> Danny wrote:
[snip]
> This is a listing of all stars <10 ly from Terra:
> From To Distance
> None of them, except for ACent, would make really good sites for
This is very useful stuff, but I'd like to pose a couple of questions to
everyone on the list who is interested - responses to this may help
shape the way we write up the background material in future.
1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
enthusiastic cross-section of FT/DS/SG players). A star map/colony list
that is as close to known astronomical data as possible, or one that applies a
bit of artistic licence (as most SF authors do) and allows there to be planets
wherever they best suit the storyline? If the latter, do we stick to "real"
stars only, or make the whole thing up once we get past a few LY out?
2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor modification
of it (on the assumption that those who hate the background won't be
interested in all this anyway!), do you actually WANT to see it defined in
this sort of detail, or left loose (as we have done so far) to allow more
freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.? Would
you want to see detail of specific events/places in the timeline, and
exhaustive lists of whose settlements are on which worlds etc.? This sort of
background "fluff' is fairly easy to produce once you get it rolling
(provided it is carefully cross-checked for contradictions - I'm sure
you
guys (and girls - sorry Beth....) will gleefully go through it all with
fine-tooth combs... <grin>), but I am aware that some people can also
see it as too restrictive on their creativity.
I'd be keen to get as much response as possible to these thoughts, so we can
see where we should be heading.....
> At 15ly, you get a only couple useful systems (Tau Ceti, 61 Cygni).
At 25ly, you get a good number (Xi Ursae Majoris, etc), maybe about a dozen
and a half.
> So, I would postulate this (assuming that most worlds are earth-type
Core Worlds: Sol (G2V) Centaurus (G2V) Barnard's Star (M3V)
Inner Colonies: (out to about 25ly from Sol)
includes-
Beta Hydri (G1IV) 61 Cygni (K3V) Tau Ceti (G8V) Delta Pavonis (G5V) 82 Eridani
(G5V) Procyon (F5V) Xi Bootis (G8V) Xi Ursae Majoris (G0V)...and others
Outworlds: (worlds beyond 25ly from Sol)...other worlds
> It would not be to difficult to whip up a CHView file with systems
what is the speed/endurance of FT's FTL drives?
Realspace "speed" will depend on frequency of jumps - once out into
interstellar space each jump is probably around 2 light-years for
Military drives, 1 for Merchants. Following the fluff I put in the FB, you
need an undefined number of shorter jumps at the beginning and end of the
trip, and average jump frequency is about 1 per day (maximum with Milspec
drives is 4 a day). So, we could say that trip time by merchant ship is about
1 LY per
day, plus (say) 2-3 days of corrective jumps at each end, with an
average
warship being able to halve that - so a "slow" freighter would do Sol to
Centaurus in around 10 days, Barnard in 12, Ross 154 in 16; to an Outworld at
50LY would take around 56 days if the ship had the endurance to keep up
the constant jumps, which is highly unlikely - it would probably do it
in stages, with several layovers that would increase the trip time
considerably. A Warship would do Centaurus in (say) 5-6 days at normal
cruise, but could do it in a couple of days in a flat-out emergency run.
Endurance could be either in time (crew stamina and lifesupport supplies
etc.) or number of jumps (power/fuel requirements, and crew stamina
again). For gameplay purposes it is probably better to keep endurance
relatively short, even for military ships, to prevent bypassing of large
chunks of
territory - if layovers have to be fairly frequent then it becomes more
tactically necessary to hold star systems rather than just detour round them.
This is all JUST IDEAS at this stage - not hard-and-fast rules!! It is
also quite late, so don't blame me if the math is wonky....:)
Jon/GZG queried:
(snip star list)
> 1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
YES! Stick to the Real Thing. ("What's the matter, God didn't do a good enough
job for you?")
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
to
> allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
Astrographically, I think the ideal is to define where the Major Powers are,
and note other places as controlled by "a minor power" ("Tau Ceti's habitable
world has five colonies, including three NAC provinces." You could put in
anyone as the other two). That leaves room for people who want to tinker (a la
John's Byzantines), while providing enough detail for a general consensus. As
far as the timeline is concerned, again I'd say
sketch in the broad outline ("FSE/NSL and allies fought from 2283-2301")
and don't fill in the exact dates of campaigns. If there is an Official Map
(tm) then it'll be easy to see where the campaigns are going to be, but you
can fight them on your own.
> For gameplay purposes it is probably better to keep endurance
Agree. I'd use Alderson Points, myself, but anything that limits strategic
maneuverability helps the defense and makes it possible to hold territory
instead of having an all-attack MAD policy. Think: if you can reach any
of five enemy star systems from each of your five, and you both have 1000
points to put into a fleet, then you either smash his 200pt flotilla at each
place or you have an 80% chance of taking an undefended system (and destroying
it, since you can't hold onto it either); meanwhile, he does the same to you.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
[Jon asked about how defined we want the background to be]
Hmmm. I like the official background, but I don't usually play games in it; I
usually end up playing either EFSB, or some crazy variant that
I'm playing with on the fly. (8-)
I guess my response is; make it as complex as you want, and as other people
are willing to provide material for. It's great source stuff, and for people
who don't like it, they just don't have to use it. I do also think that any
sort of background book should take second place to
new rules (I await with drool over Fleet Book v.2 (8-) ). But there
are campaign gamers who would love what the word is from on high. And there
are others who don't want their style cramped. I don't think you're going to
make everybody happy.
Just a couple of cents. (Well, given the damage the CDN $ has taken,
more like 1.2 cents. (8-( )
J.
> At 23:38 27/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
Personnaly real stars would be just great. The
mini-power-munchers
seem to be happier if they can actually find info on "their" planet or star
system, or where their fleet throunced the more experienced opposition (always
lose, just, to a new junior gamer. Gets them hooked!) Where you will then have
to take artistic licence is the planets in the star systems. Places like
Albion are exceptional because they well developed native life. Given some
terraforming others might be made so but there are probably a number that are
dreadful but useful where the people live under domes or underground. The
planets, their type and why they were settled is where the artistic creativity
should be used.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
to
> allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
Would
> you want to see detail of specific events/places in the timeline, and
Core worlds could be well defined and upset no-one. The U.N.
makes sure nothing happens there. Some of the more important inner worlds
might be OK like Albion and New Moscow. After that I'd be leaving it open so
that people can create their on colonies or new nations. Outside of the
"offical" nations we have just on the list the Nea Rhomanoi and Antartic
States. The Romanov Hegemony is offical but no background has been done until
noe and that is being done by an interested party. I might even get around to
doing an O.U. page yet (after I move). In short define the core worlds and
major inner worlds and nothing else.
> I'd be keen to get as much response as possible to these thoughts, so
I don't know about this. One of our club members has been working on some
rules for SGII in hostile enviroments. I can't see why you can't do the same
for DSII although it might take more thought.
> Core Worlds:
Funnily enough I do not use the drive system exactly as it is described in the
offical background. For a campaign I was writing I had Alderson like tram
lines that allowed you to travel faster (longer jumps with same accuracy)
along them as not. As these allowed travel to be 7 times faster the maths for
a campaign was simple. The system made some star systems more important
strategically than others without forcing you to fight down a tunnel like the
computer game "Pax Imperia" does (sux). Such a situation
can only lead to head-to-head confrontations and allows no latitude for
creative strategic/tactical thought.
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com> wrote:
> 1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a
Real stars only. There are actually plenty of them that have the potential for
habitable or terraformable planets, so there's no real restriction involved.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor...
I would love to see the detail. People who want to come up with their own
stuff can either make it up or just change the names of established places to
fit their needs. A middle ground would be to detail close in, and leave more
of the outer colonies open to interpretation. I prefer detail, however.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> This is very useful stuff, but I'd like to pose a couple of questions
I was just telling someone how good a relationship GZG has with it's fans.:)
> 1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
I do prefer that any official lists stick as close to known stars as possible.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
Does adding an extra major power count as 'minor'? <All-time dream
fantasy> You want to add it to the background? </fantasy> just joking,
not gonna stick you in position of saying "You're a Loony!":>
> won't be interested in all this anyway!), do you actually WANT to see
to
> allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
Would
I've got all the major colonies I want listed. I'm not listing smaller
colonies incapable of raising a military force--those wouldn't be
classified as themes, but colonies. I'm leaving those undefined deliberately.
> you want to see detail of specific events/places in the timeline, and
To a certain extent. Perhaps listing all the 'major' settlements, with room
for minor settlements. Someone suggested, as an example "5 major settlements,
3 of which are NAC provinces". I like this style since it leaves room for
player definition, but also adds substance to the "Real"
GZG-verse.
> Inner Colonies: (out to about 25ly from Sol)
> Procyon (F5V)
I call dibs on Procyon as New Constantinople!:)
> warship being able to halve that - so a "slow" freighter would do Sol
Someone with more knowledge please enlighten: This is equivelant to the trip
from Europe to (picking a place at random) Indonesia at what
technology levels? Are we looking at a Napoleonic-era style of
communications and travel from the core to the fringe?
On Friday, 27 November 1998 17:38, Ground Zero Games
> [SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com] wrote:
I would prefer that the we stick to the real universe as much as possible,
with any bendings being few and far between. I am not opposed
to the idea of a Terra-type world around an M class star, I just don't
want them to be common. Also, there is an extensive list of known planets
around some of the closer stars that could be useful in starting to flesh out
the game universe.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
A little of both. Define the major planets/systems, designate some
colony worlds (basically, just locate them on the map), and not also something
in the way of '...and 5 smaller resource systems around nearby M class stars,
and each player can determine where they are according to their needs.
> Would
Not exhaustive, but a good core beginning. For a more concrete example: the
detail in 2300AD Colonial Atlas is a bit too much for each world, although I
would like that detail on the main worlds (Core worlds and capital worlds),
while most other worlds should get a couple of lines, like the worlds in GURPS
Behind the Claw.
> Realspace "speed" will depend on frequency of jumps - once out into
This is a great start, we can formalize these numbers fairly easily. I would
prefer layovers to be more frequent than not, with warships travelling faster
than normal cruise speed needing more frequent layovers.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
> This is very useful stuff, but I'd like to pose a couple of questions
Future as in maybe getting an integrated (DS/FT/SG) campaign system?...
> 1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
I prefer real stars. I'm not sure how acurate Traveller 2300's map was, but I
thought it was supposed to be pretty accurate (no flames, please, it's been a
long time, not I refer to it as Traveler 2300 and not 2300AD). I liked that
map.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
to
> allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
Would
I would like to see a well defined core, a fairly well defined inner colonies,
and a couple of the "major" outworld planets (for reference). There might be
room for some undefined inner colony worlds for individual customization, but
I think most customization would be in the outer colonies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I would like to see a well defined core, a fairly well defined inner
Eric puts this very well. This mirrors my opinion, but he stated it better.
Jerry spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I guess my response is; make it as complex as you want, and as other
Us SG2 and DS2 guys are owed one "Bugs Don't Surf" first, I hope. You FT
guys...always gimme gimme gimme.... *grin*.
> Just a couple of cents. (Well, given the damage the CDN $ has taken,
Haven't you heard? We've decided to rename it the Canadian Peso.
/************************************************
1) Based on reality with artistic licence. Scale that holds up with the
background tech as suggested.
2) For main settlements cited in published/to be published history give
locus world. For each power list main location systems.
3) Main spheres human, KV, SV, Phalon...
> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Laserlight wrote:
Yes, please use the real galaxy -- it's more fun whn you look up at the
night sky.
> 2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
I'd say leave it loose -- we need room for different views of the same
galaxy.
> For gameplay purposes it is probably better to keep endurance
We used the campaign rules in the back of the Full Thrust rulebook for our
first campaign (way back in 1994!), and we found that it was too easy to get
from one system to the other. We were moving in secret on a hex map
boardgame-style, and we each ended up with 95% of our ships in one
flotilla hopping from one star system to the next, hoping to land on and smash
a smaller force.
FTL movement needs to be restricted, either through low endurance, or
through "jump lines," "Alderson points", or some other future-tech
justification. Your future campaign system will rely on it.:)
> Eric Fialkowski wrote:
It was Ok. Reasonably accurate, except for a couple of glaring errors.
I still have my UNIVERSE map on my Game room wall!! Great stuff!!
Michael Wikan Game Design Slave Zero Accolade, Inc.
http://www.slavezero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> Laserlight wrote:
Precisely. Keep in mind that Niven and Pournelle had the Alderson Drive
designed with the specification that it would allow interstellar combat.
As you point out, without the choke points the Alderson drive imposes, you
don't have a war, you have 30 seconds of every planet in both empires being
blown to Emm Cee Squared followed by the surviving starfleets wandering
aimlessly until their fuel runs out.