Jumping into empty hexes: some thoughts.

[simonh]

OK, so the Vilani can bypass all star systems and attack Terra from a network of deep space stations that they're able to set up at will. And the Terrans (if they survive) can retaliate the same way. Now tell me that the IWs play out the same way as described.

I have already addressed that issue. It can be explained by political and sociological reasons why they might not make optimal military use of EHJ technology, which they must have had for their empire to have existed at all.

Simon

 

[aspqrz]

OK, so the Vilani can bypass all star systems and attack Terra from a network of deep space stations that they're able to set up at will. And the Terrans (if they survive) can retaliate the same way. Now tell me that the IWs play out the same way as described.

I have already addressed that issue. It can be explained by political and sociological reasons why they might not make optimal military use of EHJ technology, which they must have had for their empire to have existed at all.

Of course, there is always the possibility that there are actually systems that made the pre J-2 Imperium possible, but which were ... destroyed ... like totally destroyed ... during the Consolidation Wars.

I'd blame a long term Hiver plot , except they hadn't encountered them yet, had they?

Phil

 

[simonh]

I require mass at the destination for all Jumps. If a hex is empty, you cannot jump into it. BUT, I also map about 50% of the "empty" hexes from the Traveller maps with stars (I use a star figure on the map too). These may be stars or brown dwarfs that do not have planets.

That works, and I'd happily play in a game by those rules. It's not my prefered option because I think it's logicaly inconsistent for the rules to say that on the one had you can't jump close to a large mass, but on the other hand you can't jump without being close to a large mass either, but it's only a game.

Simon Hibbs

 

[thrash]

Congratulations, Will -- you've inspired me to join Yet Another Traveller Board.

In Re Imperium: jumps, due to the way Imperium plays, are UNLIMITED along jump lines in those 6 month turns,, and a speed onf 1/2pc per 6 months is allowed off-line. (FOr those not familiar, that's 1.63 LY/6 months, or 3.26C...)

So, either C is not a physical speed limit in the TU, or Imperium has off-route jumps, or Imperium isn't the OTU. Given that the OTU is about ca 1980, and Imperium is 1977 by GDW...

"Sublight Movement involves interstellar cruising at speeds approaching 80 to 90% of the speed of light. In game terms, this is expressed as a movement of one hex per game-turn, executed during the owning player's First Movement Phase."

One half-parsec hex per two-year game term is 0.82c, not 3.26c -- and strangely consistent with the "80 to 90% of the speed of light" explicitly mentioned in the rule.

Put the maps side by side.
Now, are they even close? (accounting for the difference in scale.)

Yes, they are. In fact, they are a reasonably exact match.

All and only those stars which appear near Terra on the Solomani Rim chart appear on the Imperium map. The jump lines in Imperium are a one-for-one match of the available jump-2 connections on the Solomani Rim chart. The distances (as counted in hexes) between stars on the Imperium map are not always precisely consistent with the real world, but that is an inevitable distortion resulting from mapping a 3D space to a 2D surface.

The Traveller Known Stars List includes a link to a ChView file which identifies the stars on both the Imperium map and the Solomani Rim chart with their real-world counterparts.

 

[AKAramis]

Congratulations, Will -- you've inspired me to join Yet Another Traveller Board.

No, EDG did that.

I stand corrected about the time per turn being 2 years.

(I forgot to look it up).

THe fact that the board's non-route distances ARE NOT congruent.

Peraspera-junction
- Imperium: 3 hexes (J2),
- AM6: 1 hex (J1)
Terra-Midway
- Imp 7 hexes (2j2, j4)
- AM6 3 hexes (J3)
Markhashi-Junction
- Imp 6hx, j3
- AM6 4hx, J4
Markhashi-Sirius
- Imp 3hx, J2
- AM6 1 hx J1
Shiruppak-Sirius
- Imperium 7hx (j4)
- AM6 3 hx j3
Shiruppak- Enki Kalamma
- Imp 3 hx (j2)
- AM6 1hx j1

Markhashi J1 systems
- Imperium: Epsilon Eridani
- AM6: IILILE, SHULIMIK, Sirius

So, Chris, they are not representing the same space well, even if the names are mostly the same. I would expect them to at least round consistently... which they don't. DOn't have time to do the rest of it.

