• 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.

Populations that include transients

I always assume the pop figure is for the mainworld and its orbital facilities, but no other bodies in system. Which is grounded firmly in CT Bk 6.


That was always my take too.

IIRC, WBH has a system for assigning fractions of a planetary population to "cities"(1). I suppose a "quick & dirty" mechanism for determining orbital/lagrange populations could be spun out of that system with TL being a significant modifier and planetary habitability being a lesser one.


1 = A more accurate term than "cities", especially for hi-pop worlds, would be conurbations or urban agglomerations.
 
I always assume the pop figure is for the mainworld and its orbital facilities, but no other bodies in system. Which is grounded firmly in CT Bk 6.

Granted, but the trade rules imply otherwise, since trade is based on the population in the UWP. Especially since there is no logical reason why secondary worlds can't have the same population level as the mainworld. The rule the mandates that population levels of secondary worlds must be at least one less than that of the mainworld is pure game artifact. Why shouldn't a system with a mainworld with 9 units[*] have a couple of planetoid belts with 7 and 8 units, trojan planetoid concentration of a couple of gas giants with a couple of units each, and several more living on or around gas giant moons?

Note that the Pluvis Belt in the Glisten System canonically has 40% of the total population of the system, which makes it the same population level as the Glisten Belt, no matter how you calculate.

[*] 'Unit' in this case means whatever the population level of the mainworld may be.


Hans
 
That was always my take too.
Perhaps you're right, but I dislike rules that make refereeing more complicated. When I want to figure out the trade volumes of a world or its system defenses, I prefer to know that the population figure indicates the size of the population rather than an unspecified albeit sizable percentage of the population.


Hans
 
Population

OTU makes this very difficult and I'm surprised if the zillions of magazine articles have not tried to deal with issues like this. I'll have to try and look at World Builder or comparable documents. I do not have SMC but do have the original SM. I was disappointed this was not resolved in the Regency sourcebook.

Fact is that this is a huge oversight in OTU books. I typically stayed out of the marches several reasons like this...but have a nobility in SM now makes me re-assess the situation.

A few thoughts;
  • A mainworld is capital of the system
  • A mainworld is probably highest civilian, commercial TL in the system. (In subsectors the higher populations, even when more Terra-like, do not indicate capital. It appears to start with TL).
  • We all appear to agree that TL and Environment impact the population of the mainworld. And could impact higher system populations.
  • BtC separates and mentions orbital population in some cases. This seems inconsistent. One could use BtC as a baseline at a certain point in I3 timeline.
  • One option would be to accept the pop level as a system level. Subtract the mainworld from the maximum and roll the remaining population based on the subsector not exceeding SM levels.
  • another option is to individually roll each world.
  • Galactic, H&E or other tools may do some of this work for us.
  • Realistically, a colonized systems' mainworld may not have a higher population despite the rule. Even world abandonment when resources are over extended twists that rule. Asteroid belts are another twist because there is no reason to focus Pop on the belt.
 
Thoughts:
...
  • A mainworld is capital of the system

Agreed.

...
  • A mainworld is probably highest civilian, commercial TL in the system...

Agreed

...(In subsectors the higher populations, even when more Terra-like, do not indicate capital. It appears to start with TL).

Disagreement. Economic factors are going to be driven by the largest economy in the system, which is likely to be the highest population. That's what drives demand, therefore imports. At least in Book 6/MegaTrav, the mainworld ends up having both the highest tech and the highest pop: ancillary world pops are capped to under the main world pop, and their TLs are capped at one less than the main world tech level. Might not be true of other game versions.

We're also operating under the assumption that the large-population world is driving settlement of the lesser colonies, either directly or indirectly: folk from there are going out to pursue business and other interests, or the local government is opening up these lesser sites for exploitation by offworlders. With grav drives making the ground-to-space bit little more trouble than the average plane ride, if you have a system with an earthlike planet and it's NOT the mainworld, you as DM are going to have to contrive some explanation for why the bulk of people aren't settling down there to enjoy the climate and atmosphere. Even if folk are making their riches out in the belt, corporate offices are likely to be where the managers are comfortable, workers are going to want to go to the local eden-spot for R&R and may retire there, and aspects of the economy that don't absolutely have to be within a rock's throw of the mines are going to huddle close to where there's free air.

Nothing stops the government of, say, a TL5 world from agreeing to allow a megacorp to open up an asteroid mining operation on some distant planetoid for an appropriate fee. However, the existence of special situations doesn't mean the economy of the system as a whole is operating at the megacorp's tech level.

