• 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.

Tell me about Pocket Empires

Solo

SOC-12
I'm looking at picking this up as a PDF and wanted to know how useful anyone else found it? I'm going to use it in MGT - maybe as a setup for a pocket empire circa the New Era time.

Thanks!

-S.
 
well, it will be playable if you simply use the task labels and stat+skill pairings, but remember: MoTrav has about 3/5 the number of skills on the list, and about 1/2 to 1/4 the number of skills per term (depending upon which service and the relevant rolls).

Other than that, it's pretty easy to convert. The genetic component of stats is one die... so environment is the other, we can presume.

It is a metagame for playing pocket empires as the leadership as well as a system for how to handle running them. It is fairly abstract in many ways, and it works quite well. One of the better products in the T4 lins.
 
As Aramis said, it's one of the better T4 books. Its side-stories are enjoyable and help give Milieu Zero some badly needed color. Its economics rules, which explain how a world can transition from being a dirt-poor backwater to the rich capital of an empire, are understandable and relatively abstract. It introduces some terms useful for managing worlds. Keeping track of the numbers killed it for me, but the overall scope still fires my imagination.
 
Solo,

As the others have already written, PE is one of the few T4 products worth owning. It is one of my Traveller favorites. That being said however, it is still a T4 product.

I'd strongly suggest that you get it and then do two things:

1 - Google for the errata. There's a document out there that plugs nearly all of the holes that PE has.

B - Google for a PE spreadsheet. Robject mentioned how difficult juggling all the numbers can be. Automating that to some degree can only help.

Please keep this in mind; PE operates on a "high strategic" level. This means "fitting" PCs directly into PE much beyond a few very abstract "management" rolls and determining ruling family genetics will be difficult. PE will create situations that PC-level adventures can be spun from, but only that.

Think of it as a paper and pencil version of Sid Meier's Civilization.


Have fun,
Bill
 
Think of it as a paper and pencil version of Sid Meier's Civilization.

I was just about to say that. Age of Empires. Civilization. All those empire building games.

But...I'm not sure I'd recommend it. It is well done, written by some hardcore, longtime Traveller players from the TML. But, the book has a long scope. It's a macro version of Traveller. It's about building your empire instead of building your character.

I don't think it is that useful for the typical Traveller game.

The book is also very "involved". It's not "easy". Think of it as you would one of the older, detailed war games, with lots of moving parts, and you'll get the idea.

Game turns, instead of 15 seconds in CT, or 6 seconds in T4, is set in years (1 turn = 1 year of game time).

It's more like a game of diplomacy or Risk, with the different players playing budding Imperial client stats rather than Traveller characters zooming around in their space ship looking for the Shite (to paraphrase the famous line in Apoclypse Now).

If you want to run a diplomacy type game (sans the board), then it will be fun with a bunch of players. But, it will also require a lengthy learning curve.

Or, the GM can use it to "plan" his own campaign background...or even roll up "history" to an area. But, I'd only suggest going through these steps if the GM was really "into" the book. Otherwise, his imagination works fine without all the work.

In the end, I think Pocket Empires is a neat book that is not really that useful to a Traveller game. (I've always thought it'd be a good basis for a Traveller computer strategy game....resource management, strategic warfare, keeping your "people's" moral up...etc.) I've never cracked it once since my initial purchase. It's one of those that I said to myself I'd get around to reading one day..and I never have.

When I do, I think it will be a very interesting read. But...still, I don't think the book will ever have any impact on any Traveller game I run (unless I specifically set out to use it with that intent in mind).

My recommendation: It's a good book, but I'd pass (unless you want to run a diplomacy type game).
 
Last edited:
imho, its a 'must get' book

Even though it won't apply much to pc level role-playing ( neither does High Guard really ), but for setting up a background, its the best. One way to play with it is to have player run a world or two each in between sessions on an annual basis (gametime). It doesn't take THAT much time to play out a year of a world's history, and it will make the setting fluid and dynamic and consistent where diplomacy and general trade is concerned.

fo PC level stuff...it DOES have 'diplomat' and 'bureaucrat' careers in T4 terms ( that can't be too hard to convert to another system )
 
Last edited:
I'll go ahead and agree with Supplement Four's analysis. Its scope is breathtaking... but the numbers are dry, and one-year turns just aren't long enough to make things happen. That's how slow the thing plays. That's what killed it for me in the end, since, to me, spreadsheets tend to make anything look like homework.

