JustinInOz
SOC-12
I am running a traveller game using 3 dimensional mapping of star positions.
I have seen some discussions on the board how this causes problems with starship economics and jump distances. From these two problems, the 3 dimensionality is said to undermine the OTU. As far as I understand things, the second problem is trivial to solve but the first one is more intractable. I am not convinced that the two first ones do blow away the Third Imperium.
Going from 2 to 3 dimensions does necessitate some scaling of the jump distances. This springs from the amount of systems able to be accessed when one adds the 3rd dimension. As the jump number/distance goes up the area/volume accessible goes up. Unmodified, the change is the comparison between Jump N squared compared with Jump N cubed. I read that a person on the Boards called Thrash (or something like this) proposed some modifications to address this. I was not able to find his posts so I have had to make them myself. The subsector is 8 parsecs by 10. This has an area of 80. (Why Marc did not make it 9 parsecs by 9 with an area of 81 is a mystery to me.)
Jump 1 accesses 7 hexes, or 9% of the area of a subsector. Jump 2 accesses 19 hexes, or 24% of the subsector and so forth. To convert to the same effects for a spherical subsector you simply convert the Jump distances so that a ship with similar jump numbers has access to the same proportions of the total subsector. Here is a table I prepared earlier:
Jump-n Subsector Radius Portion
0 1% 14.4%
1 9% 27.5%
2 24% 38.4%
3 46% 48.0%
4 76% 56.7%
5 114% 64.8%
6 159% 72.4%
In my game, the subsectors have a radius of 17 light years. That is a radius a bit over 5 parsecs. They hold approximately the same number of systems as OTU subsectors. In fact, I am building the Spinward Marches.
So the Jump numbers convert as follows:
Jump-n Light Years
0 2.4
1 4.7
2 6.5
3 8.2
4 9.6
5 11.0
6 12.3
These changes will allow for the tyranny of distance and strains of communication that are central to the setting. Authority can not be centrally wielded. Jump 4 travels just short of 3 parsecs and Jump 6 only 3.8 parsecs.
As far as starship economics goes, I am assuming the problem lies in Jump-1 being the only “economically viable” jump distance capability. I am assuming this is based upon a ship with a mortgage and this ship only being paid cargo rates and not engaging in speculation. These two premises play into the need for Mains such as the “Spinward Main” I take it from this that all of the larger ships which have larger jump numbers operated by the megacorps are bought outright rather than financed. As well, they are all engaging in speculation rather than simple haulage. If this is not true, then there is a serious non sequitur in the economics of the game. Otherwise, all of the big companies would be running vast fleets of free traders, if the freetrader was the only way to make it pay. If not vast fleets, then a free trader model built in the 5k dTon class.
So where I am going to is that the Spinward Mains simply do not occur. Stars do not line up like that. They do clump. They do not form long strings. The free traders will end up working over groups of 5 to 10 worlds. I do not see this as undermining the OTU.
If it is absolutely critical to go a jump 4 to get somewhere new, there is the possibility of putting the ship in the hold of a larger vessel. If the cargo charge is 1000 per ton then to ship a freetrader is 200,000 credits, and a week in jump. You pay the 1000 each in life support for your crew and they sit in the vessel in the cargo hold. If you are crafty, you book cargo as well and get a discount of 82,000 credits.
My main point is that the mains are a very artificial construct and a bit silly when put under the cold clear light of day. I reckon the OTU would be better off without them.
3 D space, in my opinion, makes for much more interesting and more “realistic” play. The arguments against it primarily being 2 to 3 d jump distances are easy to fix. Jump 1 economics should change. Either that or the prices changed for cargo should change. Or Jump-1 cargo haulage should be relegated to the extreme back waters. The latter seems to the implied in the OTU anyway.
I am quite keen to hear what people think. I would like to know if I have misunderstood the arguments against using 3 dimensional space mapping. In truth, I feel that 2 dimensional mapping of space is a historical artifact from when the game was first written. The being the result of difficulties in mapping 3 dimensionally with pen and paper. In 2007 personal computing makes this relatively easy. Unless we are all Vilani at heart, why cling to the past only from a sense of conservative tradition. Are we not Solimani one and all?