...
  • One option would be to accept the pop level as a system level. Subtract the mainworld from the maximum and roll the remaining population based on the subsector not exceeding SM levels.

SM=Supplement 3, Spinward Marches? I'm not sure it would actually be easier to try to calculate the ancillary world populations of 20-30 systems so that they all add up to the subsector pop given in Supplement 3. That's a lot of little worlds and populations to balance.

...
  • Realistically, a colonized systems' mainworld may not have a higher population despite the rule. Even world abandonment when resources are over extended twists that rule. Asteroid belts are another twist because there is no reason to focus Pop on the belt.

See disagreement above. Actually, there's one good reason to focus pop on the belt: there's nothing else worthwhile in the system. If your system offers nothing better than a collection of Mercuries, Venuses, barren Lunar-like planets, and Jovians circled by airless iceworlds, the asteroid belt may start looking quite homey, especially if that happens to be where the most valuable mineral resources are. Going in and out of a terrestrial-size gravity well's pretty easy in Traveller, but there's not much point in doing it if there's nothing at the bottom of it that's worth your while.
 
populations

Thoughts:

Disagreement. Economic factors are going to be driven by the largest economy in the system, which is likely to be the highest population. That's what drives demand, therefore imports. At least in Book 6/MegaTrav, the mainworld ends up having both the highest tech and the highest pop: ancillary world pops are capped to under the main world pop, and their TLs are capped at one less than the main world tech level. Might not be true of other game versions.

Well. Economics? When the first world in a subsector starts does it always become the capital? Does the best world or most populous world become the capital. no. TL is the primary factor I have seen. Now I would agree that the other factors do impact it. Economics is a result of long term commercial activity. Washington DC is not the most economically active city in America.

SM=Supplement 3, Spinward Marches? I'm not sure it would actually be easier to try to calculate the ancillary world populations of 20-30 systems so that they all add up to the subsector pop given in Supplement 3. That's a lot of little worlds and populations to balance.

agreed. More likely its two numbers: mainworld, everyone else unless impacted by a campaign and the need for details in system.

See disagreement above. Actually, there's one good reason to focus pop on the belt: there's nothing else worthwhile in the system. If your system offers nothing better than a collection of Mercuries, Venuses, barren Lunar-like planets, and Jovians circled by airless iceworlds, the asteroid belt may start looking quite homey, especially if that happens to be where the most valuable mineral resources are. Going in and out of a terrestrial-size gravity well's pretty easy in Traveller, but there's not much point in doing it if there's nothing at the bottom of it that's worth your while.

Perhaps. Or build moon worlds in the livable zone. Populate airless rocks...why not. Depends on mineral wealth but the gas giant moons have certain advantages. Easy refueling being one.
 
Clarify, please:
...
  • A mainworld is capital of the system
  • A mainworld is probably highest civilian, commercial TL in the system. (In subsectors the higher populations, even when more Terra-like, do not indicate capital. It appears to start with TL). ...

Well. Economics? When the first world in a subsector starts does it always become the capital? Does the best world or most populous world become the capital. no. TL is the primary factor I have seen. Now I would agree that the other factors do impact it. Economics is a result of long term commercial activity. Washington DC is not the most economically active city in America.

...

Are we talking about the system or the subsector? You seem to have switched focus. Your parenthetical statement was attached to a bulletted statement about mainworlds, in which you stated mainworlds were "probably highest civilian, commercial TL in the system." I therefore understood the parenthetical to be referring to the bulleted statement and to mean that since highest population did not automatically indicate capital status in a subsector, highest population might not indicate mainworld status in a system - tech level might. Have I misunderstood you?

As for subsectors: Regina is capital of the Regina subsector, though Efate is both more populous and higher in tech level. Lanth is capital of the Lanth subsector, though Wypoc at the same population enjoys a higher tech level and Equus at the same tech level enjoys a higher pop level. The Swords World capital is at Gram, though Sacnoth enjoys a higher tech level. (Note: Gram was promoted to TL C by errata.) In at least the case of Gram, canon makes clear that the designation of capital is a question of politics rather than tech level or population. It is very likely that Regina, seat of the Duke of Regina, also gains its status as capital as a result of political considerations.

However, in terms of designation as a mainworld - a mainworld is not a mainworld unless it is the hub of activity in the system, ships coming and going and so forth. Designating B as mainworld while the bulk of cargo is flowing through A would not make much sense.
 
Economic factors are going to be driven by the largest economy in the system, which is likely to be the highest population. That's what drives demand, therefore imports.
Likely, yes. Very likely. But not invariable.

