Unrecognized Rem codes: He, Pa, Ph, Pi

[SpaceBadger]

Found some unrecognized codes in the Rem fields (where Trade Codes and other Remarks go) of Daibei sector data from Travellermap.

These were not standard codes that I recognize, nor are they listed in Formats at Travellermap, nor are the listed anywhere in the file itself.

The codes are He, Pa, Ph, and Pi.

Anybody know what these mean?

 

[DaveChase]

He Hellworld
The world is inhospitable to most sophonts. Its size, atmosphere, and hydrographic make it an extremely unattractive world.

Pa Pre-Agricultural
The world is a candidate for the Agricultural trade classification; its population is just outside the requirement for Agricultural.

Pe Penal Colony
The world is a dumping ground for individuals who do not (cannot / will not) conform to acceptable standards of behavior.

Ph Pre-High
The world is a candidate for elevation to the High Population trade classification; its population level is just below the requirements for High.

Pi Pre-Industrial
The world is a candidate for the Industrial trade classification; its population is just below the requirements for Industrial.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Thanks, Dave!

Where do those codes come from? TNE? T5? They aren't in any of my books.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

They are T5 codes. Go to the wiki and look up http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Trade_classification There are others which are very very neat.

 

[SpaceBadger]

They are T5 codes. Go to the wiki and look up http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Trade_classification There are others which are very very neat.

Hmm. So Travellermap is already getting "T5" all over my "CT ca 1105". Can't say I wasn't warned, it already has those Ix Ex Cx codes added.

Thanks, Nathan!

 

[GypsyComet]

Hmm. So Travellermap is already getting "T5" all over my "CT ca 1105". Can't say I wasn't warned, it already has those Ix Ex Cx codes added.

Thanks, Nathan!

It is easier to ignore extra codes than to recognize that newer codes are missing. These are also in addition to previous codes, so its not like you are missing stuff you are looking for.

 

[SpaceBadger]

These are also in addition to previous codes, so its not like you are missing stuff you are looking for.

OK, that was one concern that I had, not wanting to check to see what might be missing.

 

[inexorabletash]

I'm working on more comprehensive data format and code documentation at this very moment. Hope to have it up soon, but docs are harder than code.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I'm working on more comprehensive data format and code documentation at this very moment. Hope to have it up soon, but docs are harder than code.

I hear that!

Your site has been a great help in my preparation for my upcoming game, and I am hoping to use it for all map needs in game, if I understand correctly what I can do with the data POST features.

Thanks!

 

[inexorabletash]

As promised, docs posted at:

http://travellermap.com/doc/secondsurvey.html

And a companion file posted at:

http://travellermap.com/doc/fileformats.html

These will be living specifications so feedback is welcome. You can even fork the docs and submit pull requests via https://github.com/inexorabletash/travellermap/tree/master/doc

 

[whulorigan]

Nobility & Trade Codes

As promised, docs posted at:

http://travellermap.com/doc/secondsurvey.html

And a companion file posted at:

http://travellermap.com/doc/fileformats.html

These will be living specifications so feedback is welcome. You can even fork the docs and submit pull requests via https://github.com/inexorabletash/travellermap/tree/master/doc

I believe the Nobility Codes on The Traveller Map - Second Survey Data Definitions page needs a quick update.

According to the T5 Errata, "A - Gentleman" should not be a Noble Code, and a 2nd junior rank of Duke (lower case "f" - [i.e. NOT Subsector Duke]) needs to be added.

The table should be:

___________________
Code - Ranking Noble

B - Knight
c - Baronet
C - Baron
D - Marquis
e - Viscount
E - Count
f - Duke
F - (Subsector) Duke
G - Archduke
H - Emperor
___________________

Also, on the Remarks & Trade Codes Table, should non-Industrial be moved from the "Population" subheading to the "Economic" subheading since that is where the Pre-Industrial & Industrial codes are located? This would keep it consistent with Pre-Ag/Ag/non-Ag, and pre-Rich/Rich/non-Rich (i.e. Poor) which are all under the Economic Subheading.

 

[inexorabletash]

Thanks. I traveling at the moment and only had a T5 draft with me.

 

[aramis]

I believe the Nobility Codes on The Traveller Map - Second Survey Data Definitions page needs a quick update.