I finally got rid of it, after I realized I hadn't opened it in years, and had a strong aversion to opening it.

Ten years ago, I'd written a JavaScript page to manage the numbers. Might be out there, somewhere, or I can post it if there's demand.
 
Well, this is completely different than what I was thinking. I was hoping for more of a GM resource for building pocket empires (more than just what's in the TNE book)- not a strategic game of world building. BUT, it does sound interesting. I'll probably pick it up - it's a cheap PDF.

ROBJECT - I'd be interested in seeing your javacript.

Thanks for all the input!

-S.
 
I'm not a TNE player, I just dropped in when I saw the thread title.

I use PE as a GM resource for creating background for my universe. I find it useful for figuring out how valuable a world is to the Imperium (or to others), what its wealth is, how much protection it can afford, and so on. The chapter on interstellar warfare provides an invaluable aid to figuring out the balance of power amongst the stars and making MTU more consistent. I wouldn't be without it.

It maybe doesn't affect the players directly, but provides a rationale for why they are in the middle of a war, where that Imperial patrol is going, why their shore leave is suddenly interrupted by a mushroom cloud...
And all with no more Referee brainpower than it takes to roll a couple of dice. :)
 
Requires some major conversion work, due to the nastiness that is T4 tasks and how tightly tied to the T4 task system it is.
 
I agree with S4 on this in that for many, possibly most, Traveller campaigns PE is not likely to be all that useful. It adds a new dimension to the game rather than exploring one of the traditional Traveller avenues. That said, it does allow for strategic-level play, which I find very appealing and which has generally lacked support in RPGs. But you can indeed use it to build extra details into YTU. Personally, I'd say own the (DGP) World Builder's Handbook first, but PE makes a nice addendum on top of that, depending on how much mechanical help you want in fleshing out your universe.

If you actually want to run a Grand Strategy-type game, PE is a neccessity. You could fudge around without it, I guess, but I wouldn't want to.
 
This thread has prompted me to dig out my copy of PE to peruse through...

...unfortunately, it's seems my copy has decided to go into hiding without telling me where it went. :(
 
IMO, PE is divided into three separate aspects:
There is a world-building aspect that allows you to flesh out your worlds (though as others have pointed out, there are other Traveller volumes that do this). This aspect is fairly compatible with CT.
There is a dynastic intrigue and political control aspect that is heavily task-oriented ( I don't use this so much as it is almost impossible to play solo, and most of my stage-setting is done solo).
There is also a strategic interstellar warfare aspect which, whilst it is compatible with CT in some respects, requires a lot of world-generation prep or else guesswork to figure out naval strengths, and a lot of calculation to convert PE's nebulous warfare units into ship tonnages for CT. It's doable if you're comfortable with maths.
Hope that helps.
 
You could set up a long term campaign with PE. You could play PE for several years or a decade, then do a traditional adventure, followed my more PE playing...

If you had a Dune-type scenario, over many years, using a family line, this might be interesting.
 
Pocket Empires Campaign

All,
This thread prompted me to buy and read Pocket Empires. It is an interesting read and, as a stand alone game, would probably make a good Pbem or PbP game. I would like to give it a shot as a player or referee. If interest exists, I would be willing to referee a stand-alone, online PE game.

As far as its' relation to Traveller, I agree with previous posters about how to best integrate it into a Traveller campaign.

I do have some issues with some of the rules, though:

1) Major issue. Infrstructure cost is tied to world size, not population. It seems to me that improving the transportation, IT, energy, etc network of a billion person would be significantly more expensive than the same task on a tiny mining outpost of a few thousand souls, regardless of world size. Therefore, I propose the following fix: Infrastructure upgrade = (pop + A) * (I + 1) * 0.2RU

2) Major issue. There is no maximum population delineated. I think a world of a given size will eventually reach a maximum supportable population. I propose the maximum = 1 + ((size – 5) * 0.2)) * TL)/10 expressed in billions

3) Major issue. Military maintenance costs in direct proportion to the abstract values given in PE factors. I accept that a given quantity of lower tech forces can be of equal combat value as a smaller quantity of higher tech forces, but will maintaining the larger, technologically inferior, force cost the same? I think not. I propose military maintenance = (size * purchase price)/10

4) Trivial issue. A participatory democracy has one of the higher tax rates in the game. This is a bit of a head scratcher. I propose changing govt 2 tax rate to 0.20.