As an aside, interstellar trade has always been portrayed as relatively small. The economic strength of a Traveller world is its own production capacity, not its trade.

At least in Book 6/MegaTrav, the mainworld ends up having both the highest tech and the highest pop: ancillary world pops are capped to under the main world pop, and their TLs are capped at one less than the main world tech level. Might not be true of other game versions.
I hadn't seen that tech levels of secondary worlds were capped too. That is even sillier than capping the population levels.

As for other game versions, Traveller writers have consistently copied UWP data from one version to the next without a thought to any rules changes. If a world has one population in CT, odds are very good that it has it in GT and MGT too (for the same date, that is). Any changes that I know of are for reasons of internal consistency, not because the world generation rules had changed.

We're also operating under the assumption that the large-population world is driving settlement of the lesser colonies, either directly or indirectly: folk from there are going out to pursue business and other interests, or the local government is opening up these lesser sites for exploitation by offworlders.
By far the most common settlement pattern is going to be one world settled first and people spreading from that world to the rest of the system later, giving the original world a several centuries head start. With a head start, the first world is very likely to have a population advantage of orders of magnitude. But 'most common' is not 'invariable'. I have no trouble imagining a system where several worlds have the same population level nd where the political capital is a less populated world chosen for its position or as a political compromise.

Another possibility is a secondary world overtaking the original world in importance. I've used that myself in at least two cases: New Rome and Deneb. In both cases a more Human-compatible world was overtaken by a world where heavy industry was built to keep it away from the the world where people live.

With grav drives making the ground-to-space bit little more trouble than the average plane ride, if you have a system with an earthlike planet and it's NOT the mainworld, you as DM are going to have to contrive some explanation for why the bulk of people aren't settling down there to enjoy the climate and atmosphere.
"The earthlike planet is reserved for the system's upper class. 7% of the population has estates on it. The rest live in the rest of the system. "

"The UWP of the Earthlike world doesn't (indeed cannot) show that the flora is violently allergy-provoking. Only islands that have been completely terra-formed are fit to live on. Population is thus only a fraction of what one would expect just from the UWP. The system capital is located on one such terraformed island, though."

Nothing stops the government of, say, a TL5 world from agreeing to allow a megacorp to open up an asteroid mining operation on some distant planetoid for an appropriate fee. However, the existence of special situations doesn't mean the economy of the system as a whole is operating at the megacorp's tech level.

That's exactly the explanation I use for Heya's Class B starport. The boatyard is located on Heya's "moon" (actually co-orbital body), Heya-minor, where interstellar companies run mines under license from Heya' government.



SM=Supplement 3, Spinward Marches? I'm not sure it would actually be easier to try to calculate the ancillary world populations of 20-30 systems so that they all add up to the subsector pop given in Supplement 3. That's a lot of little worlds and populations to balance.

Just add the populations of the worlds with the highest and second-highest population levels. Anything below that will be rounded off anyway.


Hans
 
Last edited:
typing again...

I tried responding and my browser locked so I'll try again.
Clarify, please:
Are we talking about the system or the subsector? You seem to have switched focus. Your parenthetical statement was attached to a bulletted statement about mainworlds, in which you stated mainworlds were "probably highest civilian, commercial TL in the system." I therefore understood the parenthetical to be referring to the bulleted statement and to mean that since highest population did not automatically indicate capital status in a subsector, highest population might not indicate mainworld status in a system - tech level might. Have I misunderstood you?

As for subsectors: Regina is capital of the Regina subsector, though Efate is both more populous and higher in tech level. Lanth is capital of the Lanth subsector, though Wypoc at the same population enjoys a higher tech level and Equus at the same tech level enjoys a higher pop level. The Swords World capital is at Gram, though Sacnoth enjoys a higher tech level. (Note: Gram was promoted to TL C by errata.) In at least the case of Gram, canon makes clear that the designation of capital is a question of politics rather than tech level or population. It is very likely that Regina, seat of the Duke of Regina, also gains its status as capital as a result of political considerations.

However, in terms of designation as a mainworld - a mainworld is not a mainworld unless it is the hub of activity in the system, ships coming and going and so forth. Designating B as mainworld while the bulk of cargo is flowing through A would not make much sense.

Yes I was trying to keep it simple. I used the subsector as a macro example.

Now, I am not a Spinward Marches guru (I did find my CT SMC). If Gram and Regina are capitals they may not be the best comparisons for a subsector discussion of systems and subsector populations. (Gram leads a pocket empire...).

One other factor is Power. "Who's fief is it?" A high level noble family with a High TL, Pop and good commerce could probably beat a larger economy into the position of subsector capital.

