OTU Only: T5SS Semi-Official Thread

[DonM]

So with Marc's permission (which I had a few months ago but then got into some medical issues, and then got sidetracked running a gaming convention)...

The T5SS (T5 Second Survey) is an effort driven by Marc Miller to stabilize, correct, and control the UWPs of the OTU so that there's a solid canon base of data for future reference.

To support the Kickstarter and Mongoose's 1105 efforts, the first task was to stabilize all data across every sector with an Imperial world in it on the 1105 data. This data was then given to Joshua Bell of travellermap.com to make publicly available, and used by Marc to distribute various noble titles related to the T5 Kickstarter.

We're about to start phase 2 of this effort, but before that starts, I wanted to have a public review of the current 1105 dataset (as represented out at travellermap.com) for all sectors with at least one Imperial world, and Gvurrdon and Ziafrplians sectors. For GT fans: I do have GURPS Traveller compatible versions of the data; perhaps I can discuss with Loren getting that material up on JTAS...

Remember that some discrepancies may be:

1. We deliberately changed something. We did change a bunch of TLs. Some world sizes got increased. Regina's far star companion was changed from an M6V to an M3V. There are quite a number of changes like this.

2. I messed something up. The successes I share with those who helped, but I'll take full responsibility for the mistakes.

So, if there's a change you want, or you have an issue with a change at travellermap.com, here's your chance to bring out the pitchforks. But really, I'm looking for mistakes and inconsistencies we missed, not arguments over why changes were made.

One important caveat: If it is on travellermap.com, and appears in published current FFE licensee product, the odds of it changing are low (the previously mentioned Deneb Sector being one of those).

Ok. Asbestos suit on.

 

[rancke]

I have several questions and comments.

1) What is the figure that the population level and population multiplier pertain to? The population of the mainworld alone or the population of the entire system? The old definition says mainworld only, but all the rules that employ the population as a factor (e.g. trade rules, GWP calculations) appear to be based on the assumption that it's the entire population.

1a) Does the population numbers pertain to permanent residents only or to residents and steady transients both? Note that the same problem as above applies if transients are not included: trade rules, GWPs, etc. ought to be based on the actual economy, not just the part of the economy run by residents. Also, there are numerous examples of worlds that explicitly are mostly or totally peopled by transients. Indeed, almost every low-population world (there are some conceivable exceptions) would be composed exclusively or almost exclusively of transients.

1b) If it's the mainworld only, can the population of the secondary worlds equal or even surpass the population of the mainworld (there are canonical examples of both kinds of systems).


2) A number of world writeups describe worlds with governments that are appointed from outside yet do not have a type 6 government rating. Would those count as errors?

2a) Almost every low-population world that hasn't been written up yet would be an outpost with its government appointed or at the very least supervised from outside. Mining outpost, scientific outpost, trade outpost, military outpost. Should all of them (or perhaps 5/6 or 35/36 of them) be converted to govvernent type 6?


3) A number of worlds (those outposts again) do not have the population to manufacture the goods and equipment that they use. Should their tech levels all be converted to 0 (maximum sustainable technology if cut off from the universe) or should the definition of tech level be changed to something like "The level of technology used by a sizable majority of the population"?


4) Imperial depots are described as naval intallations with large ship repair capacity, restricted access, and cutting edge technology (I'm paraphrasing). This fits very poorly with some of the canonical depots. Should most (all?¹) Imperial depots be changed to starport X (no service available for civilians), populations in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions (all transients), tech level 15 or even 16, and redzoned?

¹ There could be exceptions to the standard.​

Hans

 

[Dagrill]

4) Imperial depots are described as naval intallations with large ship repair capacity, restricted access, and cutting edge technology (I'm paraphrasing). This fits very poorly with some of the canonical depots. Should most (all?¹) Imperial depots be changed to starport X (no service available for civilians), populations in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions (all transients), tech level 15 or even 16, and redzoned?
Hans

Hi Don,

Can I second Hans on this, that all Depot's need to be looked at. Deneb's depot is on an X-boat route, which implies public access, I would have thought amber zone at a minimum and I guess you have been looking at the debate on Corridor's depot.

On my old Spinward Marches map, Tondoul is TL4, it seems to have jumped to TL7, but I'm not convinced TL7 is adequate to survive on the world, I think Saxe also in 5 Sister's didn't quite work either.

Kind Regards

David

 

[tjoneslo]

I have several questions and comments.

2) A number of world writeups describe worlds with governments that are appointed from outside yet do not have a type 6 government rating. Would those count as errors?

