Traveller in 3D

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL:
3 D makes speculation EVEN better, because twice the distance isn't 4 times the systems , but 8.... It's also not about lucky rolls, BTL. the system is set so that tramp speculation is a key element to finance.

Laryssa:
When you muck with the basic assumptions of jump, you fundamentally alter the nature of the setting. Your "lots of short jumps" isn't something I'd want, especially given the slim but ever present chances of misjump. Even given the generous nature of how mild most jump errors are, in MT, one in 36 jumps will have an error of some kind, if not more; most will be harmless, if you don't mind not being the same age as the universe.

Again, lets not go back into the to speculate, not to speculate Merchant rules.

The idea is to get the same 4 systems per jump in 3D not to expand to 8. As soon as you expand to 8 you have upset the balance of the Universe. Besides, so far, in any combination I can come up with, it is more like expanding from 4 destinations to 16. 8 I could probably live with.

That is where the major problem in converting to 3D lies. Until we can figure out how to fix that part we aren't going to find the minor problems.

I know that we can just scrap the OTU and start over, perhaps with a bunch of pocket empires, in a Small ship Universe, using Thrash's Jump Numbers, and Astrosynthesis, but that is what I, personally, would prefer to avoid. After all the OTU, IMHO, is the major reason to play Traveller, everything else is just rules. I am sure I can find a rule set that works fine in a 3D Universe. With all the tools that are available, creating a 3D Universe is the easy part. (Down to the Planetary maps, simple.) Randomly generating Empire names, basic characteristics, etc, again, simple. It would take a weekend of a Computer running and number crunching. (Roughly.) I personally don't have time to write the History of the Universe though, nor do I know anyone with that kind of time on their hands. The, almost 30, years of development, the continuity, the "Historical Errors" etc. are what give playing Traveller an edge over the more recent stuff that isn't developed.

The one thing I have seen in the recent past that comes close to having enough background to roleplay in a Universe is the Honor Harrington series, and that doesn't have enough information to gut it out on a small party level, yet.

The Firefly series has potential but ties you to one System. (Granted a huge, complex system but a single system nonetheless.) It could use some fleshing out. It is, relatively, easily enough adopted using any set of Traveller Rules, or other rule system. If it hadn't gotten cancelled it would probably make a great Sci-Fi RPG backdrop. In a few years it might yet, provided that people continue to develope "The System." The problem with playing within a single system is things like Orbital Mechanics. Anyone know of a good piece of software that will handle Orbital mechanics and travel time well enough to do that?

Still gaming in "The System" doesn't let me travel to the stars.

The Star Trek Universe is the only real other choice as far as detailed Universe development, and it has had a few more years than Traveller (though not that many) but it is too clean for the typical RPG and certainly for my Refereeing style.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Nathan Brazil:
BTW I have Astrosynthesis 2.0 and have a LBB Book3 ASTROSCRIPT working (yes, it plots planets without stars!). I will post it when possible.

Kewl!

To preserve long communications and travel times in a smaller sphere:

Has anyone considered that Red Dwarfs, other stars and other major stellar objects (insert phenomena here) may actually interfere with travel paths? The change would involve changing the 100 diameter limit when objects are beyond a certain mass (say large brown dwarfs or red dwarf sized) are changed to some other standard. From a realspace prospective, J-Drives only work in a straight line of travel, stars you do not want go to might act as roadblocks and detours to the ones you do want to get to. Same long travel time in a smaller 3D space.


"Going thru hyperspace ain't like cropdusting, boy..."

Possible. However, now we are into the Software doesn't exist yet category. AS is great for generating a Universe, calculating distances, showing jump routes and possible destinations, but not for blocking some routes. One other point, a Star is small, on a Galactiv scale anyway. The chances of one getting into the actual line between two systems in 3D especially on the scale we are talking is very slim (Anorexic (SP?)) to none.

 

[aramis]

BTL: You can't separate the effects of 3d from effects upon merchant rules, nor travel from them... they are direct impacts.

Further, the expectations of shipping determine exactly what level of shipping should exist.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTL: You can't separate the effects of 3d from effects upon merchant rules, nor travel from them... they are direct impacts.

Further, the expectations of shipping determine exactly what level of shipping should exist.

True. But that is true in 2D Traveller as well.

