Jim Vassilakos writes:
> Maybe I'm confused about the definition. I mean, earth is ice-
> capped (last I checked), but we don't fit under the requirements
> for this trade code. So what is the significance of a world being
> ice-capped?
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.
> (In) Industrial
> def: economy based on mass-production of manufactured goods.
> reqs: atmos 2,3,4,7,9, pop 9+
>
> I know this one goes back to classic traveller, but I've always
> had a problem with it. Considering the extent of robotics and
> mechanized labor at high tech levels, I'm not sure this high a
> population requirement is really necessary. Furthermore,
> considering the extent of (clean) fusion at advanced tech levels,
> I'm not sure that the atmospheres of such worlds would be so
> heavily tainted (I guess they assume there are some negative
> atmospheric by-products of mass production other than smog).
There are lots of TL-5 to TL-8 Industrial worlds in the Imperium; the
benefits of robotics and fusion reactors are not going to be felt here.
On a more general theme, power generation is not the only kind of
industrial pollutant; most chemical and manufacturing processes have
nasty by-products. Although this is only one data point, most
industrial nations here on Earth currently have a problem with the
pollution of the environment with industrial wastes.
I can't really believe in entirely mechanised shipyards, nor can I
support the idea of a world populated by a couple of thousand humans and
several million robots all turning out goods at an enormous rate. If
one assumes that interstellar trade is a fraction of the Imperial
economy, then the most important factor in setting up an industrial
world is the presence of a strong local market. Which will require
millions of consumers, hence the population requirement.
> (Ri) Rich
> def: your guess is as good as mine
> reqs: atmos 6,8, pop 6-8, gov 4-9
>
> So in other worlds, if a corporation suddenly takes over a rich
> world, then that world is no longer a rich world. Makes
> absolutely no sense to me. Maybe the governmental requirement
> should be axed.
No, 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 worlds' inhabitants live
and work.
> Re: Star types
> It is interesting to note that Space Master (unlike Traveller and
> GURPS), includes two other spectral classes (S and N), which are
> placed below M (dim red) on the classification scheme. Actually,
> to the best of my understanding, there are 10 spectral classes:
> O, B, A, F, G, K, M, R, N, and S. They originated out of Ann
> Cannon's work at Harvard (who originally used all the letters
> between A and S). Later studies cut the spectral classes down to
> these ten letters (of which Traveller mentions only the first
> seven).
As I understand it, the spectral classes in current use are:
O - B - A - F - G - K - M - N
\ \
R - S
People who know more about astronomy are free to correct me (this is
certainly not my area of expertise; I'm doing this from memory of a
conversation I had with an Astronomy prof I used to now). Anyway, as I
understand it, R and S are "carbon" stars (they have carbon lines in
their spectra) and are quite rare, the R being a "carbon version" of the
M, and S is the "carbon version" of N.
I have star generation tables (created from some of this information,
and put together long before Book 6 was ever published) which can
generate almost any type of star at approximately the correct
frequencies. They are two D100 tables, though; if there is interest, I
will post them (let me know).
Class O, N, R, and S stars, as well as the size Ia and Ib supergiants,
are fairly rare, which is probably why Traveller ignores them. If you
want, you can sprinkle these around, at about one or two per sector.
> GURPS Space (when it comes to world-generation) seems to be
> deliberately cognizant of Classic Traveller, its forerunner.
> Since this isn't rec.games.frp.advocacy, however, I'd better can
> the discussion of the other games right here.
Let's put it this way: if T;TNE turns out to be a complete dog, then
I'll go over to GURPS for my SF role-playing ...
> My basic quip about the Traveller rules (with respect to this
> topic) is that by relying so heavily on a d6 scheme of things,
> GDW seems to be ignoring several important star types and is
> probably fudging on the probabilities of those stellar
> occurrences which are covered in the rules.
Traveller and MegaTraveller were firmly D6 games; fudging on the
probabilities in order to get the thing to fit in a D6 roll is
reasonable; complete accuracy in stellar types is not required. If the
referee or players know enough to be aware of the problem, they can fix
it by tweaking the results. This seems to be a philosophy behind many
parts of the Traveller/MegaTraveller world generation system.
> I have it on decent authority
> that the *majority* of star systems out there have one or more
> companion stars to their primary.
As I understand it, about half of the star systems out there are
multiple (binary or more), which means that more than half of the stars
are part of a multiple star system. Most multiple star systems will
contain stars that were "born" at approximately the same time from the
same cloud of dust and gas. As a matter of fact, stars should be born
in groups and clusters this way, so that nearby stars are about the same
age.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future