World Builders help

[Geir]

Couple more for the list:
- p103, Hydrographics Profile indicated as H-D..., but the two examples immediately below it use a colon instead of dash (i.e. H)
- p103, ajthough -> although

The dash is the correct way... mumble mumble

 

[coolAlias]

If using the optional rule on p56 for using Hill Spheres to determine whether to apply a DM-1 per die to the Quantity of Significant Moons roll, do we get to ignore all of the other possible DM-1 conditions listed on p55, or should we still check those if the Hill Sphere is 60+?

Keeping in mind, of course, that only one DM-1 per die can apply even if multiple conditions were true.

 

[Geir]

If using the optional rule on p56 for using Hill Spheres to determine whether to apply a DM-1 per die to the Quantity of Significant Moons roll, do we get to ignore all of the other possible DM-1 conditions listed on p55, or should we still check those if the Hill Sphere is 60+?

Keeping in mind, of course, that only one DM-1 per die can apply even if multiple conditions were true.

It would supersede.
But compute the Hill Sphere at the point of closest approach to the star(s) - in other words, the worst case scenario, taking account eccentricities and everything, so in a complex multi-star system it would be a bit of a pain, though you could run a program to check the planet against each star or star pair. (But how would you exactly model this for a star and companion pair? - I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but I would need to draw a picture and do some math to see if my picture makes sense) Messy without a lot of if-thens and math.

 

[coolAlias]

It would supersede.
But compute the Hill Sphere at the point of closest approach to the star(s) - in other words, the worst case scenario, taking account eccentricities and everything, so in a complex multi-star system it would be a bit of a pain, though you could run a program to check the planet against each star or star pair. (But how would you exactly model this for a star and companion pair? - I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but I would need to draw a picture and do some math to see if my picture makes sense) Messy without a lot of if-thens and math.

The formula on p75 already accounts for the world's eccentricity as well as the mass of all of the stars that the planet orbits, which is probably accurate enough even for a circumbinary orbit around a companion pair.

You're right that worlds independently orbiting one of a companion pair aren't really accounted for as written, but you could probably calculate the hill sphere of the planet vs each of the companion and its host, then use the smaller value.

 

[coolAlias]

p110 On the table, a rocky terrestrial world is considered any world with a density greater than 0.4.

Seems we have another mismatch - should it be 0.4 or 0.5?

 

[Geir]

View attachment 2197
Seems we have another mismatch - should it be 0.4 or 0.5?

0.5 is what I used in my spreadsheet, so it should stay in the table, change in the text. Noted.

 

[coolAlias]

Btw, I know you know, probably, or maybe I did it terribly wrong, but there seems to be quite a huge difference in Mean Temperature when using the basic chart vs the formula on p111.

I even switched to a flat roll of 7+DMs to take that out of the equation, and the Basic temps are generally +20-50K (or even 100+!) warmer than the formula results; rarely, it can be the opposite; even more rarely, they are fairly close.

So I'm wondering, does that match up with your experience?

 

[Geir]

Btw, I know you know, probably, or maybe I did it terribly wrong, but there seems to be quite a huge difference in Mean Temperature when using the basic chart vs the formula on p111.

I even switched to a flat roll of 7+DMs to take that out of the equation, and the Basic temps are generally +20-50K (or even 100+!) warmer than the formula results; rarely, it can be the opposite; even more rarely, they are fairly close.

So I'm wondering, does that match up with your experience?

It depends greatly on the atmospheres of the planets. If you have a dense atmosphere or if you have a wonky albedo, it can vary quite a bit. Like Venus.... (which ironically has a very high albedo, but it's still cooked).

 

[coolAlias]

It depends greatly on the atmospheres of the planets. If you have a dense atmosphere or if you have a wonky albedo, it can vary quite a bit. Like Venus.... (which ironically has a very high albedo, but it's still cooked).

True, and there's a lot of variability built in to the albedo, so that's probably the main culprit.

I have to say that from a programming perspective, this section devolves somewhat into circular dependency hell, with hydrographics depending on temperature, temperature on albedo, and albedo on hydrographics...

I think I'll stick to the Basic method for now so I can get this very non-shiny-but-fun-and-hopefully-useful project shared on GitHub.

 

[coolAlias]

Another thing I've noticed, during Step 6, Placing Orbits (p49), for stars with MAO< 1 it is very common for the spread to cause most or all planets to end up significantly beyond the Orbit# 1.0, which isn't usually a problem unless the HZCO is also very low.

In the Zed Aab example, the spread is purely additive (e.g. 0.62 + 0.5 = 1.11), but it dawns on me that in most other places, adding some amount to an Orbit# of < 1 has special rules, and if those were applied here we'd end up with a good number of planets closer to stars with low MAO and/or HZCO.

