UWP Changes

[daryen]

There was a lot of retconning going on.

I have said this before, and I will say this again: Ignore Supplement 3. Don't use it. Don't look at it. It is a cool historical reference point, but for projects like this it is less than useless.

The same goes for the big map. I love that map, and cherish the ones I have, but please don't use it in this effort. It will only confuse things.

For the Spinward Marches the best thing is to use the Regency Sourcebook 1117 listings for the UWP and AotI for the allegiance codes. SMC is good for a consistency check.

Please don't use Supplement 3 or the big map. It only makes your head hurt and confuses things.

 

[daryen]

One more point on the Spinward Marches.

The Second Survey is dated 1065. This is prior to the 4FW. Therefore, be sure to consult the dot maps in SMC to make sure the allegiances reflect this.

The changes are to make Margesi/Vilis and Saurus/Vilis non-Imperial, as they were owned by the Sword Worlds prior to the end of the 4FW.

Also, Esalin and Narval were both Imperial worlds prior to the 4FW.

 

[mike wightman]

All of the CT adventures use S3 as their canon reference though, don't they?

Changing Pavanne means changing The Traveller Adventure

Regina was still TL10 when Secret of the Ancients was published in 1984.

While I don't doubt that worlds have changed a bit from the second survey date, Pavanne looks like an error. And where there's one, there are probably others.

It may be worth doing a thorough comparison of SMC with S3...

has anyone already done this?

 

[jfetters]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

Changing Pavanne means changing The Traveller Adventure

I skimmed TA before I left this morning, but didn't see a Pavanne reference outside of the subsector list. But I have a nagging feeling that it is elsewhere. How would it change TA?

 

[mike wightman]

There's a capsule description on page 18.

It isn't important to the plot, but Pavanne as C669452-A, on a route close to where the adventure takes place, would be too good a stopping off point to miss IMHO.

A world with stats C669452-A already exists in the Aramis subsector according to S3 and TTA - look at Violante.
If I were cynical I'd suspect a cut and paste error...

 

[jfetters]

Originally posted by Joshua Bell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
the Genii/Sunbane trash heap either.

...recently acquiring issues of the DGP magazines (Travellers' Digest, MegaTraveller Journal), I've done spot comparisons of the "Sunbane" data (purportedly uploaded to GEnie by Joe D. Fugate Sr. of DGP, later hosted on Sunbane as a popular hub FTP site) and the DGP published data.
</font>[/QUOTE]Josh, What does your Challenge collection look like? The reason I ask is that it would be good to get a complete listing of TNS entries with the UPPs.

I googled a site on the internet a couple days ago and found a TNS archives site but didn't list the UPPs.

I am thinking that we would want to look for the Challenge issues between the MegaTraveller release (Strephon's assassination) and TNE.

 

[jfetters]

Okay, I have Fornast done and will post the report shortly. It is very similar to Antares in many ways in that it is mostly good.

Empty Quarter will have to wait for later today as I cut off part of my photocopy and will need to wait until I get back home to finish. But suffice to say it is in BAD shape. There are incorrect worlds, gas giants, starports, etc. all over the place. And this is just in Imperial space...

 

[jfetters]

Report for Fornast Sunbane

Below are the inconsistencies between the Sunbane map as posted by Rob and the AOTI for Fornast:

Systems present in AOTI but not in Sunbane:

0501 c-de g

Yes, it is in the same hex as the Antares missing system. I just report the news.

Systems missing a Gas Giant indicator in Sunbane:

1811 a-wa-d g depot
3106 x-de g

The following worlds had incorrect water settings in Sunbane. Note that this is from map comparison only - I do not know what the UPP stats for these are (i.e., if they are fluid worlds):

0402
0533
0615
0619
0714
0938
1527
1618
1630
2129
2235
2312
2521
2526
2634
2709
2818
2817
2836
3034

 

[robject]

Thanks again Jim, I appreciate the help.

Regarding Supp3 and The Big Map: we'll ignore them fiercely.

Most of Sunbane treats Ic worlds inconsistently, implying one of several things:
</font>

• the algorithms were sloppy</font>
• the overlap between wet and dry worlds was intentional.</font>

There aren't that many Ic worlds that were marked on AOTI as wet worlds, so I don't know what their spread is. However, it looks like their treatment is the same as Fl worlds, which are considered 'wet' by Sunbane simply because hydrographics > 0. I suspect that was the logic used.

 

[robject]

Fornast

By the way, Jim's analysis shows the fundamental schizophrenia in Sunbane: this sector correctly labels some Fl worlds as "dry", but incorrectly labels others as "wet".

