Spinward Marches comparison

[mike wightman]

I hope someone has spotted all this before now

 

[daryen]

Oh, I had noticed the trend of giving a population-less world a non-zero TL. I tend to blow out the TL in that case.

To be honest, I even reject worlds that have a zero population and a non-zero multiplier. I am terribly sorry to the 1-9 people involved, but 1-9 is, at the sector level, the same as zero. In my book, any world with a zero population automatically gets a zero government, law level, and tech level.

But that is just me.

But no, I hadn't realized that there were that many changes between S3 and SMC. Pretty wild.

 

[mike wightman]

Did all of this really carry through to MT and beyond I wonder?

I'll check the stats in MT IE when I've finished the second half of the SM.

 

[daryen]

I just figured out why all of those zero-pop worlds have a non-zero TL.

The reason is the population multiplier I mentioned. It appears the population multiplier was determined randomly. Therefore, if a world with a pop of zero, but a multiplier of 1+, then the world does have a population (of sorts) and therefore needs a TL, which itself is then randomly generated.

This is indeed following the rules correctly.

Sigg,

In answer to your question: Yes. The information from the SMC is carried forward blindly from the SMC to IE to MTJ#3 to RSB. I am very confident of that.

 

[mike wightman]

So a population of 1-9 people can maintain a manufacturing TL of 7-9?

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
So a population of 1-9 people can maintain a manufacturing TL of 7-9?

Two points:

1) I never said the explanation made sense. That is just what must have happened.

2) TL describes the "locally available" technology, not the level of local production. If it was the level of local production, then all low population worlds, if not all non-industrial worlds would be TL3 or so. The "locally available" technology can be fully imported.

 

[daryen]

OK, I went and compared SMC and S3. Not counting TL 1+ on zero pop worlds and missing a world, I count a total of 51 changes.

The obvious mistakes:
- The Zhodani world Zeycude (0101) ain't gonna have an Imperial naval base and scout base. This is not corrected until RSB.
- SMC forgot to list Jesedipere (3001). This is an obvious oversight corrected in IE.
- Pavanne (2905) is a line copy of Violante (2708). This was never corrected.
- Natoko (3209), Colada (1022), Tsarina (2236), and Moran (2924) are not really Amber Zones. These was never corrected, despite never appearing any any maps (including the one in SMC).

Other than these, I can't see any outright mistakes in the changes. You can argue the changes, but I don't see any other mistakes.

The biggest understandable changes involve the creation of the Federation of Arden.

The biggest annoyance changes (other than the list above) are the four TL changes in the Regina subsector (Regina, Roup, Yori, Kinorb).

[Edited to expand the list of Amber Zone worlds beyond just Natoko.]

 

[daryen]

Based on the previous message, I recommend the following change requests for the Spinward Marches data:
- Change Pavanne (2905) back to E210000-0.
- Change all xxx000-x worlds to have a TL of 0 and a population multiplier of 0.
- Remove the Amber Zone from Natoko (3209).
- Remove the Amber Zone from Colada (1022).
- Remove the Amber Zone from Tsarina (2236).
- Remove the Amber Zone from Moran (2924).
- Remove the base code from Zeycude (0101).
- Make sure Jesedipere (3001) is listed.

Accept all of the other changes, regardless of how annoying they are (e.g. Yori).

 

[JAFARR]

And then there are the un-corrected errors in the origional listing that were intentionally left after being discovered. I.E. 3 pairs of worlds with the same name, each having a major and a minor world and 1 even having the wrong alliance listed.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
And then there are the un-corrected errors in the origional listing that were intentionally left after being discovered. I.E. 3 pairs of worlds with the same name, each having a major and a minor world and 1 even having the wrong alliance listed.

No, there are seven pairs of worlds with the same name: Kinorb (2202 and 2512), Aramis (2540 and 3110), Mirriam (0333 and 1315), Margesi (1020 and 3212), Heroni (2521 and 3017), Inthe (2234 and 2410), and Natoko (2620 and 3209).

Also, there are more than one world with the wrong allegiance code in S3. The two that immediately come to mind are Esalin and Zircon.

(I will ignore Entrope, Winston, and Anselhome which are listed as Darrian in S3 and SW in SMC. The ironic part is that both are wrong. Prior to the 5FW - S3 - they were controlled by the Sword Worlds. After the 5FW - SMC - they were controlled by the Darrians.)

 

[daryen]

Just for the record, here are the discrepancies I found between Supplement 3 and the Spinward Marches Campaign. Unless otherwise noted, all changes are listed as going from S3 to SMC.

I only note substatiative base changes. Obvious typoes (e.g. "2" instead of "Z") and format changes (Darrian "D" -> "M"; Sword "B" -> "M"; Imperial "2" -> "A") are ignored and not listed below. Also a couple worlds are shown to have both a scout base and a way station. These are ignored, too.