For example, a system with MAO 0.01 (very common), HZCO of 0.4, and system spread of 0.5 would place the first planet at 0.9, already well beyond the HZCO range of 0.3-0.5.

On the other hand, adding (spread / 10) instead would mean we'd need quite a few planets to get out of the Orbit#1.0 range, which, when HZCO > 1 but MAO < 1, causes its own set of problems.

What do you think, should we apply the spread using the Orbit# < 1.0 increments if the HZCO is also < 1.0, or leave it as is?

EDIT: After playing around with it a bit more, I don't think there's a good general solution. Doing it the way I suggested actually seems worse more often than not.

 

[Geir]

Another thing I've noticed, during Step 6, Placing Orbits (p49), for stars with MAO< 1 it is very common for the spread to cause most or all planets to end up significantly beyond the Orbit# 1.0, which isn't usually a problem unless the HZCO is also very low.

In the Zed Aab example, the spread is purely additive (e.g. 0.62 + 0.5 = 1.11), but it dawns on me that in most other places, adding some amount to an Orbit# of < 1 has special rules, and if those were applied here we'd end up with a good number of planets closer to stars with low MAO and/or HZCO.

For example, a system with MAO 0.01 (very common), HZCO of 0.4, and system spread of 0.5 would place the first planet at 0.9, already well beyond the HZCO range of 0.3-0.5.

On the other hand, adding (spread / 10) instead would mean we'd need quite a few planets to get out of the Orbit#1.0 range, which, when HZCO > 1 but MAO < 1, causes its own set of problems.

What do you think, should we apply the spread using the Orbit# < 1.0 increments if the HZCO is also < 1.0, or leave it as is?

EDIT: After playing around with it a bit more, I don't think there's a good general solution. Doing it the way I suggested actually seems worse more often than not.

Yeah, I messed around with it and didn't come up with anything better. The first example you you mention is based on the problem with circumbinaries , and unless at least one star is bright, any Tatooine is going to be frozen.

 

[bartlebyfosco]

Another thing I've noticed, during Step 6, Placing Orbits (p49), for stars with MAO< 1 it is very common for the spread to cause most or all planets to end up significantly beyond the Orbit# 1.0, which isn't usually a problem unless the HZCO is also very low.

<snip>

EDIT: After playing around with it a bit more, I don't think there's a good general solution. Doing it the way I suggested actually seems worse more often than not.

Can I ask what the issue with the above is? Is it an issue because systems like this don't have habitable planets?

 

[coolAlias]

Can I ask what the issue with the above is? Is it an issue because systems like this don't have habitable planets?

Essentially, yeah, which realisitically speaking is of course a non-issue - just because there is a potential HZCO doesn't mean there will be any planets in it, after all - but it given how Baseline Orbit# etc. are all focused on trying to get an orbit slot at the HZCO, it seemed like perhaps it was unintended to fail so frequently.

 

[coolAlias]

Hey, so, the Final Mainworld Determination step... in the app I wrote, here's the simplest formula I came up with:

(H) Habitability = 0 to 10
(S) Sophonts = -1, 0, or 1 (None, Extinct, Living)
(R) Resource = 2 to 12
(F) Re-Fueling = Hydrographics = 0 to 10

Candidacy Rating = H + S + R + F

Which works, of course, but I'm wondering if one or another of these factors should be given more weight?
Or is this step way too far into "GM Discretion" territory to really do justice with a generic formula?

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

Hey, so, the Final Mainworld Determination step... in the app I wrote, here's the simplest formula I came up with:

Which works, of course, but I'm wondering if one or another of these factors should be given more weight?
Or is this step way too far into "GM Discretion" territory to really do justice with a generic formula?

I've given this some thought myself, and for the Charted Space setting in particular I've concluded that the single most important factor would be economical.

This isn't to say that resources and refuelling alone will determine the Mainworld, but rather the profit margin of a world, which in my view is governed by the raw output of the world, divided by the cost-of-living in said world – in other words, for a same given "resources" rating, a naturally inhabitable world will be more profitable than a barren airless rock, because less of its own output is required to support the workforce living there.

Putting this into an equation, I guess something in the format of R * H * K would be a way to do it, where R is the resources rating, H is habitability, and K is a scaling factor of some sort which would need trial-and-error to properly calibrate, but which I think should be some value between 0 and 1.

In regards to the Refuelling factor, I actually think that could be a binary (Y/N?) thing a bit like you did for the Sophonts factor, as I think that larger surface water coverage yields diminishing returns in value and, once at 90%+ actually works against a world as it means there's very little surface area to build things, and artificial islands fall into that "this will eat into the profit margins" category.

 

[coolAlias]

In regards to the Refuelling factor, I actually think that could be a binary (Y/N?) thing a bit like you did for the Sophonts factor, as I think that larger surface water coverage yields diminishing returns in value and, once at 90%+ actually works against a world as it means there's very little surface area to build things, and artificial islands fall into that "this will eat into the profit margins" category.