0501 Ererashir (Another variation on Jim Fetters).

I'm going to run out of versions of your name if you don't quit that!

Next time, I'll have to go to the lexicon and conjugate the verb "to fetter; to bind" (by the way, the verb infinitive is /rap/).

1811 and 3106 have been marked as "GG aware" now.

These worlds were Fl in Sunbane, but "wet" in AOTI:
0402 0533 0615 0619 0714 0938 1527 1618 1630 2129 2235 2312 2521 2526 2634 2709 2817 2836 3034

2818 - I assume you meant 2816


Musing I wonder more if this 'mistake' was deliberate - if it was required to keep the ratio of water-present worlds DOWN. If 'Fl' worlds are indeed a necessary percentage of 'hydro>0' worlds.

I also note that 'Fl' is not a code in The Traveller Book. It must show up later in CT. Significant?

On the off-chance that our 'wet world' assumption is wrong, I've kept the 'Fl' trade codes on these corrected worlds. That will make reversion mechanical. But I'm not expecting to revert them. It's for the 10%(?) possibility of being wrong.


Interesting World Check this baby out:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Sperry 2432 CAF9696-9 S (etc etc)</pre>[/QUOTE]Atmosphere F. Bizarre.

Most of the Sunbane world names in Fornast annoy me. But I'm not going to change them.

 

[robject]

Current Status: this post.

 

[jfetters]

Originally posted by robject:
Fornast

0501 Ererashir (Another variation on Jim Fetters).

I'm going to run out of versions of your name if you don't quit that!

Next time, I'll have to go to the lexicon and conjugate the verb "to fetter; to bind" (by the way, the verb infinitive is /rap/).

I was wondering about that.

I checked your lexicon and noticed that, so I was curious.

2818 - I assume you meant 2816

Yep - sorry about that. The typo strikes again...

I also note that 'Fl' is not a code in The Traveller Book. It must show up later in CT. Significant?

I don't have book 6 to check, but I wonder if it originated there?

Interesting World Check this baby out:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Sperry 2432 CAF9696-9 S (etc etc)</pre>

Atmosphere F. Bizarre.[/quote]Oooh! An ellipsoid!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Ellipsoid?! How so?
And, nope, "Fl" is not in LBB6. It does appear in LBB7, though.

 

[jfetters]

From the TNE description:

The world's surface is ellipsoid, not spherical. Because the atmosphere remains spherical, surface atmospheric pressure ranges from very high at the middle to very low at the ends. Breathable bands may exist at some point within the range of pressure.

 

[jfetters]

Looking at the updated SEC file for Fornast, I went back to check a few asteroid belts that looked suspicious:

Beatric 0726 E000466-C 303
Lockhart 0839 E000369-7 924
Ampria 1635 E000222-B 300

Now that I look at the entire UWP, it may not be a big deal, but I was under the impression that E starports are pretty much nothing. The "hole in the wall" starport is the D classification.

So the question becomes, how do asteroid belts justify E starports? Shouldn't they at least be D?

EDIT - ALso, shouldn't the Robinson (1811) be renamed to Depot?

 

[robject]

Robinson is now Depot. Thank you.

E starports can be a chunk of flat surface. So someone lasered (or simply marked) out a spot that doesn't have any protrusions, etc.

Each world could have its own reasons for being the way it is.

In these cases, the reason looks the same: the population is low, so there's not much of a reason to put up a significant starport.

Although, when the data is regenerated, who knows what's gonna happen. (Most likely, the TL will rise for those worlds).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, one that can handle the loading.

 

[daryen]

robject,

Just want to confirm two things:

- The Second Survey only covers Imperial worlds, right?

- The "date" of the Second Survey is 1065, right?

Thanks.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by robject:
I also note that 'Fl' is not a code in The Traveller Book. It must show up later in CT. Significant?

Not sure if it's significant...

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:
I don't have book 6 to check, but I wonder if it originated there?

Nope, Fl isn't in LBB 6:

LBB 7 - Merchant Prince p. 35:

Fluid Oceans: The world's oceans are not composed of water. Non-water oceans may be valuable sources of raw materials for industry, and the worlds products sell well on indiustrial worlds and other Fluid worlds. Worlds with fluid oceans are good markets for goods from other Fluid worlds and industrial worlds.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by daryen:
robject,

Just want to confirm two things:

- The Second Survey only covers Imperial worlds, right?

Yup.

- The "date" of the Second Survey is 1065, right?

2nd Survey was commissioned by HIH in 990, finally published 1065.

Thanks.

You're welcome