• 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.

Subsector UWPs

rancke

Absent Friend
I recently borrowed a friend's copies of the first three EPIC adventures for a few weeks and had a quick read-through. On the whole I'm very favorably impressed and if I ever manage to finish and sell something to Quicklink, I'm definitely going to buy them for myself. Without having read every page in detail, it's my impression that these books are every bit as good as the old GDW adventures.

But there's one thing about them that really perplexes me and caused me to write this post. Can someone please explain to me what's so bad about vetting the UWPs for impossible combinations before publishing? Looking through the UWPs for the Thorstone, Kraxin, Williamsburg and Tri-Empire subsectors I spot all the old... (what's the antonym of 'favorites'? Disfavorites?) The spaceship and starship yards run by a handful of people, the overabundance of class M stars (including the non-existent M9s), the breathable atmospheres on the worlds that are too small to retain them, the high-population worlds with too little traffic to merit a fuel purification plant, the defenseless low-tech garden worlds that are left in peace by their high-tech neighbors, the thriving low-tech communities on vacuum worlds, the total lack of correlation between habitability and population size.

Half of these could be fixed in 15 minutes by rote and the other half by a minimum of thought in a couple of hours. Obviously the author and editor must feel that it's a bad idea to fix these UWPs. And I can't understand it. I mean, the author himself has tried to write up one of these UWPs and failed. Take a look at the world Arkaene in the Thorstone sector. It's UWP is

Arkaene.......1104 B100000-9.......Va...............630...Im..M9 V..M3 D


On page 13 of The Stoner Express there's a writeup of Arkaene. Here is a condensed version of it:

Arkaene is a tiny rockball world which acts as the gravitational anchor point for Arkaene Highport, a large Class B facility. It is a transshipment point for goods crossing the border via the Phelina Main. The highport is a corporate facility owned and run by Arkaene Highport, LIC. The standard Imperial law level of 4 is maintained on the port. The port sees a lot of shipping traffic and is defended by several squadrons of SDBs. Arkaene itself has no indigenous population. A small community of miners and prospectors makes a living from its mineral wealth. None of their communities numbers more than 100 souls. Each has its own landing area (equivalent to a Class E Starport). [Paraphrase from The Stoner Express, p. 13]

This is a system with 2 or more separate communities (The first paragraph speaks of one community, the second of several). In either case its 'mainworld' is obviously the highport. Which would not generate the social data cluster 000, but rather 314 or 414 (depending on just how many people live and work there, thousands at least and quite possible more than 10,000). If the scouts count the miners at all, it makes the system balkanized (and adds several hundreds of citizens). That would make the social data cluster 474 instead. But no matter how you slice it, there's no way to get 000 out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I thouroughly approve of the changes. I'm happy that the author didn't try to make me believe that 6 poeple were running a spaceship yard. But what I just can't comprehend is why he didn't take the logical next step and revise the UWP to reflect the 'reality' of the writeup.

Arkaene.......1104 B100414-9.......Va...............630...Im..M9 V..M3 D


Hans

PS. Hunter and Martin, I hope I managed to avoid offending you with this post. There's no way I can avoid making it an attack, of course, but I hope I was sufficiently civil and that it didn't come off as a personal attack.
 
I hate to say it, but what about the obvious reason: The UWPs are historical and the inheritors feel they shouldn't just change them (even if that change might lead to a debatable improvement)?
 
Why didn't the author just have the six people there utilize TL 9 robots (most of which are master-slave) to operate the starport. The six people could be members of the same family and operate the starport as a family business for the transshipment of goods? Sure TL 9 robots are bulky, expensive, and not very intelligent but it would explain how only six people could run the starport. The family is somewhat paranoid and very rarely meets with outsiders (somewhat xenophobic) so all contact by system transits is with robots.

Just a thought.....
 
IMO, there are no real answers to the question.

The UWPs should accurately reflect the descriptions.