2a) Almost every low-population world that hasn't been written up yet would be an outpost with its government appointed or at the very least supervised from outside. Mining outpost, scientific outpost, trade outpost, military outpost. Should all of them (or perhaps 5/6 or 35/36 of them) be converted to government type 6?

I would disagree with assessment of converting all or many of the low population worlds to government type 6. According to statistics, there are 1152 low population systems, about 13%. I think we can leave these worlds as independent (i.e. with government types other than 6) by making it clearer about how much control the owing world needs to exert before the local government.

My other argument is some of the defined outposts (mining outpost, trade outpost) are government type 1 (corporate control) and if you're going to redefine the low population world governments based upon writeups, this should be a strong consideration as well.

 

[rancke]

I would disagree with assessment of converting all or many of the low population worlds to government type 6. According to statistics, there are 1152 low population systems, about 13%. I think we can leave these worlds as independent (i.e. with government types other than 6) by making it clearer about how much control the owing world needs to exert before the local government.

I'm not exactly happy about the prospect of a wholesale conversion of outpost governments to type 6, but it does have the merit of being logical and of avoiding the need for some very tortuous and unconvincing explanations. The definition of type 6 government is pretty unambiguous, and an outpost¹ doesn't usually have representative democracies or civil service bureaucracies or boards of directors or oligarchies or direct democracies (though the last two are a tad more likely if the owners are inclined to give their employees some say in how the company is run²). They mostly have autocracies appointed from outside.

¹ Incipient colonies are a different matter, but most low-population worlds are outposts. Logically low-population colonies wouldn't usually stay low-population for long; they'd either grow or fail.

² And how often does that happen?​

My other argument is some of the defined outposts (mining outpost, trade outpost) are government type 1 (corporate control) and if you're going to redefine the low population world governments based upon writeups, this should be a strong consideration as well.

Worlds under corporate control is my go-to example for misunderstood government types. Look at what is probably the best known example of a company-owned world in literature, Beam Piper's Zarathustra. Zarathustra isn't run by a board of directors elected by stockholders living on Zarathustra. It's run by a manager appointed by a board of director elected by stockholders living on far-off Earth.

A world owned by an offworld company could be organized as a subsidiary company and given a great deal of autonomy, even enough to avoid the type 6 classification, but I don't think that's going to be the typical company world.

A more reasonable source of type 1 governments would be worlds where the settlers organized themselves as a company. I used that in my writeup of Forboldn.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

2a) Almost every low-population world that hasn't been written up yet would be an outpost with its government appointed or at the very least supervised from outside. Mining outpost, scientific outpost, trade outpost, military outpost. Should all of them (or perhaps 5/6 or 35/36 of them) be converted to govvernent type 6?

IMHO gov type 1 would also fit it (assuming the outside force is a corporation istead of another government). Maybe those 5/6 or 35/36 worlds you talk about should be split among government types 1 and 6.

4) Imperial depots are described as naval intallations with large ship repair capacity, restricted access, and cutting edge technology (I'm paraphrasing). This fits very poorly with some of the canonical depots. Should most (all?¹) Imperial depots be changed to starport X (no service available for civilians), populations in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions (all transients), tech level 15 or even 16, and redzoned?

Of course, this depends on how UWP are read (and I know we don't always interpret them the same way), but IMHO all of them should have starport A, but be qualified as red zones (able to care for any ship, but interdicted because by the Navy for seccurity reasons). Also, all of them should have governemnt type 6 (military, in this case Navy, control).

I fully agree with you about TL, as is stated most naval research, tests and new designs is conducted there.

 

[rancke]

IMHO gov type 1 would also fit it (assuming the outside force is a corporation istead of another government). Maybe those 5/6 or 35/36 worlds you talk about should be split among government types 1 and 6.

What's the difference between a government appointed from the outside by a corporation and a government appointed from the outside by any other kind of authority?

Of course, this depends on how UWP are read (and I know we don't always interpret them the same way)...

Which is one reason why I bring it up: The hope that the people who have the authority to clarify or even revise how UWPs should be read (e.g. Marc Miller) will clarify how UWPs should be read for us.

... but IMHO all of them should have starport A, but be qualified as red zones (able to care for any ship, but interdicted because by the Navy for seccurity reasons).

That's a point that has been in dire need of clarification since 1979. According to HG, planetary governments can build ships using local resources even if their starport is not class A. Which means that contrary to what TCS says, a world does not need to have a class A starport in order to be able to build starships.