However the idea is to keep the number of systems reachable by Jump and communication times roughly the same. Otherwise you have to dump all the history and background and the feel of Traveller. So playing the Merchant rules one way or the other doesn't really matter as long as the Universe doesn't change in a way that drastically effects how Jump works in relationship to the number of stars available. Making the systems too far apart so that you have to take a series of intermediate jumps to get to your destinations, and making systems too plentiful both seriously break the rule system.

I am almost at the point of giving up anyway and looking for another backdrop and different FTL rules. Because I can't seem to find a middle ground that doesn't break the rule system beyond salvage.

 

[Plankowner]

The core issue seems to be that if you go 3D, the systems are now going to be farther apart (using Mv stars to fill the holes), or you have way too many systems within a short distance.

To keep the travel and # of systems together, you probably need to tweek a couple of things at the same time.

How about:
Jump Times: 1 day per Jump
Jump Fuel: 1% per Jump (min fuel for 10 jumps).
Plot the other 80%-90% of the stars Red Dwarfs as suggested above.

I THINK this would keep the inhabited systems far enough apart that you would keep the same relative system density. The lower fuel requirements would allow you to not have to hop between stars just for fuel. The reduced Jump Time would keep the travel distance about the same (assuming 4-5 jumps between inhabited systems).

There would still be the issue of justifying higher jump numbers, but on the surface it MIGHT work.

It just seems that a 3D universe would require changing several parameters to get an equivalent feel of travel times.

 

[BetterThanLife]

You could also just change the range of how far the inhabited systems are supposed to be apart and adjust the range a Jump number actually goes. So in your case change the Jump number to 10 times the number of parsecs. (Same issue, your fast ships still make communication times too short.) It is going to probably require a inverse geometric progression for jump numbers. The key is to find the right combination.

It has to take about a year to cross the Imperium (edge to edge) still contain about 11,000 to 12,000 systems without destroying the economic viability of a Free or Fat Trader.

 

[aramis]

Not systems BTL, Worlds.

The actual OTU 2-D imperium is well less than 11000 systems.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Not systems BTL, Worlds.

The actual OTU 2-D imperium is well less than 11000 systems.

Supplement 8 States over 11,000 Worlds and over 700 parsecs across. I accept the distinction between Worlds and systems.

Though with approximately 18 sectors (Combining partials and accounting for rift areas perhaps 17 would be closer, though an argument could probably also be made for 19, and this is done by eye with the maps from the same supplement.) with an average density of 500-650 (Supplement 11, call it 575) worlds per sector, that puts the number of worlds at over 10,300. These are definitely rough numbers, but so is over 11,000 worlds.

Now there is a 50-50 chance of a world per hex. (LBB3) A Sector has 1280 hexes. Or roughly 640 Worlds. If you call it 18 sectors in the Imperium at 640 worlds per sector that gives you 11,520 Worlds in the Imperium. (At a rate of each "World" occupying its own hex.) So therefore it follows that the term world is meant to be Main World.

I personally have been using the terms World and System interchangably for years. According to Supplement 11, the term System is defined as

A star and its family of planets and satellites. The term system denotes a major world and its associated star, plus any other planets, satellites, asteroids and other bodies.

Given that and the system generation rules are concerned with generating major worlds first and the rest of each system is secondary that would seem to imply that there are 11,000+ main worlds in the Imperium and therefore 11,000+ systems. Though I will admit that the statement of "over 11,000 worlds" is still a bit vague. The distinction between worlds and systems appears to be nil.

Now distance is another matter. But distance is more important in how long it takes news to travel than actual Parsecs. And "over 700 parsecs across" is extremely unhelpful and gives no clue as to size since it is only one dimension. So lets look at distance in terms of the X-Boat network. Using the ripples in the Rebellion Sourcebook. An X-Boat message takes roughly 52 weeks to get from Ley to the Spinward Marches (Trailing to Spinward distance.) and roughly 58 weeks from the Vargr Border to the Solomani Border. (Coreward to Rimward distance.) So the 3rd Imperium is roughly a year in diameter for the X-Boat Network. The xboat network averages between 2.6 (Supplement 8) and 3.2 (Actual math, based on Rebellion Sourcebook, see below) parsces per week. So the diameter of the Imperium would be between 135 and 170 parsecs. Where the 700 parsecs across comes from is beyond me.