Now back to systems. The mainworld may have been the historic seat of power and the majority of people for one reason or another (work), moved.
Rancke has numerous good examples.
 
... As an aside, interstellar trade has always been portrayed as relatively small. The economic strength of a Traveller world is its own production capacity, not its trade. ...

...Now, I am not a Spinward Marches guru (I did find my CT SMC). If Gram and Regina are capitals they may not be the best comparisons for a subsector discussion of systems and subsector populations. (Gram leads a pocket empire...).

One other factor is Power. "Who's fief is it?" A high level noble family with a High TL, Pop and good commerce could probably beat a larger economy into the position of subsector capital...

Good points both. Regina clearly enjoys an advantage courtesy of the Duke of Regina. The history of the Sword Worlds makes clear that Gram's current pre-eminence is relatively recent and subject to changing politics. Trade seems to take a back seat often enough - Aramis, Lanth - that, while they may have an influence, it is not a dominating influence. Political factors appear to be key. It's clear that it's not a matter of looking for the highest local tech level, though certainly a world's tech level will also influence how much political power it might exert at the interstellar level.

... I hadn't seen that tech levels of secondary worlds were capped too. That is even sillier than capping the population levels. ...

With respect to the TL, agreed. There are too many reasons and ways to start up a colony world to believe it will always be lower tech than the mainworld.

With respect to population, I see the Book 6 rules as a snapshot in time. The Supplement 3 UWP codes reflect the dominant world populationwise by "order" of Book 6, in a manner of speaking, since Book 6 directs that any other world in the system be of lesser population. Were some other world in the system to grow larger, that world presumably would become the world represented in the UWP, else that system does not conform to the Book 6 guidelines.

...Now back to systems. The mainworld may have been the historic seat of power and the majority of people for one reason or another (work), moved.
Rancke has numerous good examples.

...By far the most common settlement pattern is going to be one world settled first and people spreading from that world to the rest of the system later, giving the original world a several centuries head start. With a head start, the first world is very likely to have a population advantage of orders of magnitude. But 'most common' is not 'invariable'. I have no trouble imagining a system where several worlds have the same population level nd where the political capital is a less populated world chosen for its position or as a political compromise...

Neither do I, but canon rules won't build those. If and where they occur in canon, they are the inventions of specific authors. Where we apply canon rules to flesh out the universe, we won't end up with those; we'd have to put the rules aside and, like those authors, invent something on our own.

Canon authors, of course, have freedom to depart from this or that rule in the interest of a captivating (and marketable) setting, but by definition they are exceptions rather than the rule. As, for example:

...Another possibility is a secondary world overtaking the original world in importance. I've used that myself in at least two cases: New Rome and Deneb. In both cases a more Human-compatible world was overtaken by a world where heavy industry was built to keep it away from the the world where people live...

I'm aware that there are a number of contributers to canon among the posters, including you. I'm not familiar with New Rome or Deneb.

That's exactly the explanation I use for Heya's Class B starport. The boatyard is located on Heya's "moon" (actually co-orbital body), Heya-minor, where interstellar companies run mines under license from Heya' government.

I like that. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Just add the populations of the worlds with the highest and second-highest population levels. Anything below that will be rounded off anyway.

Good point, but it's still very difficult to arrive at the Supplement 3 subsector population levels without throwing out Book 6 pop gen rules for those high-pop worlds you'll need to focus on - possibly not without putting in a couple of ancillary worlds with pops larger than the already immense populations of the primaries. Doable, but not within the canon rules and not without impacting canon elsewhere (specifically GURPS and its trade rules), which means we have what amounts to a(nother) canon conflict.
 
With respect to population, I see the Book 6 rules as a snapshot in time. The Supplement 3 UWP codes reflect the dominant world populationwise by "order" of Book 6, in a manner of speaking, since Book 6 directs that any other world in the system be of lesser population. Were some other world in the system to grow larger, that world presumably would become the world represented in the UWP, else that system does not conform to the Book 6 guidelines.
I see the Book 6 rules as a simplification of a complex situation. In most cases the world with the highest population is also the system's most important world, for some definition of 'important'. There are exceptions, but the Book 6 rules ignores them and conflates highest population with most importance. The UWPs simply aren't geared to handle systems with two or more worlds of almost equal importance, so they impose an arbitrary limit on secondary worlds to avoid the problem. But that doesn't make the rules true to 'reality' in all cases.

Neither do I, but canon rules won't build those. If and where they occur in canon, they are the inventions of specific authors. Where we apply canon rules to flesh out the universe, we won't end up with those; we'd have to put the rules aside and, like those authors, invent something on our own.
And why not? Setting-building rules are suppose to help a referee build his setting, not be a straightjacket for him. If a rule starts to become a hindrance to your imagination, dump it!

