Wiki Discussion: The Beyond Sector and other duplicate sectors

[tjoneslo]

TL;DR This is a long, complicated response to a "I want all the things" request for the wiki, specifically keeping both versions of an overwritten sector.

The Beyond Sector (yes the article is part of the name, unlike other sectors) has three official versions in Traveller Map. Depending on how you choose to divide things, there may be as many as 6 distinct versions of this sector. This discussion is about how to handle a situation for sectors with multiple versions, with a specific focus on The Beyond.

This isn't about how to handle versions of the sector in different times (e.g. 1105 vs 1200 vs 1902). We have the era namespaces for this.

In the wiki currently there is the The Beyond Sector page, which should be linked to the current primary version of the sector in Traveller map.

The two other published versions of the sector are listed as sub pages of the original:

• The Paranoia Press version at : https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/The_Beyond_Sector/Paranoia_Press
• The Jeff Zeitlin version at: https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/The_Beyond_Sector/Jeff_Zeitlin

As can be seen above, the idea is to pick a name to identify the variant sector and include it as a sub-page. The "/" character in the name of the article indicates a sub-page.

There are two other primary concerns: The subsectors and the worlds.

In some cases the subsector names overlap. For example the Mapepire Subsector exists as Subsector A in both the default and in the Paranoia Press version, but not in Jeff's version, where Subsector A is named Meizirn Subsector. For the duplicate names, use the sub-pages as before. For the unique name create a top level page for it. Make sure the InfoboxSubsector data and other links are connected to the correct sector name.

The last one is the worlds. Like the Subsectors, there are places where the names will overlap, where the positions will overlap but with different names, and where the worlds are in completely different places. In the first case, where the worlds have the same name in the same position, use a sub-page for the worlds. Otherwise create a separate page with the different names.

There are two special problems with the worlds. The first is the SectorWorlds2 template, which generates a list of worlds in the sector or subsector, based upon the worlds. The template makes some very specific assumptions about the naming of the sectors, which the sub-pages naming breaks. But any of the other styles of naming will also break.

The other is the JumpMap from World template, which also makes a number of assumptions about how the sectors are named. Which again, breaks with the subpages naming scheme. And the TravellerMap wants it's own name for these sectors to generate the JumpMap. If the template uses the correct (Traveller Map) name, the jump map is generated correctly. So two internal, somewhat complicated, programming changes but if everyone is consistent about the naming, everything should just work. And be reasonably findable by the users searching the wiki.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This discussion is about how to handle a situation for sectors with multiple versions

I welcome such a discussion, primarily because I've been looking at the Spinward Marches and getting ... annoyed ... by all the discrepancies, changes and differences I can find littered around the map. Granted, a lot of those discrepancies and changes are due to CT Errata rewriting huge swaths of the Spinward Marches in contradiction to both LBB S3 and FFW precedents. The way I try to reconcile a lot of these differences is to think that the version of the Spinward Marches 1105 detailed on Travellermap is NOT the LBB S3/FFW map.

There's also all kinds of obvious errors in the data used for Travellermap.
Tarsus/District 268 has a UWP of B584620-A and Travellermap 1105 records it as having Agricultural, Non-industrial and Rich trade code classifications (so it gets a yellow world icon).

Problem is that the requirement for trade codes are the following (LBB S3, p39):

Agricultural Worlds must have an atmosphere 4 through 9, a hydrographic percentage of 4 through 8, and a population of 5 through 7.
Non-industrial Worlds must have a population of 6 or less. The term non-industrial is a good clue to low population worlds.
Rich Worlds must have a government type 4 through 9, an atmosphere or 6 or 8 (untainted), and a population of 6 through 8.

A UWP of B584620-A meets the requirements for being Agricultural (B584620-A) and Non-industrial (B584620-A), but FAILS to meet the requirements for being a Rich world (B584620-A).

And that's just ONE "irksome" example of the kind of discrepancies that are positively LITTERED throughout the map of the Spinward Marches.
Another one is Garrinicski/Rhylanor is supposed to be on the Express Boat Network as shown in LBB S3, but is not part of the network on Travellermap.

It's enough to make me want to pull the raw data for the Spinward Marches and make my own "corrected version" that is closer to LBB S3 than what Travellermap (and the wiki) provides ... along with cleaning up the XBoat routing through Lunion subsector (that was obviously misprinted due to a misunderstanding in the publication of LBB S3 that wasn't caught in time before going to print).