So what IS the difference between a world with a Class A starport and a world with a Class E starport that builds its own starships? Unless you have a very singular definition of just what a shipyard is, it's not that the first has a shipyard and the second doesn't; it seems to me that if you can build ships, you have a shipyard.

I submit that the difference is that in order for the Scouts to award your starport a class A rating, your starport has to provide certain services to the general public: The ability to order a ship built for you, the availability of repairs and annual maintenance, availability of refined fuel. If the local shipyards (being strictly reserved for the local military), do not offer those services, the starport doesn't get its class A rating. If the starport does not allow a civilian starship to visit routinely, it doesn't even get a class E rating.

And that's my opinion.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

What's the difference between a government appointed from the outside by a corporation and a government appointed from the outside by any other kind of authority?

Aside from the number in the pop digit :devil:?

I'd expect a more military control on a gov 6 planet and a more economic control on a gov 1 planet. Also, probably a gov 1 planet would have more transient population (temporary workers) than a gov 6 planet (as they are full time inhabitants, just ruled from outside).

Which is one reason why I bring it up: The hope that the people who have the authority to clarify or even revise how UWPs should be read (e.g. Marc Miller) will clarify how UWPs should be read for us.

Agreed here, but this will also limit the referee´s capacity for free imagination and interpretation...

That's a point that has been in dire need of clarification since 1979. According to HG, planetary governments can build ships using local resources even if their starport is not class A. Which means that contrary to what TCS says, a world does not need to have a class A starport in order to be able to build starships.

So what IS the difference between a world with a Class A starport and a world with a Class E starport that builds its own starships? Unless you have a very singular definition of just what a shipyard is, it's not that the first has a shipyard and the second doesn't; it seems to me that if you can build ships, you have a shipyard.

I submit that the difference is that in order for the Scouts to award your starport a class A rating, your starport has to provide certain services to the general public: The ability to order a ship built for you, the availability of repairs and annual maintenance, availability of refined fuel. If the local shipyards (being strictly reserved for the local military), do not offer those services, the starport doesn't get its class A rating. If the starport does not allow a civilian starship to visit routinely, it doesn't even get a class E rating.

Another difference would be the availability of refined fuel (or fuel at all), as in an A rated straport you can have refined fuel, and in an E one you'll hae to skimm for unrefined one.

About the accessibility for the facilities of the A rated starport, the fact they are red zone restricts it enough (IMHO), but can allow you under close Navy surveilance (another difference from an X rated one).

And last (but not least) another difference would be if you use the data for a wargame (instead of a RPG) or a game where players are high rating officers, with full access to military only facilities.

And that's my opinion.

And that's mine , and the fact taht they difere is what makes this board so interesting.

EDIT: I understand at least we agree government type should be fixed at 6 (Navy control) in depots... END EDIT

 

[savage]

DonM

First, this is great news. Thanks for opening this thread! I'd suggest a list of approved transactions to the TSSS somewhere for everyone to review. Perhaps, a list we can refer to on the travellermap.com, here on COTI or your web page.

I can make the Depot UWP work, as is, since it only refers to the mainworld. But if everyone would prefer the a minimum population in the tens of millions or above is fine. I would agree with a TLF and Class A starport as well.

Depot worlds need to be a restricted travel zone. I think Amber is more appropriate. Or perhaps a special military color, Purple, should be created and assigned. For example, if the 5th Frontier War starts the military would mark certain zone as War Zones not just Red Zones which have multiple meanings. Just a thought.

I have been a proponent of breaking Depot's into a couple categories which might impact some UWP changes. I 've started discussions with Marc and it's on my list to discuss but discussions are off to a slow start.

For 3I, Corridor Depot on the T5 trading cards and previous publications is listed at TL F. At the least, that needs to be adjusted.

IMO, Worlds with the population in the Billions need to be Industrial, and Agricutural to sustain the population.
IMO, Any rule that mainworlds need to be the highest population in the star system needs to be abolished as non-canon. It simply won't make sense.

 

[whulorigan]

Stellar Data

A few discrepancies from earlier published canon * :

* - I understand that some of these may be deliberate canonical changes, but I will include them just in case they are oversights.