Canon authors, of course, have freedom to depart from this or that rule in the interest of a captivating (and marketable) setting, but by definition they are exceptions rather than the rule.
But if you believe that authors can ignore the rules whenever they like (which they can't; they need their editors to agree), who else is left to be constrained to follow the rules without deviation?

I'm aware that there are a number of contributers to canon among the posters, including you.
Sadly not nearly as much of a contributor as I would like to be, and most of that to JTAS Online, which is not, alas, canon.

I'm not familiar with New Rome or Deneb.
Both are examples of stuff that isn't canon but contributions to JTAS Online.

New Rome was, according to me, a secondary world in the system occupied by the world Bellion:

Imperial world in the Glisten subsector. New Rome was originally a secondary world in what was at the time called the Bellion System. Forcibly settled in 86 with political exiles from the Imperium, the selection of this unpromising world was dictated by a vindictive Imperial admiral. When Bellion first expanded into space, their neighbors on New Rome were able to provide them with valuable technical assistance and became a privileged part of Bellion society. New Rome prospered and became the site of most of the system's heavy industry. Eventually the majority of the system's population lived on New Rome and the system was accordingly renamed to reflect that.
All this is from my historical writeup of the Outrim Frontier in the Year 400.

Deneb was, again according to me, originally the next world out from a world named Gashimuu that orbited in the life zone around the star Deneb:

History

Gashimuu, a world orbiting the star Deneb in the life zone, one orbit in from the world Deneb, was settled around -2400 by Vilani fleeing the Rule of Man. Like most such colonies, it regressed technologically, but not as much as many, and it regained jump capability around -80.

When Imperial scouts first visited the system in 44, they, contrary to normal practice, named it for its star and not its mainworld. With a population of 800 million and a sound economy, Deneb was the chief trading partner of the Lidash League. Ling-Standard Products, Sharurshid, and Zhunastu Industries all maintained factors in the system, and recruited and trained many locals. The IISS established a base in Deneb in 50 from which the exploration of the rimward half of the sector was conducted. There was a local naval base which, by a treaty of 83, Imperial Navy ships could use to resupply.

A lot heavy industry had already been placed on the next world out from Gashimuu, and as the years went by, the population rose until it finally overtook Gashimuu as the system mainworld. Inevitably, it became known as Deneb.

I've no idea if Rob used any of this in the MgT sourcebook about Deneb. If he didn't, I guess that by now it it is not only non-canonical but contra-canonical. But it's still an example of what I was talking about with having a secondary world overtake the mainworld in importance.

Good point, but it's still very difficult to arrive at the Supplement 3 subsector population levels without throwing out Book 6 pop gen rules for those high-pop worlds you'll need to focus on - possibly not without putting in a couple of ancillary worlds with pops larger than the already immense populations of the primaries.
I don't think there's any point in trying to preserve the Supplemment 3 subsector population levels. Let TPTB decide on a set of populations for the individual systems that they want to make the definitive populations (as they have, indeed, done for T5) and just add up those populations for each subsector. Second half of Rancke's Credo: "If it doesn't work, change it to something that does work and stick to that from then on".


Hans
 
I see the Book 6 rules as a simplification of a complex situation. ...

That too; that tends to be true of a lot of Traveller rules. Tends to be a common theme in gaming - needs to be complex enough to satisfy the gamer's need for detail without being so complex that they become disgusted with it.

Book 6 has a specific (rather narrow) idea in mind for how system populations grow and expand. It practically begs for people to do their own thing here and there. Only problem really comes in when we try to make general inferences from broad chunks of data - like the Spinward Marches supplement. We either rely on what canon rules we have to draw those inferences, or we accept that those rules aren't going to do a proper job of it and just live without the inferences. In this instance, we either write off the Supplement 3 subsector population levels as unachievable under the canon rules, or write off the canon rules as inapplicable to Supplement 3. Or maybe both.

Both are examples of stuff that isn't canon but contributions to JTAS Online...

If I may be so bold, how do you wrangle permission to do that kind of thing? There are a couple of world ideas I've tossed about here that I wouldn't mind submitting for that kind of treatment.

I don't think there's any point in trying to preserve the Supplemment 3 subsector population levels. Let TPTB decide on a set of populations for the individual systems that they want to make the definitive populations (as they have, indeed, done for T5) and just add up those populations for each subsector. Second half of Rancke's Credo: "If it doesn't work, change it to something that does work and stick to that from then on"...

I think you're right on that score.
 
If I may be so bold, how do you wrangle permission to do that kind of thing? There are a couple of world ideas I've tossed about here that I wouldn't mind submitting for that kind of treatment.
Permission? That's what JTAS Online do. Publish Traveller articles. Mostly contributors take pains to make their stuff as canon-compatible as they can manage. It's not their fault if an official writer comes along later and decides to ignore it in favor of his own ideas[*]. It's a deplorable waste, IMO, but as JTAS Online isn't canon, there's nothing to keep them from doing so.

And if the stuff a contributor submits isn't canon-compatible, Loren can just slaps a 'Variant' label on it and publish it anyway.

[*] Though to be fair, not all of them know of the existence of JTAS Online.[**]

[**] Though arguably they OUGHT to be aware; JTAS Online is a huge repository of useful material and why not take advantage of it?​


Hans
 
canon goes around and around

I've no idea if Rob used any of this in the MgT sourcebook about Deneb. If he didn't, I guess that by now it it is not only non-canonical but contra-canonical. But it's still an example of what I was talking about with having a secondary world overtake the mainworld in importance.


I don't think there's any point in trying to preserve the Supplemment 3 subsector population levels. Let TPTB decide on a set of populations for the individual systems that they want to make the definitive populations (as they have, indeed, done for T5) and just add up those populations for each subsector. Second half of Rancke's Credo: "If it doesn't work, change it to something that does work and stick to that from then on".


Hans

Yes but throwing them out really is a work around like anything else.
It's a bit more interesting to determine the missing pieces of the puzzle and fill them in.
  • Clearly, Systems have higher populations than the mainworld.
  • H&E (MT...) gave a better view of system populations but lacked any form of rolling up the numbers.
  • Empty parsecs would have lost world/asteroid colonies.
  • Low population main worlds lack transient populations. Transient populations may be tracked at a subsector level not covered in Canon!
  • Population levels could be for TAXATION and TRADE purposes. A High Tech Military/ Corporate complex may be a terrible place to bring trade and may be subsidized by the Imperium Navy or a Corporation.
  • As someone mentioned earlier the possibility of non-entity populations where the poor Prols, non-nobility, or certain races or sexes do not count.
  • It is also possible that various documents represent different points in the timeline. We can take GT, CT sup3, CT sup6, SMC, SM, MT, TNE, T4, T20 as specific points in the timeline but necessarily conflicting.

The main point is that there is not an easy answer unless Marc publishes overruling canon. :oo:
 
Yes but throwing them out really is a work around like anything else.
I didn't say anything about just throwing anything out. I usually prefer the smallest change that achieves the desired result. In this case it would be to change the figure for the total population of a subsector to be the sum of the individual populations in the subsector.

As for the workaround aspect, if you start with a set of contradictory statements, you're not going to fix them without employing a workaround. It's inherent in the problem. If you could fix them without a workaround, they wouldn't be contradictory in the first place.

It's a bit more interesting to determine the missing pieces of the puzzle and fill them in.

That's certainly my preferred solution. But it requires one thing: That there are missing pieces of the puzzle to find. If I've tried to come up with a solution and failed, and no one else has come up with a solution, then I feel fully justified in labeling the problem unsolvable (without workarounds, that is). Now, if someone cleverer than me comes along and provide a solution that works, I'll be the first to applaud him, and I'll cheerfully buy him a beer if he ever comes to Copenhagen, but the argument "I can't come up with anything myself, but I'm sure there must be an explanation" is an inadequate argument.

Note that I'm talking about specific, concrete fixes, not generalities. I've nothing against your list as such and I think it's something well worth discussing, but it doesn't help with concrete problems until and unless someone comes up with concrete solutions.

[*]Clearly, Systems have higher populations than the mainworld.
Or the same.

[*]Empty parsecs would have lost world/asteroid colonies.
What an interesting idea. I shall have to think of an adventure that involves a place like that. However, as a way to adjust subsector population figures I think such places, if they exist, will be far too low-population.

[*]Low population main worlds lack transient populations. Transient populations may be tracked at a subsector level not covered in Canon!
Bad idea. For world-building purposes (determining infrastructure and trade volumes) it's much easier if population figures reflect actual population sizes.

[*]Population levels could be for TAXATION and TRADE purposes. A High Tech Military/ Corporate complex may be a terrible place to bring trade and may be subsidized by the Imperium Navy or a Corporation.
Bad idea. The same bad idea as above.

[*]As someone mentioned earlier the possibility of non-entity populations where the poor Prols, non-nobility, or certain races or sexes do not count.