Are they related? Sure. Are they the same? Don't think so.

Looking at the higher-than-J2 links, it breaks. Even then Imperium uses ONLY j2 links, making no distinction about lesser drives.

 

[captainjack23]

So answer the question - has he or has he not declared (a) GT:Interstellar Wars specifically to be non-canon and (b) Imperium to be non-canon?

I know that in the introduction pages of some (didn't check all) of the Classic Traveller Reprint books the game Imperium is listed as part of Traveller canon. In fact the rules for the game Imperium are included in the Classic Games(1-6)+ reprint book (it's the first game actually), so I think that without any doubt that settles the issue of the canonicity of the game Imperium. The game Imperium is Traveller canon.

Since this seems to be the place for canon arguments, a few questions for you two & Aramis might help clear things up:

1. Is the list cited (bold above)a product list or a list of canon references (honest question -I don;t have access to it).

2. If it is a ref list , is it a specific exclusive list of Canon items ? Or just a list of some stuff that IS canon -or all stuff that is canon.

3. Does it include GTIW ?

4. Has any answer come back on GTIW from some of the Canon Deciders ? (in this case, I'd guess MWM in general, or LKW for the GT stuff)

 

[RandyT0001]

And I quote from the introduction "The Universe of Traveller" printed in the Classic Books Reprint, c. 2000 (no pages listed but it has a bold heading of 'The Traveller Canon'):

"The Traveller Canon in the body of work which defines the Traveller Universe. Individual game masters and players continue to define their particular universes through their own adventures, designs, and world generation procedures. The common set of facts that all base their activities on is the Traveller Canon.
"The Traveller Canon is defined as the set of Traveller materials published by GDW as Classic Traveller materials. This list detail the titles which are properly included in the Traveller Canon."

So to answer your questions as best as I can:

1. It appears that it is a list of canon references.

2. It appears to state that it is a specific and exclusive list of all Traveller canon references.

3. No it does not list GTIW but then again GTIW was published in 2006 and this list was copyrighted in 2000.

4. I would be shocked if either MWM or LKW were to embroil themselves into our discussion about EHJ's/DSJ's by clarifying as to the 'canonicity' of GTIW.

Make of it what you will.

 

[thrash]

The fact that the board's non-route distances ARE NOT congruent.

... is, as I said, an unavoidable artifact of projecting a 3D space onto a 2D surface. The differences stem from choosing a slightly different projection, not from a different underlying reality.

So, Chris, they are not representing the same space well, even if the names are mostly the same.

No, your examples are flawed (though the fact that you're even able to make the comparison should tell you something).

A jump-2 ship (which is all that is available during the period Imperium represents) travels the Imperium board in precisely the same manner and by the same routes that a jump-2 ship travels the Solomani Rim map. If it quacks like a duck...

The "non-jump" distances are irrelevant: it is mathematically impossible to represent them consistently in both magnitude and orientation on a 2D surface. In any case, non-jump crossings are a tiny fraction of the total in both games: a marginal but sometimes useful stunt, not fundamental to either one.

Looking at the higher-than-J2 links, it breaks. Even then Imperium uses ONLY j2 links, making no distinction about lesser drives.

Actually, you pointed out yourself (above) that the links are "jump-2 or less"; there are a few jump-1 links included. "Lesser drives" are effectively useless, anyway: the average distance between star systems is much greater than one parsec.

The same mathematical limitations I mentioned for non-jump-distances apply to jump capacities greater than jump-2: if it were possible to depict them consistently in 2D, they simply couldn't be taken from a 3D original. Jump-3 or greater connections on the Solomani Rim map are "broken" with respect to real world distances, too, because there are far too many connections to represent consistently in 2D. The jump-2 projection works because it's a single scale, because it's just under the average separation between systems (i.e., few connections), and only because of the limited area involved.