I have seen some discussions on the board how this causes problems with starship economics and jump distances. From these two problems, the 3 dimensionality is said to undermine the OTU. As far as I understand things, the second problem is trivial to solve but the first one is more intractable. I am not convinced that the two first ones do blow away the Third Imperium.
Going from 2 to 3 dimensions does necessitate some scaling of the jump distances. This springs from the amount of systems able to be accessed when one adds the 3rd dimension. As the jump number/distance goes up the area/volume accessible goes up. Unmodified, the change is the comparison between Jump N squared compared with Jump N cubed. I read that a person on the Boards called Thrash (or something like this) proposed some modifications to address this. I was not able to find his posts so I have had to make them myself. The subsector is 8 parsecs by 10. This has an area of 80. (Why Marc did not make it 9 parsecs by 9 with an area of 81 is a mystery to me.)
Jump 1 accesses 7 hexes, or 9% of the area of a subsector. Jump 2 accesses 19 hexes, or 24% of the subsector and so forth. To convert to the same effects for a spherical subsector you simply convert the Jump distances so that a ship with similar jump numbers has access to the same proportions of the total subsector. Here is a table I prepared earlier:
Jump-n Subsector Radius Portion
0 1% 14.4%
1 9% 27.5%
2 24% 38.4%
3 46% 48.0%
4 76% 56.7%
5 114% 64.8%
6 159% 72.4%
In my game, the subsectors have a radius of 17 light years. That is a radius a bit over 5 parsecs. They hold approximately the same number of systems as OTU subsectors. In fact, I am building the Spinward Marches.
So the Jump numbers convert as follows:
Jump-n Light Years
0 2.4
1 4.7
2 6.5
3 8.2
4 9.6
5 11.0
6 12.3
These changes will allow for the tyranny of distance and strains of communication that are central to the setting. Authority can not be centrally wielded. Jump 4 travels just short of 3 parsecs and Jump 6 only 3.8 parsecs.
As far as starship economics goes, I am assuming the problem lies in Jump-1 being the only “economically viable” jump distance capability. I am assuming this is based upon a ship with a mortgage and this ship only being paid cargo rates and not engaging in speculation. These two premises play into the need for Mains such as the “Spinward Main” I take it from this that all of the larger ships which have larger jump numbers operated by the megacorps are bought outright rather than financed. As well, they are all engaging in speculation rather than simple haulage. If this is not true, then there is a serious non sequitur in the economics of the game. Otherwise, all of the big companies would be running vast fleets of free traders, if the freetrader was the only way to make it pay. If not vast fleets, then a free trader model built in the 5k dTon class.
So where I am going to is that the Spinward Mains simply do not occur. Stars do not line up like that. They do clump. They do not form long strings. The free traders will end up working over groups of 5 to 10 worlds. I do not see this as undermining the OTU.
If it is absolutely critical to go a jump 4 to get somewhere new, there is the possibility of putting the ship in the hold of a larger vessel. If the cargo charge is 1000 per ton then to ship a freetrader is 200,000 credits, and a week in jump. You pay the 1000 each in life support for your crew and they sit in the vessel in the cargo hold. If you are crafty, you book cargo as well and get a discount of 82,000 credits.
My main point is that the mains are a very artificial construct and a bit silly when put under the cold clear light of day. I reckon the OTU would be better off without them.
3 D space, in my opinion, makes for much more interesting and more “realistic” play. The arguments against it primarily being 2 to 3 d jump distances are easy to fix. Jump 1 economics should change. Either that or the prices changed for cargo should change. Or Jump-1 cargo haulage should be relegated to the extreme back waters. The latter seems to the implied in the OTU anyway.
I am quite keen to hear what people think. I would like to know if I have misunderstood the arguments against using 3 dimensional space mapping. In truth, I feel that 2 dimensional mapping of space is a historical artifact from when the game was first written. The being the result of difficulties in mapping 3 dimensionally with pen and paper. In 2007 personal computing makes this relatively easy. Unless we are all Vilani at heart, why cling to the past only from a sense of conservative tradition. Are we not Solimani one and all?
