Corrected Spinward Marches UWPs?

[IronCzar]

I'm aware that there were some errors in the UWP data in the old Supplement 3 Spinward Marches. Far as I know, those errors were replicated in various other products. With that in mind, two questions:

Is there a 'definitive' set of Spinward Marches UWPs available somewhere, either online or in print?

Does anyone know off the top of their head whether the data in the MgT Spinward Marches book match this data?

Not that this is especially important, mind. But I'm in the process of planning a campaign and if I'm going to use a canonical sector anyway, I may as well use the best data available.

 

[DonM]

Either a) the Mongoose Spinward Marches book, or b) www.travellermap.com (I love that site). Actually, together, that's a pretty great combination.

And grab the Foreven sector development pack from the Mongoose website, it's a whole free sector you can play with next door to the Marches.

 

[inexorabletash]

Erk, actually, I'd love to get my hands on even more cleaned up data - the travellermap.com data for Spinward Marches is from GDW via DGP via GEnie via CORE, but several errors were introduced along the way. I've had a handful of folks send me corrections (based on Supplement 3) which I have incorporated, but surely not everything has been found. I wouldn't trust the data without a secondary reference.

(If someone believes they have a better .SEC file - the site's is at www.travellermap.com/res/Sectors/spinward.sec - I'd be happy to compare them and resolve any discrepancies)

 

[rancke]

Either a) the Mongoose Spinward Marches book, or b) www.travellermap.com (I love that site). Actually, together, that's a pretty great combination.

Are you saying that the Mongoose Spinward Marches book corrected the wonky UWPs? I've only browsed it a bit, so I may just not have stumble across any of the corrected ones, but so far I haven't noticed any changes from previously published material.

Or are you saying that the UWPs aren't going to get corrected, ever, so the current ones are as definitive as they're ever going to get?

I notice that the changes we got permission to make for GT:Sword Worlds (e.g. populations of Hofud, Durendal, and Dyrmwyn increased to fit the canonical history of these worlds) has been ignored completely.

And although Robert told us a year ago that Marc had decided to increased the population level of Tenalphi to 7, it's still 1.

Hmm... and the X-boat routes are still the same, including the nonsensical doglegs and the jump-5 route between Strouden and Tenalphi.

I'd better stop looking before I completely ruin my Chrismas spirit .


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Is Regina TL A or TL C in the MgT SMB?

If it's C then some of the later redactions may have been included.

Personally I just stick with Supplement 3.

 

[rancke]

Is Regina TL A or TL C in the MgT SMB?

Oddly enough, it is 12 and not 10. Yay!


Hans

 

[Qstor2]

I notice that the changes we got permission to make for GT:Sword Worlds (e.g. populations of Hofud, Durendal, and Dyrmwyn increased to fit the canonical history of these worlds) has been ignored completely.

MJD said somewhere that he was using Supp. 3 to write the MGT Spinward Marches book. IIRC its in the forward. I doubt that much of GT will make it's way into MGT. Even the material pre 1116.

Mike

 

[DonM]

Erk, actually, I'd love to get my hands on even more cleaned up data - the travellermap.com data for Spinward Marches is from GDW via DGP via GEnie via CORE, but several errors were introduced along the way. I've had a handful of folks send me corrections (based on Supplement 3) which I have incorporated, but surely not everything has been found. I wouldn't trust the data without a secondary reference.

(If someone believes they have a better .SEC file - the site's is at www.travellermap.com/res/Sectors/spinward.sec - I'd be happy to compare them and resolve any discrepancies)

I was under the impression that while the .sec file is old stuff, the actually data used by travellermap.com comes from Rob Eaglestone's cleanup project a few years back (which Marc blessed).

 

[DonM]

I notice that the changes we got permission to make for GT:Sword Worlds (e.g. populations of Hofud, Durendal, and Dyrmwyn increased to fit the canonical history of these worlds) has been ignored completely.

And although Robert told us a year ago that Marc had decided to increased the population level of Tenalphi to 7, it's still 1.

Hmm... and the X-boat routes are still the same, including the nonsensical doglegs and the jump-5 route between Strouden and Tenalphi.

While I can't say about the population of Tenalphi (which in my Spinward Marches notes has a comment "Hans suggests Pop=7"), I know I did ask for UWP changes deriving from GT products, and never received anything....

And, let us remember, while I know that Martin was not considering big UWP changes, someone raised a big stink about UWP changes to the Marches in the Mongoose book, and things got very idiotic.

It was just after I'd started getting more active with Marc, and so I avoided the arguments because I had no idea who said what. In retrospect, there are several changes I'd suggest.

Hans: you and I REALLY NEED TO COMPARE UWPs for the Marches at some point.

And I guess I should compare my notes file to the Mongoose book at some point. Marc had me give it to Matthew, and Martin did see it, but I never looked to see what was done...

 

[robject]

I was under the impression that while the .sec file is old stuff, the actually data used by travellermap.com comes from Rob Eaglestone's cleanup project a few years back (which Marc blessed).

I don't believe travellermap uses them... some of them, maybe.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

T5 is a good opportunity to finally fix it.

 

[mike wightman]

Why fix what isn't broken?

Take Regina's TL - all the early adventures that feature Regina have TL A, the FFW has TL A, even Scouts has TL A. Why does a typo in SMC (of which there are many) become redacted canon?

So there is one jump 5 x-boat route - explain it don't bin it.

Use imagination rather than just producing a redacted bland SM.

 

[rancke]

Why fix what isn't broken?

1) Some people think it IS broken.
2) Even if it isn't broken, the 'fix' improves the verisimilitude of the setting considerable.

Take Regina's TL - all the early adventures that feature Regina have TL A, the FFW has TL A, even Scouts has TL A. Why does a typo in SMC (of which there are many) become redacted canon?

