Imperial census

[tjoneslo]

I don't think Benford's Law will work, because we know that the numbers were fudged by the Great Old Ones of Traveller.

Trust me: I'm buried right now in just how different Solomani Rim's stats are from everything else. Old Expanses and Massilia are a little off, but Solomani Rim just blows the doors off.

I'm looking at (almost) the same numbers you are, and can see exactly how far off they are.

The original query for this thread was why are the wiki population numbers as far off from the RAW interpretation of the population multiplier. The answer is an attempt to re-interpret the multiplier in a way that closer matches Benford's law. It's not great, but somewhat closer. The other problem is it reduces the overall population by about 1/3.

So I'm slowly working toward a way to interpret the existing multipliers in a way that:

• Comes somewhat closer to the results of the law
• Doesn't have huge, or at least wildly noticeable, impact on the population
• doesn't require any, or at least as little as possible, random number generation

 

[rancke]

The original query for this thread was why are the wiki population numbers as far off from the RAW interpretation of the population multiplier. The answer is an attempt to re-interpret the multiplier in a way that closer matches Benford's law.

I really don't see why. First of all, it's not a given that Benford's Law applies. I've already suggested a couple of reasons why it might not. Bear in mind that although Charted Space is heavily influenced by random numbers because it's a fictive setting generated by die rolls, the fiction is that it was populated by specific historical events. A much bigger offender here than not following Benford's Law is the complete lack of correlation between planetary characteristics and population size. Sure, historical accidents will create some puzzling worlds, but mostly, when a settler or group of settlers moves to another world, their choice will be influenced by the character of the available worlds. And even when worlds are pretty much alike, the choice will be affected by who has settled where earlier. DEviations from a statistical norm is an invitation to establish back story, not a reason to change anything¹.

¹ Unless for some reason you're unable to come up with a back story that explains the deviation. When that's the case I'm all in favor of change.​

And even if Benford Law does apply, I don't think it's something that would disturb the WSOD of very many people. I can see players complain about the flat galaxy and any world too small for its atmosphere. I can see players ask for reasons why this hellhole has billions of inhabitants and how come no one has settle on that nice world there (and can their characters move in and take over? ). But I have a hard time seeing a player go "Another world with a population multiplier of 9! I tell you guys, there's something strange going on here, Charted Space does not conform to Benford's Law!"

It's not great, but somewhat closer. The other problem is it reduces the overall population by about 1/3.

Actually, I see that as a benefit as it would reduce the available military budgets (Which IMO would be a good thing).

 

[rancke]

For Hans' question, I'm still not getting the issue. The rules for generating secondary worlds is in the book, and isn't all that different from previous rules for non-mainworld pops. What is the issue there?

There are at least two issues. One is that there exists canonical data that does not conform to the rules for generating secondary worlds. Examples are the population figures for various subsectors and one canonical star system where the UWP has a population of 5 (I think) and the description mentions that the mainworld is just the capital and that hundreds of millions of people live elsewhere in the system.

The other is that I can concieve of systems that would be illegal under those rules and which I would like to be possible. Rare, yes, but not impossible.

One example of the second is my (non-canon) conception of Rethe. 26 billion people living on a really crappy world? I would prefer another explanation. My explanation was that relatively few lived on (and below) the surface. Most inhabitants lived in space habitats. A little more than a third lived in stations that used Rethe principally as a gravitational anchor. The rest was about evenly distributed in the system's two planetoid belt. The people in the stations in orbit around Rethe is counted as belonging to Rethe, which makes it technically more populous than either of the belts, hence the mainworld.

And because I want space stations to be common and can't think of any reason why people who build stations in orbit around Rethe would also build stations in the belts, but still don't want the population to be even higher than 26 billion, I'd also like to be able to say that the Scouts have decided to lump everyone together in one system total.


Hans

 

[tjoneslo]

I really don't see why.

Traveller has a very long history of attempting to use real science (and equally long history of getting it wrong). This is an attempt to get the science right.

This isn't for the players, and isn't important unless you are looking at a number of worlds over a sector or more. The code performing the analysis is for doing a large scale analysis of the worlds of the Imperium and/or charted space.

Actually, I see that as a benefit as it would reduce the available military budgets (Which IMO would be a good thing).

