WORLDS_A.ND_
- Download WORLDS_A.ND_ (Text file, 48 KB) Contact details removed
Worlds and Starports -- from Xboat mailing list 1994 Starports By Erwin Fritz ([email removed]) James Kundert [email removed] George Herbert [email removed] Mark Clark [email removed] Jeff Zeitlin [email removed] [Editing: NSM] On the number of starports per system: Although the rules imply that there is only one starport per system, there is at least one reference in a Classic Traveller to a planet with more than one starport. In Adventure 3, Twilight's Peak, p. 14, the planet Tureded/Lanth is said to have four C class facilities, equally spaced around the equator. Several references say that starport ratings refer to total capacity, not a single yard. There are lots of "Highport/Lowport" setups, with both orbital and ground installations. There are also lots of published maps with more than one starport on the surface (one per continent, often). This was addressed in World Builder's Handbook, and probably in the ancestor publication Grand Census as well. The system detailing presented in the WBH allowed the mainworld to have multiple starports (page 74). There is _some_ logic to it if you subscribe to the theory that starports are Imperially licensed, and that the Imperium doesn't hand out licenses casually. However, even with all the tables and instructions in the WBH, die rolling will only get you so far into a world's details. The detailing of multiple starports is right on the threshold of things better left unrolled. One can make the assumption that the starport/spaceport described in the rules for a given planet is the best one for that world. Given that, then it's quite possible to have, say, a class C starport on the same planet as a class A port (with the class A port being used for the UWP). However, the rules for system generation described in MegaTraveller (and in Book 6) assign spaceports to worlds other than the main world. If we assume that the spaceports given by the rules are the best on the world, then the only place in a solar system where there can be starports is the main world, which is unrealistic. One interpretation of this is that there may be more than one starport, but only one starport is understood to be "the starport" in a given system. Consider: If you fly into New York, most people are going to assume that you are flying into La Guardia (except international flights, when they assume Kennedy). If you're not going to the "default" airport, you specify it by name: "I'm flying into JFK" or "I'm flying into Newark". Similarly with a starport - you're going to the "default" starport unless you specify "I'm berthing at Meshuganeh Skyside". Conventionally, ports capable of handling stellar ships are considered "spaceports" if they are not the primary for the system. But they may very well be of starport grade. One thing you _can_ be sure of: no starport in the system will have a higher grade than the one that appears in the UWP. On the differences between starports and spaceports: The main difference will be the existence of Customs at starports. A "spaceport" is not set up to handle the myriad problems of interstellar customs, only the smaller problems of in-system travel. E starports are the private airstrips of the interstellar scene. They are usually small and often unmanned. They are, however, still starports. The landing area is sufficiently built/packed/reinforced to handle the largest starships that are meant to land. When manned, they will have someone on hand who can tell outworlders the things they need to know about the world. "Poor" spaceports will generally not be able to handle anything larger than a 95-ton Shuttle, and sometimes not even that. As handlers of in-system travel, the staff of such a spaceport will likely not be set up to deal with unfamiliar visitors (ie. star travellers). The usual users will be scheduled runs, familiar "bush pilots", and local launch owners who don't have the private space to keep their vehicles. They will likely have control "towers", but will generally prefer to find out about their traffic via hand-offs from other ports. They will not necessarily be set up to detect visitors popping out of jumpspace. To address your question of "exact" differences: that will vary from system to system and from port to port, but will usually have something to do with the visitors the port is ready to handle. Facilities at Starports and Spaceports: CLASS Fuel Customs Grav Dock Dry Dock Tourist Svc Cargo Svc A ref yes yes yes yes yes B ref yes yes small yes yes C unref yes light no yes light D unref yes no no light light E none yes no no no no F ref no light no yes light G ref no no no no no X none no no no no no Fuel: ref= refined; unref= unrefined; none= no fueling services Customs: yes= Customs, Health, Immigration facilities, outsystem tourism equipped; no= no offplanet processing, tourists must enter through CHI-equipped starport Graving Dock: yes= capable of major repairs and retrofits, short of building new ship from ground up; light= no retrofits, hull punctures, or drive replacements; no= no major repair facilities Dry Dock: yes= can build new ship from ground up, any size; light= can build new ships other than line combat ships; no= cannot build ships Tourist Svc: yes= Hotels, shops, guides, duty-free, restaurants, etc.; light= Hotels, shops, duty-free, cafes, no guides or full restaurants no= Transportation to town only Cargo Svc: yes= Can do anything up to and including load a starship into the hold of another, larger starship; light= can handle anything that doesn't require anchored machinery to load; no= load your own damn cargo Naturally, different starports will have different foci; usually, you want to look at fuel availability and grav/dry docks. Those