You know what I'm going to say here, so instead I'll ask you what suggestions you have for subsector population figures that are LESS than the sum total of the individual world populations?

[*]It is also possible that various documents represent different points in the timeline. We can take GT, CT sup3, CT sup6, SMC, SM, MT, TNE, T4, T20 as specific points in the timeline but necessarily conflicting.
I always assume that UWPs reflect a specific year. Often it's a real pain to do so, since GDW mostly failed to update UWPs when they republished them, but that's what we have to work with.

The main point is that there is not an easy answer unless Marc publishes overruling canon. :oo:
That's not the main point for me. For me the main point is to eliminate setting details that strain my willing suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. It would be nice if Marc Miller made such adjustments official, but that would be a bonus.


Hans
 
Last edited:
details

I usually prefer the smallest change that achieves the desired result. In this case it would be to change the figure for the total population of a subsector to be the sum of the individual populations in the subsector.
Agreed. And Disagreed. There are elements missing from the subsector population. Right now we have tools (H&E, for example) that have canon assumptions.

for the workaround aspect, if you start with a set of contradictory statements, you're not going to fix them without employing a workaround. It's inherent in the problem. If you could fix them without a workaround, they wouldn't be contradictory in the first place.

That's certainly my preferred solution. But it requires one thing: That there are missing pieces of the puzzle to find. If I've tried to come up with a solution and failed, and no one else has come up with a solution, then I feel fully justified in labeling the problem unsolvable (without workarounds, that is). Now, if someone cleverer than me comes along and provide a solution that works, I'll be the first to applaud him, and I'll cheerfully buy him a beer if he ever comes to Copenhagen, but the argument "I can't come up with anything myself, but I'm sure there must be an explanation" is an inadequate argument.
Booze is usually a good incentive.

I believe the system is missing details not completely broken. The requirements for the system are inadequate.

What an interesting idea. I shall have to think of an adventure that involves a place like that. However, as a way to adjust subsector population figures I think such places, if they exist, will be far too low-population.
Do you think a starless parsec is empty? I don't. It's really based on the amount of material in a parsec. A loose asteroid belt or planet with a hot molten core can make a nice home. This is nothing new.


Bad idea. For world-building purposes (determining infrastructure and trade volumes) it's much easier if population figures reflect actual population sizes.


Bad idea. The same bad idea as above.
We may have to agree to disagree.
Typically, I do not like workarounds but in this case the two ideas make sense. The requirements question is "Are there other missing modifiers?" In fact, I'm suggesting we're missing dice rolls to complete the population information. Military and Corporate planets would require a dice roll with modifiers for "real population". As ARAMIS mentioned earlier, real world populations could be 50% off.



You know what I'm going to say here, so instead I'll ask you what suggestions you have for subsector population figures that are LESS than the sum total of the individual world populations?


I always assume that UWPs reflect a specific year. Often it's a real pain to do so, since GDW mostly failed to update UWPs when they republished them, but that's what we have to work with.
GDW designed Traveller to be a mobile campaign. Only high level details for worlds we're needed.

I've been working through the Rhyanor subsector and the system I was assigned by the Emperor. The numbers may make some sense but not without additional explanations. There are a lot of things to track. I have not looked at all of the SM subsectors.

And if a world is garbage living in a comfortable space colony might be a more convenient answer.
 
Agreed. And Disagreed. There are elements missing from the subsector population.
Says who? I say that UWP populations show system populations, and I can provide canonical examples of it (e.g. Glisten, Forine).

Right now we have tools (H&E, for example) that have canon assumptions.

Would those be canonical statements or assumptions about canon that may or may not be true?

I believe the system is missing details not completely broken. The requirements for the system are inadequate.
I can't parse the first sentence. UWPs are certainly inadequate to distinguish between mainworld population and system population.

Do you think a starless parsec is empty?
In the Traveller universe? I know that a starless hex is almost empty in the Traveller universe. Otherwise crossing rifts would be a lot easier than it canonically is.

I don't. It's really based on the amount of material in a parsec. A loose asteroid belt or planet with a hot molten core can make a nice home. This is nothing new.
A loose asteroid belt or planet with a hot molten core and a population would rate a UWP of its own.

Typically, I do not like workarounds but in this case the two ideas make sense. The requirements question is "Are there other missing modifiers?" In fact, I'm suggesting we're missing dice rolls to complete the population information. Military and Corporate planets would require a dice roll with modifiers for "real population". As ARAMIS mentioned earlier, real world populations could be 50% off.
Could require, not would. I'm not saying that ignored populations wouldn't explain some canon inconsistencies (though not this one; why would the Scouts ignore parts of population for systems but include them in subsector figures? Either they count or they don't. Also, ignore populations won't explain subsector population figures that are lower than the sum total of all system populations). I'm saying the fix would creater greater problems with other parts of the game.