	FIXED	SCALED	BENFORD
Population (Millions)	20,742,928	14,577,159	14,417,408
%Change	0	-29.724	-30.494
GSP (BCr)	148,171,365	104,532,920	103,903,969
%Change	0	-29.451	-29.875

The SCALED values are generated using the scaling system in the existing Wiki statistics, ported from the NRoute.c code. The BENFORD values are my newer adjustment of some of the population codes to closer match Benfords law.

 

[Carlobrand]

I don't think Benford's Law will work, because we know that the numbers were fudged by the Great Old Ones of Traveller.

Trust me: I'm buried right now in just how different Solomani Rim's stats are from everything else. Old Expanses and Massilia are a little off, but Solomani Rim just blows the doors off.

You wanna see fudged, take a good close look at Provence and Corridor sectors. Those Vargr drop some big litters. Straight odds of a Pop-factor-10 world are 1 in 36; a sector of 326 worlds averages 9. Provence's 326 worlds include 13 of them. Odds of a Pop-9 are 1 in 18; a sector of 326 worlds averages 18. Provence's 326 worlds include 48. Sector population's 641 billion, 16% higher than average, which is significant when you're averaging over 300+ cases. Meanwhile, Corridor's Imperial population's only about 60% of average for that number of stars. It's not enough that Corridor has fewer stars to begin with and only a portion of them Imperial-controlled - someone stacked the deck heavily in favor of the Vargr.

... even if Benford Law does apply, I don't think it's something that would disturb the WSOD of very many people. ... I have a hard time seeing a player go "Another world with a population multiplier of 9! I tell you guys, there's something strange going on here, Charted Space does not conform to Benford's Law!". ...

Ummm, er ...

 

[rancke]

Ummm, er ...

That was as a setting builder examining the setting, right? You weren't a player getting puzzled by the statistical anomaly of running into 10 worlds with pop multiplier 9 out of the 100 the players had visited during the campaign?

Just to be clear: I don't mind the multipliers being changed to conform to Benford's Law. (Just make sure you don't change any of the populations that are mentioned in actual texts). I just think there are more rewarding ways to use the effort involved, more deserving problems to be corrected.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

That was as a setting builder examining the setting, right? You weren't a player getting puzzled by the statistical anomaly of running into 10 worlds with pop multiplier 9 out of the 100 the players had visited during the campaign? ...

Yes, I'm in setting building mode. And, no, of course not, I would never ever analyze the statistical anomalies in a gamemaster's setting while playing.

Hmmmm - Okay, well, I am unable to upload the files. They exceed the maximum size for uploads by about a factor of 25. Curious: I do them in ODS and end up with 600-700K files, but the site doesn't do ODS and when I translate them to XLS they're about ten times as big.

 

[Carlobrand]

Ummm -

Sangre, 1816, Empty Quarter

It doesn't seem to have a star. Planetoid belts, gas giants - it's all orbiting sumthin', but it doesn't say what that sumthin' is. World's a big airless waterless rock, so it can be pretty well anything, we just need a sumthin'.

(And, for some reason the Empty Quarter data file is in the Star's End data page in the wiki.)

Maybe something nice and deep red, given the name.

 

[tjoneslo]

Ummm -

Sangre, 1816, Empty Quarter

It doesn't seem to have a star. Planetoid belts, gas giants - it's all orbiting sumthin', but it doesn't say what that sumthin' is. World's a big airless waterless rock, so it can be pretty well anything, we just need a sumthin'.

It would not be the first time people are using planets in deep space without anything else as jump points. There are undoubtedly a huge number of planets ejected from their home system and wandering through deep space.

The T5 Second Survey has updated that to a White Dwarf and a M9 V star.

(And, for some reason the Empty Quarter data file is in the Star's End data page in the wiki.)

Thank you for point that out. I'm in the process of updating all the sectors and trade information. But I'm waiting on the T5 Second Survey to settle down.

 

[Carlobrand]

It would not be the first time people are using planets in deep space without anything else as jump points. There are undoubtedly a huge number of planets ejected from their home system and wandering through deep space.

The T5 Second Survey has updated that to a White Dwarf and a M9 V star.
...

Oh, I have no objection to a lone planet. For that matter, I have no objection to a few planets and planetoid belts orbiting a gas-giant-slash-brown-dwarf in the frigid deeps of space - that'd actually be kinda cool. Apparently, they do occur out there. I just don't know of a way for that to occur on the tables, so I figured there was a good chance it was an omission.