will usually determine the TAS rating (in my universe). So, if you need for a C port to be able to transship starships, go right ahead... ------------------------------ Imperial Reglations on Colonization By Steve Higgin ([email removed]) "Glenn M. Goffin" [email removed] "St. John, Andy" [email removed] a.k.a. Andy St. John / [email removed] [Comments by NSM] Colonization wasn't thwarted or impossible to do legally. Look at the Forboldn Project (Adventure 1: The Kinunir, pp. 39-40): "The primary colonization project within the Regina subsector. Originally conceived in 987 to utilize the resources of Forboldn (0208), the project began its execution phase in 1089, shortly after the Fourth Frontier War." The library data entry goes on to describe the massive recruitment of convicts and medical cases, refers to the Ministry of Colonization, and intimates that colonization is ongoing and well regulated. Also, the Tarsus boxed set mentions the process of settling up a colony on Tarsus, chiefly from Fornice in the Mora subsector. Other sources mention colonies settled and/or conquered by nearby worlds. (Garda-Vilis in _Broadsword_, and Jenghe/Regina, which is mentioned briefly in _Twilight's Peak_.) Although multi-system states are not allowed within the Imperium, I have always played that this prohibition was used to curb excesses, i.e. small groupings were tolerated as long as they didn't get out of hand. They are a convenient way of explaining the various Govt=6 worlds littered about. Not to mention the Vegan Autonomous District and the Geonee Cultural Region. This avoids the problem of how to make Trin's colonies act independently from Trin -- they need not. [On the other hand, if they wished to be independent, they could probably appeal to the Imperial law in question, and would almost certainly win.] Settlement by the IISS (Their Regina HQ on Hefry probably fills the whole planet - mentioned in _Twilight's Peak_) and the Navy (pick a depot, any depot) also have precedent. No canonical analogies to H. Beam Piper's Chartered Uller Company et al. come to mind, although various megacorporations could fit the bill. [However, they'd need permission from the Ministry of Colonization.] The Ministry of Colonization control colonization, but local political situations would dictate additional kibbitzing, interference, or other input from the IISS, the Navy, the local nobility, and the megacorporations. [Also, all colonies within the Imperium must accept Imperial rule -- in other words, pay their taxes -- and are in a sense colonies of the Imperium.] ----------------------------- Alternative World Generation systems By Jeff Zeitlin [email removed] Jim Vassilakos [email removed] Derek Wildstar [email removed] Mark Clark [email removed] Bruce Pihlamae [email removed] Steve Bonneville [email removed] The order in which UWP stats are generated is non-intuitative: 1. Starport 5. Population 2. World Size 6. Government 3. Atmosphere 7. Law Level 4. Hydrographics 8. Technology Why is the starport generated first? It would be more sensible for starport type to be determined by traffic, and traffic to be determined by population. Consider generating starport type after population. Making this one change, look at cause and effect in the rules: The Stat What modifies it /------\ /--------------\ 1. Size (nil) 2. Atmosphere (Size) 3. Hydro (Size, Atmosphere) 4. Population (nil) 5. Starport (nil) 6. Government (nil) 7. Law Level (nil) 8. Technology (everything but law level) Regardless of its features, the primary world or asteroid belt in one system is just as likely to have a population of X as the primary world or asteroid belt in any other system. This is less than obvious. Think about it. You roll up some dinky little ice-ball as the main world in your star system -- surely the fact that this tiny lump of rock has no atmosphere, that it has no liquid water, and that it hasn't even a modicum of elbow room, makes it less likely to have a population of 50 billion people than the garden terra-prime paradise just a couple of parsecs down the road. Yes... you can explain it away. You can say, "Oh, there's this wonderful lanthanum mine." Or you can say. "These people live here... because it's their home" (and then smile convincingly). But it doesn't work. This isn't a little inconsistency. This is a whopping big one. Jim's 1st Law on main-world generation: Given that everything else is more or less equal, people will tend to migrate to the place that is "nicer". Worlds with a nice atmosphere, some actual water, and so forth, will attract large populations which will in turn build decent starports. Planets that aren't so nice (you know the ones I'm talking about) will not attract people, and hence are unlikely to have lots of traffic or well-equipped starports. [Note that `people' is implicitly Humaniti -- not necessarily the case on all worlds.] Jim's 2nd Law: People will attain the resources (technology) that they need to survive, such that those resources are available. If you're really sure that you're going to live on Sonthert/Lanth, then you're going to make sure you have the technology to survive on a near-vacuum planet. (Sonthert, alas, is rated TL3.) The philosophy of high and low tech worlds living side by side is also questionable. It can be argued that it's possible for a short duration such as a few decades, or given special poltical or social circumstances. But in general, over the course of centuries, eventually there will either be a leveling process or the low TL regions will gain in technology. The counter-argument to Jim's 1st Law is that all things are _not_ equal. Otherwise, why would anyone live in Chicago when they could move to Hawaii? (Most people would class the latter as nicer than the former!) The