> From: [email removed]
> You _can_ do it; I'm doing it right now for an alternate
> setting I'm toying with, though I may give up in the end
> and abstract things quite a bit. One problem is that to
> map out a subsector-sized chunk, you need to use the
> sector-sized map squares, which hurts after a little while.
> They're hard to read and work with, and harder to draw in
> the useful info (base, starport, GG presence, etc).
> It also is hard to fit a whole "subsector" (being defined
> as roughly the boundaries of one jump radius) on one
> piece of paper in any case. This really hurts more than
> the small squares do; you lose the forest for the trees
> in your flurry of pages of map.
Yes, representing a 3D start chart on paper is difficult. GDWs Near
Star Chart for 2300 was pretty nice, but it's deceptive because to
dots on the chart that are right next to each other can easily be on
opposite sides of the sphere.
One thing that popped to mind was an actual physical model -- ala
tinkertoys or maybe those smokey sausages on toothpicks (of course
that model may not survive the gaming session 8-) 8-). But, if your
area of space is small enough, a small model may be feasible, with the
sticks being color coded for length and maybe just showing popular
jump routes.
On the other side of the coin there are a couple of stat programs (the
original was something like "Mac Spin") that allow the entry of 3D
data, and then you can maipulate the "Cube of Data". You can spin it
around, flip it, whatever, on the computer screen. I'm pretty sure I
read somewhere that GDW used such a program to create the 2300 Map.
Of course, the detail is that you'll need the machine at the table.
> From: Peter H. Brenton [email removed]
>
> First of all, I agree completely, space IS Three-dimensional, and a game like
> traveller which seems at times to jump through hoops to make its rules
> conform to "reality" should really treat this subject likewise.
>
> My objection to using three-d star maps is that (without having tried it
> yet) it seems like many of the historical facts of the traveller universe
> would need to be reinterpreted. If, as Jo says, everything is closer
> together in terms of flight time, the length of time for news, cultural
> influence, disease (the Virus?) reaching other, further planets is greatly
> reduced. The likelyhood of there being a substantial rift (like that
> dividing the Domain of Deneb from the rest of the imperium) would decrease
> drastically.
Well, one could always make the Rift as "High" as it is "Long", and
you'd still have a large gap is space that takes a long time to get
around.
As far as distances and such, I guess it would depend on what approach
you take to filling this new volume. Do you take the current start
systems and compact the map, or do you keep the map as is and add
layers to it, or do you just go through each subsector and roll a
D20-10 to get the new Z coordinate of each system? That would
certainly mess up the current jump routes.
Obviously Imperial Politics etc are dramatically affected by the,
umm, astrography (?) of the Imperium. I imagine that if for some
reason the Atlantic suddenly shifted and we ended up directly
bordering Europe, our politics would change a bit too.
I think that as far as trade routes and such, about the only thing 3D
really adds to the game is VOLUME. All of a sudden you've got more and
more planets to deal with. 3D would have a large effect on a TCS
campaign, but only in the fact fleets would be more thinly cast
because they have MUCH more territory to protect. In theory, you'd
have more ships for the fleet, but most systems don't add near as much
to the treasury compared to the burden to protect them.
In essence, though, I don't think the flavor or feel of a TCS
campaign or a Trader campaign would change much. You'd still have
fleets flying around with insane communication delays, you'd still fly
your trader to the most profitable planets for your goods, and it
still takes a week to get there.
So, I question whether it's worth the headache to manage.
The only place that 3D would change the "feel" dramatically, is in
tactical space combat. But even then, all it really changes are the
approaches of the units as they engage. One-on-One...wouldn't really
matter. Two on one, well...3 points define a plane... Several on one
it may get sticky.
3D matters in Fighter Plane games because the players are smack in the
gravity well and gain advantages from being above and below, but in
deep space, where it costs the same to maneuver regardless of dZ,
there's not any real play effect I would think for small engagements.
I don't know. Call me a fuddy duddy, but 2D seems to work okay for me.
Will
([email removed])
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.