Suggest a sub-system for determining asteroid belts

[Stattick]

I'm a newb. If there's a system in the corebook to determine whether an asteroid belt is present in a system, I can't find it. So instead of just coming up with something myself, I figured that I'd ask some people that likely know the setting and system better then I do.

So, what do you suggest, and why do you suggest it?

 

[Dave Chase]

The base book does not have much about it. In the CT Scouts (and maybe the MgT Scouts) they have an extra detailed system generation. In there you have Planetiod Belts (ie asteriod belts) that are considered as much a part of the stellar system as gas giants.

Dave Chase

 

[Woas]

As a proponent to keeping things quick and easy, my personal sub-system I developed while creating the Sub-Sector my Traveller game takes place in was a basic 7+ roll on 2d6. The higher the effect, the 'better' the asteroid belt in terms of what can be found in it.

Not sure if you were looking for anything official but hope that helps.

 

[Solivagus]

The old rules gave about a 40% chance of a system planetoid belts being present with a maximum of 3 belts per system, personally I just roll 1d6-2 - if its negative there arent any, if its positive then thats how many belts there are (since in the old rules was almost a 50/50 split between 1 or 2 belts, with 3 being rare)

Gas Giants I do likewise as 1d6-1

 

[AndrewW]

The base book does not have much about it. In the CT Scouts (and maybe the MgT Scouts) they have an extra detailed system generation. In there you have Planetiod Belts (ie asteriod belts) that are considered as much a part of the stellar system as gas giants.

Dave Chase

Mongoose Scouts doesn't include expanded world generation. World Generators Handbook will.

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=38395

 

[Gee4orce]

I used 1d6-3 for the number of belts, and 1d6-2 for the number of Gas Giants, as these numbers just 'felt right'.

 

[EDG]

I'm a newb. If there's a system in the corebook to determine whether an asteroid belt is present in a system, I can't find it. So instead of just coming up with something myself, I figured that I'd ask some people that likely know the setting and system better then I do.

So, what do you suggest, and why do you suggest it?

If you roll up a mainworld with size 0, it's an Asteroid Belt (this is implied in the corebook, but not actually made clear).

Otherwise, there were rules in CT to cover the generation of gas giants and asteroid belts in the system. Realistically, the majority of systems with planets will have an Oort Cloud of comets in a distant shell around the star, but that's usually not counted in the total. Otherwise, you will only get asteroid belts if you have gas giants there (in the next orbit out) to prevent them from coalescing into planets.

 

[AKAramis]

Otherwise, there were rules in CT to cover the generation of gas giants and asteroid belts in the system.

CT Book 6 has a table for planetoids.

Gas Giants in CT core are simple Yes/No on presence of 1+, not giving numbers. Bk 6 expands this.

MT and later have a roll for number present.

Realistically, the majority of systems with planets will have an Oort Cloud of comets in a distant shell around the star, but that's usually not counted in the total. Otherwise, you will only get asteroid belts if you have gas giants there (in the next orbit out) to prevent them from coalescing into planets.

That's not reflected in the rules. It's also (based upon the article in this month's Astronomy) not reflective of extraordinarily young systems, where the disk is not fully swept, yet.

 

[Stattick]

Well, in the playtest (not sure about the corebook), it said that there'd be a gas giant on a roll of 2d6, rolling under 10...

I used the same formula to determine astroid belts as well, but now I'm reconsidering. :roll: Honestly, I'm not sure exactly how asteroid belts form, or that scientists have a realistic theory either. Nevertheless, I'm thinking that it might be unlikely unless there is at least one jovian type planet in the right position to churn up the gravitational tides enough to prevent a planet from forming where it "should" when a system is forming. It just feels right to me to impliment something like that, but hell if I know.

So I'm thinking of rewriting my hack, toggling astroid belts only on the condition that there's a gas giant present, although I might also allow a field's presense if rolling snake eyes, just so there's a slight chance for a astroid belt w/o a jovian (well, I dunno if you'd call that a slight chance, since there's almost a 3% chance of rolling snake-eyes, but it just feels offensive to "roll" something other then a d6 or 2d6, even if it is just an Excell spreadsheet).