And yet, thought many of the UWPs are hopeless, there seems to be a line of thought that keeping them is a good idea.

I'm not one of the people with that idea.

I still think that all remaining unpublished UWPs need a total reworking, so that new publications that continue to emerge will be based upon firmer foundations, instead of continuing to integrate the flawed UWPs of the distant past into the new work of the present by canonizing or re-canonizing them in current publications.
 
I'm not going to suggest that fixing them is a bad idea, but the UWP comes up short as a complete descriptor of more complex situations in so many ways, I find it hard to be upset about it being wacky. Pretty early on as GM and player, you learn that there must have been some politicking involved in a lot of the UWPs, that discrimination factors in others (for pop counting), and that some are obviously clerical errors. Gee whiz, the 3rd Imperium , Vilani rooted, makes mistakes... and doesn't like to admit it? Imagine that! Quelle Surprise!

Yes, we should fix them, but before you think of that, think of the policy decisions about classification that need to go on up front. Why show the population of just the mainworld in *system* data? Why not show some sort of breakdown of human/non-human (or at least COUNT the non-humans!). etc.
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Why didn't the author just have the six people there utilize TL 9 robots (most of which are master-slave) to operate the starport. The six people could be members of the same family and operate the starport as a family business for the transshipment of goods? Sure TL 9 robots are bulky, expensive, and not very intelligent but it would explain how only six people could run the starport. The family is somewhat paranoid and very rarely meets with outsiders (somewhat xenophobic) so all contact by system transits is with robots.

Just a thought.....
Um, traffic levels at a B type starport are usually quite high. I suspect they'd need (and it is not impossible) a veritable army of bots. This could in itself be interesting. Your ship has a problem. You can't find a human to help deal with it and the low tech robots just trundle along.....

Also, Pop counts residents. There could be 500 rotated employees here as transients helping to run things. So that could explain the class B port.

Or maybe it is a port with class B facilities, but is very very small in size and ability to handle traffic. That wouldn't make sense for a shipping main, mind you. But the transient workers would. Maybe a Megacorp transports them in on six-month work terms. Sort of like Oil Field workers or whalers or whatever.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Um, traffic levels at a B type starport are usually quite high. I suspect they'd need (and it is not impossible) a veritable army of bots. This could in itself be interesting. Your ship has a problem. You can't find a human to help deal with it and the low tech robots just trundle along.....

Also, Pop counts residents. There could be 500 rotated employees here as transients helping to run things. So that could explain the class B port.

Or maybe it is a port with class B facilities, but is very very small in size and ability to handle traffic. That wouldn't make sense for a shipping main, mind you. But the transient workers would. Maybe a Megacorp transports them in on six-month work terms. Sort of like Oil Field workers or whalers or whatever.
Yes, the number of robots needed would be in the hundreds, maybe thousands even but robots are not life forms and don't count towards the population code. Since there are only six people there the amount of buying and selling by the locals is probably very small. Most of the ships entering the system just want to refuel and depart. Some ships would want to transfer cargo/passengers to a different ship for the next leg of the cargo's and passengers's journey. A few ships might need repairs. All of this could be handled by robots. Of course since the robots are pretty dumb, sometimes cargos are transferred to the wrong ship and passengers are booked on the wrong ship. Sometimes the battle damaged hull is replaced before the power couduits are reconnected properly. And a savy and clever crew (using computer skills, electronics and robotics) could intercept the master-slave communications and re-direct cargos (smuggled and pirated ones) to a new destination. Said organized crime doesn't actually live here, just makes use of the flaws in the system.

If there were 500 transient workers on six month contracts the population code would reflect that. They would still be residents, not locals and maybe not the same people but residents anyway.

Just an opinion.
 
Just had a thought. Yeah, I know that scares a lot of people but here it is....

