Non OTU: The dilemma of scale

[Golan2072]

Regarding my Visions of Empire setting, I'm trying to decide between my empires being 3x3 Sectors in size to my empires being 3x3 Subsectors in size. On one hand, having multiple sectors per empire is more epic and allows for a much bigger frontier and post-frontier, especially given centuries of Imperial rule (though both empires weren't very expansionist and expanded slowly). On the other, with 3x3 Subsectors, I can fit almost all known/relevant space in a single Sector and make everything manageable; even roll UWPs for all worlds in the "universe", which is tempting, and really, do you really need all these random/dot-mapped worlds for a campaign?

(Note that this setting uses mostly CT Books 2 designs and Book 3 drive TLs, so you can get Jump-6 early on).

VERY rough outline of my Visions of Empire setting. I am leaning towards having the whole thing be a Traveller sector. Black are sector names; red are the alien species present in a sector I have not yet named.

Visions of Empire by golan2072, on Flickr

 

[atpollard]

As long as we are just spitballing ideas ... make it even smaller.

• Make each 'empire' 1 subsector in size with all of known space being a single sector.
• detail every world in every solar system.
• expand slowly one world at a time. When the planet reaches Pop 9, expand to the rest of the solar system, when the solar system reaches Pop 10, expand to the next star.
• provide some detail of the asteroid mining populations. The Gas Giant Fuel Processing center. Micro-jump trade routes between key locations (starports) within each system.
• repeat for the next star system.
• continue to expand until the empires touch.

Now you have a small universe with lots of 'worlds' per system, a highly developed core, a developing frontier, unsettled wilderness and a few key areas of trade/diplomacy/conflict between humans and our mysterious neighbors.

Traveller already has lots of swell dot maps ... "where's the beef?"

 

[whulorigan]

Regarding my Visions of Empire setting, I'm trying to decide between my empires being 3x3 Sectors in size to my empires being 3x3 Subsectors in size. On one hand, having multiple sectors per empire is more epic and allows for a much bigger frontier and post-frontier, especially given centuries of Imperial rule (though both empires weren't very expansionist and expanded slowly). On the other, with 3x3 Subsectors, I can fit almost all known/relevant space in a single Sector and make everything manageable; even roll UWPs for all worlds in the "universe", which is tempting, and really, do you really need all these random/dot-mapped worlds for a campaign?

Another consideration:

How plentiful or sparse are "habitable" worlds? In other words, you could still have an Empire over a larger area, wherein the majority of systems (say 75% +) have no worlds that are human-hospitable (no breathable atmospheres, wrong temperature range, etc), while still having a "small" number of worlds that are your actual colonies and population centers, but just spread out sparsely over a larger area. Intermediate systems may be totally barren, or at least nothing more than outposts, trade-stations, or "truck-stops" in order to foster travel and trade.

That would also give protagonists & villains a lot more places to be "under the radar" so to speak.

 

[robject]

Both Wayne and AT have good points, but I think they end up at the same place: fewer inhabited worlds to describe is generally better.

 

[Golan2072]

Both Wayne and AT have good points, but I think they end up at the same place: fewer inhabited worlds to describe is generally better.

I agree - these are some great points.

I'll use CT generation but with harder-science mods...

Also note that both empires (the earlier Reticulan Empire and the later Terran Empire) are not very expansionistic. The Reticulans scouted Terra in the 1940's-1960's but only invaded her in 2082, despite being quite close to it. The reason is that both empires valued stability above all else, and rapid expansion has a certain destabilizing effect (think of the Chinese Empire of the 15th-16th centuries, they had the technology to build a colonial empire which would dwarf any European power of the day, but chose not to). So expansion was slow...

 

[Golan2072]

Potential compromise: Each square on that grid above is a Quadrant, so all of known space is 4 sectors (2x2)... But still leaning towards the one-sector solution :-D.

 

[aramis]

(Note that this setting uses mostly CT Books 2 designs and Book 3 drive TLs, so you can get Jump-6 early on).