5) Minor issue. Government efficiency rates are a bit odd. For example, a non-charismatic dictatorship is more efficient than a charismatic dictatorship, as if being disliked made one more effective. Also, religious theocracy is one of the more efficient governments. Fix is to reverse govt A and B values, make govt D = 1.30 or 1.35.

6) Trivial issue. I would tweak the atmospheric cost of improvements. Should imrpoving in a vacuum atmosphere be harder than in a trace atmosphere? Should improvements in a corrosive atmosphere be the same cost as in an insidious atmosphere? I think not. Fix is atmo 0 = +6, atmo C = +10

7) Major issue. Population growth is not adjusted for habitability. Colonists will procreate at the same rate on an ice-cold, weaterless, airless, tunnel-warren colony as they will on a garden world. Fix is to divide growth by 10 for any colony outside the habitable zone or by two for any colony within the habitable zone that doesn't have a breathable atmosphere or hydrographics 2-9.

Please bear in mind these are just my impressions from a read-through of the rules and have no basis in playtesting or experience.

OIT
 
All,
This thread prompted me to buy and read Pocket Empires. It is an interesting read and, as a stand alone game, would probably make a good Pbem or PbP game. I would like to give it a shot as a player or referee. If interest exists, I would be willing to referee a stand-alone, online PE game.

I might be interested, depends on my time availability.

As far as its' relation to Traveller, I agree with previous posters about how to best integrate it into a Traveller campaign.

I do have some issues with some of the rules, though:

1) Major issue. Infrstructure cost is tied to world size, not population. It seems to me that improving the transportation, IT, energy, etc network of a billion person would be significantly more expensive than the same task on a tiny mining outpost of a few thousand souls, regardless of world size. Therefore, I propose the following fix: Infrastructure upgrade = (pop + A) * (I + 1) * 0.2RU

Inf is based on planet size because it is assumed that the whole planet will be upgraded and this will cost pretty much the same no matter how many people do the work.
However, I agree that it is an unreasonable assumption for a small settlement based around a single drilling rig. In a way, this is a sort of minimum population problem - I first noticed it when I tried to figure out the long term survival of a shipwreck.
My solution was to figure the area that would be developed and divide this into the surface area of the spherical planet, allowing for the hydrographic percentage. This gave me a cost per sq km. The crew of the drilling rig might only develop a sq km or two.

2) Major issue. There is no maximum population delineated. I think a world of a given size will eventually reach a maximum supportable population. I propose the maximum = 1 + ((size – 5) * 0.2)) * TL)/10 expressed in billions

Good point, not sure about your formula though: For Earth today, 1+(((8-5)*0.2))*7)/10 = (1+0.6*7)/10 = 0.52 billion?

3) Major issue. Military maintenance costs in direct proportion to the abstract values given in PE factors. I accept that a given quantity of lower tech forces can be of equal combat value as a smaller quantity of higher tech forces, but will maintaining the larger, technologically inferior, force cost the same? I think not. I propose military maintenance = (size * purchase price)/10

Without checking the figures, I can't remember what they suggest, but a significant proportion of even a high-tech force's budget is for food, accommodation, training, etc. The increased cost of equipment maintenance is probably assumed to cancel out the reduced cost of 'tending the cattle'.

4) Trivial issue. A participatory democracy has one of the higher tax rates in the game. This is a bit of a head scratcher. I propose changing govt 2 tax rate to 0.20.

Maybe if these guys are able to personally control what happens to the money, they're willing to invest more?

5) Minor issue. Government efficiency rates are a bit odd. For example, a non-charismatic dictatorship is more efficient than a charismatic dictatorship, as if being disliked made one more effective. Also, religious theocracy is one of the more efficient governments. Fix is to reverse govt A and B values, make govt D = 1.30 or 1.35.

Maybe the leader maintains popularity by spending money?
Just how much does a hair shirt cost? ;)

6) Trivial issue. I would tweak the atmospheric cost of improvements. Should imrpoving in a vacuum atmosphere be harder than in a trace atmosphere? Should improvements in a corrosive atmosphere be the same cost as in an insidious atmosphere? I think not. Fix is atmo 0 = +6, atmo C = +10

Good point.