answer is economics. People are too poor to move, don't have skills, have family ties. Moreover, if there are no jobs at the new planet, who is going to move there? Equally, the world profiles don't tell the whole story. Just because a place has a "nice" profile - average size, average atmosphere, average hydro -- doesn't mean the rest of it is fun. The planet could be too hot, too cold, inhabited by vorpal bunnies, or whatever. It is also possible that "blue-sky" Terra-norm worlds might in some cases be more difficult to settle than less inviting worlds -- there'll be life down there, and who knows what might do to prospective settlers? Vacuum worlds are much more predictable, and with proper planning might also be easier on the equipment. So more people might settle there, especially if the colony is well established -- a vacuum world colony interior can be much more sophisticated and spacious than, say, Moonbase Alpha. Jim's Modified Main-world Generation Scheme: 1. World Size. Roll 2d6-2. 2. Atmosphere. Roll 2d6-7+Size. if size=0 then atmosphere=0. confine range to 0-F. 3. Hydrographics. Roll 2d6-7+Size. if atmosphere is 1 or less, then DM -4 if size is 1 or less, then Hydro=0 if atmosphere is A-C then DM -4 if atmosphere is E then DM -2 confine range to 0-A 4. Population. Roll 2d6-2. if size is 2 or less, DM -1 if atmosphere is 3 or less, DM -3 if atmosphere is A, DM -2 if atmosphere is B, DM -3 if atmosphere is C, DM -4 if atmosphere if greater than C, DM -2 if atmosphere is 6, DM +3 if atmosphere is 5 or 8, DM +1 if hydro=0 and atmos>3, DM -2 confine range to 0-A 5. Starport. Roll 2d6 (use whichever table suits the locality but remember that high rolls result in a lower quality starport). if pop=0 then starport=X if pop=1, DM +2 if pop=2, DM +1 if pop is 6-9, then DM -1 if pop is A, then DM -2 confine range to A-X 6. Government. Roll 2d6-7+population. if pop=0 then gov=0 confine range to 0-F 7. Law Level. Roll 2d6-7+government. if gov=0 then law=0 confine lower bound of range to 0 8. Tech Level. Roll d6. Modify as per the standard chart. if pop=0 then tech=0 otherwise, if hydro is 0 or A and pop is at least 6, then tech must at least be 4. if atmos is 4, 7 or 9, then tech must at least be 5. if atmos is 3 or less or A-C, then tech must at least be 7. if atmos is D or E and hydro is A, then tech must at least be 7. confine lower bound of range to 0 Some example UWPs from this system: X211000-0 E475100-8 D86A6BB-7 X410000-0 A410446-B C66266B-6 E98A237-8 X573220-5 A748483-C A85A766-C A867657-B C310235-7 B220532-D X473000-0 A665ADD-E A8599A8-C C738475-8 A5588B7-9 C634523-8 B332334-9 D545456-5 C575553-7 C110221-8 A667785-7 E75A466-4 D795679-5 C754575-9 E678112-6 X311000-0 X528211-8 B471322-B C874663-6 D453643-4 C668989-9 B5438AE-8 C87A564-6 C474278-8 X226000-0 C410230-7 X303156-8 B9B4230-7 A5949C9-A A685876-7 C594100-8 C539343-7 X9A8000-0 X120000-0 B457867-6 B2518CD-B A631453-F Note that there are some conspicuous differences between this data and "normal" UWP listings. There are more uninhabited or very low-population star systems under the modified rules. This will probably bring down the average starport rating for any given region. Also, there are very few low-tech star systems. The lowest here are both TL4, and in both cases, they've got a breathable atmospheres. As expected, the less-hospitable worlds tend to have lower populations and seedier starports. More surprising is the existence of several lush (atmos=6) worlds with under ten million inhabitants. The system usually has high populations clustered on those worlds. However, when we look at the highest population world in this run, we see that it has a standard atmosphere, so these results are fairly plausible. It can also be argued that law level will have an effect on tech level. The more oppressive a society is, the less likely it is that genii will appear and create the new technology. Earth history supports this view; the cultures that made the largest advances in technology were the ones with high levels of personal freedom. Certainly, other, less free cultures may do a better job of exploiting some forms of technology, but they'll probably get it from a culture that is more free. One would hardly expect a totally oppressive theocracy to be innovative... At No Law, there is no way of ensuring that the person who develops new technology will be able to profit from it. If something is good, it will be used by anyone who can get their hands on it, and without paying. This reduces the incentive to research. At Low Law, there may be some protection, so there will be some innovation. However, it only rates a +1 because the government will normally not be powerful or influential enough to make large investments in research. At Moderate Law, you will typically have a government that has the power, influence, and revenue to invest in research, and sufficient freedom of information exchange to make it profitable (in terms of results). However, at this stage, the government will probably have a tendency to want to direct the research, rather than dropping the cash on the table, sitting back, and saying, "O.K. folks, let's see what you can come up with." This directive tendency will continue at higher law levels, and with the continuing decrease in personal freedom and freedom of information exchange, and increasing compartmentalization of research, the return on investment will typically drop heavily. At some point, the government will probably decide that research is unproductive of results, and tech will stagnate (Look at the USSR on Terra in -2531 - most of their technology was acquired through intelligence gathering). Thus the suggested modifiers to TL based on Law Level: No Law or Moderate Law +0 Low Law +1 High Law -1 Extreme Law (A-C) -2 Extreme