Now the Coreward/Rimward distance is actually fairly easy to measure. A Subsector is 10 parsecs coreward to rimward. There are 18.75-19 subsectors coreward to rimward. Call it 188 parsces. (Which gives us just over 3.2 parsecs per week coreward-rimward X-Boat traffic, based on the ripples.)

We now have 11,000 systems or Main worlds and a year edge to edge travel time for the Imperium.

The average distance between worlds, using the 50-50 chance of a system, means that the average distance between stars is closer to 2 parsecs instead of the 2.5 that I have been assuming, based on observed data of published OTU sectors.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Now a Naval task force would take longer to cover the same distance. The 1100 Imperial Navy Standard of Jump-4 and 6G, but a Naval Task Force has to actually stop at each jump point for refueling purposes where a message only stops for between 7 minutes and less than 4 hours while it is transferred to the next boat. Refueling operations are rarely mentioned in any of the books, except for Supplement 5 where it takes about a week insystem for an AHL to refuel (Actually 4 to 10 days.). A fast moving Jump-4 Task force can probably go edge to edge of the Imperium in 18 months.

A Jump-6 naval Courier route (similar to the X-Boat route but using Couriers and only sending couriers as required.) Takes about 37 weeks from Spinward to Trailing and 38 weeks Rimward to coreward. (Rebellion Sourcebook) or roughly 70 percent of the X-Boat time. So it would take that fast moving Task Force roughly 117 weeks (2 years and 3 months) to react to a Crisis on the far side of the Imperium. (Which is why the Navy is dispersed so much.)

OK so Jump-3 has to take a year from edge to edge and Jump 4.5 has to take 9 months to cover the same distance. (Or should we crank that all the way up to Jump-6 and assume the military has the resources to make their routes super effecient.) The Average System seperation is Jump-2. There needs to be about 11,000 systems. If we bump the number of systems up to 12,000-16,000 we can make the shape fairly regular and cut away sections to make an irregularily shaped Imperium.

Is anyone's math less rusty than mine? There is a formula here. I can feel it but I can't get a handle on it. I think I have all the needed variables defined.

Is it an inverse gemoetric progression? Or are we dealing with exponential?

 

[aramis]

cubic parsecs = Length (Pc) * Width (Pc) * height (Pc)

6 months at J4 at standard ops rates (1 wk n-space, 1 wk J-space) is 12x J4= 48 Pc; at 9 days and 3 Pc per jump 3* 6 * 28/9 * 3=1*2*28/1=56 parsecs from capital to the far edge of the marches (or the Solomani Sphere). so... if we give the imperium a sphere 56 parsecs radius, that's a cube with a volume of 56^3; for simmplicity 50 Pc cube. 125000 cubic parsecs. To hit 11000 systems, that's a 10% density... Or, we up the imperium to 62500 systems. Or we shorten to X Boat routing.

To keep the number of systems, only 1 in 5 can be workable, and then we have 5x the distances to cross.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
cubic parsecs = Length (Pc) * Width (Pc) * height (Pc)

6 months at J4 at standard ops rates (1 wk n-space, 1 wk J-space) is 12x J4= 48 Pc; at 9 days and 3 Pc per jump 3* 6 * 28/9 * 3=1*2*28/1=56 parsecs from capital to the far edge of the marches (or the Solomani Sphere). so... if we give the imperium a sphere 56 parsecs radius, that's a cube with a volume of 56^3; for simmplicity 50 Pc cube. 125000 cubic parsecs. To hit 11000 systems, that's a 10% density... Or, we up the imperium to 62500 systems. Or we shorten to X Boat routing.

To keep the number of systems, only 1 in 5 can be workable, and then we have 5x the distances to cross.

Those are pretty much what I am looking at. Which is why I am looking at something like an inverse geometric progression for the Jump Drive. Otherwise your Jump-1 drive is absolutely useless and while Jump-2 is useful it isn't very. It would also follow why there isn't anything above Jump-6 as it is definitely hitting the point of dimminishing returns. (With an inverse geometric progression the aditional distance gets smaller while the fuel consumprion keeps getting higher.)