"Accounting for the difference in scale" as you originally allowed, how do you expect the two maps to be any more similar?

 

[rust]

4. I would be shocked if either MWM or LKW were to embroil themselves into our discussion about EHJ's/DSJ's by clarifying as to the 'canonicity' of GTIW.

Please do not look at SJG's Traveller forum, shocks can be dangerous to one's health ...

 

[AKAramis]

Yes, Loren states he's not sure... hehe.

Loren is likely to check.

And while I don't like certain Lorenisms (namely All marines in BD), the OTU seems to be more his work than Marc's if one looks at the credits of the various books.

 

[EDG]

Yes, Loren states he's not sure... hehe.

It means he's not sure, not that you're right. Given that to 99% of people who play Traveller it's completely freaking irrelevant whether it's "true canon" or not, it's probably not at the forefront of his mind.

And while I don't like certain Lorenisms (namely All marines in BD), the OTU seems to be more his work than Marc's if one looks at the credits of the various books.

It doesn't matter who wrote it. What matters is whether Marc's declared GT:IW to be an alternate setting or not.

 

[GamerDude]

I wrote to Marc Miller simply asking what books he considers to be "Traveller Canon". The short version of his reply is:

Our canon classification falls into three categories: Canon, Apocrypha, and Heresy.

We consider anything for Traveller (Classic, MegaTraveller, and The New Era) by GDW (or Imperium Games for T4) to be Canon.

We call licensed material (see below) Apocrypha. Not quite official, but good references.

Some stuff has been de-canonized (some Judges Guild stuff, etc).

He goes on with some other stuff since I asked him for possible sources to purchase the books in canon and stuff.

Thinking about the recent discussion about Stellar Reaches, and where Traveller canon can come from, and the comment by Matt about having just one source for canon. I'm curious to see what this will mean for everything put out by licensees. (meaning sanctioned non-FFE sources)..

 

[rust]

Very interesting - and some dry humour there.

I think it basically means that FFE can contradict and thereby change
whatever was published in a licenced product, while the content of a
licenced product can never supersede the content of an FFE product.

On the other hand, this would probably also mean that the content
of a licenced product is "canonical" unless and until it is contradicted
and superseded by the content of an FFE product.

So, in the end, nothing new.

 

[GamerDude]

On the other hand, this would probably also mean that the content of a licenced product is "canonical" unless and until it is contradicted
and superseded by the content of an FFE product.

Um... what part of 'Not quite official, but good references" translates to "canonical unless superceeded"?

 

[rust]

I think the informations contained in a "good reference" should be true
informations, because otherwise the reference could hardly be conside-
red good. And "true information" is what makes a "canon", at least un-
til some "truer" information is designated.

Edit.:

Perhaps this Wikipedia definition of canon helps to understand what I
mean:

"Canon, in the context of a fictional universe, comprises those novels, stories, films, etc., that are considered to be genuine or officially sanctioned, and those events, characters, settings, etc., that are considered to have existence within the fictional universe."

The "good references" are officially sanctioned, and they describe those
events etc. that are considered to have existence within the OTU - un-
less or until FFE declares otherwise.

 

[EDG]

Um... what part of 'Not quite official, but good references" translates to "canonical unless superceeded"?

What part of "Not quite official, but good references" translates to anything useful at all?

Does that mean that they aren't canonical at all? Or are in certain cases? Or what?

 

[GamerDude]

I think the informations contained in a "good reference" should be true informations, because otherwise the reference could hardly be considered good. And "true information" is what makes a "canon", at least un
til some "truer" information is designated.

First, I see you are currently in Germany so I'll take it you are not a native English speaker so... the plural of Information is... um... Information.

Now... "A Good Reference" Ok, take an atlas. The older it is the less accurate it is. Depending on how accurate you need it to be it can be not completely correct but still in general a good reference.

