A thread of 3 messages, 25 February 1991 to 1 March 1991, in the order they were sent.
I also run a non-Imperium Traveller. I was quite surprised at the
number of people who do/did. Anyhow, I have another question.
Traveller, as published, is two dimensional. Space, at least on a
stellar scale, has no depth. You've got rimward, coreward, spinward and
trailing but no above or below. No rationalisation. No explination. Does anyone
out there run Traveller in a three dimensional universe? E.g. where sectors
are 10x10x10.
Jo Jaquinta
[email removed]In msg (2167) "3D Traveller", [email removed] (Jo Jaquinta) writes: > > Traveller, as published, is two dimensional. Space, at least on a > stellar scale, has no depth. You've got rimward, coreward, spinward > and trailing but no above or below. No rationalisation. No > explination. Does anyone out there run Traveller in a three > dimensional universe? E.g. where sectors are 10x10x10. > I have always wanted to play Traveller with 3D star maps. This is something which has always bothered me about the standard subsector maps. I suspect GDW kept things 2D for simplicity, but I always thought this might make things more interesting, especially in border areas. I suggest you add this as an option to sysgen5 (or whatever the next version is). The key thing to keep in mind is to maintain the average 3D interstellar distances close to that of the 2D game. Otherwise, game balance as far as jump drives go might be thrown off. (BTW, does any one know what the actual stellar density is in the various parts of the galaxy?) - - -ted Ted Kim Internet: [email removed] UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek [address removed] FAX: [phone removed]
>I suggest you add this as an option to sysgen5 (or whatever the next >version is). *Every* release of sysgen has been three dimensional! Sysgen 5 is to extend mapping to roads and city plans. I have had absolutely zero feedback on it though and won't bother posting any more updates. I use it extensively to run my own (3D) campaign. Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 13:02:03 GMT Sender: [email removed] >but I always thought this might make things more interesting, especially >in border areas. Borders are difficult to define, impossible to defend. Fleets have to operate like packs. >The key thing to keep in mind is to maintain the average >3D interstellar distances close to that of the 2D game. Otherwise, >game balance as far as jump drives go might be thrown off. It is impossible to keep the average the same. Since the number of systems increases by r^3 in 3D and r^2 in 2D, if you have the same density at jump-1 it will be off for jump-2, etc. The main difference I have found is the universe is so LARGE. In a 10x10x10 "subsector" there are several hundred stars. With a jump-2 ship, say, an amazing number of different stars can be reached in just a few jumps. This is why sysgen (and Computer-Aided-Traveller) is a necessity for me. "Game balance" is a laughable concept. Any system of rules, no matter what they are, will reach a point of equilibrium. If the referee correctly understands what that point is and creates the initial position of the universe accordingly you will have balance. Otherwise as events proceed the universe will drift toward that point. >I can see why GDW did not make it 3d. [associated problems]... It could have at least been rationalised. E.g. that jump drives only work along planes paralell to the galactic plane. Thus several planes (paralell universes?) might exist in our single galaxy only reachable by slow-ships (or perhaps misjumps). Endless possibilitys. Perhaps TDR would like to include this concept. That way everyone's favourite non-Imperial traveller can co-exist! Jo Jaquinta [email removed]