Given the density of the Imperium, if the Imperium was a circle, then it would be a circle with a radius of 44.95 (89.9 pcs diameter), at the given density. (It obviously isn't a circle.) A Circle with the right year, edge to edge travel time, is a radius of about 78 pcs and has the same density has 16552 stars. (The Density works out to .577 systems per square parsec or 1 star per 1.733 square parsecs.) This is a Flat Imperium, obviously and is based on the fact that a Sector is 1108.513 square parsecs, has 1280 hexes in it and half of those have stars. (LBB3 density.)

I guess the first step for the formula is to get the equivalent density figure for cubic parsecs. This is where my mind has turned to mush. Or is it simpler than that? Just changing that to 1 star per 1.733 cubic parsecs feels wrong, but is it?

 

[BillDowns]

Let me toss out something for your thoughts. Go ahead and create sub-sectors in 3d. Then,

and this may be covered in use the thread - make a sector 4 subsectors deep, preserving the 4x4x4 concept. Finally, make the Imperium only 1 or 2 sectors deep, based on the idea of keeping things within the galactic plane.

That should cutdown on your volume over pure cubes for the Imperium as a whole. It is also more accurate as the Milky Way is planar in structure. Not entirely, I grant you but close enough for game play purposes.

 

[aramis]

that's roughly 40%...

So, assuming a progression of

J6 = 3Pc
J5=2.9Pc
j4=2.7Pc
j3=2.4Pc
j2=2.0Pc
j1=1.5Pc
J0=0.9Pc
You should have j6 is only twice J1, so for 6months at J4 at 9 days each (Fast XBoat) 2.7 * 6 * 28/9=0.3*6*28/1=1.8*28=36+8+6.4=50.4 Pc radius, whereas J4 x 12 = 2.7 x 12=24+8.4=32.4 Pc across.
To get J1 separation, 1.5^3=(1.5+.75)*1.5=2.25*1.5=2.25+1.125=3.375 CuPc per system
So, using the cube (for simplicty) of 30Pc Radius= 27000 and rounding up just a bit, we want a system every 4 cubic parsecs, that gives us 7000 systems.

 

[aramis]

bTW: the merchantile impacts will be huge, in that J6 will have far less gain over J5, etc. The speculation advantages of J4 are lost
using 3.3 CuPc per "Space" (avg sep of about 1.4Pc)
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">JN Pc Volume Ot.Sys
J6 3 113.1 33.3
J5 2.9 102.2 30
J4 2.7 82.4 24
J3 2.4 57.9 16.5
J2 2 33.5 9.2
J1 1.5 14.1 3.3
J0 0.9 3.1 -0.1</pre>[/QUOTE]as opposed to the 2d rates:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">JN Pc Hxs Sys
J6 6 126 63
J5 5 90 45
J4 4 60 30
J3 3 36 18
J2 2 18 9
J1 1 6 3
J0 0 0 0</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
that's roughly 40%...

So, assuming a progression of

J6 = 3Pc
J5=2.9Pc
j4=2.7Pc
j3=2.4Pc
j2=2.0Pc
j1=1.5Pc
J0=0.9Pc
You should have j6 is only twice J1, so for 6months at J4 at 9 days each (Fast XBoat) 2.7 * 6 * 28/9=0.3*6*28/1=1.8*28=36+8+6.4=50.4 Pc radius, whereas J4 x 12 = 2.7 x 12=24+8.4=32.4 Pc across.
To get J1 separation, 1.5^3=(1.5+.75)*1.5=2.25*1.5=2.25+1.125=3.375 CuPc per system
So, using the cube (for simplicty) of 30Pc Radius= 27000 and rounding up just a bit, we want a system every 4 cubic parsecs, that gives us 7000 systems.

Actually I assume that X-Boat messages are virtually 100% jumpspace time. (As the next ship jumps between 7 minutes and 4 hours from when the last boat arrives.)

What if we went a little less radical. Thrash's jump formula gives us.

Jump distance = (Jn + 2) * 0.6 pc

That is:

Jump-1 = 1.8 pc
Jump-2 = 2.4 pc
Jump-3 = 3.0 pc
Jump-4 = 3.6 pc
Jump-5 = 4.2 pc
Jump-6 = 4.8 pc

which would still give us a Diameter of 156 pcs. (Jump-3 is his break even point.)

A Sphere with a Diameter of 156 has a volume of 1,490,849 cubic parsecs. Which at .577 systems per cubic parsec gets us, over 860,000 systems!