Several reasons.

a) The very earliest canon (The Kinunir) shows that Regina is capable of building jump-4 ships. Which was fine back when we thought that TL 10 was enough to build jump-4 drives (the way Book 2 claimed). But later we found out that Book 2 was in error. HG told us that you need TL 13 to build jump-4 drives. So if Regina has a High Common TL of 10, its Space TL is three higher than its High Common, which is very unlikely. But if Regina has a TL of 12, its Space TL is only one higher than its High Common, which is pretty unexceptional.

b) Regina has been the most important world in its neighborhood for over a millenium. It's a rich world and a trade center and has a popultion in the high hundreds of millions. It's actually pretty odd that it isn't TL 14 or 15. That it's only TL 12 is odd enough, but at least it's better than Regina being TL 10.

c) Regina has been TL 12 ince SMC. Why change it back if it work?

So there is one jump 5 x-boat route - explain it don't bin it.

Now why didn't I think of that?

Oh, wait... I did. I tried to explain, but wasn't able to come up with anything that didn't snap my belief suspenders. As a matter of fact, I've tried to explain every bit of canon that I advocate changing.

But I'm always happy when someone comes up with a plausible explanation that doesn't create greater problems elsewhere. The last bit is rather important and is often ignored when people try to explain away odd UWPs. Take the jump-5 route for example. The problem isn't so much to come up with an explanation why Strouden and Extolay rates a jump-5 connection (though that's a bit of a poser in itself, at least if Extolay really only has a population rating of 1) . The trouble is coming up with an explanation that ALSO explains why no other 5-parsec route in the mapped part of the Imperium rates a connection.

Use imagination rather than just producing a redacted bland SM.

This statement makes the assumption that fixing inexplicable UWPs doesn't require imagination and would produce a redacted bland Spinward Marches. I think such an assumption is completely unwarranted.


Hans

 

[rancke]

While I can't say about the population of Tenalphi (which in my Spinward Marches notes has a comment "Hans suggests Pop=7"), I know I did ask for UWP changes deriving from GT products, and never received anything....

I have a lousy memory, so I can't say that I'm absulutely certain, but I'm pretty sure I did send them. I vaguely remember adding something about Sting. But I'll dig it out again and send/resend (as the case may be) the information.

Hans: you and I REALLY NEED TO COMPARE UWPs for the Marches at some point.

Now, THAT I remember that I never got around to. I still have the file you sent me. However, it's on a computer that is in for repairs, and goodness knows when I'll get it back. If you'll be so kind as to send it (resend it ) to me, I'll try to do better.



Hans

 

[inexorabletash]

I don't believe travellermap uses them... some of them, maybe.

It uses them where I was able to snag them from your site, Robert! Unfortunately, that only includes...

Corridor
Vland
Lishun
Antares
Gushemege
Dagudashaag
Core
Fornast
Verge
Ilelish
Zarushagar
Massilia
Delphi
Reaver's Deep
Daibei
Diaspora
Old Expanses
Magyar
Alpha Crucis

(at least, per the metadata)

It's missing the Spinward Marches and the rest of the Domain of Deneb. (Solomani Rim was to be based on Supplement 10 not AotI, and I used T20 data for the Gateway Domain)

I believe (but I'm working from memory here, I'm not on my primary computer) that Mike West had updated DoD files that were considered corrected, but I was never able to get my hands on them.

 

[BeRKA]

Take Regina's TL - all the early adventures that feature Regina have TL A, the FFW has TL A, even Scouts has TL A. Why does a typo in SMC (of which there are many) become redacted canon?

I totally agree. There are far worse problems with traveller canon and rules to worry about.

So there is one jump 5 x-boat route - explain it don't bin it.

That was easy. It is an experimental route. Don't bin it. Build an adventure about it instead!

 

[IronCzar]

I hadn't realized this question wasn't 100% settled. I guess I will declare the TravellerMap info close enough for my purposes and work from that, alongside the MgT SM book (and stealing whatever I like from GT:BtC.)

 

[mike wightman]

I totally agree. There are far worse problems with traveller canon and rules to worry about.

Yep

That was easy. It is an experimental route. Don't bin it. Build an adventure about it instead!

Exactly - one end of the jump 5 route is Strouden (one of LSP major shipyards) and the other is Tenalphi (which has TL of E and type A starport and so can build HG jump 5 drives).

 

[rancke]

I totally agree. There are far worse problems with traveller canon and rules to worry about.

And they aren't getting fixed either.

That was easy. It is an experimental route. Don't bin it. Build an adventure about it instead!

Thi is a perfect example of an explanation that sounds superficially plausible but doesn't actually explain anything. What sort of experiment? The Imperium has had jump-5 for 400 years and jump-6 for 100. What aspect of jump-5 X-boats could the Scouts possibly feel the need to experiment with still?

Also, this is arguing from the specific to the general. Let's assume for purposes of argument that some reasonable explanation can be found. Would that prove that explanations can be found for every other problem? No. All it would prove would be that an explanation could be found for this paticular problem.



Hans

 

[mike wightman]

There is no reasonable explanation.

Supp 3 was written with the LBB1-3 tech paradigm as the backdrop to the Imperium.

High Guard remains the disconnect which totally changes the OTU paradigm - with hindsight they could have done a better job making sure High Guard tied in with the assumptions of the basic game.

There are work arounds - such as the LBB2 drive tables are what's possible with an overall TL15 culture - but they can cause as many problems as they solve.

Sup 3 was written when Kinunir class ships were state of the art line of battle craft, X-boats don't need a power plant etc.

Everything post High Guard really is a different OTU.

And I ain't tipexing my copy of FFW just to reconsile canon changes