Law (D-E) -3 Extreme Law (F-G) -4 Extreme Law (H+) -5 In a similar vein, one can also suggest a new table for the effect of government type on tech level: MegaT gov code DM -------------- -- 0 +0 1 +3 2 +2 3 +0 4 +1 5 +2 6 -2 7 See Note 8 -1 9 -1 A +0 B -1 C +0 D -3 E -5 F -4 Note: For balkanized worlds, generate the national governments of interest, and use <my other table, which factors in espionage> to generate gov't TL modifier. (see Note to Note) Note to Note: The other table mentioned here is essentially identical, except that because of intelligence-gathering activities, negative DMs are moved one notch closer to 0 (i.e. a -1 becomes a 0, -2 becomes -1, and so on.) Rationale: +0 modifiers - When there is no formal government structure, any new technology developed is unprotected, save by individual effort. In this event, even if the technology is developed, it will be slow to be released, because of concerns of the developer profiting from it (i.e. the developer wants to; others may be more willing to steal the technology than buy it). In a benign oligarchy, or a charismatic dictatorship, it is less likely that those in power will hear about good ideas that are not developed within the governmental structure, thus reducing the chance of advancement. Such a government, however, will not necessarily _reject_ an idea if it hears about it. + modifiers - A company has the utmost interest in development of technology that will allow them to achieve higher return on investment. Ideas will be actively sought after, and explored for their profit-making potential. Democracies have a high level of personal freedom and will tend to allow ideas to percolate around without interference. Coupled with laws protecting intellectual property, and the fact that the government will generally be pretty busy trying to prostitute itself to the special interests acting in the name of "the people," there will probably be significant opportunity for ideas to be pursued despite theoretical restrictions on the use of government funds. The less a government has to deal directly with the people, the more it will be able to direct research, thus the lower DM for a rep. democracy vs. a parcip. democracy. - modifiers - The fundamental obstacles to technological progress in these governments are multiple: insularity from people outside the government, doctrinaire educational policies, rewarding of conformity over individual initiative, personal paranoia (in the case of dictatorships), conservatism (including but not limited to religious orthodoxy and extremism)... All of these combine, to varying degrees, and result in an inability to develop ideas once they are presented, and a further reluctance for individuals to present their ideas for fear of being condemned or persecuted for them (recall Nazi Germany's attitude towards "Jewish Physics"). Note that these are only guidelines; fiddle with them to suit your needs. Some of the factors cited for negative DMs might be at work in governments that have positive DMs, and vice-versa. Also, star type does affect the rest of planetary generation; the combination of M-V stars and hospitable (even agricultural) worlds isn't entirely realistic. So if we do add stellar data in for 'feel', we should take care not to make the same mistake as GDW: i.e., we should first generate star-type according to known stellar frequency data and then generate the mainworld, applying DMs to the UPP data as applicable. This would probably make "inhospitable" worlds even more common than in the modified system above. Life and Resources: One way of expanding upon the limited set of generation rules would be to extend the number of statistics to include: Resources (independent) - an indicator of the available natural resources on the world. A high value indicates extensive, high-quality, and/or readily exploitable resources (mineral, fossil, vegetable, or animal - this is non-specific, except that it indicates the presence or abscence of resources which otherwise aren't shown in the UWP). Throw 2d6-2 for Resources; DMs subject to Referee whim (for example, the Spinward Marches is known to be deficient in heavy elements; perhaps a DM of -1 to the whole Marches to reflect this?). Restrict the result to the range 0-F. Life (dependent on atmosphere and hydrosphere) - A general index to the prevalance and variety of life on the world. A low score would indicate a barren world (your average asteroid or iceball) while high numbers indicate a thriving and diverse biosystem Throw 2d6-2; DM-8 for Vacuum, Trace, or Insidious atmospheres, -6 for Very Thin or Corrosive, -4 for Exotic, -2 for Dense/High, Ellipsoid, or Thin/Low, No DM for Thin Tainted, Standard Tainted, or Dense Tainted, and +2 for Thin, Standard, or Dense. Also apply a hydrosphere DM: -4 if 0, -2 if 1, No DM if 2-5, +1 if 6-9, -1 if A. Other DMs can be used too: a +1 for worlds settled or influenced by the Ancients, First Imperium, or Rule of Man (old colonies or terraforming efforts). If Stellar Types are being used, an additional DM for the suitability of the star might not be a bad idea. Restrict to the range 0-F. The resources score can be used to justify settlements on otherwise inhospitable worlds, and should serve as a positive DM for population. The rationale is that there is *some* type of valuable resource present (which doesn't otherwise show on the UWP), and therefore it is likely that someone has come (despite the hardship) to exploit it. A suggestion for interpreting resources scores: 0: Barren 1-4: Poor 5-8: Moderate 9-C: Rich D+ : Extreme Poor: Basic chemical diversity necessary to support indigenous life. Otherwise, no claim to fame. Moderate: One solid natural-resource industry. Roll on table 10a of the MT Ref's Manual. Re-roll 34-54 if