Your formula, given the same density, and a 52 week edge to edge, gives us 440433 systems.

My density numbers have to be off.

If you go one dimensional, it is a straight line of 22000 parsecs for 11000 systems. The Density is .5 per parsec. When you do the same thing in 2D it is .577 systems per square parsec. So the same thing in 3D is what?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
Let me toss out something for your thoughts. Go ahead and create sub-sectors in 3d. Then,

and this may be covered in use the thread - make a sector 4 subsectors deep, preserving the 4x4x4 concept. Finally, make the Imperium only 1 or 2 sectors deep, based on the idea of keeping things within the galactic plane.

That should cutdown on your volume over pure cubes for the Imperium as a whole. It is also more accurate as the Milky Way is planar in structure. Not entirely, I grant you but close enough for game play purposes.

Actually I wasn't planning on a pure shape for the Imperium. But we have to start with some shape that you can calculate the volume for. I think the best thing would be to get a regular shape then cut away parts so you are down to the right number of systems.

Your way is a good idea. In fact it is what I first thought of as well. The issue is that communication times go way down or number of systems, sectors and subsectors goes way up if you keep your sectors at the same size. I was actually looking at cube sectors of 3x3x2 subsectors, which gives you 18 subsectors per sector and messages go zipping right across, as do military forces. You can keep the local economy about the same and it will run fine, no matter the shape you eventually choose. It is the larger Universe that fails miserably and the History and Background, that go with it. If all you want is a backdrop for pocket empires then any shape you choose is fine. Provided that you set your system density and jump drive ranges to fit, it would work.

Does that make sense?

 

[aramis]

well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Numbers
Jn Pc CuPc OtSys
J6 4.8 463.2 139.4
J5 4.2 310.3 93.0
J4 3.6 195.4 58.2
J3 3.0 113.1 33.3
J2 2.4 57.9 16.5
J1 1.8 24.4 6.4
J0 1.2 7.2 1.2</pre>[/QUOTE]Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).

Using the 9 day J4 6month (it is 8 days maximum jump time; for reliability and capture, you need a day of maneuver time. Which is why I use 9 days.), that's 2427715.584 CuPc and 719323.136 systems.

Using the J4 14 day travel cycle: 644972.544 CuPc, 191102. Systems (at 1 per 3.375 CuPc/Syst...) You'd need a 10% solution to get 11000 systems, which puts average separations at double (2.15, really) the 1.5Pc cube used (10^(1/3)), for an average separation of J4!

My rates at least will preserve the relative size of the imperium.

BTW, the disc of the galaxy near earth is rather thick. Our radius of 43-50 parsecs is less than 1/3rd the thickness.

From http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_milky.html

Disk:
The disk of the Milky Way has four spiral arms and it is approximately 300pc thick and 30kpc in diameter. It is made up predominantly of Population I stars which tend to be blue and are reasonably young, spanning an age range between a million and ten billion years.

So, The Imperium is unlikely to span the full height of the disk.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Numbers
Jn Pc CuPc OtSys
J6 4.8 463.2 139.4
J5 4.2 310.3 93.0
J4 3.6 195.4 58.2
J3 3.0 113.1 33.3
J2 2.4 57.9 16.5
J1 1.8 24.4 6.4
J0 1.2 7.2 1.2</pre>

Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).

Using the 9 day J4 6month (it is 8 days maximum jump time; for reliability and capture, you need a day of maneuver time. Which is why I use 9 days.), that's 2427715.584 CuPc and 719323.136 systems.

Using the J4 14 day travel cycle: 644972.544 CuPc, 191102. Systems (at 1 per 3.375 CuPc/Syst...) You'd need a 10% solution to get 11000 systems, which puts average separations at double (2.15, really) the 1.5Pc cube used (10^(1/3)), for an average separation of J4!

My rates at least will preserve the relative size of the imperium.

BTW, the disc of the galaxy near earth is rather thick. Our radius of 43-50 parsecs is less than 1/3rd the thickness.

From http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_milky.html
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Disk:
The disk of the Milky Way has four spiral arms and it is approximately 300pc thick and 30kpc in diameter. It is made up predominantly of Population I stars which tend to be blue and are reasonably young, spanning an age range between a million and ten billion years.[/quote]So, The Imperium is unlikely to span the full height of the disk. </font>[/QUOTE]Even using a 150 pc diameter sphere we are only going halfway. So I agree with that.

