UWPs - world locations?

[Malenfant]

Do the world locations on the GENII files match up with those given by AotI?

I ask because I want to try to make a subsector myself, just to see how it goes - it'll be a good opportunity to test a few things out...

Personally I'd like to see the UWPs as realistic as possible. My revised stellar generation tables should nix any unrealistic stars at least, though I designed the tables with existing UWPs in mind. I've got a system in the works to generate stars and then appropriate UWPs from scratch, but I'm wanting to test it out first...

 

[Flynn]

I'm interested in helping with UWP manipulations, similarly to what I've done with the 1248 UWPs for Martin. Please let me know if my services would be useful.

Thanks in advance,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Flynn - you could be useful for generating the stars with your program... depends on if I roll up the UWPs first or not

.

Either way, your offer is noted and appreciated

 

[LcKedovan]

Where is the best place to get the currently existing Spica UWP data that we are going to "massage" with your system Malefant? (and can you post your link to it again here so I can bookmark it )

-W.

 

[Malenfant]

As far as I'm aware, all we need to know are the hex locations for each world (preferably split up into subsectors). And possibly the allegience data.

 

[Flynn]

Mal,

I can also run the UWPs through a final analysis in the end, to make sure the minimum TLs are present by atmosphere type, and that the starports comply to available TL in regards to Class A and B starports (TL9 and TL6, respectively).

If you give me the parameters of your system, I might even be able to automate some of the UWP generation for you.

Just a thought,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

well, I haven't even actually fully written the system yet

. But I'll keep your offer in mind (thanks)... I'll try and get somewhere with it over the coming long weekend here.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Woa!

I thought we were doing top-down work. What's this with going after developing UWPs already when the overall history hasn't been decided on yet?

I had a propsal in for a war between the early 3I and the Hivers right there in Spica around 300-400. It won't do for me to put down stakes on worlds X, Y, and Z, and write up the effects of a big war, only to have references to that war appear nowhere else. Ditto for everything everyone else does.

And while, yes, nothing is set in stone 'till the end, I'd rather not do work and find it rejected by all others later.

 

[Malenfant]

Point taken.

I don't think the UWPs wouldn affect anything in the history - what's decided for the history would take priority over any UWPs rolled (i.e. if you found you needed two hi-pop earthlike worlds close to eachother for a polity, we could just put them there as needed)

I was asking for world locations more so we could just know where they were so we knew how big polities would be, where islands are, etc.

 

[Klaus]

I'd suggest that UWP's were the least 'set in stone' of all. They should probably be the last thing finalised, tho no reason not to have provisional charts.

Are we going to look at key worlds, ie the ones that have large influence or that have some legendary status? I'd like to see a few 'adventure hub' worlds that could be highly detailed so people can play there without preparation. Regina or Tarsus in the Spinward Marches, or Tatooine in SW, or Persephone in Firefly, or B5 itself would be like this.

 

[Malenfant]

Don't worry, there'd certainly be such worlds in the sector. This is a frontier, after all...

 

[Malenfant]

Gov E would be a Religious Autocracy. I have no clue what Gov R would be.

But yeah. Best bet would be to go by the descriptions and retrofit the UWP from that.

Or just ditch the description completely and come up with something new

 

[mike wightman]

On the AotI map Juess is shown with starport E and is a desert world, and since it is named it must have a population of 9 or A.

Its canon UPP is thus:

Juess E**0H**-* so

H stands for high populstion 9 or A, you pick. The rest (*)is unknown and made up by whoever

 

[Malenfant]

Um. Can a size 7 world have a hydrographics of 0? 2d-7+7 = 2 at the lowest. Or is there a -2 penalty for being atm 4?

 

[BeRKA]

Can a size 7 world have a hydrographics of 0? 2d-7+7 = 2 at the lowest. Or is there a -2 penalty for being atm 4?

That depend on which ruleset You use:
Hydrographics = 2d-7+atmosphere (CT, T4, T20)
or, Hydrographics = 2d-7+world size (LBB6, MT, TNE)

 

[Malenfant]

I've commented on that before... it's got to be 2d-7+size to make any kind of sense. If it's +atm, then that is wrong because that means that the more exotic the atmosphere, the more likely you are to get a waterworld.

In reality, the mass of the planet essentially determines how much volatile material it can grab while it's forming.

Plus the fact that the GDW versions all stuck with +size after CT Book 3 makes me think that someone realised they'd goofed in book3 and corrected it. I suspect that others making T4 and T20 figured that since book 3 was first it must be correct (again, this wacky Traveller mindset of "older material is more valid than newer material") and used that instead.

 

[BeRKA]

I agree that the later rules make a little more sense.

However, I wouldn't rule out large desert world just because the ruleset says so. That would ban any "Dune" like world. A large desert world is at least explainable. Other UWP that we might get with either rulesets (like small worlds with standard atmosphere) are more problematic.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Gruffty:
Hopefully Mal's new planetary generation system will prove more reliable

Which is on hold for the moment, as my parents are visiting this week . I'll try to get back to it after they're gone...