• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Common Sense: Evaluating UWPs

Oh, looking at the big picture, I see... That would be an interesting thing to explore.
 
Speaking of Jim (interesting seeing his name pop up -- I used to correspond with him about a setting called Ragamuffin he worked on): Does anyone have the latest version of Galactic? I tried to download it from there, got a page that promised he would send me a CD, but the form crapped out.
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I presume top-down means "take an existing UWP and explain it". Which is a lot harder anyway, especially when it's broken in the first place!
Good grief no. Describe and explain the setting and worlds first, then set the UWPs.

Originally posted by Flynn:
To me, Morte is implying that building UWPs without a sense of context within the sector is a broken process. I didn't get the impression he was talking about explaining a UWP.
Exactly.

I'm just curious how he would approach a solution to that perception.
Well, I guess the crux of it is that I wouldn't use a "system". I'd approach it more like painting a picture.


Ideally, I'd like a smaller setting (say 2-4 subsectors) with every single planet getting a text description. Write the overall setting, then decompose it down until you describe each system. When you've finished, abstract the text descriptions to UWPs. These are created solely for use with the trade rules and star mapping software.


For a large area, where you're not going to put text descriptions to each system, I guess I'd do something like this:

Write the history and overview of your setting. Decide what your major and minor powers are called, what they're like (how big, how high-tech, etc), and roughly where they are.

Work out roughly what sort of GWP, tech levels, populations and planet counts you need for each polity to be consistent with the description. [E.g. the Khuur league in G993 could do with a couple of high-tech hi-pops adding to make the description even slightly feasible.]

Knock up the biggest systems for each polity, and set their pop/TL so they combine to about 90-99% of the polity's social/economic weight. Give them sensible astrographics to match what you got so far. This won't be too many planets, since in economic/political terms the hi-pops are practically everything. Place them on the map. These are the "majors".

Place lots more stars, putting in mains and clusters and rifts and whatever you need to match the high level description/history. These are the "minors". They're the bulk of the setting by headcount but not economically very important.

Do the minor planet UWPs by the "bounded random" process you've been working towards in this thread, with proper astronomy etc. Weight the population so those closest to the majors get more people. Reroll all the weird ones once. This will hopefully junk enough weirdos to leave you with a handful for flavour.

Put in depots, X-boat routes, Droyne worlds, yadda yadda. Swap a few stars around to suit, if necessary.

Make an inspection, fix anything that breaks the setting (e.g. a randomly generated TL14 hi-pop minor in a pocket empire described as "week").

Go through, add up, see what you got and how it compares to the goal you started with. If some group has become too weak/strong, scale their population up or down by a suitable multiplier.

Do a final pass to set govenment and law codes that are consistent with the setting. "Consistent" will vary -- e.g. you might set everything except the prison planet to government 2/4 for the "bastions of democracy", or use weighted random generation inside the 3I, or place the odd code 6 (captive) on the edges of states that have just had wars.
 
Doesn't sound like something you could program easily, but I bet you'd have a great setting when you were done.


Thanks, Morte,
Flynn
 
Originally posted by Psion:
As for Stoner:

[...] I could see such a world having large chunks of population be in B5 style orbital cities. (I know it's not canon anymore, but the World Builder's Handbook included orbital habitats in the UWP.) Larry Niven has a fascinating little article on space habitats like this.

You could also assume that perhaps a world like this with a high pop uses the original concept of a dyson sphere -- not a closed shell, but spaced habitats around a star. But that sounds more like something you'd do with an high tech asteroid belt like Glisten.
I'm with Psion.

I think the thing to do with Stoner is to really go for it. Breathtakingly broken UWPs need breathtakingly bold explanations to carry them through by sheer bravado. So knock our socks off.
 
A small idea, Flynn: whenever the existing system involves rolling say 2d6, consider whether 4d6/2 or 8d6/4 might be better. Getting more centrally weighted results might be useful. Maybe you could try it and see how it looks.
 
Originally posted by Morte:
I think the thing to do with Stoner is to really go for it. Breathtakingly broken UWPs need breathtakingly bold explanations to carry them through by sheer bravado. So knock our socks off. [/QB]
Well, I'm more of the opinion that what breathtakingly broken UWPs really need is to be taken out back and shot ;)
file_23.gif
.
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Morte:
I think the thing to do with Stoner is to really go for it. Breathtakingly broken UWPs need breathtakingly bold explanations to carry them through by sheer bravado. So knock our socks off.
Well, I'm more of the opinion that what breathtakingly broken UWPs really need is to be taken out back and shot ;)
file_23.gif
. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Me too.

But there's this old guy called Miller who can't be reasoned with, alas.
 
has MWM actually stated a position on UWPs? Is he really totally inflexible on the matter?
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Yeah, if you started to implement negative pop modifiers for worlds that weren't habitable (on top of the -2 to the 2d roll that's already there), then you'd get much better results.

Perhaps something like this?:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Atm Pop mod Max Pop
0 -4 6
1 -4 6
2 -3 7
3 -3 7
4 -1 9
5 -0 A
6 -0 A
7 -1 9
8 -0 A
9 -1 9
A -3 7
B -4 6
C -5 5
D -2 8
E -2 8
F -3 7</pre>
[/quote]That (or something like it) should be immediatley added into all UWP generation. The fact that something like it isn't in current UWP generation is a major league flaw in the gernation systems.
 