GDW designed Traveller to be a mobile campaign. Only high level details for worlds were needed.
I needed a lot more than that, actually. But the puzzle here is why none of the high level details changed at all. You'd expect some populations at least to tick over to the next higher digit in 15 years.

I've been working through the Rhyanor subsector and the system I was assigned by the Emperor. The numbers may make some sense but not without additional explanations. There are a lot of things to track. I have not looked at all of the SM subsectors.
Most of my work has been with the Sword Worlds and the Duchy of Regina.

And if a world is garbage living in a comfortable space colony might be a more convenient answer.
I count space habitats in orbit around a world as being part of that world's population. That's part of how I explain a world like Rethe.


Hans
 
Last edited:
preferences...

Says who? I say that UWP populations show system populations, and I can provide canonical examples of it (e.g. Glisten, Forine).

The definition of UWP is Universal World Profile not Universal System Profile. Out of curiosity: Where is Glisten or anywhere else states as a system population? Hopefully not the GT book.

I can't parse the first sentence. UWPs are certainly inadequate to distinguish between mainworld population and system population.

the Traveller universe? I know that a starless hex is almost empty in the Traveller universe. Otherwise crossing rifts would be a lot easier than it canonically is.


A loose asteroid belt or planet with a hot molten core and a population would rate a UWP of its own.

Agreed. UWPs are inadequate.

Empty is simply missing stars? Every example of a UWP in a system also contains a star. I believe the Traveller definition only documents UWPs in star systems! So, this is the catch. There would need to be a map of non-star based astrological bodies. Let's not forget it's only a 2D map to begin with. Not very impressive even in the 80's which is one reason why 2300 switched to stutterwarp.


Could require, not would. I'm not saying that ignored populations wouldn't explain some canon inconsistencies (though not this one; why would the Scouts ignore parts of population for systems but include them in subsector figures? Either they count or they don't. Also, ignore populations won't explain subsector population figures that are lower than the sum total of all system populations). I'm saying the fix would creater greater problems with other parts of the game.


I needed a lot more than that, actually. But the puzzle here is why none of the high level details changed at all. You'd expect some populations at least to tick over to the next higher digit in 15 years.

Most of my work has been with the Sword Worlds and the Duchy of Regina.


I count space habitats in orbit around a world as being part of that world's population. That's part of how I explain a world like Rethe.

Hans

I would accept Space Habitats in lower orbits of the mainworld as part of the
UWP. However, have not seen reasonable examples of moon populations being included. So Space Habitats in Far Orbits may not apply. Space Habitats in system or out of a system are not included in the statistic.:eek:
Take those items like the Sky Pirates world. They are in canon but not on the map.


As I said, "agree to disagree".
 
Subordinate populations for a system are generated per book 6... or the extended system in non-CT non-MGT editions - and can either be Roll populations normally, adjusted for orbital zone and atmosphere, and then take the biggest as mainworld or Roll them normally, adjust for orbit zone and atmosphere, then reduce any that are above the mainworld to one pop code less than mainworld. (paraphrased from Bk6, p. 36).
It is quite possible (I've had it happen with low PopMult worlds) for the mainworld to be less than half the system population. With one, it was under a third. (Pop A mult 1.4§, 4 pop 9's, PM's 9, 8, 8, 6 , All moons of the sam GG. So pops 14E9, 9E9, 8E9, 8E9, 6E9, thus total 45E9 pop, with only 14/45 on the "main world". The GG was hab zone, and all the generated moons had breathable atmospheres. Not quite Firefly, but I can see how one might generate the Firefly verse using Bk 6... A trinary, with each companion being a far binary pair...

----
§ We rolled the second place because we needed it in play.
 
The definition of UWP is Universal World Profile not Universal System Profile.
A point, I admit. OTOH, interstellar trade activity is invariably based on the UWP population figure. If some systems had significant numbers of people living elsewhere in the system, interstellar trade would be based on the total population instead of the world's population alone.

It's not the first time a concept has been mislabeled for one reason or another.

Out of curiosity: Where is Glisten or anywhere else states as a system population? Hopefully not the GT book.
Of course the GT book.

Empty is simply missing stars? Every example of a UWP in a system also contains a star. I believe the Traveller definition only documents UWPs in star systems!
So it does.


Hans
 
Back
Top