 

[tjoneslo]

For your frustrations, Traveller Map has, by request of Marc (and Don before he passed) is using the Traveller 5th definitions of the Trade code.

As part of this process, they also "corrected" a few worlds which makes the UWPs not match the any of the earlier versions of the sector.

Over on the main Traveller Discord, under the #Classic Traveller channel @robject (Rob Eaglestone) went through the original draft map of the Spinward Marches and found the following changes:

1. "Palique" looks like it was corrected to "Pallique"
2. Fen's Gren is spelt without the letter "L". I wonder if it was intended to be "Fen's Green"?
3. Mawz is not "Mainz". <--- Nope, it's Mainz. Marc runs the I + N together regularly. See "Windsor" as a clearer example of this. Looks sorta like "WWDSOR" if you're not paying attention. Binges, too. And Singer.
4. Nexane, not Nexine ??
5. Penkwar without an 'H'
6. What's that little note jotted to the Scout base on Persephone? Answer: "all RED" = this scout base was promoted to a Way Station once it was clear that an xboat route would run through it. Mirriam and Karin together provide context for Persephone, which perhaps is supposed to be a Way Station (T5SS says yes). Note that the xboat route coming out of Mirriam appears to be drawn after first drawing the Way Station ex nilhio...
7. "all red" for Flammarion as well.
8. Letter "P" code on Mithras. Prison world? (T5SS maps say yes)
9. Mithras in context with Marastan, which has a Research Base ("R").
10. Judice with an "H" code (T5SS says it's RsT)
11. Marc erased two worlds -- one at 1621, and one at 1725. The one at 1725 had a class A starport -- perhaps it's too much of a threat to the Sword Worlds. You can even make out some of the letters of its name, barely: ADABICCI
    
12. Lunion was PROMOTED to capital, and perhaps to high population, AFTER the worlds were initially placed. (edited)
13. Duale is home to Research Station Alpha (T5SS affirms)
14. the majority of Red Zones were thoughtfully placed. The blues/Amber zone were more quickly placed, probably afterwards
15. Vanejen has a Gamma on it (for RS Gamma) and there's a note IN PENCIL that it's a GREEK LETTER.
16. Way Station added ex nilhio to Efate after xboat route was drawn
17. Planetoid belt comparisons. Note that Shionthy is different. Originally, Shionthy was supposed to be a world. I suggest that Marc soon cooked up plans for Shionthy which required its destruction.
18. THERE IS NO WORLD AT 2632. THERE NEVER WAS. In 1985 GDW had to strip out all world names in order to squeeze the Spinward Marches UWP data into their Spinward Marches Campaign module. As a result one line of data stuttered into existence where it had not existed ever before, and from there propagated into MegaTraveller's Imperial Encyclopedia... even though images of the maps never had that world noted before. The stutter was an accidental near-identical copy of Corfu (2602)

 

[Spinward Flow]

using the Traveller 5th definitions of the Trade code.

Well, since I don't have access to T5 anything, I'll have to assume that at least the Travellerwiki would be the place to start for cross-checking trade codes then, rather than looking at LBB S3. For one thing, codes like Garden World and Fluid Oceans and so on didn't exist (per se) back in the CT days.

NEW trade codes that existed later after CT can be "worked around" no problem.
OLD trade codes that create what look like obvious errors are a different story.

Letter "P" code on Mithras. Prison world? (T5SS maps say yes)

Can confirm that Mitrhras/Glisten is a Prison Planet. It even got Fluff Text™ in the subsector info in LBB S3, p26.

Mithras is the site of an lmperial exile prison; convicted individuals are deported to the world where they begin life anew. Although environmental conditions are harsh, the opportunities on Mithras have made it a showcase of rehabilitation.

---

---

As part of this process, they also "corrected" a few worlds which makes the UWPs not match the any of the earlier versions of the sector.

Hence why I kind of wish there was a "LBB S3 Spinward Marches 1105" map option available for Travellermap instead of the one we've got for 1105.

 

[whartung]

Well, since I don't have access to T5 anything, I'll have to assume that at least the Travellerwiki would be the place to start for cross-checking trade codes then, rather than looking at LBB S3.

Travellermap has the trade codes also: https://travellermap.com/doc/secondsurvey#remarks

 

[Spinward Flow]

Travellermap has the trade codes also: https://travellermap.com/doc/secondsurvey#remarks

And there it is.