Hmph... another question. Does the corebook give an actual explanation of how the trade codes are determined? The playtest seemed to have been missing an important step or two. (I would have picked up the core Tues, but unexpected expenses kept me from it. *sigh*) Yeah, and I know that I might have to adjust my formulas a bit for sys-gen with the corebook... heh, and I'm just a smidge away from having my first sector written up. That's why I'm using a spreadsheet. I don't have the time to sit there and hand roll 800+ systems. :lol:

 

[captainjack23]

Well, in the playtest (not sure about the corebook), it said that there'd be a gas giant on a roll of 2d6, rolling under 10...

yes, it's in the corebook, in world creation.

I used the same formula to determine astroid belts as well, but now I'm reconsidering. :roll: Honestly, I'm not sure exactly how asteroid belts form, or that scientists have a realistic theory either. Nevertheless, I'm thinking that it might be unlikely unless there is at least one jovian type planet in the right position to churn up the gravitational tides enough to prevent a planet from forming where it "should" when a system is forming. It just feels right to me to impliment something like that, but hell if I know.

Well, unless you have some planetary sciences specialist in your campaign, it sounds like you can use what you have pretty safely. It may not be up to date, or explain all systems, but its pretty good.

That said, and to possibly throw a wrench in, if your TU is OTU based, its always been surmised that the ancients final war is responsible for some asteroid belts -particulalry the anomolous ones. Which gives you a bit of a cover-all ....*

So I'm thinking of rewriting my hack, toggling astroid belts only on the condition that there's a gas giant present, although I might also allow a field's presense if rolling snake eyes, just so there's a slight chance for a astroid belt w/o a jovian (well, I dunno if you'd call that a slight chance, since there's almost a 3% chance of rolling snake-eyes, but it just feels offensive to "roll" something other then a d6 or 2d6, even if it is just an Excell spreadsheet).

FWIW I posted a quick charting method for determining the abstract layout of a star system. http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32685&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=portolan

Hmph... another question. Does the corebook give an actual explanation of how the trade codes are determined? The playtest seemed to have been missing an important step or two. (I would have picked up the core Tues, but unexpected expenses kept me from it. *sigh*) Yeah, and I know that I might have to adjust my formulas a bit for sys-gen with the corebook... heh, and I'm just a smidge away from having my first sector written up. That's why I'm using a spreadsheet. I don't have the time to sit there and hand roll 800+ systems. :lol:

Yes, it does. Not everyone likes the process or the interpretations of the values, but the system is explained.
The PDF has all the info, and is cheaper, too. (Drivethrugames, I think).



*A great book about this kind of stuff is Manifold Life (IIRC) - it deals with the fact that we live in a universe that shows large scale tampering by intelligent life -we just don;t look at it right. Mercury is suggested as an example. Most of its anomalies (in the book) are suspiciously helpful to one trying to exploit it.

 

[EDG]

That's not reflected in the rules. It's also (based upon the article in this month's Astronomy) not reflective of extraordinarily young systems, where the disk is not fully swept, yet.

I think he wanted a fairly simple answer, and I was speaking about a realistic case, regardless of what the rules say. But yes, younger systems (< 500 Ma) won't have everything swept up yet - but even there belts would still tend to be the next ones inside the GG orbits (of course the GGs may well be migrating still, depending on how young the system is).

But you won't have belts just sitting there without something there to force them to exist - otherwise, the belt will tend to want to become a planet. That something is almost always a GG in the right orbit further out from the star that disrupts the formation of the planet in that region and keeps it as a belt. That's the simple explanation - the reality is a bit more complicated than that though.

 

[Stattick]

Hmm...