7) Major issue. Population growth is not adjusted for habitability. Colonists will procreate at the same rate on an ice-cold, weaterless, airless, tunnel-warren colony as they will on a garden world. Fix is to divide growth by 10 for any colony outside the habitable zone or by two for any colony within the habitable zone that doesn't have a breathable atmosphere or hydrographics 2-9.

Maybe a good point. Availability of habitation does restrict population growth. OTOH, if the infrastructure is available to expand the habitation, there should be no restriction on population growth. Growth is only restricted if you can't build sufficient habitation.
Cold weather and lack of outdoor activities might actually increase population growth. ;)

Please bear in mind these are just my impressions from a read-through of the rules and have no basis in playtesting or experience.

OIT

Some good observations there from a first read-through. :)
 
I might be interested, depends on my time availability.

I fully understand. I'm thinking along the lines of a turn per week pace; I just don't have the free time to devote to Traveller that I used to.

Inf is based on planet size because it is assumed that the whole planet will be upgraded and this will cost pretty much the same no matter how many people do the work.
However, I agree that it is an unreasonable assumption for a small settlement based around a single drilling rig. In a way, this is a sort of minimum population problem - I first noticed it when I tried to figure out the long term survival of a shipwreck.
My solution was to figure the area that would be developed and divide this into the surface area of the spherical planet, allowing for the hydrographic percentage. This gave me a cost per sq km. The crew of the drilling rig might only develop a sq km or two.

I think we fundamentally agree. Your solution, however, is more detailed.

Good point, not sure about your formula though: For Earth today, 1+(((8-5)*0.2))*7)/10 = (1+0.6*7)/10 = 0.52 billion?

Good catch, oops. Clear proof one should not write multi-variable equations late at night. Please let me try again: TL squared * (1 + 0.2 * (size -5)) in hundreds of millions.

Example Earth = 7 squared * (1 + 0.2 * (8-5))
= 49 * (1 + 0.6)
= 49 * 1.6
= 7.84 billion

Example Rhylanor = 15 squared * (1 + 0.2 * (4 -5))
= 225 * (1 - 0.2)
= 225 * 0.8
= 18 billion. Earth at the same tech level would support 36 billion.

Seems to be in the ballpark.

Without checking the figures, I can't remember what they suggest, but a significant proportion of even a high-tech force's budget is for food, accommodation, training, etc. The increased cost of equipment maintenance is probably assumed to cancel out the reduced cost of 'tending the cattle'.

The `tooth-to-tail' argument is a good one, but I think maintaining a TL-2 army that could engage a TL-15 army on equal terms would be ENORMOUSLY expensive, not equivalently expensive as written in the PE rules.

Maybe if these guys are able to personally control what happens to the money, they're willing to invest more?

Maybe they would. It doesn't make sense to me (nor is it consistent with TCS). It is probably not worth worrying about, I would just be curious to hear the designers' rationale.

Maybe the leader maintains popularity by spending money?
Just how much does a hair shirt cost?

A mechanism already exists in PE for leaders to influence popularity with spending. I would think an unpopular leader's dictatorship would be less efficient because said dictator would have to put a premium on loyalty in his subordinates, thus having less efficient departments. The efficiency of theocracies is clearly debatable. Is the model used that of the lean and focused monastic orders in the 10th century, the excesses and waste of the church in the 15th century, or the economic ineptitude of modern day Iran? The rules indicate a vibrant and growing theocratic government, but history is replete with less enviable examples. Also, it isn't the hair shirts that break the budget, it is the pegs on which to hang them that cost so much :)

Maybe a good point. Availability of habitation does restrict population growth. OTOH, if the infrastructure is available to expand the habitation, there should be no restriction on population growth. Growth is only restricted if you can't build sufficient habitation.
Cold weather and lack of outdoor activities might actually increase population growth.

I agree that if the habitation is available there should be no restriction to growth, but building the habitation should be more expensive, which should slow growth. Maybe you're right about the balancing effect of cold weather, but only at tech levels below the invention of Wii and Tivo ;)

Some good observations there from a first read-through.

Thanks, and thank you for the counterpoint. :)
 
Back
Top