life < 4 (see above). Re-roll 65 if life < 5. Re-roll 55-56 if life < 8. Re-roll 61-64 if life < 9. Re-roll 66 if life < A. Rich: Two natural-resources industries, one of which commands strong subsector-wide influence. Extreme: Three natural-resource industries, one of which commands sector-wide influence. Note: The GM should translate natural-resource industries into their manufacturing/processing (2nd stage) industries as seems appropriate. See MT Ref's Manual (pg52) for possibilities. Another note: Under this system, the resource stat is rolled before the life stat, and the life stat is rolled before the specific industries are determined. A better method would be to select a resource type (using Table 10a, or some other source), and roll 1d6. This is the "amount" of this resource, but not more than the resource score of the world. The process would repeat until the entire resource score is accounted for. For example: Resource score (2D) = 10 1st Resource: #61, Livestock. Amount: 5 2nd Resource: #42, Plants (wood). Amount: 4 3rd Resource: #63, Livestock. Amount: 1 (a 3 was rolled). So, our hypothetical world produces Livestock at Level 6 (the two livestock resources add, at the referee's discretion), and Plants (wood) at Level 4. Comparing all of the scores and types within the subsector and within the sector will reveal the primary producers of particular goods. The Life score can be used to get a "feel" for the native biosphere, and to gauge whether or not there is a native race to consider. One suggestion (for a campaign with few advanced "minor" races) was: 0: Sterile 1: Amino Acids 2: Single-celled organisms 3: Multi-cellular bacteria 4: Simple vegetation 5: Complex vegetation 6: Microscopic insects & sea life 7: Macroscopic insects 8: Macroscopic sea life 9: Land/Air-based herbivores A: Land/Air-based predators B: Large/Complex predators C: Tool use D: Fire use E: Agriculture F: Symbology (full sentience, TL=0) D, E, and F may be given higher degrees of technology. While the use of tools and fire is pretty much a clincher for sentient or semi-sentient creatures, by the time they are practicing agriculture the society is pretty much at TL-0. These distinctions should really be made as part of the details for the native sentient or semi-sentient race. The exact stage of development should probably be determined by the referee during the "world building" stage of generating planetary details. It might well be better to have the Life score as independent of the natives' TL as possible. The Life score can be used to determine whether or not there *are* natives, but their TL is more properly the province of the world's tech level. Alternatively: Life Score 0 = Sterile (although "organic" compounds may be present). 1 = Pre-Life (sophisticated "organic" compounds, precursors to life). 2+ Some Life Present (at least single-"cell" simple organisms). As the Life score increases, the number and size of the ecosystems increase, as does the number and complexity of the organisms which can be found there. Remember that this applies equally to native life-forms as well as "imported" forms (due to activity of the Ancients, colonization, or simply by accident). The minima for native development of a given complexity can be figured out from the table below. Whether or not you apply DMs to the Life score based on the stellar zone the planet is in (inner, habitable, or outer) depends on your views on really outrageous biochemistries. If you believe that sentient life can evolve in ecospheres in gas giants or on ultra-cold (or ultra-hot) worlds, the zone DMs should be no more than -2 or -4. In this case, I'd suggest using a -3 for Inner and Outer Zone worlds, and a DM of 0 for worlds in the habitable zone. This is probably compatible with the Classic Traveller vision of the universe, with intelligent gas-giant dwellers and all sorts of exotic life-forms, and sentient life-forms are all over the place, although many of them aren't really "life as we know it". While the above pretty accurately describes the way I feel, I certainly understand if this isn't everybody's cup of tea. For a lot less life in general, and a lot less intelligent life, try the following DMs: -1 if not a Main Sequence (size V) star -1 if not a Spectral Class F or G star -6 if in Inner Zone -4 if in Outer Zone This should cause the most life to cluster around the habitable zone of class F and G Main Sequence stars (in other words, stars like the Sun or a little brighter). Thus, most life will be "life as we know it", and will be much less prevalent than in the first method. Now throw 2d6 and subtract the results from the Life Score: 0- No significant native organisms (all "boring" or imported). 1 = "Interesting" native single-cell organisms. 2 = "Interesting" native microscopic (multi-cell) organisms. 3 = "Interesting" native plants (macroscopic). 4 = "Interesting" native animals (non-sentient). 5 = Complex native ecosystem (multiple "Interesting" organisms). 