However, I would like to go further.

Atmosphere should be based on Hydrographics, not the other way around. You are not going to have type 5, 6, or 8 Atmospheres with 0 Hydrographics. It just isn't going to happen.

I think TL should be capped by population, too. Pop 7 and lower will have trouble being able to manufacture the full specutrum of TL-8 (which requires large numbers of specialists). While Pop 7 and lower might be able to import the machines to manufacture "this or that" TL-8 or higher gear, that does not make the world TL-8+. Pop 7 and lower will have an even more difficult time with TL-9 and higher, and the number and diversity of specialists required for the full spectrum of TL manufacture spirals out of control.

MAX TL = Maximum manufacturing TL. Not the maximum import TL.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">POP MAX TL Modifier
0 0 0
1 1 -5
2 1 -4
3 2 -4
4 3 -3
5 5 -3
6 7 -2
7 9 -1
8 C 0
9 F +1
A F +2</pre>[/QUOTE]This would also lead me to state that I would like to see Standard Manufacturing TL (SM-TL), Exotic Manufacturing TL (EM-TL), and Import TL (I-TL) ratings on an extended UWP.
 
0 Pop should always mean 0 Law Level, 0 Gov, TL-0, and a big minus to the Starport.

Starports should be rolled last, and should be heavily influenced by Pop and TL.
 
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I think TL should be capped by population, too. Pop 7 and lower will have trouble being able to manufacture the full specutrum of TL-8 (which requires large numbers of specialists).
I think it's a mistake to assume the TL represents the totality of a tech level. Indeed, at higher TLs, it seems to me that worlds with trade routinely WOULDN'T manufacture everything locally, even if they could. Doubly so considering that industrial and non-industrial trade classifications have nothing to do with tech level.

I think that TL should be a measure of what sorts of thing can be maintained and produced locally, and what is enjoyed as a standard of living by the populace, rather than which TLs you can support everything for.
 
If a society can produce something, a society can maintain it (in normal non-lost tech situations).

I have stated that TL is the manufacturing ability.

Manufacturing and production, while not exactly the same thing, can be considered synonymous (manufacturing is a form of production).

You have stated that TL is:
" . . . what sorts of thing can be maintained and produced locally, . . ."
I must have missed something, because it looks like you've stated I made a mistake, but then stated a position that, so far as I can tell, is identical to mine.

Could you please clarify?
 
Originally posted by Psion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I think TL should be capped by population, too. Pop 7 and lower will have trouble being able to manufacture the full specutrum of TL-8 (which requires large numbers of specialists).
I think it's a mistake to assume the TL represents the totality of a tech level. Indeed, at higher TLs, it seems to me that worlds with trade routinely WOULDN'T manufacture everything locally, even if they could. Doubly so considering that industrial and non-industrial trade classifications have nothing to do with tech level.

I think that TL should be a measure of what sorts of thing can be maintained and produced locally, and what is enjoyed as a standard of living by the populace, rather than which TLs you can support everything for.
</font>[/QUOTE]If you are saying that the TL value in the main standard UWP line should only be considered on a limited category basis, that is very difficult to support in the main or extended UWP, because there must be a way of defining which tech categories the TL value refers to, and there are a lot of major categories to list.

The TL value, AFAIK, refers to the entire spectrum of technology that a world has achieved.

In the fine detail, like a Grand Survey, the TL is then broken down into many categories, which can be a point or two off the norm (always with the TL-15 cap as far as the 3I goes). But, as I mentioned, it's difficult to fit this detail into a UWP.
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
has MWM actually stated a position on UWPs? Is he really totally inflexible on the matter?
By all accounts, yes. E.g. why do you think there was so much ancient activity in the Sword Worlds?
 
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I must have missed something, because it looks like you've stated I made a mistake, but then stated a position that, so far as I can tell, is identical to mine.

Could you please clarify?
Not at all. Your stance is that a world must produce everything a TL has to offer to be classified at that TL. My contention is that it only be able to produce OR maintain SOME aspects of it. Otherwise, it seems to me that all Non-Industrial worlds would have very low TL indeed, because they import most technological goods.

I beleive that very few, if any, worlds that engage in interstellar trade on any great scale would produce everything locally. It doesn't make economic sense to produce something locally you could get cheaper elsewhere.

As an example, great many motherboards could be produced in the US, but most are produced in Taiwan and other places in southeast Asia. We could manufacture them here, but this would require building up the industry to do so. But we have people locally who can maintain the technology and repair it; it's safe to say that we have the appropriate TL.

To me, this means that a world of a given TL might (or might not) produce SOME technology locally, enough to make it a viable trade partner. But more importantly it means that the world has a lifestyle that expects that TL and the infrastructure to deliver it to the populace at large.

In the fine detail, like a Grand Survey, the TL is then broken down into many categories, which can be a point or two off the norm (always with the TL-15 cap as far as the 3I goes). But, as I mentioned, it's difficult to fit this detail into a UWP.
It just so happens that I have WBH (which is basically a compilation of grand census and grand survey) right here. It calls world UWP TL the "high common tech level", and defines it as "the highest level of technology commonly enjoyed by the world's population." Some phaseology I have heard in world description in Gateway to Destiny seem to operate by this description.

What you are talking about is referred to as "acheivement TL", which is represents the best acheived locally, not necessarily available publicly.
 
Back
Top