• Ri = Rich. Requires: Atm 6,8, Pop 6-8

The requirement for Government Type from CT has been dropped.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So ... in the interests of transparency for my hobbyist effort to "LBB S3 the Spinward Marches in 1105" on Travellermap, I want to be explicit that my intention here is to create an alternate dataset that can be used to generate maps of Spinward Marches in 1105 that use LBB S3 as the starting point.

The problem is that LBB S3 contains some pretty obvious errata in its printing (such as the XBoat routing in Lunion subsector, among other things) that ought to be corrected in any update, rather than permitting previous errors to persist. One of the especial "that's GOT TO BE an error!" things for me is routing the Imperial XBoats between Lunion/Lunion and Iderati/Five Sisters through Biter/Sword Worlds ... which is just "hold my beer" levels of DERP when the obvious solution was to route through the Scout Base at Wardn/Lunion instead. Of course, if you take Biter/Sword Worlds off the XBoat Network, you no longer need to have Adabicci/Lunion on the Express Network anymore ... and the smart play for the IISS would be to create a new link from Lunion <J3> Rabwhar <J4> Lanth to speed communications on the coreward/rimward axis between Lanth and Lunion by at least 2 jumps.

I intend to pull the raw data for the Spinward Marches sector from the Poster Maker function supported by Travellermap to pull the Sector Data for world UWPs (etc.) and the Metadata (used to define borders, XBoat routes, etc.) for editing. Once I've got the appropriate edit changes implemented to both files, I'll be able to plug those files into the Poster Maker to generate an alternative Spinward Marches 1105 sector map. Check for errors of implementation, correct/copy/paste ... wash, rinse, repeat as needed to proof the results.

Once I've got something that I'm happy with, I'd be able to post file attachments here to CotI to make the fruits of my labors available to others for peer review (the first step towards broader acceptance).



But first things first.
Is there anyone who can spot a fundamental flaw with the methodology of operational steps to workflow that I have outlined above?

The reason that I ask this question is because if the above formulation for pull/edit/test is deemed to be workable/solid, then it becomes possible for other people to follow the example that I'll be setting as a workable means to customizing their own sector maps for personal use and/or as a modus operandi for creating alternative sector maps that if accepted widely enough could be the first step(s) towards generation of additional wiki page entries and edits.

So ... can anyone find fault with my proposed order of operations here?

 

[mike wightman]

Yes.
There is no need to change the x boat routes.
They are a feature to be explained, and the idea of actually playing through the setting up of new xboat routes is suggested in the S3 fluff text.
Change one thing because you think it is wrong and you may as well go with the revised version.
Stick to the book as it was written, and ignore anyone else's descriptions of worlds is what i do.
There is also the jump 5 route...

 

[Spinward Flow]

There is also the jump 5 route...

I am aware ...

Curious how Penkwhar stopped being a type X starport Red zone and became a type D starport Amber zone on Travellermap.

There is no need to change the x boat routes.

Change one thing because you think it is wrong and you may as well go with the revised version.

Stick to the book as it was written, and ignore anyone else's descriptions of worlds is what i do.

If LBB S3 were obviously without errors of any kind whatsoever ... I would be more than happy to do so.
However, as already demonstrated in this post, that is definitely NOT the case!
Perpetuating obvious errors out of deference to the past simply makes you complicit in the continuation of those errors.

 

[mike wightman]

Your xboat route change is not correcting an an error. It is something you object to because you think your better route should take precedence.
If the xboat routes were to be analyzed and changed to ensure metagame min/maxing then one of the main points of the setting is lost.
The xboat routes were placed on top of the existing most profitable (to the Imperium and megacorporations) trade routes. Then local political graft has to be taken into account.
Every xboat link should be 4 parsecs to ensure efficiency of communication, and yet this is ignored.

 

[tjoneslo]

The x-boat routes were established in the 600s, yet 400 years later when there are J6 couriers available, the routes should be updated to Jump 6, for efficiency, but haven't

 

[tjoneslo]

So ... in the interests of transparency for my hobbyist effort to "LBB S3 the Spinward Marches in 1105" on Travellermap, I want to be explicit that my intention here is to create an alternate dataset that can be used to generate maps of Spinward Marches in 1105 that use LBB S3 as the starting point.

A possibly better way is to ask Joshua (@inexorabletash ) for a "far away sector". Once you get your sector updated the way you want it could, possibly, be hosted on Traveller Map. It's not in the charted space, but is on Traveller map, with all the tools, for everyone to enjoy.