I also agree with the week down to week in Jump cycle. However that assumes that the xboat message travels aboard one ship. According to Library data each leg is carried by a different ship. The mail moves much faster than most ships can manage because of this. (Which is why I also treat the Military as having a similar setup.) In the old pony express days the rider switched horses at each station until he was exhausted then he passed the bag off to another rider. Each ship has time for maintenance between jumps and probably makes one jump every other week but the mail makes one jump per week. Which is why I look at message travel time. (Information travel time is as important as economic implications, if not more so for RPG purposes.)

I also realize that Thrash's numbers aren't ideal but it is a good inverse geometric progression and I thought it might make a good starting point. I think he has the right idea, but it isn't the right formula.

What if the Jump-4 point instead of jump-3 was the break even point and we steepen the curve a bit. Then we could decrease the density without hurting things economically as badly. (Also make sense as to why the Military ships were J-4.)

Let me come up with a couple of formulas along those lines.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
well let's see, I used 3.3 CuPc for the calcs.

One system (not star) per 11.5 cubic parsecs is closer to the real local density.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Thrash's Real Numbers
Jn Std Pc CuPc OtSys Ratio
J6 63 4.8 463.2 40.3 0.64
J5 45 4.2 310.3 27.0 0.60
J4 30 3.6 195.4 17.0 0.57
J3 18 3.0 113.1 9.8 0.54
J2 9 2.4 57.9 5.0 0.56
J1 3 1.8 24.4 2.1 0.70</pre>[/QUOTE]

Comparing the number of other systems using thrash's numbers, there will be a drastic effect on mobility (and speculation).

Huh? Thrash's formula was carefully crafted to preserve the effects of mobility and trade (including speculation).

The "Ratio" column (=OtSys/Std) demonstrates that the relative number of stars accessible at each jump number is +/-10% of standard density on the 2D map -- not bad for representing a cubic relationship with a linear formula. The actual base distance (2.4 pc = Jump-2) was set by comparison with the Known Star list, and is as close to canonical as you're likely to get.

If you prefer, you can pretend the density is 1/6.9 pc instead of the real figure, and obtain an exact match. </font>[/QUOTE]Thrash,
The issue isn't the local merchant-trade stuff, at least as far as I am concerned, it is the longer range comms, and the size of the imperium. For local stuff, or for a whole new Universe, it is just about right, though military task forces, and message traffic will go zipping across a sector, provided you keep a sector about the same size, in terms of number of systems.


Since J-3 is your break even point, the Imperium, to preserve message time, would have to have a diameter of about 156 parsecs. In a 3D universe where a Jump-1 or Jump-2 ship is viable, that puts the Imperium at several million systems. Breaking the politics of the Imperium. If we cut it down to around 11,000 perserving the size of the Imperium, message travel time cuts down to 4-6 months (tops)also breaking the politics of the Imperium.

You have the right idea. The economic implications are absolutely correct. I may even be trying to squeeze more into the change than is possible. But I like the OTU background and a change to 3D for me has to retain more of that. (And yes, that would include not breaking the economics while I am at it.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Since J-3 is your break even point, the Imperium, to preserve message time, would have to have a diameter of about 156 parsecs. In a 3D universe where a Jump-1 or Jump-2 ship is viable, that puts the Imperium at several million systems.

I get ~250,000 systems, using the more realistic figure of one system per 11.5 cubic parsec. So only one system in 22-23 is inhabited -- why not? Something has to change, to go from 2D to 3D. This would actually be a good change, one that makes it much more difficult for the Imperium to be everywhere at once and helps justify things like pirates and armed free traders. </font>[/QUOTE]OK so how does the economics work if only one in 22 is inhabited? The problem is it no longer does.

I agree something has to change. Like I said your formula works great if all I was concerned about was local economics. And you obviously put lots of research into it.

If we switched to (Jn+4)*.5 for example, you get a steeper curve and should be able to decrease the density of systems. Can we get a uniform density that gives the same ratios using this? Not sure how that would effect the size of the Imperium yet, but if the density goes down then it would be less systems in the same volume. (Since it is 3D volume, it is significantly less systems.)

Do you see what I am looking for?