Instead of rolling 2D6-2 for population why not base the method of generating the population code upon the starport created. Such as:
Class A: Roll 1D6+4
Class B: Roll 1D6+3
Class C: Roll 1D6+2
Class D: Roll 1D6+1
Class E/X: Roll 2D6-2
Minimum TL for any inhabitated world with a atmosphere of 0 or 1 is 9.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Also, Pop counts residents. There could be 500 rotated employees here as transients helping to run things. So that could explain the class B port.
I don't think it has ever been stated that population figures excluded transients (And I know of at least one world description that specifically includes them (Macene) and a number where it is implicit (Those where the population is said to be an outpost of some sort). I do know that if population figures don't include transients, they become that much less useful, since any trade a world does will be based on the number of people who live there, whether they intend to be buried there or are just visiting.

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that with a few rare exceptions, every inhabitant on a low-population world will be a transient. I just don't believe in stable, self-sufficient populations of very much less than 10,000 people. I believe they're all outposts of one kind and another.

Or maybe it is a port with class B facilities, but is very very small in size and ability to handle traffic.
The port itself may be small. But if it is class B, then it has a shipyard busily building spaceboats nearby. Just assembling parts takes people. Manufacturing the parts takes more people. Digging the ore and refining the metal for the parts takes more people. Providing service functions for those people takes more people. And on top of that you need customers for the finished products. If the parts are imported and the spaceboats exported, it adds transportation costs to their final price, so why would anyone locate a shipyard in a system without a proper labor force?


Hans
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Yes, the number of robots needed would be in the hundreds, maybe thousands even but robots are not life forms and don't count towards the population code.
They don't count towards the population code but they do count towards capital investment. Someone has to pay for them and their maintenance. And evidently robots are not cost-effective in the Traveller universe, since otherwise they would be used much more than canon shows they are. So now you have to explain why someone is running a shipyard at a loss in a neighboring star system without even enough people to defend all this valuable equipment from any thieves that may get the notion to go pick up a few unconsidered trifles.

However, all this does not address my real problem, which is this: Say you do manage to come up with a believable explanation for why this one world has six lonely people running a starport and a shipyard. Now please come up with a few score different, equally believable, explanations for all the other low-population worlds with class A and B starports.


Hans
 
Hans,

Just an FYI, but anything written by/for QLI and the Gateway Domain has to use the UWPs that QLI has already published, so the authors are stuck with previously released data.

Sadly, it appears that no true UWP checking went down before they were released. :( QLI is not alone in these regards, as there are countless examples of this sort of thing in prior versions of Traveller. In some ways, they may simply be upholding the traditions of old.

BTW, based on the T20 world generation system, worlds with A-class starports should have a minimum Pop of 4, and B-class starports should have a minimum Pop of 3, if I'm reading their DMs correctly. However, I don't think these UWPs were generated using T20's world generation system.

Hope this helps,
Flynn
 
Originally posted by Flynn:
Just an FYI, but anything written by/for QLI and the Gateway Domain has to use the UWPs that QLI has already published...
You say that like it's a self-evident truth. I don't understand why they can't fix obviously broken bits of canon and I can't understand why Quicklink didn't make an effort to make sure they weren't broken in the first place.

(Please note that the second part is not the same statement as 'I can't understand why Quicklink didn't make sure they weren't broken in the first place'. I understand perfectly that it's impossible to avoid mistakes entirely. It's the not even trying that perplexes me).


Hans
 
Originally posted by rancke:
I don't think it has ever been stated that population figures excluded transients (And I know of at least one world description that specifically includes them (Macene) and a number where it is implicit (Those where the population is said to be an outpost of some sort). I do know that if population figures don't include transients, they become that much less useful, since any trade a world does will be based on the number of people who live there, whether they intend to be buried there or are just visiting.
Well, I thought I read something about that in WBH, but I'd have to look back.

OTOH, what about places (like resort worlds) that may have *very large* swings (like orders of magnitude) in population on a seasonal basis? Your population stat contains no indicator of volatility. That's part of my assertion that 'by en large', transients are not counted. They are not politically resident there and can leave at any time.

