Frankymole
SOC-12
Maybe, but it doesn't exactly replicate CT Book 6: Scouts, the satellite size calculation is wrong.
LBB06 SCOUTS...Your Impressions?
- Thread starter ShapeShifter
- Start date
shadowcat20
SOC-12
I like to generate systems with book 6 because it made me think about what I had to work with. Made things more interesting and non cookie cutter. Then I got H and E last year. I love it except for a few quirks. That and you can not get a map for the moons of gas giants. Now if he would just make it so it would work on a Vista system. I have to run it on my old ME system.
But yes, Book 6 is well worth it.
But yes, Book 6 is well worth it.
Compatibility mode doesn't help?
shadowcat20
SOC-12
Not sure how to work that. I can still build them from parts but the software issues change so fast I can not keep up anymore. Maybe I should pull my C-64 back out...now that I understood...
Not sure how to work that. I can still build them from parts but the software issues change so fast I can not keep up anymore. Maybe I should pull my C-64 back out...now that I understood...
On the program executable (the .exe file that actually runs the program, sometimes listed as "Application"), RIGHT click on it and choose Properties, and choose Compatibility. You can run any executable under any number of previous versions' mode, and that setting sticks, so if it works you can leave it that way.
Compatibility mode basically hides all the stuff introduced since that version of windows that might confuse an Application and prevent it from running or causes crashes.
Frankymole
SOC-12
Heaven and Earth
I reinstalled H&E after a long hiatus, and it's working well (Windows XP)... last night I decided to work up Fomalhaut and Epsilon Eridani a few times to get the systems compatible with known exoplanet and other observed data in real-life astronomy. Fomalhaut has at least one Jupiter-sized planet and a massive disk of material; Epsilon Eridani is thought to have 2 planetoid belts (0 in the old Solomani Alien module!) and perhaps 2 or 3 gas giants.
The ability to save expanded systems' UWPs, WBH census data and ref's notes was a blessing.
Given that real exoplanet observations are turning so much of LBB6 on its head (not to mention Planetoid Belt and GG numerators), I don't mind the satellite size problems, in fact who knows - they may be more "realistic"!
I did notice that the temperature charts' "lowest" value can go below absolute zero but that's easily modified for in play, I'm sure.
I reinstalled H&E after a long hiatus, and it's working well (Windows XP)... last night I decided to work up Fomalhaut and Epsilon Eridani a few times to get the systems compatible with known exoplanet and other observed data in real-life astronomy. Fomalhaut has at least one Jupiter-sized planet and a massive disk of material; Epsilon Eridani is thought to have 2 planetoid belts (0 in the old Solomani Alien module!) and perhaps 2 or 3 gas giants.
The ability to save expanded systems' UWPs, WBH census data and ref's notes was a blessing.
Given that real exoplanet observations are turning so much of LBB6 on its head (not to mention Planetoid Belt and GG numerators), I don't mind the satellite size problems, in fact who knows - they may be more "realistic"!
I did notice that the temperature charts' "lowest" value can go below absolute zero but that's easily modified for in play, I'm sure.
Last edited:
Some additional thoughts about LBB 6 and its descendents (including T5)...
1) The Titus-Bode Relationship has not held up to more detailed surveys of moons in the Sol system, and doesn't appear to hold up in the multip-body systems we've got data on.
2) The Starport/Spaceport distinction is not meaningful, and should be dropped.
3) the new classes of body in the modern era aren't represented in any but T5... And the nomenclature is kind of outdated.
It still works for what it does: provides useful levels of detail in a quickly enough generated manner.
What it doesn't do: model systems based upon post 1990 observational data.
With a tiny bit of trig, one can find current locations and distances, and figure travel times.
1) The Titus-Bode Relationship has not held up to more detailed surveys of moons in the Sol system, and doesn't appear to hold up in the multip-body systems we've got data on.
2) The Starport/Spaceport distinction is not meaningful, and should be dropped.
3) the new classes of body in the modern era aren't represented in any but T5... And the nomenclature is kind of outdated.
It still works for what it does: provides useful levels of detail in a quickly enough generated manner.
What it doesn't do: model systems based upon post 1990 observational data.