 

[mike wightman]

The x-boat routes were established in the 600s, yet 400 years later when there are J6 couriers available, the routes should be updated to Jump 6, for efficiency, but haven't

Early JTAS News indicated that there was a jump 6 network in the core sectors and they were rolling out drop tanks with a view to extending the jump 6 network as far as the Marches. This caused a lot of unrest among those who didn't want any more overt Imperial control.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The x-boat routes were established in the 600s, yet 400 years later when there are J6 couriers available, the routes should be updated to Jump 6, for efficiency, but haven't

Well, canonically OTU they were going to be updated from J4 to J6 (post-1105) ... but then circumstances intervened.
Any kind of capability upgrade and Express Network "refactoring" effort for the entire Third Imperium would have been a MASSIVE undertaking, easily measuring into the decatrillion credit range (minimum) just for construction costs to build out and implement such an update to the system. It's not something that could be undertaken (bureaucratically speaking) "on a whim" and would almost certainly have required an Imperial Edict To Make It So™ and tip the balance in favor of overhauling the entire Express Network in this fashion.

Power balances between worlds would shift ... there would be Winners and Losers ... when optimizing the Express Network for an update to improve communication speed. The effects would reverberate for centuries afterwards (absent a collapsing event) and the "frontiers" would become "closer to the centers of power" everywhere.

I can easily imagine that preparations for such an incredibly involved undertaking and revision might require as much as a CENTURY of planning and negotiations before getting rolled out into all of the sectors under Imperial control. It would effectively be the largest single "public works" project in the history of the Third Imperium (and quite possibly all of humaniti's history) once the decision was made and the contracts signed.



Or to put it another way ... the Express Network established after IY 624 became both "Too Big To Fail" and also "Too Big To Change" once it became entrenched as an incumbent vested interest for the worlds on the network.

Early JTAS News indicated that there was a jump 6 network in the core sectors and they were rolling out drop tanks with a view to extending the jump 6 network as far as the Marches. This caused a lot of unrest among those who didn't want any more overt Imperial control.

Yeah, that was just an "in universe" way of explaining/implementing a change in the starship design rules (the adding of L-Hyd Drop Tanks) which then enabled starship designs that were previously "impossible" to do.

If all it took was TL=12 minimum for L-Hyd Drop Tanks to be developed and fielded, then the J6 Drop Tank XBoat ought to have existed for CENTURIES prior to 1105 and correspondingly been developed and rolled out to the entire Express Network following the Third Frontier War (979-986) during the 1000s.

Just a side effect of only being able to make updates to the OTU setting through printed publications in the 1977-1983 time frame, so retcons and "fixing" prior stuff through updates weren't as easy to do as simply changing a web page's contents during the CT days.

 

[whulorigan]

TL;DR This is a long, complicated response to a "I want all the things" request for the wiki, specifically keeping both versions of an overwritten sector.

The Beyond Sector (yes the article is part of the name, unlike other sectors) has three official versions in Traveller Map. Depending on how you choose to divide things, there may be as many as 6 distinct versions of this sector. This discussion is about how to handle a situation for sectors with multiple versions, with a specific focus on The Beyond.

. . .

In the wiki currently there is the The Beyond Sector page, which should be linked to the current primary version of the sector in Traveller map.

The two other published versions of the sector are listed as sub pages of the original:

• The Paranoia Press version at : https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/The_Beyond_Sector/Paranoia_Press
• The Jeff Zeitlin version at: https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/The_Beyond_Sector/Jeff_Zeitlin

As can be seen above, the idea is to pick a name to identify the variant sector and include it as a sub-page. The "/" character in the name of the article indicates a sub-page.

There are two other primary concerns: The subsectors and the worlds.

In some cases the subsector names overlap. For example the Mapepire Subsector exists as Subsector A in both the default and in the Paranoia Press version, but not in Jeff's version, where Subsector A is named Meizirn Subsector. For the duplicate names, use the sub-pages as before. For the unique name create a top level page for it. Make sure the InfoboxSubsector data and other links are connected to the correct sector name.

The last one is the worlds. Like the Subsectors, there are places where the names will overlap, where the positions will overlap but with different names, and where the worlds are in completely different places. In the first case, where the worlds have the same name in the same position, use a sub-page for the worlds. Otherwise create a separate page with the different names.
. . .

Back to the OP. Sorry to be so long in responding, I have been very busy at work over the past two weeks and have had very little time to read or respond to anything on COTI.