6+ Native Sentient or near-Sentient life (always interesting). The second throw should probably be part of the "world building" procedure, and not part of the basic generation. Once the throw is made, the referee will then have to decide (as part of the detailed world description) what the "interesting" things about the planet are. The followings are minima for native life forms: 0 = Sterile 1 = Pre-Life 2 = Life (maybe even pre-cellular life) 3 = Single-Celled organisms 4 = Multi-cellular organisms 5 = "Plant" life 6 = Animal life 7 = Complex ecosystems 8 = MINIMUM for native sentient organisms. Please note that it is possible for a world to have a Life score of 12, but not have any "interesting" native life. One possibility is a world that has been colonized, and the colonist's imported plants and animals have out-competed the native ecosystem, which as become nearly extinct. This is a definite possibility, particularly on worlds that have been civilized for thousands of years. Another possibility is a world that is covered with oceans, which are literally filled with an amazing diversity of single-celled organisms. Literally every square centimeter of the world's surface would have something living on it. Although such a world might have a relatively high Life rating, it may only rate as having "interesting" single-celled organisms. For figuring out a world in the context of a long-standing interstellar community, you can use Resources to represent the attractiveness of the world to the "outside" starfaring cultures, while the Life score can be used as a basis for determing whether there is a "native" culture to interact with. ------------------------------ Trade Classes and UWP Statistics By [email removed] (james vassilakos) [email removed] (Derek Wildstar) [email removed] (Andy Lilly) Jo Grant [email removed] [email removed] [email removed] (Rob Miracle) Jeff Zeitlin [email removed] Ice-capped worlds: The "Ice-Capped" trade classification means that most or all of a planet's water is locked up in ice caps. Thus, the requirements are an atmosphere that (in general) won't support liquid water, but with a non-zero hydrographics code. Planets can have ice-caps and liquid oceans simultaneously, of course, but won't qualify as ice-capped under these rules. Industrial worlds: Defined as having an economy based on mass-production of manufactured goods. Require atmosphere 2, 3, 4, 7 or 9 and pop 9+. The justification for the high population requirement is the need for a strong local market (i.e. one with billions of consumers) in setting up expensive manufacturing industries. As for the polluted/thin atmosphere requirements, while fusion power is "clean" and universal at TL 9+, there are lots of TL-5 to TL-8 Industrial worlds in the Imperium where the benefits of robotics and fusion reactors are not going to be felt. More generally, power generation is not the only industrial pollutant; most chemical and manufacturing processes have nasty by-products. [An alternative is to rule that it is illegal under subsector law to pollute planetary atmospheres, but that already-unbreathable atmospheres are (often) allowed to be further polluted. Thus, only already-tainted atmospheres can be exposed to the noxious by-products of industry.] Rich worlds: Require atmosphere 6 or 8, population 6-8, and government type 4-9. A Rich world is one that is prosperous because it has reasonable living conditions, is not over- or under- populated, and has a government which is conducive to personal prosperity. If a corporation should take over a Rich world, it will cease being Rich, because the corporate government would change the way the world's inhabitants live and work. Ellipsoidal atmosphere (type E): Since the planet's center of gravity is going to be roughly at the center of all three axes of the ellipsoid, there will probably be lower pressure at the ends of the ellipse than at the equator (I'm assuming that the planet is elongated from pole to pole; anyone who knows more about planetary evolution want to confirm or deny that that's the most likely situation?). [I believe the Earth bulges the other way i.e. is fattest at the equator.] Just how significant those differences would be would depend on the size of the planet. It would affect the hydrosphere, too. There probably wouldn't be a whole lot in the way of equatorial landmasses. [Or polar land-masses, depending...] Population level: It can be assumed that the UWP population code refers to the major species (singular or plural) on the given world. e.g. UWP0 or 0-9 people might mean only a research team of 0-9 humans, Vargr, Aslan, etc., but the rest of the world might be swarming with low intelligence life. However, once the natives reach a level of technology or intelligence whereby they can interact on a near-equal level with the visiting starfarers, they are then added into the UWP pop code. On certain worlds, prejudice against native life (regarding even intelligent creatures as no more than slaves -- c.f. Research Station Gamma's Chirpers) means that although they might normally qualify for inclusion in the UWP, in some cases they are ignored. Similarly, a UWP 0 world might have a plethora of intelligent life, but perhaps the initial scout survey didn't realise the life was sufficiently developed (or misjudged the intelligence) and thus the world's UWP of 0. Since UWP 0 tends to occur for smaller planets with vacuum, thin or tainted atmospheres, the life on such planets might well be non-standard and confuse the survey team's initial analysis. Alternatively you can just leave a pop 0 world barren. Another possibility is that the population figure does not include transients. Thus, where you have a naval base or a large itinerant labour base this will not be accounted for in the population figures. This is supported by the existence of worlds with a class A starport, a Naval base and a total population of 8 (UWP code 0, pop modifier 8). Obviously 8 people cannot run a starship repair facility. Typically in these cases the starport is orbital only with a class E on the surface, and the people who run the starport are not included in the count. While armed forces bases are usually considered "transient" populations, when a government allocates resources based on population, the base is figured into the calculations - because the base is not self-contained, and has an impact on local services. [However, this probably doesn't apply in the case of a very low-tech/low-population world, which would require a base to be self-sufficient.] Tech level: On possibility