Good idea. Especially since Hydrographics already influences the Habitability Rating and, through Biomass etc., the Resource Rating.

Refuelling and Sophont presence could perhaps be used to determine your K factor. Say it starts at 0.6 and gains +/- 0.2 for each of them, giving us the range of possible values from 0.2 to 1.0.

Refuelling: -1 for Hydro 0, 0 for Hydro 10, 1 for everything else.

EDIT: After trying it for a bit, I think the a base K factor of 1 produces better results than my initial 0.6.
Also, lowering the Candidacy Threshold from 0.85 to 0.8 works better for the lower scores produced by this formula. E.g. if the high score in a given set is 12, tagging worlds with 10+ as candidates feels better than only 11+.

 

[Geir]

Good idea. Especially since Hydrographics already influences the Habitability Rating and, through Biomass etc., the Resource Rating.

Refuelling and Sophont presence could perhaps be used to determine your K factor. Say it starts at 0.6 and gains +/- 0.2 for each of them, giving us the range of possible values from 0.2 to 1.0.

Refuelling: -1 for Hydro 0, 0 for Hydro 10, 1 for everything else.

Why is Hydro 10 0? I mean, other than a likelihood of few or no places to land? You already get a negative DM from the difference between HYD 9 and A, so I'd just put in a refuelling penalty at HYD 0.

Bu that's me. The question of what is more important, habitability or resources can really depend, not only on the civilisation, but on 'current policy' and what's important on the frontier at the time of settlement. If I remember the Vilani 'history' from the Interstellar Wars book, the First Imperium had lots of blank spots with garden worlds over represented - probably because they had very little competition in settling worlds and had the 'pick of the litter'.

Of course the other thing not dealt with at all in WBH is that the whole habitability rating is human-centric (or Terran-centric since the Vargr would have the same requirements). Resources would be more of a constant rating for just about any sophonts, though - at least with it's rating just being 'lots' or 'not lots' without real subcategories - though the compatibility rating DM would vary by sophont origin.

 

[coolAlias]

Why is Hydro 10 0? I mean, other than a likelihood of few or no places to land? You already get a negative DM from the difference between HYD 9 and A, so I'd just put in a refuelling penalty at HYD 0.

Hydrographics influences both Habitability and Resource Ratings (either directly or through Biomass etc.), so it is already a very significant factor in the final mainworld determination score, albeit indirectly.

So for the purpose of Main World Determination, I'm just using the Hydrographics score as a way to determine ease of Refuelling, which I'm assigning a value of -1 (no water), 0 (all water, nowhere to land), or 1 (yay!).

This refuelling score is then multiplied by some value (e.g. 0.2) and added to to the K factor that GAB suggested, which is then multiplied by (Habitability + Resource Ratings) to determine a final "Candidacy" score.

 

[bartlebyfosco]

I am having difficulty parsing the formula for White Dwarf ages. If I have a White Dwarf secondary or companion, do I use the Final Age of Star formula? The text makes me think I choose between that and the Small Star Age formula, but the table makes it look like I add the together! Which would surely produce ages larger than the universe.

 

[coolAlias]

I am having difficulty parsing the formula for White Dwarf ages. If I have a White Dwarf secondary or companion, do I use the Final Age of Star formula? The text makes me think I choose between that and the Small Star Age formula, but the table makes it look like I add the together! Which would surely produce ages larger than the universe.

It's a bit confusing, but the answer is both*.

Small Star Age = normal formula, results in value between 2-14 Gyrs

+Dead Star Age, using M * (D3+2) as the mass; this simulates the very beginning of the star's life and shouldn't result in a value more than a few hundred million years

For a White Dwarf, Mass (M) is at most 11/10 + 10/100, or 1.2. If we then use the smallest multiplier (which will result in the maximum age), we get M = 1.2 * 5 = 6.

Calculating the final age (i.e. the age of the star when it died):
Main Sequence = 10 / 6^2.5 = 0.1134 Gyr
Subgiant = Main Sequence / (4 + M) = 0.1134 / (6 + 4) = 0.01134
* Note the variance bit on p21 is just for Class IV stars, not ones that have died
Giant = Main Sequence / (10 * M^3) = 0.1134 / (10 * 6^3) = 0.1134 / (10 * 216) = 0.0000525

Thus, Final Age = 0.1134 + 0.01134 + 0.0000525 = 0.1247925 Gyr, or about 0.125 Gyr.

That's the highest it will ever be for a White Dwarf, which you then add on to the Small Star Age.

EDIT: Lol, oops, I used the highest mass when I should have used the lowest, which would be 0.11 for a White Dwarf and result in a Main Sequence lifespan > 159 Gyrs. I think the answer in those cases is just to increase the mass until you get a reasonable age.