I guess great minds think alike . For the past month or so I was thinking of suggesting or doing something exactly like this for both The Beyond and Vanguard Reaches using subpages on the wiki. I think it would be a shame to lose all of that now non-canonical Charted Space history that so many people have used in their campaigns over the years. But I agree that the current version of those two sectors by Geir Lanesskog published by Mongoose must be the primary page.

My suggestion (or how I thought I might have done the subpages for those two sectors) would have been to use Don McKinney's updated (i.e. "more sane") version as the basis of the subpage, and then either:

• For Minor Differences between Don's version and the published Paranoia Press version: Make a note on the associated Discussion Tab of the differences between the two
• For Major Differences between Don's version and the published Paranoia Press version: Create a "metadata" page for those relevant Paranoia Press subpages with the more "fanciful" original Paranoia Press material on the metadata page as rumors and tales associated with those specific worlds and polities.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

This also then works with Chuck Kallenbach's later 1991 explanation of the original 1980/81 Paranoia Press publications that the original joint-venture survey put out by the Royal Duchy of Trelyn Scouts and Allarton Corporation resulted in a "fiasco" of misinformation and outright fabrication in getting the survey completed as the joint venture fell apart (i.e. Don's material is the correct information, Paranoia Press's info is the "colorful" misinformation to a greater or lesser degree as the GM chooses).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Not to thread necro ... but ,,,

In marching through my own remapping of the Spinward Marches 1105 project, that I would like to make use of as a springboard to thinking about ACS scale commercial trading opportunities, I've come to realize that from a merchantman perspective the inclusion of political borders and colors for mainworld trade codes is extremely valuable (Rich=purple, Agricultural=green, Industrial=grey, etc.). However, from the perspective of a free trader merchant, something that is potentially even more important is having easy access to Population ranges so as to get a better handle on the differentiation of hi vs lo population markets. Sort of the commercial equivalency to a portolan chart from back in the days of the age of sail.

Travellermap already partially does this by following the convention established in the Fifth Frontier War game product of rendering the names of worlds with Population: 9-A in ALL CAPS.

The (dreaded) Feature Request™ that I have is an optional way to further modify the convention for presentation of names for worlds on maps generated by Travellermap.

Specifically:

• Population 0-4: name italicized and underlined
• Population 5-6: name italicized
• Population 7-8: name regular font
• Population 9-A: name ALL CAPS

The purpose behind this request is to clarify which worlds are Non-industrialized (Population: 6-) while also further denoting which worlds are low population enough to have -DMs applied to the availability of Passengers and Cargo bound for those destinations. (LBB2.81, p11) (TTB, p55)

I'm hoping that such a Feature Request™ can be accomplished in one of two possible ways.

1. Add a checkbox to the Options selections, enabling such a feature for all maps generated
2. A snippet of XML styling code to be added to the metadata file which will yield the desired modification when generating maps

In the late 70s/early 80s, I can understand why italicized and underlined typeset would be "undesirable" from a print publication perspective, since it would probably have increased printing costs (and been another potential source of errors in layouts and formatting for paper printing). However, that condition no longer holds where we've moved "beyond paper" for this kind of stuff into the realm of databases and digital displays. Modifying a font on a screen is a LOT CHEAPER to do than modifying offset block typset used in a printing press.

So ... the first step with any kind of Feature Request™ is to determine how feasible it is to deliver on the request, followed by an estimation of the quantity of work required to implement it, along with a determination of whether the benefits of doing that work justify the effort involved in developing the requested feature.

Since I have no access to any of the programming code for Travellermap, could someone with greater knowledge and familiarity with how Travellermap "works under the hood" care to opine on how difficult it would be to extend the presentation of world names on maps as I've outlined above ... and whether such an update to Travellermap's APIs might be deemed worth the effort?



I would like to think that for any Tramp Trader styled campaign, adding font changes to world names to make world population ranges more obvious at a glance would be extremely helpful and useful for both Referees and Players.

Thoughts?

 

[tjoneslo]

The (dreaded) Feature Request™ that I have is an optional way to further modify the convention for presentation of names for worlds on maps generated by Travellermap.

While I like this idea, Joshua has asked people post new features to the Trello board or to the GitHub

 

[Spinward Flow]

While I like this idea, Joshua has asked people post new features to the Trello board or to the GitHub

Request #336 opened on github with link to Post#16 in this thread for additional context around the request.