- Zeycude (0101) inexplicably has a base code of "A" added in SMC.
- Xhosa (0115) goes from EA94124-4 to EA95124-4.
- Rushu (0215) goes from E765664-4 to E766674-4.
- 769-422 (0240) goes from E754401-A to E754401-8.
- Chronor (0304) goes from A636934-D to A6369A5-D.
- Nonym (0321) goes from C233868-A to C233898-A. Its base code goes from "M" to "G".
- Candory (0336) goes from C593634-9 to C593634-8.
- Wonderay (0340) goes from E88A46A-3 to E88A46A-4.
- Terra Nova (0511) goes from C786342-A to C786342-9.
- Terant 340 (0622) goes from D1405B7-9 to D1405A7-9.
- 494-908 (0625) goes from X892000-0 to X893000-0.
- Nosea (0724) has its base go from Darrian military to Imperial naval.
- Narval (0805) gains a Zhodani naval base.
- 875-496 (0834) goes from E888421-B to E888421-7.
- Zeta 2 (0919) gains its missing Red Zone. (This was an error in S3.)
- Esalin (1004) goes from being Zhodani to being an Imperial client state.
- Arden (1011) goes from independent to the Federation of Arden.
- Colada (1022) gains an Amber Zone.
- Kwai Ching (1040) goes from C503758-8 to C503758-A.
- Zircon (1110) goes from an Imperial world to the Federation of Arden. (It should have been independent in S3.) Its base code changes from "S" to "G".
- Vilis (1119) goes from A593933-A to A593943-A.
- Enos (1130) has its base go from "S" to "G".
- Mongo (1204) goes from A369685-A to A368685-A.
- Utoland (1209) goes from independent to the Federation of Arden.
- Datrillion (1331) goes from E229633-8 to E227633-8.
- Mertactor (1537) becomes subsector capital. (In S3, District 268 has no subsector capital; it is managed from Glisten.)
- Grote (1731) goes from A400404-A to A400404-B.
- Victoria (1817) goes from X697770-4 to X697772-2.
- Regina (1910) goes from A788899-A to A788899-C.
- Dinomn (1912) goes from B674632-3 to B674632-9
- D'Ganzio (1920) goes from B121410-D to B120410-D.
- Roup (2007) goes from C77A9A9-6 to C77A9A9-7.
- Wypoc (2011) goes from E9C4547-C to E9C4547-8.
- Yori (2110) goes from C360757-D to C360727-A.
- Sorel (2137) goes from E48569A-1 to E48569A-2.
- Kinorb (2202) goes from A663659-5 to A663659-8.
- Quopist (2215) goes from B151679-A to B150679-A.
- Marastan (2231) goes from D868771-5 to D868772-5.
- Tsarina (2236) gains an Amber Zone.
- Ffudn (2334) goes from A41489D-8 to A41489D-C.
- Keanou (2411) goes from C790348-7 to C792348-7.
- Vreibefger (2415) goes from E481542-2 to E418542-3.
- La'Belle (2416) goes from C564112-3 to C564112-4.
- Gileden (2514) goes from C483103-5 to C483103-6.
- Byret (2523) goes from B485697-5 to B485697-6.
- Porozlo (2715) goes from A867A74-A to A867A74-B.
- Pedase (2830) goes from C415346-5 to C415346-7.
- Pavanne (2905) goes from E210000-0 to C669452-A. (This is a line error, as the full UWP is a copy of Violante (2708). The original S3 UWP should be used.)
- Celepina (2913) goes from B434456-8 to B434456-9.
- Moran (2924) gains an Amber Zone.
- Jesedipere (3001) is flat out missing from SMC. (It is in all other sources, though.)
- Youghal (3039) goes from AA94365-B to AA95365-B.
- Nutema (3112) goes from B846310-8 to B864310-8.
- Natoko (3209) gains an Amber Zone.
- 567-908 (1031) gains TL 8 despite its zero population. [This is the Shrieker homeworld.]
- 728-907 (1214) gains TL 2 despite its zero population.
- Judice (1337) gains TL 8 despite its zero population.
- Tavonni (1520) gains TL 7 despite its zero population.
- Steel (1529) gains TL 7 despite its zero population.
- Iron (1626) gains TL 9 despite its zero population.
- Bronze (1627) gains TL 9 despite its zero population.
- Djinni (2111) gains TL 9 despite its zero population.

Notes:

- The new Amber Zones (Colada, Tsarina, Moran, and Natoko) are all likely to be errors. No published map supports such assignments.
- Pavanne is a line error. The S3 UWP should be used.
- Imperial Encyclopedia (and all later sources) add these worlds to the Federation of Arden: Quare (0915), Zenopit (1010), Pequan (1210), and Tremous Dex (1311).
- All zero pop worlds with TL 1+ are caused by the generation of the population multiplier digit. When the digit was greater than zero, a TL was generated for the world.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
If all the writers of the MT material, and later the Regency sourcebook, just copied what they thought was correct data then it make sense to correct these mistakes.

