, don't have a problem with people living on worlds that are otherwise unhabitable. There's plenty of reasons why people could come to live an unfriendly planet (though I agree with far-trader - worlds with aggressive insidious or hostile atmospheres are going to be unappealing). My primary issue are the population patterns of the Imperium and, to steal a riff from Hard Times, why a world with drinkable water and breathable atmosphere could ever be called "Poor."

I think the bigger problem is gravitational field. Humans are used to a 1G field. All sorts of things happen to a body when that changes--unhealthy things.

Sure, we could line all of a world's buildings with grav plates to maintain a 1G field, but (1) that's only inside, and (2) that's a butt-load of grav plates. Gotta be expensive.

And, even if someone does figure out how to live on a world that is .37 Gs, those people are never going to leave that world. It'd be hell on a world with a standard 1G field. Travellers certainly wouldn't come from those worlds.

 

[mike wightman]

Genetic modification can take care of that, and environment suits etc.

And artificial gravity plates are trivially cheap in CT aren't they ;-)

 

[far-trader]

Genetic modification can take care of that, and environment suits etc.

And artificial gravity plates are trivially cheap in CT aren't they ;-)

Depends on the version.

CT implies TL9 and Cr 100,000 per dton (hull cost)

MT says TL10 and Cr 6,750 per dton (Inertial Compensation is extra)

TNE (FF&S) says the same as MT (but included Inertial Compensation)

T4 is back to hull cost (in basic, not sure about T4 FF&S)

(nothing handy for any other systems)

Even at the cheapest I wouldn't call them trivially so, and there is the required TL that leaves a lot of worlds without them.

 

[epicenter00]

I think the bigger problem is gravitational field. Humans are used to a 1G field. All sorts of things happen to a body when that changes--unhealthy things.

Certainly so. I should have written "etc" or something to show my list wasn't all inclusive. Obviously things like an atmosphere that protects you decently from cosmic/solar radiation, gravity around the 0.8 - 1.2 Earth range, a reasonably stable star, etc etc etc.

However, there's plenty of planets like that in the OTU which qualify under all that ... which still have a lower population than some planet where you'd drown or you'd burst like an overfilled balloon or something just because you stepped outside.

 

[DaveChase]

My thoughts

Early on it would make sense to colonize those worlds that are the easiest to live on/develop. Then due to needs other not as hospitable worlds would be settled to later settling any where one wanted (as tech and money allowed).

Why would someone settle on a no hospitable world
to get away from others (monks, loners, pirates, richy rich people, different beliefs)
valuable resources (ecological, minerals, lifeforms)
because they can and no one else would live their (different than loners)
stranded and had to make do, and did well enough to become vivable
military or science outpost/research station

Just a few thoughts

Dave Chase

 

[Supplement Four]

Early on it would make sense to colonize those worlds that are the easiest to live on/develop. Then due to needs other not as hospitable worlds would be settled to later settling any where one wanted (as tech and money allowed).

Why would someone settle on a no hospitable world
to get away from others (monks, loners, pirates, richy rich people, different beliefs)
valuable resources (ecological, minerals, lifeforms)
because they can and no one else would live their (different than loners)
stranded and had to make do, and did well enough to become vivable
military or science outpost/research station

Also, proximity. A nice world may be available, but it's 7 parsecs away. A hell hole is only 2 parsecs away, and it's got to be a stepping stone to the eden that is far away anyway, so the hell hole gets developed.

 

[epicenter00]

Why would someone settle on a no hospitable world
to get away from others (monks, loners, pirates, richy rich people, different beliefs)
valuable resources (ecological, minerals, lifeforms)
because they can and no one else would live their (different than loners)
stranded and had to make do, and did well enough to become vivable
military or science outpost/research station

Just a few thoughts

Dave Chase

Those are valid arguments, I think. However, my main bone to pick with populations on inhospitable worlds concerns these otherwise unhabitable worlds with a massive population. These worlds should be the exception and not normal in Traveller. People tend to cluster together for social reasons, beyond simple economics (ironically even in large cities, where one of the major complaints is the sense of isolation from other people). Plus, the majority of people prefer to live in a pleasant place. If they're living in an inhospitable place, they need a pretty strong external force to leave them there.

* People who move away to get away from people. Small communities of differing beliefs (never more than, say, a million people) would certainly spring up, especially if their beliefs were philosophical/religious. However, historically such communities, if connected to the larger world, tend to have a population exodus that begins one or two generations down the road - young people no longer believe so fervently and if the world has some "A" Starport, these people are going to start to trickle, then torrent out.

* Valuable resources. This is usually mining, but could be the harvesting of plants/animals (though usually plants/animals tend to pop up in Traveller on hospitable worlds). I can imagine a large population on these worlds as a kind of "gold rush town" or "boomtown." Such populations would exist as long as whatever resources holds out. With the voracious needs of materials of the 3I, I'd imagine within a few hundred years, a lot of these mining boomtown worlds would experience lower yields, at which point, the populations would take off for greener pastures.

* Loners. Loners are, by definition, loners. You're never going to get a large population of these people on a world.

* Stranded people. This can be an interesting one. I suspect in a lot of cases, once contact is re-established, the kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids would begin to leave the community in search of a place where life is more pleasant.

* Military Base. I can easily imagine this one. A Depot or something might be on an inhospitable world because it's strategically located or access to it is easily controlled. Simple military orders will keep the people living there. I don't think anyone would live there out of choice, however. The military population would probably be transitory. The civilians in the support sector (if any) might be longer-term, but even then in Traveller.

* Support Services. Just like the mom-and-pop gas stations in the middle of nowhere are going away today because nobody wants to work at some lonely gas station in the middle of nowhere, I think that waystations along J-1 routes between nice worlds would have severe difficulties keeping people on them. I've always imagined corporations hire people on contracts like, "Okay, we hire you and train you for your job. You agree to work 10 years on a post of our choice (this will be a lonely asteroid or hellhole world that nobody would want to be at). We ship you out there. You get paid a lot more than someone normally doing your job. At the end of your contract, we pay to ship you back home."