According to the T5 Errata, "A - Gentleman" should not be a Noble Code, and a 2nd junior rank of Duke (lower case "f" - [i.e. NOT Subsector Duke]) needs to be added.

The table should be:

___________________
Code - Ranking Noble

B - Knight
c - Baronet
C - Baron
D - Marquis
e - Viscount
E - Count
f - Duke
F - (Subsector) Duke
G - Archduke
H - Emperor
___________________

Also, on the Remarks & Trade Codes Table, should non-Industrial be moved from the "Population" subheading to the "Economic" subheading since that is where the Pre-Industrial & Industrial codes are located? This would keep it consistent with Pre-Ag/Ag/non-Ag, and pre-Rich/Rich/non-Rich (i.e. Poor) which are all under the Economic Subheading.

Sector Duke probably should also be there, but would then have to be coded "g."

 

[whulorigan]

Sector Duke probably should also be there, but would then have to be coded "g."

I had thought about that, though the Official T5 Rules do not have a C6/Soc=g rating.

I think the difference is that Duke "f" is a clearly lower rank (it has only a 64-hex Land grant) as opposed to Duke "F" (which has a 128-hex grant), and covers both the Subsector Duke, in addition to the one who simply ends up with the Sector-Level responsibilities in addition to the Subsector level ones of his grant. The difference in the UWP can be determined by the difference in "Capital" Code (Cs vs. Cp).

The Sector/Subsector Governor difference for Duke-F seems to be merely one of governmental administrative authority, whereas Duke-f is of genuinely lower social position.

At least that is how I would interpret it.


EDIT: NOTE - I have moved my further responses to this topic over to the Noble Lands Thread ( http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=30347&page=15 )

 

[rancke]

Sector Duke probably should also be there, but would then have to be coded "g."

Sector duke is not a higher rank than subsector duke. Sector dukes are just first among equals.


Hans

 

[rancke]

The Sector/Subsector Governor difference for Duke-F seems to be merely one of governmental administrative authority, whereas Duke-f is of genuinely lower social position.

I would suggest that F-dukes were high dukes and f-dukes were honor and rank dukes, if it wasn't for the lack of corresponding honor and rank counts, viscounts, marquesses, and barons.


Hans

 

[Bloo]

Sector Duke probably should also be there, but would then have to be coded "g."

Duke Duke Duke
Duke no Earl
Duke Duke
Duke no Earl
Duke Duke
Duke no Earl
Duke Duke.

I wrote a lot more but it goes better here.

 

[inexorabletash]

According to the T5 Errata, "A - Gentleman" should not be a Noble Code, and a 2nd junior rank of Duke (lower case "f" - [i.e. NOT Subsector Duke]) needs to be added.

Corrected.

Also, on the Remarks & Trade Codes Table, should non-Industrial be moved from the "Population" subheading to the "Economic" subheading since that is where the Pre-Industrial & Industrial codes are located? This would keep it consistent with Pre-Ag/Ag/non-Ag, and pre-Rich/Rich/non-Rich (i.e. Poor) which are all under the Economic Subheading.

I noticed that while entering it - as mentioned I only have a T5 draft handy. Can someone double check the published book and confirm it that Ni should be in the Economic section (and mention the updated formula?), and/or submit a correction to the Errata thread?

 

[whulorigan]

I noticed that while entering it - as mentioned I only have a T5 draft handy. Can someone double check the published book and confirm it that Ni should be in the Economic section (and mention the updated formula?), and/or submit a correction to the Errata thread?

Actually, I just checked: In the T5 Book it is under the Population Subheading, which seems odd. The code does depend entirely on population, though. Do you think it should be mentioned as an errata item, or is it grouped separately on purpose becasue of its population dependence?

Code: Ni
Siz: --
Atm: --
Hyd: --
Pop: 456
Gov: --
Law: --
Definition: Non-industrial

 

[inexorabletash]

The definition seems to be relatively consistent going back as far as MT at least. I guess it's in the correct place for cause (pop) but not for effect (eco).

A lot of old files floating around the 'net have a memorable code sequence: "Ba Lo Ni" since the Lo and Ni definitions in MT included pop-0. T5 eliminates that overlap - no baloney!