Exactly when depends on which version of Bk2... but J6 isn't early in CT-81.
CT-77, you can get J5 at TL 13 and J6 at TL14, but not before, unless you add drop tanks.
CT-81, you can get J5 at TL 13 again, but you can't get J6 until TL 15...
Both allow J1-J3 in various hulls at TL 9, and J4 at TL 10.

 

[Ulsyus]

Both Wayne and AT have good points, but I think they end up at the same place: fewer inhabited worlds to describe is generally better.

Rob's got that right. Smaller is better for a harder SFRPG as you can detail more, and it's all more interconnected than what is often seen in a montaged (?!?) empire-based game. How often do the cultures an backgrounds of individual worlds matter when jumping around the 3I? I loved the Traveller Adventure, but there wasn't a lot of time spent looking at the worlds of the Aramis Subsector as opposed to just spending time at the Starport.

Potential compromise: Each square on that grid above is a Quadrant, so all of known space is 4 sectors (2x2)... But still leaning towards the one-sector solution :-D.

If you're going to use the term quadrants, then they'll be the fourth part of something else. What's the something else? Are you going to have Sectors that are 2x2 subsectors/quadrants? If you're going to use your own version of standard CT cartography then why not use a square subsector of 8x8 or 10x10 parsecs?

 

[epicenter00]

Split the difference is my suggestion, describe a vast empire, but make the playable area relatively small.

Most gaming milleus have a particular area that is considered more interesting than other areas. OTU, it is the Spinward Marches. While it may not be objectively better, than say, romping around the Solomani Rim, the Marches is the big area to adventure in and it's pretty much already too large for most RPG groups to operate in.

Provided there is some sort of situation that makes the "game area" more interesting, players won't leave it. You can simply make a cursory map of the larger empire for your own reference but only detail a much smaller area.

 

[Golan2072]

So I should go for a 4x4 sector layout and just focus on, say the Far Rim?

 

[aramis]

4 subsectors is plenty for a small TU. Large enough to have "terrain", small enough to be able to write up every world.
A single sector is typically 200-500 systems (out of 1280 hexes).

 

[Golan2072]

Advantages of all known space being a sector:

1) I can use the Outer Veil map, which I have already worked on, and even the OV world physical stat, for most of this setting as well, with a few changes, so I'll essentially have a map of known space at hand without much work!

2) I can map all of known space in a reasonable time and detail many worlds.

3) Zeta 2 Reticuli II would be the actual Reticulan homeworld! Greys are actually from Zeta 2 Reticuli II!

4) The dynamic, heavy-handed UTR would fit here well, as such a polity would work well with relatively short communication times.

5) Do I really need so many filler-worlds for a game? A sector would yield me with hundreds of worlds, enough for many campaigns...

6) Fits the Book 2 ship paradigm better; ships are small, so is the setting.

Advantages of all known space being 4x4 sectors:

1) Epic scale fit for heroic space-opera!

2) The long wars of this setting would be more justifiable.

3) Empires would have more room to expand to over time.

What do you think?

 

[whulorigan]

Location of Zeta2 Reticuli

3) Zeta 2 Reticuli II would be the actual Reticulan homeworld! Greys are actually from Zeta 2 Reticuli II!

BTW, if it matters (or if you are simply interested):

Zeta2 Reticuli lies almost due-Trailing of Earth (at bearing 278.0^o in the galactic plane), at an "altitude angle" of ~ -47.0^o "South" of the Galactic Plane, at a range of ~ 12.0 pc.

If you are looking down from directly above onto a "flat" projection, it would appear to be ~ 8.5 pc along a due-Trailing vector "in the Galactic Plane".

 

[Golan2072]

BTW, if it matters (or if you are simply interested):

Zeta2 Reticuli lies almost due-Trailing of Earth (at bearing 278.0^o in the galactic plane), at an "altitude" of ~ -47.0^o "South" of the Galactic Plane, at a range of ~ 12.0 pc.