is to assume the Tech Level is the level of technology that a particular planet can *produce*. Obviously a Tech Level 3 society on an airless world still needs to have domes/air-management systems. However they may be incapable of producing them for themselves. Thus they have to import them. This is perfectly reasonable, as long as they have some means of payment for the goods. The problem with this understanding is that it neglects to mention that most low tech worlds won't manufacture much, since pretty well everything can be made and imported more cheaply. [However, in order for interstellar trade to function, there must be something low-tech worlds can export -- minimally pre-processed raw materials would be my guess, with the pre-processing to reduce shipment bulk and thus transport costs.] The question is really whether this inability because of (a) the local level of technical knowledge, (b) a strict lack of physical infrastructure, or (c) economic nonviability? I'd call (a) a case of "hard" tech level; (b) and (c) different kinds of "soft" tech levels. Practically, it doesn't make a difference - but a TL 3 society on an airless world would almost certainly direct economic development toward being able to supply the bare minimum needed to keep the planet going - food, air and water management, and dome construction and maintenance. That way, there's a bare chance of surviving another Long Night... ------------------------------ Unusual UWPs Explained By [email removed] [email removed] (james vassilakos) Mark Clark [email removed] Les Howie [email removed] [email removed] (Ethan Henry) [email removed] (STEVEN M BONNEVILLE) [email removed] (Rob Miracle) [There are two schools of thought on this issue: either to produce more `reasonable' UWPs or to explain what UWPs already exist. Ethan Henry writes:] I think the idea behind the original rules is that the only thing the players care about (on first glance) is the starport. The rules are set up to give a certain distribution of starports of different grades. This then needs a way to justify why there's a type A starport there. It's ass-backwards, I agree, but in the Traveller universe, there's a lot of room for slightly illogical worlds. Why are there 20 million people on a planet with a crappy atmosphere? Maybe there was a population explosion during the Long Night and the people have adjusted to that level of population without amazing technology. Maybe locals have adapted to be a lot less bothered by the conditions. Maybe the locals go on to become great endurance runners on other worlds with denser atmospheres. Why are there only 20 people on the corporate-owned earth-like world? Maybe no one wants people to go there. Maybe there's a disease fatal to human life on the world. Maybe there's an Ancient site. I think even the stupidest UPP (UWP, whatever) can be justified by a good ref with a little imagination. For me, that's part of the appeal of Traveller. [End quote] There are some objections to the use of aliens (more specifically, non-humans, since people from Earth are aliens in Traveller) to explain odd UWPs, on the grounds that this adds complexity to a description of the overall working of the Imperium. The population distribution of the Imperium will be unaffected by these explanations, since the vast majority of the population of any Sector is concentrated on a few high population worlds, which one can (if desired) assume to be populated primarily by humans. In any case, Vargr and Aslan space have non-zero populations, which strongly implies that population applies to the number of sentients. As to aliens within the Imperium operating on starships, they probably build and run their own as local reserve fleets or system defense boats, if they have the tech level, and leave the serious fighting to Humaniti. Finally, the Imperium does not interest itself in the internal affairs of member worlds as long as they pay their taxes. Aliens would fit right in with all those wacky human governments if they ran their planets in a hostile and odd fashion. [It is more or less stated in the Traveller Adventure that human cultures can be as bizzare as alien ones, which implies that both can and do exist.] > Pixie/Regina A100103-D Paya/Aramis A655241-9 Pixie can be thought of as a world which is essentially all naval base. The only people there are (with a handful of exceptions) Navy personnel, their dependents, and civilian contractors. The shipyard facilities are all run by transients --- the entire population of the world is transient (and therefore, there were only a handful of "inhabitants" when the world was surveyed). There are tens of thousands of people there, almost all of whom will be gone in dwo to four years (to be replaced with a new batch). The civilian contractors there run shipyards, and will use spare capacity for non-navy shipbuilding (thus the Class A starport rating). Sonthert/Lanth: #PlanetName Loc. UPP Code B Notes Z PBG Al. #---------- ---- --------- - --------------- - --- -- Sonthert 1918 X6266AB-3 Ni R 314 Im Here we have a couple million folks making a living with their 19th century technology, and look what they have to breathe: a very thin (and tainted) atmosphere -- for all intents and purposes, a vacuum. They can get by with combination respirators/filtermasks, sure, but all two million of them? At TL 4? Think about it: "Don't go outside, son. Yer might have to breathe or somethin'." At least TAS had the sense to classify it as a red zone (don't go there if you're addicted to oxygen). Since this is a red zone system, one explanation is easy -- a developing society of aliens with big lungs and a taste for sulfur. Under the protective eye of the Scout Service, they're being prepared for contact with the Imperium sometime in