Re: [GZG] [FT] PAU-IF Invasion route

John Brewer wrote:
> The PAU & the IF are closer that it appears on the Full Thrust Empire
Map...
> http://www.projectrho.com/ft/FTLinkMap.gif 
> 
> The Pan-African Union & the Islamic Federation look to be on opposite 
> sides of the known universe, but it's an abstraction caused by a 3-D
map 
> rendered in 2-D. 
> 
> Using the GZG star list with planetary data...
> http://wam.umd.edu/~ddr/ 
> 
> I found the listings for the PAU & the IF.  Only 2 systems are listed 
> for the PAU & 5 of 6 for the IF.  I'm guessing that system Gl 370 is 
> marked on the Empire Map as New Zimbabwe.  And that the systems of the

> Islamic Federation are Gl 438, Gl 506, LTT 5455, Gl 453, & Gl 432 A.	
> Using a trig equation provided by Winchel Chung...
> 
> DIST=SQRT[ (X1-X2)^2 + (Y1-Y2)^2 + (Z1-Z2)^2 ]  
> 
> I found that Gl 370 (New Zimbabwe) & Gl 438 (New Persia - I think) are

> only 3.4 parsecs from eachother.  If I'm wrong, the next nearest is Gl

> 432 A, which is 3.85 parsecs.  Both are only 2-3 jumps away for
military 
> ships. 

	OK, just to have full disclosure, what has happened is
	that John has caught me trying to get away with taking
	short-cuts. <grin>

	The full 3D starmap is pretty, but it is almost impossible
	to use for a campaign map.  Much easier is to use a
	2-1/2 D map or a "node" map.
	http://www.projectrho.com/smap13.html

	But any time you try to smash a 3D map onto a 2D piece
	of paper, there are going to be distortions.

	When I was using my custom software to generate the
	map, I figured it would be good enough to just draw
	links between each star and that star's two closest
	neighbors. (note that this will make some stars have
	five or more links, due to the geometry of the map)
	This, I thought, would give a good enough approximation
	of the three dimensional connectivity of the map.

	And if it didn't, I figured who would ever know?

	Well, I was wrong. <grin>

	Laserlight noticed that while the IF and the PAU
	were chosen from the 3D map to be close, ended up
	on opposite sides of the node map.  I looked into it
	and found to my horror that he was right.  What it
	boiled down to was that just linking to the
	two closest neighbors was *not* good enough.

	This was an education for me, up until this point
	the other node maps I had made seemed just fine
	with two neighbors.  I suspect that the operative
	word is "seemed".  I also suspect that if I looked
	at my other node maps as closely as Laserlight
	looked at this one they too would prove to
	be inadequate.

	For test purposes I made a node map with links
	between a star and its *five* closest neighbors.
	This gives a better approximation of a 3D map.
	Unfortunately it makes the existing map a
	tangled mess.  To accommodate this, I would
	basically have to re-do the entire map.
	This would also move all the stars around,
	so the new map would look totally different
	from the old map, which might upset some
	people.

	So I figured I would take a short cut, and
	only add manually a few of the new links,
	just enough to link the IF and the PAU.

	About this time John Brewer caught me
	red-handed, since he was actually doing the math.

	I still think that by just adding a few lines
	and perhaps changing the stars which compose
	one or two empires that a more than adequate
	campaign map can be created.

	So once Laserlight and Noam have come
	to an agreement, I'll fold in their changes
	and you all can comment on the results.

	
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l