Just applying the same exact system I used for the GG, yields aprox 16% of systems w/o GG's an astroid belt. I'll call them young and have done with it, using what I got. I've got to get this sector finished ASAP, and get around to figuring out the rules that don't involve chargen/worldgen/systemgen.

I don't really need someone else's rules to run a game, but I might as well figure them out at some point. But the gen stuff is imparitive, since that has a strong connection to story... the resolution system for skill checks, trade checks, and space battles, not so much. All of that went smoothly enough without me knowing the rules. When in doubt, roll and shout baby.

 

[EDG]

I used the same formula to determine astroid belts as well, but now I'm reconsidering. :roll: Honestly, I'm not sure exactly how asteroid belts form, or that scientists have a realistic theory either. Nevertheless, I'm thinking that it might be unlikely unless there is at least one jovian type planet in the right position to churn up the gravitational tides enough to prevent a planet from forming where it "should" when a system is forming. It just feels right to me to impliment something like that, but hell if I know.

Generally that would be correct.

That said, and to possibly throw a wrench in, if your TU is OTU based, its always been surmised that the ancients final war is responsible for some asteroid belts -particulalry the anomolous ones. Which gives you a bit of a cover-all ....*

The Ancients would need enough energy to not only blow apart the planet but to also have each fragment going faster than the escape velocity of whatever is left behind. And then magically spread that material around the star as a belt, before it manages to re-coalesce as a planet through the gravitational attraction of all the bits. All of which is ridiculous overkill, considering that the aim of destroying a planet is to just wipe out whatever is there (heck, just wiping out whatever is there can be done much more efficiently and with less ridiculous energies by other means).

*A great book about this kind of stuff is Manifold Life (IIRC) - it deals with the fact that we live in a universe that shows large scale tampering by intelligent life -we just don;t look at it right. Mercury is suggested as an example. Most of its anomalies (in the book) are suspiciously helpful to one trying to exploit it.

I'm sure there's a lot of 'interventionist' explanations that one could come up with to explain oddities and anomalies - and perhaps some may even be true - but science doesn't work like that. We're are looking at things right, we're looking at things objectively and rationally, and not leaping to conclusions for which there is no evidence - the natural explanation is in every case the more logical and simpler explanation than any other, and nowhere have we seen anything to indicate that the only way that something we observe could exist is because of intervention by alien life.

Either way, if you're going to refer people to non-scientific garbage here then at least include the caveat that it is non-scientific garbage. It is certainly not a "fact" that "we live in a universe that shows large scale tampering by intelligent life" at all (and given your scientific background, you of all people should damn well know better than to suggest that it is). There is no solid evidence that there is even any intelligent life out there that we can detect - and frankly anyone claiming that there is and that it explains perfectly natural planetary or stellar phenomena is talking out of their ass (Mercury is easily explained by a collision with a protoplanet during its formation that stripped away most of its mantle and outer layer).

 

[EDG]

Hmm...

Just applying the same exact system I used for the GG, yields aprox 16% of systems w/o GG's an astroid belt. I'll call them young and have done with it, using what I got. I've got to get this sector finished ASAP, and get around to figuring out the rules that don't involve chargen/worldgen/systemgen.

If you do that, then do consider the other implications. If they're that young that there are still debris belts there, then they won't have habitable planets in them at all. In fact they'd be very dangerous places for spacecraft (all that high velocity dust and rock flying around) and for forming planets (still be slammed into by large asteroids).

 

[captainjack23]

My reference was to fiction, not claptrap science. Apparently the title is "Manifest Space" and a fave of EDGs. Sorry if anyone bought it as a statenment of real science. :roll:

I've deleted the rest of my post as a frustrating waste of time, and OT.

 

[captainjack23]

Hmm...

Just applying the same exact system I used for the GG, yields aprox 16% of systems w/o GG's an astroid belt. I'll call them young and have done with it, using what I got. I've got to get this sector finished ASAP, and get around to figuring out the rules that don't involve chargen/worldgen/systemgen.