Furthermore, UWPs to my mind are politicized. Consequently, reporting non-residents may be a non-starter.

There may also be a big difference between the population that can be recruited from for soldiers, the population that may pay taxes there as citizens, and the population that may be there to trade with. These may each be a different total.

Note also that you seem to assume a consistency of policy with UWPs. I think there are quite a few examples that disprove this. The IISS may have a policy, but it is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
 
Sorry, Hans, but I only meant it as a possible reason why there were no efforts to correct the data. If you choose to take it another way, then that's up to you.

You can't please everybody,
Flynn
 
The population digit in the OTU doesn't even always include non-human natives - see the "referee's guide to planet building" article in JTAS 10 ;)
 
If DGP material is still considered canonical then check out page 22 of Grand Census, permanent and transient residence is discussed there.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Well, I thought I read something about that in WBH, but I'd have to look back.
You may be right. I don't pretend to be infallible. Maybe I've simply repressed the memory :D

OTOH, what about places (like resort worlds) that may have *very large* swings (like orders of magnitude) in population on a seasonal basis?
You use the average. That will tell you the yearly amount of trade. For greater clarity you have to turn to a more detailed description, but that's true of the other stats too ('Between 75 and 84% covered by sea' is a little skimpy on the geographical details, right?)

Furthermore, UWPs to my mind are politicized. Consequently, reporting non-residents may be a non-starter.
True, but all that view gets us is that the UWPs are more or less useless. I'd like to avoid that. Also, I don't quite see how that helps with the worlds that are too small to retain the atmosphere they're shown to have. Is someone bribing the Scouts to falsely state that all these rockballs have breathable atmospheres? Doesn't really pass the plausibility test, does it? And what about the Earthlike worlds that orbit outside the life zone? (According to WBH (and presumably Scouts (a book that I, alas, do not have)) the innermost orbit of most M-class stars are outside the life zone).

There may also be a big difference between the population that can be recruited from for soldiers, the population that may pay taxes there as citizens, and the population that may be there to trade with. These may each be a different total.
You may be able to explain away two or three odd population figures that way, but I feel that there are far too many of them to make sense in the aggregate.

Note also that you seem to assume a consistency of policy with UWPs. I think there are quite a few examples that disprove this. The IISS may have a policy, but it is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
It is true that I do think that the Scouts will list the correct size, atmosphere, and hyprographic percentage. I also think that the occasions where a world has both the motive and the ability to persuade the Scouts to list a population of thousands or millions as a population of 6 would be vanishingly rare.

I'm not opposed to the notion that political considerations may on occasion influence the UWPs (I used it myself in my writeup of the Darrians for GURPS:Humaniti), but I don't think of it as a magic formula that can explain away all those odd UWPs.


Hans
 
Originally posted by Flynn:
Sorry, Hans,
If I gave you the impression that you in some way offended me, then I apologize. I certainly didn't intend to.

...but I only meant it as a possible reason why there were no efforts to correct the data. If you choose to take it another way, then that's up to you.
Would that it were. Unfortunately it isn't ;)


Hans
 
The problem is that the UPP dosn't represent the system as a whole but the main world of a system. Now what makes any given world the main world in a system. My answer to that is that because the Imperium rules space the ISS declares a systems main world as where the starport is located.
 
This doesn't answer the original question, but it should be remembered that UWP data is presumed to be historical, in-game data, not meta-game data. The whole premise of Adventure 0: The Imperial Fringe is that the IISS is doing an audit of the entire Spinward Marches to check the data they have. In some cases this seems silly - surely hi-traffic systems will have scouts passing through in a fairly constant stream on routine business, who would report any precipitous alterations to the system's profile. But in many other cases it seems plausible that the IISS could have outdated information, especially considering the time and distances involved. If you've ever looked at an atlas printed in the late 80's, you'll get the idea.
 
Back
Top