That would make sense if the original data deserved to be considered correct without further ado. But they don't. Leaving aside the question of impossible and extremely improbable UWPs, a random set of 400 unrelated UWPs is not a reasonable finished data set, and wouldn't be even if each individual UWP was perfectly unexceptional in itself, because 400 worlds with a thousand and more years of shared history are not unrelated. An UWP can be more or less probable simply by virtue of the UWPs of surrounding worlds, and even more so based on the history of the area.

Marc dislikes the idea of changing UWPs to fit a concept. After long consideration I've come to the conclusion that not changing some UWPs to fit the concept that the populations of these worlds are the result of centuries of non-random social evolution is a big mistake.

However, be that as it may, Marc has his opinion, and in this matter Marc's opinion is the one that counts. But that makes it even more important (IMO) to take every opportunity to finetune the UWPs that Marc is willing to consider changing. So whenever two different canonical data sets disagree, I look on it as an opportunity. Instead of just accepting one set as 'more canonical' than the other, I prefer to examine the world and its history and surrounding worlds, and then chose the version that makes for the best background universe.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by robject:
Mike West's points are valid, so most of the Marches will be preserved as-is. But Marc's already allowed changes and bugfixes, so send your favorites.

It may be too late, but better late than never.

Oh, I sure hope not! I have a number of instances that I would like to draw to Marc's attention. Unfortunately I have tyechnical difficulties in up and downloading files at the moment, so I've been putting it off (It's not that I can't do it, it's just difficult and tedious).


Hans

 

[robject]

By the way, Hans, way-back-when (when was that? months ago? feels like decades) I did submit a bevy of your suggestions, many of which Marc accepted.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by robject:
By the way, Hans, way-back-when (when was that? months ago? feels like decades) I did submit a bevy of your suggestions, many of which Marc accepted.

Yes, I remember. But those were those that pertained to the 47 systems within jump-6 of Regina. That is the area that I've lavished the most attention to, but I have some material from elsewhere in the Marches too. Also, it only concerned discrepancies that applied to the Classic Era. If Marc is working on 1065 data, there are other differences (For example, Paya, which had 12 million inhabitants before that meteor strike).

BTW, there's a whole can of worms in the population numbers alone. 1065 to 1105 is 40 years, and populations can grow considerably in 40 years. No doubt some of them reached their 1105 population figures long ago and have had zero population growth since, but surely not all? Even an extremely modest population growth can change population modifiers in 40 years, and in some cases there could easily be a change in population level. And note that I'm not talking about low-population worlds, but medium- and high-populatiuon ones. The biggest problem here is that there is no automatic way to determine which worlds would have the same population in 1065 as in 1105, nor would population growth be the same on every world.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by rancke:
That would make sense if the original data deserved to be considered correct without further ado. But they don't. Leaving aside the question of impossible and extremely improbable UWPs, a random set of 400 unrelated UWPs is not a reasonable finished data set, and wouldn't be even if each individual UWP was perfectly unexceptional in itself, because 400 worlds with a thousand and more years of shared history are not unrelated. An UWP can be more or less probable simply by virtue of the UWPs of surrounding worlds, and even more so based on the history of the area.

Marc dislikes the idea of changing UWPs to fit a concept. After long consideration I've come to the conclusion that not changing some UWPs to fit the concept that the populations of these worlds are the result of centuries of non-random social evolution is a big mistake.

However, be that as it may, Marc has his opinion, and in this matter Marc's opinion is the one that counts. But that makes it even more important (IMO) to take every opportunity to finetune the UWPs that Marc is willing to consider changing. So whenever two different canonical data sets disagree, I look on it as an opportunity. Instead of just accepting one set as 'more canonical' than the other, I prefer to examine the world and its history and surrounding worlds, and then chose the version that makes for the best background universe.


Hans

I think I agree with everything you've said here. It makes a lot of sense to look at the influences worlds will have on each other when designing sectors, rather than just trying to explain the results of random chance.

 

[BeRKA]

Are You aware of the Traveller Sector Data Cleaning Project? by CotI member Hemdian?

 

[daryen]

Yes. However, his base assumptions are different from Sigg's. (And, ironically, different from mine in a separate effort.)

Besides, his rate of one subsector per three years isn't fast enough for comparison.

 

[mw_shipping]

So has there been anything "Official" said about certain world names being duplicated on the map?

 

[daryen]

Marc doesn't see it as a big deal. I don't have the quote (robject might be able to dig it up), but the issue has been raised already, and he isn't concerned about it.