I don't really need someone else's rules to run a game, but I might as well figure them out at some point. But the gen stuff is imparitive, since that has a strong connection to story... the resolution system for skill checks, trade checks, and space battles, not so much. All of that went smoothly enough without me knowing the rules. When in doubt, roll and shout baby.

Exactly. Me, I usually run combat entirely freeform, as only its resolution is story driving.

 

[EDG]

Hey, Doc, here's a clue: it's a fiction suggestion; do highly educated scientific fellahs like myself not read or understand fiction on Ganymede ?

Here's a bigger clue for you:

*A great book about this kind of stuff is Manifold Life (IIRC) - it deals with the fact that we live in a universe that shows large scale tampering by intelligent life -we just don;t look at it right. Mercury is suggested as an example. Most of its anomalies (in the book) are suspiciously helpful to one trying to exploit it.

Kindly point out anywhere in the part I quoted or even in your original post where you say or even imply that this is fiction. In fact, you even use the phrase "the fact that we live in a universe...", which implies that it isn't.

You want to make it clearer that it's fiction? Say something like "that imagines that we live in a universe...". But frankly I've heard people spouting some really nutty ideas explaining things about the universe and know that there are people out there who claim that what you referenced is "fact" , and the way you phrased that made it look at the very least as if you weren't quoting a work of fiction and that you even agreed that it wasn't fiction.

I'm sorry for jumping down your throat about that, but if you really can't see how you were (most likely unintentionally) misleading about that then you really need to think more carefully about what you write.


(And as it is, now that you mentioned more about it I believe the book you're referring to is "Manifold: Space" by Stephen Baxter, which is indeed a very good science fiction book and is in fact one of my favourites)

 

[EDG]

Thus my caveat. Like it or not, in an OTU close campaign its an issue. Your critiquing the OTU (again) isn't really what was asked for, or relevant.

You raised it as a previously mentioned possibility, and I'm pointing out how it's a ridiculous one. If you didn't want it discussed, you shouldn't have raised it yourself.

According to the calculations here (in section 6), it would take about 25 trillion tons of antimatter to destroy an earth-size planet so thoroughly that it doesn't reassemble itself after being exploded (i.e. it forms an asteroid belt around the star).

Now, I realise that the Ancients, by all accounts of their behaviour, were a bunch of self-centred, reckless, irrational mass-murdering psychopaths who had no qualms about using mind-bogglingly destructive technologies with wild abandon and a total disregard for all life, but this is stupid even for them. There is no possible reason for them to turn even one planet into an asteroid belt (let alone as many as has been suggested) - it's literally the equivalent of using a hydrogen bomb to kill a fly because not only do you destroy the fly, but you kill and destroy absolutely everything around it for miles around for no reason. And it's not remotely efficient in terms of the return you get for the investment of energy expended to deal with the problem.

If the ancients had a base on a planet that they wanted to destroy, then they could just bomb the base with a single (small) AM bomb or nuke. If they wanted to wipe out all life on a planet then they could just bombard it with asteroids using mass drivers or even use a couple of near-c rocks. Or do any number of things that would destroy the surface environment (or worm its way into tunnels or whatever) and leave the planet itself intact even if it becomes uninhabitable or barren or utterly deadly. But turning a planet into an asteroid belt is mindless overkill, period.

 

[captainjack23]

deleted as OT

 

[EDG]

The only person I see "embarrassing themselves" here is you. You made the very obvious mistake of being unclear in the first place, and yet you choose to blame me for reacting to that, and as usual you're derailing another thread because you want to hurl baseless accusations at me about my motivations. Also, it wasn't remotely clear to me what book you were referring to initially until you explained more in a later post, so I wouldn't have recognised it in the first place - and would be the case regardless of whether I had any "hostility towards you" or not.

I apologised for jumping down your throat and admitted my error there, but instead of accepting that and moving on, you instead chose to throw more cheap personal attacks against me. Again, don't blame me for my reaction to your poor choice of wording - you screwed up there, and if you can't admit that then that's not my problem.