the future. Alternatively, the rabid survivors of a war-devestated higher-tech society cower in the ruins of their bunkers, and shoot at anything that moves. Another idea is that the taint in Sonthert's atmosphere is the result of using Victorian (TL 4) industrial technology for too long in a row. The 2 million inhabitants would be a pitiful remnant of a far larger population at the edge of wiping itself out through pollution, doubtless due to some deficiency of natural resource or culture (note the X starport) preventing them from taking advantage of importable technology or progressing themselves. La'Belle/Lanth: #PlanetName Loc. UPP Code B Notes Z PBG Al. #---------- ---- --------- - --------------- - --- -- La'Belle 2416 C564112-4 Lo Ni 701 Im Primal atmosphere -- standard, untainted. And yet the population is a whopping seventy people. The planet is corporate owned, but why waste a virtual paradise (at least compared to Sonthert) on seventy corporate execs? Sure, there's an explanation... the corporate paradise. The wooing ground for potential investors. Perhaps it's just one big golf course. You tee-off from orbit. Given the value of the world to would-be colonists, it must've been expensive for a corporation to buy for golf... Not only does this world go against intuition and common sense, it goes against the principle of greed, the fundamental root of human nature. One possible reason for the low population is an unpleasant climate, or nasty climate shifts. (Is it a two star system? That'd be a reason.) Local life might be too much of a problem to deal with. (Imagine a jungle planet, with swamps full of voracious predators) But there might be something useful there because of this; hence the corporate presence. At TL 4 it's likely to be a raw material resource which is being exploited, so local production need not be very sophisticated, and imports at the company store or local entrepreneurs with scrounged equipment are the peak of technological advancement. An unexploited corporate-owned is probably being held in reserve for later exploitation and/or is still in the process of being explored. Since the company wants to make some return on its investment in a planet in the meantime, we could assume the seventy residents are the permanent staff of an eco-tourism operation. "Come vacation on scenic La'Belle and see nature in its pure form. Our J3 luxury liners from Rhylanor and Porozlo will whisk you there in style and comfort." ------------------------------ Chlorine atmospheres By [email removed] (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) You can use chlorine instead of oxygen as the oxidizer in the atmosphere. There will still be fire, and a technical civilization could develop. Positing a chlorine breathing life-form, we get: a) green skies. very cool special effect. b) a rather complex biochemistry. Chlorine can only bind to one other atom compared to oxygen, which can bind to two. This suggests that we need some other atom to make the complex molecules of life possible. How about phosphorous? The Kloro "carbohydrates" could consist of carbon chains that branch where P atoms connect, and the exact conformation dictated by the presence of chlorine atoms instead of hydrogen. Or maybe they'd use basically earth style organic compounds, since you can get oxygen and hydrogen by dissociating water. I dunno, and it's not terribly important, unless one of the characters is a biochemist. Points to consider (off the top of my head): Water: I believe water should be stable in the presence of chlorine, but since their electronegativities (how well they grab electrons from other atoms) are so close, it becomes likely that the equilibrium between the seas and the atmosphere would lead to lots of HCl or HOCl in the sea -- acidic oceans! Nifty. I can see a lot of chemical engineering possibilities there. Perhaps instead of an industrial revolution they have a chemical revolution -- with the coastal states (already wealthy because of sea trade) funding chemical research and becoming the super dominant powers. LOTS of sociological implications, even if you assume a basically human style psychology (but it's more fun if you don't :-) [You certainly would get acidic, oxidising seas of aqueous HCl and HOCl.] Metal distribution: The geology of ore deposits is heavily affected by the atmospheric composition. There's a lot of iron ore (low-grade, but so what?) on Earth because iron oxide is more or less insoluble -- I think. Go to the library and compare the solubilities of oxides and chlorides of metals to see which metals the Kloros are likely to use. This is a very rough first approximation, since there are all sorts of other factors, but for most purposes (up to and including a full-length novel) it should be sufficient. Another factor is that almost all water on Kloro is going to be acidic -- this is another factor in the metal distributions. Competition with Earth (happy answer): They and we shouldn't. The other side's atmosphere is completely toxic and corrosive, and a general pain to deal with. Why try to kill each other when ignoring the other is so much easier. It is entirely possible for the two interstellar states to inhabit the same volume of space because we *can't* use the other sides' worlds. Competition with Earth (unhappy answer): We will. All it takes is for a few individuals on either side to be stupid, and you can have all out interstellar war -- especially stupid since it's a completely pointless and futile effort. But hey, that's life. Neel (Whew! I didn't realize I had that much verbiage in me. The Kloros are *definitely* going in my next SF campaign -- they're too cool to ignore.)
The text is wider than a small screen. Scroll the box sideways, or focus it and use the arrow keys.