If you are looking down from directly above onto a "flat" projection, it would appear to be ~ 8.5 pc along a due-Trailing vector "in the Galactic Plane".

That's exactly where it is on the Outer Veil map

 

[salochin999]

Advantages of all known space being a sector:

1) I can use the Outer Veil map, which I have already worked on, and even the OV world physical stat, for most of this setting as well, with a few changes, so I'll essentially have a map of known space at hand without much work!

2) I can map all of known space in a reasonable time and detail many worlds.

3) Zeta 2 Reticuli II would be the actual Reticulan homeworld! Greys are actually from Zeta 2 Reticuli II!

4) The dynamic, heavy-handed UTR would fit here well, as such a polity would work well with relatively short communication times.

5) Do I really need so many filler-worlds for a game? A sector would yield me with hundreds of worlds, enough for many campaigns...

6) Fits the Book 2 ship paradigm better; ships are small, so is the setting.

Advantages of all known space being 4x4 sectors:

1) Epic scale fit for heroic space-opera!

2) The long wars of this setting would be more justifiable.

3) Empires would have more room to expand to over time.

What do you think?

One compromise might be to make most systems dead rocks so you could have a lot of space with only a few decent planets that need details.

One thing I did before my current MTU idea was Vilani expansion i.e. starting at Vland and imagining the sequence of colonization over the first few hundred years (limited to J-2 at first also).

That process made me think a lot of systems (most even?) might be almost completely bypassed for large-scale colonization with gas giant refueling space stations being the only "settlement" in many systems in between the good planets.

edit: I've forgotten exactly how I decided the sequence of colonies but just as an example it was something like

http://travellermap.com/?scale=90.5078125&x=-15.104&y=61.585

the planet stats of systems within J-2 of Vland are
- 300, 560, 430, 430
- 797, 596
- 586, 564
so probably the last two would be the first and second colonies. Then looking at what planets were now available within J-2 of those first colonies (and any that are within J-2 of one of the bad planets) and pick the next best (and if it's beyond one of the bad systems then make make that bad system a way station to colonize the good one).

If you're creating your own space you could modify the world generation so that there were more rocks and fewer good planets and thus create sub-sectors with chains of space stations between a handful of densely populated planets.

 

[Golan2072]

So, you're saying 4x4 sectors, but mostly rocks, while I detail only the interesting worlds?

 

[salochin999]

So, you're saying 4x4 sectors, but mostly rocks, while I detail only the interesting worlds?

It's one option to keep the sense of scale but with only a few detailed worlds.

(They might not all be rocks but generally a much higher proportion of all kinds of exotic and difficult to colonize planets and only a few easily habitable ones.)

The thing is opportunity cost. If there's need to mine an acidic furnace planet for a particular ore then a way would be found to do so but if there's a choice between that planet and better one then I think people would likely colonize the easiest ones first.

 

[Timerover51]

So, you're saying 4x4 sectors, but mostly rocks, while I detail only the interesting worlds?

Do you mean 4 X 4 sectors or 4 X 4 subsectors? The Spinward Marches is one sector, with 16 subsectors, so if you mean Sectors, you are looking at 256 subsectors to cover.

If you are thinking subsectors, that would make more sense, but even then you are looking at something the size of the Spinward Marches. If you are going to do that, you are going to be limited in how much you can detail every world.

I would recommend that you place the most habitable worlds, and to start with have each of your empires cover about one subsector each, but spread them out, and simply show star systems in the subsectors where no empire has a presence. Let the players do some exploring.

 

[robject]

spread them out, and simply show star systems in the subsectors where no empire has a presence. Let the players do some exploring.

I like that suggestion.

 

[Ulsyus]

Depending on the time elapsed since exploration & settlement began, development wouldn't be equitable across all systems. The ones with just rocks would have some development, but they'd still have something even with most resources going to the settlement of habitable worlds.

Then of course, you could always have a few bypassed systems where settlements were established in stations or rocks, but they're dying and of little consequence compared to the worlds around them. They'd need something to draw money and people, as per the MgT Glisten supplement.