With a tiny bit of trig, one can find current locations and distances, and figure travel times.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I love the mechanics/entertainment value of the Scout Bureaucracy riding herd on a bunch of free thinking explorers and troubleshooters. However, I sidestep the whole LBB4-7 supercharacter thing by making Scout leadership literally S4 CotI bureaucrats, and lifting the relevant Scout skills into another education table. So all the flavor, less of the rolls.
The system gen was head spinning glorious stuff back then, but ultimately it was max effort for little entertainment gain.
The system gen was head spinning glorious stuff back then, but ultimately it was max effort for little entertainment gain.
T5 produces some different world types to CT, which might reflect our current knowledge of the greater variety of worlds that might be out there consistent with recent discoveries of exosolar planets.
But the T5 'other worlds' generation produces worlds which seem much weirder that the mainworld generation process. This seems to be because at least the mainworld locations are biased towards the habitable zone. This is not the case with other worlds. For example, being in the inner or outer zone in itself does not affect atmosphere, hydrosphere, or population. This, even allowing for the errors in the generation tables.
T5.09 also has no mechanism currently for assigning satellites to orbits, can result in satellites bigger than the main world, and the rules lack a basic set of world detailing tables for determining period, temperature, inclination etc. Now this latter set are hardly needed often, but as T5.09 is a reference work, their omission is a bit odd.
regards
But the T5 'other worlds' generation produces worlds which seem much weirder that the mainworld generation process. This seems to be because at least the mainworld locations are biased towards the habitable zone. This is not the case with other worlds. For example, being in the inner or outer zone in itself does not affect atmosphere, hydrosphere, or population. This, even allowing for the errors in the generation tables.
T5.09 also has no mechanism currently for assigning satellites to orbits, can result in satellites bigger than the main world, and the rules lack a basic set of world detailing tables for determining period, temperature, inclination etc. Now this latter set are hardly needed often, but as T5.09 is a reference work, their omission is a bit odd.
regards
Next to LBB 4 and 5, Scouts was worldshattering for my campaign. I could not have asked for better. The star system rules were a great help, and very functional. I just wish that Mark Miller and company had done something about combat and economics of a similar scale. What I mean by that is make combat actually easier to play and run, same with economics (J-1 ships are the only ones that can make money, and they are useless).
I've been studying the text for Book 6 Scouts and, although I'm looking for something more detailed than the basic world gen, I'm beginning to wonder if the huge amount of rolls and figuring will be worth it to my players to have all that extra detail. What are your experiences using LBB 6? Do you like it and use it often? Do you only use certain parts of the creation process and discard the rest? Have you found any bugs in the system that need to be addressed? And...discuss!
I've been studying the text for Book 6 Scouts and, although I'm looking for something more detailed than the basic world gen, I'm beginning to wonder if the huge amount of rolls and figuring will be worth it to my players to have all that extra detail. What are your experiences using LBB 6? Do you like it and use it often? Do you only use certain parts of the creation process and discard the rest? Have you found any bugs in the system that need to be addressed? And...discuss!
I wrote a system generator/renderer for the Scouts system at one point and generated a couple of sectors with it. I'm pretty sure that I've seen other software that does this as well - a little google-fu may help here.
Some observations include:
- You will get a lot of outer planets with small populations. These worlds are the frontier, even in more densely populated regions. They can be good places to adventure or hide if your characters have a spaceship (think: Outland). Get a bit creative with the 'why is anyone there' type questions and imagine these worlds with one or two central port city/stations and lots of small outlying habitats supporting mining or whatever industry is local to the planet.
- Stats for a single subsector can run on for many pages.
- Apropos of the first point, think of smuggling, piracy, bounty hunting, 'trouble down mill' scenarios like Across the Bright Face, corporate shenanigans (see Expedition to Zhodane), organised crime and so forth.
- They could also be dotted with old abandoned facilities built by the Leyland-Futanari coropration (motto: it takes balls ...). Who knows what might lie inside.
- If you're just going to hang out on the main worlds, these will just be fluff and maybe not worth bothering.
Last edited:
Maybe you could get ME (or Win98) to come up in a virtual machine with VirtualBox or one of the freebie versions of VMWare.
Here's a link to an article about getting Win98 to come up on Virtual PC.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vi.../installing-windows-98-on-windows-virtual-pc/
And one about VMWare
http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/Windows_98.html