When you say 'true' information, I'm gathering you mean accurate, complete, not missing anything, no guesswork or supposition, etc.

Well, Marc has said: "We consider anything for Traveller (Classic, MegaTraveller, and The New Era) by GDW (or Imperium Games for T4) to be Canon." That's the list of canon. He also said anything licensed is "Not quite official", which to me means "close but no cigar on it being canon". When the man who should know doesn't include something in the list of canon, then it just ain't in the list of canon. Hell he's even gone and removed former publications that were canon as no longer canon.

So anyone who sits there and tries to say something from Quicklink Interactive (T20), SJ Games (GURPS: Traveller), or even Mongoose right now are canon is saying Marc is wrong. period.

I don't know how Marc could have made it any clearer... and I'm very surprised that when after all the asking for what Marc says, he speaks up, those who don't agree still try to split hairs to claim their viewpoint is still the correct one.

 

[far-trader]

...Because, as you (EDG?) blithely dismissed... how the heck do you make a profit if you have to turn over much larger portions of possible cargo space for fuel? If I can make much more profit doing a series of J1 hops from system to system carrying cargo from A to B, getting a new cargo from B to C, etc... and making money each week...

Say I want to cross a 3 hex gap with J1 from Hex A to Hex D:
- turn over another 20 percent of my internal volume to fuel, significantly cutting down my cargo space and taking three weeks to make the trip.
or
- II pick up a cargo in A, make a 1 hex jump from Hex A to B, sell the cargo and pick up another jumping to C, repeating and jumping to Hex D. It takes me approximately three weeks to get there but I also ran three separate cargos, all of which can be larger than the single above.

Even two competing ships in a race to be the first to get a similar cargo from A to D, the ship in the second example can carry more than the ship in the first example, making a greater profit than the ship in the first example.

Now which would make sense both from a financial as well as a safety aspect? To me the second example for both.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here (if you can clear it up great) and this isn't an attack but your trade presumptions are wrong (at least OTU canonically) and you seem to be comparing an apple run to an orange run (a J1 ship trading on a main and a J1 ship crossing a rift) or I'm really missing something here.

In a rift crossing scenario there are no refueling or trade stops along the way. The advantages of your second ship won't apply. And if it's trade on a main there's very few good reasons for the first ship to not simply trade along the way the same as the second (and in effect be the same ship).

If it's a race to the last world on a main then the first ship wins by weeks and it's not making empty hex jumps so it can buy fuel or skim in hours at each system. While trade standards in OTU canon say it takes a week to find and offload cargo and passengers at each stop. So your first ship still gets to the last stop in 3 weeks but the second ship will take 5 weeks (adding a week at B and C to conduct trade). The only way it might conceivably get there in the same time is if it is a scheduled route run and the company has offices on each world to handle all the trade business. In which case there will be no J1 free trader competition.

And further, a rift crossing merchant is going to be designed to take advantage of volume (a large ship) and drop tanks (less lost volume to fuel). It'll start as "X"tons of ship using "X"tons/10 drop tanks for the first jump (A-B). Then it will reduce it's volume and fuel requirement by 10% for the next jump and leave those tanks behind for the second jump (B-C), and the same for the last jump (C-D). So when it arrives at D it will be all ship (and smaller) and no (jump) fuel. A rift crosser won't waste hull volume on fuel holds it doesn't need for the full trip.

 

[rust]

... the plural of Information is... um... Information.

Interesting. If I gave you an information, and then someone else ano-
ther information, I would have thought that this would have been two
informations ? :shock:

As for the canon topic, just make of it whatever pleases you most. I
base my opinion on the definition of canon edited into my previous
post: Events etc. that are in existence in the universe. And since a
"good reference" will not describe non-existent events ...

 

[far-trader]

... the plural of Information is... um... Information.

Interesting. If I gave you an information, and then someone else ano-
ther information, I would have thought that this would have been two
informations ? :shock:

English is a silly silly language We make the rules up as we go and change them often just to frustrate those trying to learn it :twisted: