Size | Diameter | G |
1 | 1600 | 0.07 |
2 | 3200 | 0.15 |
3 | 4800 | 0.25 |
4 | 6400 | 0.35 |
5 | 8000 | 0.5 |
6 | 9600 | 0.65 |
7 | 11200 | 0.8 |
8 | 12800 | 1 |
9 | 14400 | 1.2 |
10 | 16000 | 1.4 |
WBH keeps the DM+2 for balkanisation. In fact it keeps all the DMs from the Core book. Yes, the Gov 7 DM+2 strikes me as odd also, but it's been consistent through MgT 1 and 2. The other deviation from T5 is that Mongoose Traveller also has a DM-2 for Gov E. No, not arguing that +2 and -2 even out, but just pointing out another deviation. I don't want to speak for Joshua, but I believe TravellerMap doesn't flag the DM variance between versions as out of bounds. And not everything canon even follows anyone's rules; if you look at canon stuff, Efate should fail a test for valid Gov.I am beginning to doubt whether anyone has looked in detail at the Mongoose World Building rules since MgT1e. The TL bonus for balkanisation also strikes me as odd, and is also inconsistent with other (Marc Miller) versions of Traveller. And there is a danger that, with SecondSurvey/TravellerMap becoming canon, Mongoose is publishing sector data that is inconsistent with its own ruleset.
Hopefully @Geir is watching these threads for the World Builder's Handbook.
No, you are thinking only of simulation here but emulation is also (by definition) modelling reality and can certainly incorporate constrained randomisation (as can stochastic simulations). In fact Traveller's basic universe generation system has always been emulative, not simulative. [From someone who has made a past career in complex system emulation and simulation]. Simulation is worthless for most of Traveller's purposes because unless a simulation model is "mostly complete" (and system evolution models are still highly theoretical) then you are not "modelling reality". You are just testing the simulation model itself.Random rolls are not going to model reality.
Mongoose is now publishing its sector guides directly from the TravellerMap/T5SS database. And those sources use a world generation system that differs from Mongoose's own rule systems. But you are correct that it does not really matter so long as the results are described. It just seems pointless to have a varying system in the Mongoose rulebook, one that I suspect is almost never used in preference to the data generated using the Miller Traveller rule systems in TravellerMap and in all of the current and historical source material including Mongoose's own publications.As far as publishing stuff that doesn't match their ruleset, I don't see how that is possible.
Efate is certainly an outlier (and always has been) but I think I read somewhere that T5SS was going to impose system bounds on worlds. The closest thing I can see in the TravellerMap Credits is:but I believe TravellerMap doesn't flag the DM variance between versions as out of bounds. And not everything canon even follows anyone's rules; if you look at canon stuff, Efate should fail a test for valid Gov.
.. that might be where I got the notion from. And things like Aramis/Aramis which has now been changed from UWP A6B0556-B to A5A0556-B for no reason (and contrary to the wiki info) but can be half explained if the size was mis-scanned/mis-entered (6->5) and this caused an automatic correction in the legal atmosphere value.Ongoing review and development of the OTU is being coordinated by the Traveller5 Sector Survey (T5SS), an effort driven by Marc Miller to stabilize, correct, and control the UWPs of the OTU so that there's a solid canon base of data for future reference.
I seem to recollect that T5 gives sample gravities separately for low and high density worlds.On gravity, I didn't see any T5 info.
Or, is it possible that no-one has ever noticedI have been assuming that if there had been a major Inner Circle or T5SS issue with the Gov 7 DM, it would have been brought up, but I've only been on the T5SS list for the last 3 years.
It doesn't matter which way you calculate them, one you have determined two then the third one can be derived and you need all three to determine the surface gravity and orbital characteristics of the world. But where surface gravity is a fairly simple (size * density) calculation relative to a baseline you still need to know the density component. And the statement in the Core Rulebook that the gravity values given are based on worlds with the same density as terra is erroneous regardless of how it is justified for the gravity values givenIn a "clean slate" system, I'd go with mass and density first, but with Traveller we start with Size, then go with determining density to back into mass and gravity computations.