​

Vland/Vland1717 (Vilani Homeworld) ==>

T5SS stellar data lists K8V star
DGP Vilani & Vargr stellar data lists F8V Star
​

Muan Gwi/SolomaniRim1717 (Vegan Homeworld) ==>

T5SS stellar data lists F2V star
CT:LD (N-Z) notes that Muan Gwi orbits a dim red dwarf star
​

Dingir/SolomaniRim1222 ==>

T5SS stellar data lists a K3V M5V M2V trinary star system
Though I cannot for the life of me find the reference (I am sure it is a CT reference), I know that somewhere it is mentioned that Dingir orbits the star Sigma Draconis, which is a K0V solitary star.
​

Gashidda/SolomaniRim1127 ==>

T5SS stellar data lists G8IV
CT: AM6 Solomani lists this as the Epsilon Ceti system, which is an F5V F5V binary
​

Meshan/SolomaniRim1526 ==>

T5SS stellar data lists K5V M1D M6D
CT: AM6 Solomani lists this as the Epsilon Indi system, which is a K5V T1V T6V system (the last two are Brown Dwarfs). Since T5 now has an officical notation for Brown Dwarfs, it ought to be "K5V BD BD"​

Also, a discrepancy that is currently on TravellerMap that has not been updated with T5SS data yet, but should be noted for the future when it is done:

Kusyu/DarkNebula1919 (Aslan Homeworld)==>

TravellerMap currently lists the stellar data as a M1V M9D binary
DGP Solomani & Aslan stellar data lists the stellar data as a "G4V DA" binary (which should be "G4V AD" under T5)

(And I am also assuming that DarkNebula1919 is the final word on the official location of Kusyu? )​

 

[whulorigan]

Stellar Data (continued)

Reference from T5 Web Apps Thread (Post #246 onward)):

[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Inconsistent data found by inexorabletash in T5SS Data ([/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]T5 Web Apps [FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Post #257):[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]

Now the pesky ones:
[/FONT]
* Only 1 VI star (Hentor)
* Only 2 MD stars (both in the Spinward Marches)
* 13 M#D stars, most in Hinterworlds or Solomani Rim
* 2 K#D, 2 A#D, 1 F#D
* No AD, FD, GD, or KD.
* One BD star (Claverse)
* 55 WD stars
* Only 1 D star - i.e. only D, nothing else (Luuru)

* 5 RD (?!?) - that's a new one![/FONT]

White Dwarf-type stars need to have a consistent notation. According to the T5 ruleset, white dwarfs should be OD, BD¹, AD, FD, GD, KD, MD² (with no decimal number).

¹ - Note that there is a confusion issue here, as Brown Dwarf type stars are given the specific notation "BD" which is also used as a notation in the White Dwarf list here. "BD" is therefore ambiguous in T5.
² - Note that in the real world there are no "M-type" dwarfs; nevertheless, the T5 ruleset does generate them.
​

The stars in the current version of the T5SS labelled just "D" are probably leagcy from GURPS Traveller, which used only a "D" for White Dwarf.

The "WD" notation for White Dwarf is new (AFAIK): I have never seen it before in Traveller. Mind you, I think it is perfectly fine to use this code for all White Dwarfs, it is just that the T5 ruleset does not generate this code.

The "RD" notation I am guessing was someone typing fast and thinking "Red Dwarf", perhaps . . . (?)

 

[rancke]

(And I am also assuming that DarkNebula1919 is the final word on the official location of Kusyu? )

I sincerely hope not. There are huge consistency problems with 1919 as the location for Kuzu (Imperial spelling ). It is also contrary to the first published information about its location, but that's less of a problem.

As for the problems I allude to, I've posted them at least once on these forums, so this time I'll just link to a place where I've set forth the various existing information: Kuzu/meta.

FYI, the correct¹ location for Kuzu is Dark Nebula 1226.

¹ That's 'correct' as in 'makes the most sense', not 'correct' as in 'what TPTB says'. ​

As I said, I brought this up a while back. At that time Don told us that Dark Nebula hadn't been given the T5 treatment yet, so he couldn't say anything one way or the other.


Hans

 

[savage]

x-boat trails to no where

Certain x-boat lines need to be revisited.

1. Strand (Strand/Corridor) to Naadi should link up for faster communications to the rimward Deneb sector.
2. Niika (Corridor) to Gaazum (Vland) could link up. If A ports must have x-boat lines. Otherwise they could stop at Gaaszum
3. Capital (Core) to Vland (Vland) is a mess. Major Domain capitals should have somewhat direct links via the x-boat system.

I am sure there are more of these...

 

[fridge]

Certain x-boat lines ...

I suspect this is part of the second phase, same as any ownership codes (O:xxxx), but worth noting any existing problems to be fixed or sources to be considered.

