• 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.

Defining the 990 borders for the Solomani and Hiver states in Spica sector

Gruffty

Gruffty

SOC-14 1K
As a baseline, we have the following maps with borders shown available to us:

This is the thumbnail map direct from Supplement 11, map of OTU, pages 8 and 9 (OTU map is dated 1107):

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_CT_original_image.jpg

Here is a cleaned up version of the same map:

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_CT_image.jpg

This is my thumbnail map with red "pretend" 990s borders:

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_CT_990s_image.jpg

And this is a thumbnail from one of the MT books (all the MT books show the same borders, even Hard Times):

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_MT_image.jpg

Finall, these are thumbnail maps taken from another source I have access to (a simple border map and a dot system map):

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_other_source_borders_only_image.jpg

www.leaberry.org.uk/spica_other_source_dot_map_with_borders_image.jpg

Note: the last two maps are for a later era, as are the MT maps. I've included them for completeness and comparison.

If people want to make their own amendments to the borders, send me a PM or e-mail me at traveller@leaberry.org.uk and I'll send the .jpg files to you.
 
Thanks for reminding me of the DGP issue, Casey. The last two maps (both dated 1120) are there purely as reference items and for no other purpose.
 
Thanks Sigg, that's a useful resource.

What we need to do now is to attempt to reverse extrapolate the borders from the available data (the earliest of which is dated 1107 - the CT OTU map) back to the 990s.

I don't think my "pretend" borders hold much water, now I've had a chance to reflect on them. This is why I'd value the opinions of others with regards to where the actual borders lie in the 990s era.
 
The data in the AotI is from the second survey, published in 1065.
There may be changes between the 990s and then, but I can't see there being too many. The Solomani are a bit tied up with other things ;)
 
It may be reasonable to have more na worlds between the Solomani and Hivers.
Between the end of the Solomani Rim War (1002) and the second survey could be a time of Hiver expansion.
Independent worlds may well petition to join the Federation as a way of resisting the Solomani.
By the MT era these worlds may have reverted to independent status again, firstly because Solomani interests are once again elsewhere, and secondly so that the Hivers can avoid appearing as a threat to the Solomani.
 
Given that there's 75 years difference between 990 and 1065, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that the borders might shrink by as much as four or five parsecs, giving another subsector between borders...

Just a thought,
Flynn
 
I'm sat here looking at a colour coded version of the map frm AotI (I photocopied it and coloured it in ;) ) , there is no gap.
In fact the border worlds are very mixed.
 
I'm thinking, rather terran-centric I suppose, but once cultures make contact one of the first things hammered out is the mine vs yours. In this case the border between the Hive Federation and the Solomani Confederation. Now unless there is an ongoing campaign by one or both to pursue claims on disputed worlds, by settlement, negotiation or war then the borders are going to be pretty static and well defined. Any artificial "buffer" will be the result of declaring a neutral zone (if you will). So while I don't agree with said gap being introduced where it's not implied I also don't have a huge problem with it, provided it's not done in a vacuum. What I mean is that any gap should be logically explained and must perforce extend or at least further explain the border as it extends into Langere sector. Yes that sector is not part of this little project but it shouldn't be ignored either.

Borders are defined by which allegiance a world has. So if there is to be a gap let it be all non-aligned worlds, or even better a natural gulf of worlds that are beyond easy jump (more than J2) and/or not of much value (no prime worlds).

Looking at the big map (no star systems so I can't comment on the possibility of empty space) the logical reason for the rift between the Sols and Hivers in Spica should be some natural cause, I see no good reason the border of contention that exists through two subsectors (in Langere sector and into Spica) would diverge for two subsectors once they came within a few parsecs without some natural physical reason. So if we're talking changing UWPs anyway why not just make the ones for any gap such that they are tactically useless and economically uninteresting, systems that the big powers don't want to bother supporting. So make them low pop, low resource, low tech, no real starports (C at best, more likely D or less), marginal environments and a scarcity of easy skimming (few gas giants).

Anywho, just a couple thoughts.
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'm sat here looking at a colour coded version of the map frm AotI (I photocopied it and coloured it in ;) , there is no gap.
In fact the border worlds are very mixed.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Sigg posted this while I was typing my reply. If this is the case it points to a very different politic. More of a melting pot, maybe even a friendly border (a soft border) of systems with an official allegiance but in reality equally open to either power and the citizens. A whole region of systems built on cultural exchange and trade perhaps. A market bazzar of the Sol and Hive cultures. Great for intrigue and trade. I prefer this to some arbitrary gap.
 
A quote from the original Hiver article in Journal 13:
After the war {against the K'kree}, the Federation Navy returned to its former state, remaining there until recently, when threats from Solomani expansionism have caused the Federation to expand its fleet again
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
A quote from the original Hiver article in Journal 13:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />After the war {against the K'kree}, the Federation Navy returned to its former state, remaining there until recently, when threats from Solomani expansionism have caused the Federation to expand its fleet again
Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]See, I never understood that. These supposed great manipulators and the best they can come up with in response to some vague threat of Solmani expansionism is to expand the fleet? But I'm getting sidetracked and dragging the topic off course with me
 
Well for all great manipulations, there must be some physical entity moved/ seen as moving, Far Trader.
In this instance, the Hiver's move is precautionary--a deterrence. yet it also has the benefit of showing that the HF is not a meek power to be tussled with lightly by aggressive Sol-Humaniti.
 
I suppose so General, perhaps the Sol are less susceptible to subtle manipulation ;)

I just always thought it should have played out more like: Hiver Fleet XX defeats K'Kree under mysterious circumstances, which the Sol Intelligence community "discovers" through the regular channels (not how they won, just that they did). K'Kree sue for peace. Hivers move Fleet XX to Sol border for "maneuvers", "training" and eventual "mothballing"
file_23.gif
 
Getting bck to the 990-1065 issue on the border, I must concur with Flynn and Mal's thoughts on this. A soft neutral 4-5 parsec borderland region is entirely plausible. Like the Marcher Lords counties of old that lay between the Kingdoms of Wales and England.
 
As for Sol-Humaniti being in need of the stick and carrot routine...prolley so. Look what the Sol Humans did to a weak looking Vilani empire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Canopus in Cannon
Replies
5
Views
908
Liam Devlin
L
M
Spica Sector Maps
2
Replies
36
Views
605
Klaus
K
M
Proposal: Hiver (and Solomani) border expansion history
2 3
Replies
59
Views
861
Klaus
K
Back
Top