Only on the (decanonized) 1248 map is Aramis still 6B0. And now even the Wiki is 5A0 - except if you read the written description from the GURP data or a note on the discussion tab... I have no idea why that 6B0 -> 5A0 retcon was done. 6B0 is still valid using the 'hot' rules in the Core book, and without them, neither 5A0 or 6B0 would be valid. And neither one changes a trade code. The change that torques me, and I've probably mentioned it before, is Dallia/District 268, whose atmosphere changed from B to 8, suddenly becoming a Rich world, all because someone had bad vision or used bad OCR at some point.And things like Aramis/Aramis which has now been changed from UWP A6B0556-B to A5A0556-B for no reason (and contrary to the wiki info) but can be half explained if the size was mis-scanned/mis-entered (6->5) and this caused an automatic correction in the legal atmosphere value.
I'm not able to find it in T5.10 Book 3, but to be fair, finding anything in T5 can be... challenging...I seem to recollect that T5 gives sample gravities separately for low and high density worlds.
Or like me, noticed but didn't bring it up. I had a long string on T5SS about the 'Acceptance' cultural trait, which apparently resulted in, um acceptance that Acceptance could be variable, but I haven't seen that reflected in anything published. Maybe T5.11 ?Or, is it possible that no-one has ever noticed![]()
Agreed. Just saying that if I were designing a generation system from scratch I would have started with mass, then determine density to get radius and gravity. With WBH because we start with Size (radius, well diameter, but same difference in relative Earth units), we determine density to get mass and gravity. Either way, add density to determine the unknowns. Ironically for exoplanets, the known quantities are, at best, size and mass, and so density (and once again gravity) becomes the derived value.It doesn't matter which way you calculate them, one you have determined two then the third one can be derived and you need all three to determine the surface gravity and orbital characteristics of the world. But where surface gravity is a fairly simple (size * density) calculation relative to a baseline you still need to know the density component.
Yes. It doesn't even match the examples that well. (For size 3, Mercury - and a Terra-analog, would be about 0.38, and in reality Ganymede has lower gravity than Luna). Maybe next Core version the Surface Gravity column would stay the same, but the sentence would end in 'a density typical of its Size'.And the statement in the Core Rulebook that the gravity values given are based on worlds with the same density as terra is erroneous regardless of how it is justified for the gravity values given
Why would the Vilani define 1g as anything other than 1.15g?Why would the Vilani cap their drives at 1g instead of the 1.15g or some fraction of it that they are used to?
Dallia was one of the ones I noticed as well I think. The source seems likely to be in optical scanning as B->8 feels like an obvious OCR error. But I had previously been under the impression that the Marches data was already digital and therefore OCR transcription would not have been needed. But I am thinking that Aramis size was also mis-scanned/mis-readOnly on the (decanonized) 1248 map is Aramis still 6B0. And now even the Wiki is 5A0 - except if you read the written description from the GURP data or a note on the discussion tab... I have no idea why that 6B0 -> 5A0 retcon was done. 6B0 is still valid using the 'hot' rules in the Core book, and without them, neither 5A0 or 6B0 would be valid. And neither one changes a trade code. The change that torques me, and I've probably mentioned it before, is Dallia/District 268, whose atmosphere changed from B to 8, suddenly becoming a Rich world, all because someone had bad vision or used bad OCR at some point.
I guess I just don't assume that everyone playing Traveller is playing in the Third Imperium setting. Or that if they do, they only play in a published area rather than, say, Foreven or other uncharted areas.Mongoose is now publishing its sector guides directly from the TravellerMap/T5SS database. And those sources use a world generation system that differs from Mongoose's own rule systems. But you are correct that it does not really matter so long as the results are described. It just seems pointless to have a varying system in the Mongoose rulebook, one that I suspect is almost never used in preference to the data generated using the Miller Traveller rule systems in TravellerMap and in all of the current and historical source material including Mongoose's own publications.
I suspect it is a small minority of games, but I still stand by my point that the source data that Mongoose does publish (derived from T5SS) is inconsistent with their own design system.I guess I just don't assume that everyone playing Traveller is playing in the Third Imperium setting.
Which accounts for the changes in Falcon. In this case, though I believe, the size zero -> zero atmosphere/hydrosphere has been in the rules since the first iteration (c. 1977); so it is not a matter of evolution but, probably, an error in the original generation either manually by the authors or software. Obviously size 2 or 3 can retain atmosphere in the Traveller rules but may imply high density for thicker atmospheresMy understanding is that Don McKinney went through and bumped up the sizes of a lot of the worlds (like where you had a 15XYYYY, you now have a 55XYYYY) to match newer rules and his feelings on what atmosphere a small world could support - theory with that being, I assume, that to maintain the character of the world it was more important to retain the atmosphere than the size.