For every system the T5SS team looked at every published source available including hunting down those we knew existed but did not have. This included official publications and fanon. We then had to reconcile often opposite "facts" and work out the best way forward. Having numerous facts about a system that contradicted each other certainly revealed the need for such a project. And I am sure we missed some of those "facts" in some publications we don't know exist, and some of the choices made need peer review/final decisions from Marc. We also tried to put a wash of science through the random UWPs eg upping sizes to support atmospheres etc and for some sectors the random number generator had clearly been stuck in a rut.

It has only taken us five years to get this far!

 

[inexorabletash]

Also, a discrepancy that is currently on TravellerMap that has not been updated with T5SS data yet, but should be noted for the future when it is done:

There's quite a bit of this cleanup that will need to be done for legacy sectors not yet revisited for T5SS (Dark Nebula, Mendan, Ealiyasiyw, Riftspan Reaches, Gateway, Crucis Margin). We should probably track that elsewhere - shared google spreadsheet, trello board, any preferences?

 

[inexorabletash]

Certain x-boat lines need to be revisited.

Routes did NOT get T5SS cleanup - yet. They do affect gameplay and DonM has made some corrections, so IMHO issues should be posted here.

On the other hand, borders are really just for display. Send any border glitches on TM my way.

 

[whulorigan]

There's quite a bit of this cleanup that will need to be done for legacy sectors not yet revisited for T5SS (Dark Nebula, Mendan, Ealiyasiyw, Riftspan Reaches, Gateway, Crucis Margin). We should probably track that elsewhere - shared google spreadsheet, trello board, any preferences?

I have never used Trello (but I would be willing to learn if it is not overly complicated). Google Spredasheet ought to work fine.

Perhpas other posters will have different preferences and/or other ideas?

 

[savage]

Routes did NOT get T5SS cleanup - yet. They do affect gameplay and DonM has made some corrections, so IMHO issues should be posted here.

On the other hand, borders are really just for display. Send any border glitches on TM my way.

I'm bringing up a Canon issue for Marc/DonM to discuss. I would hope we maintain an open thread for any concerns.

There prioritization is purely up to them.

 

[DonM]

Ok, first the imposition of the inevitable ground rules. This isn't a democracy, and we're not putting potential changes up for votes. That being said, I'll review those items that were posted here, and the data list previously posted in the T5 web apps thread is already on the list.

Depots are on the list to be reviewed as well. I personally like the idea of making them all Amber Zones, but we'll see.

The stellar data has always been in need of a second review; the WD/BD/RD notes were largely placeholders (the T5 draft was "in flux" at that point). I'm really wanting to use an expression method similar to what Martin & Company did with the stellar data for 1248.

Xboat lines need to be revisited in light of T5's Importance factor. Joshua Bell and I did some work in this area, but that will be its own pass (which couldn't be done until the whole Imperium's data was available).

Government Types... there's an essay that bears on this. Let me dig it out and post it... (now attached)

Population questions... noted for Marc's review.

 

[DonM]

Now, to the cases above...

Tondoul (Spinward Marches 0739): E5136A7-7
Saxe (Spinward Marches 0231): EAA5543-8

If you have issues with that, can you give me more specifics.

Vland (Vland 1717) SHOULD have an F8V star. Sigh. See, this is why we made the data public. I've only looked at the text in V&V countless times. I actually THOUGHT it was F8V, and then looked at the master spreadsheet. Interestingly, all the data imports are K8V, so I can only imagine I messed this up extremely early, and we missed it because we all knew we'd looked at V&V...

Muan Gwi (Solomani Rim 1717) has F2V in AM6 Solomani, and that's a primary source for our purposes... Do you have another proposal?

Dingir (Solomani Rim 1222) I have NO idea where your Sigma Draconis reference comes from. I have a reference to Gliese 667, but I wouldn't consider any "known stars" comparison to the Solomani Rim anything but speculative.

Gashidda (Solomani Rim 1127): Yes, AM6 lists this as Epsilon Ceti, but review indicates that Delta Pavonis is a stronger fit. And as above, I still don't consider any comparison of "known stars" to the Solomani Rim to be anything but speculative.

Meshan (Solomani Rim 1526): This is again one of those "in flux" points. I'll definitely change K5V M1D M6D to K5V BD BD.

Kusyu ... Ok, Dark Nebula's T5SS data isn't built yet (I've got a very, very rough draft on my drive, which has been sitting while we focused on the Imperium, and made some decisions about Aslan codes for T5). But I know we discussed this exact point... and we came to the conclusion that the GURPS Traveller move was the right decision. We preferred the Kusyu spelling, but 1226 Dark Nebula is what we'll be using in the draft, for all the reasons that Hans has articulated strongly over the years.