Re: [OFFICIAL] Colony lists? (was:Re: Locations of Stars etc.)

At 23:38 27/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>1) What do we want? ("We" being the list membership, as a particularly
>enthusiastic cross-section of FT/DS/SG players). A star map/colony list
>that is as close to known astronomical data as possible, or one that
>applies a bit of artistic licence (as most SF authors do) and allows
there
>to be planets wherever they best suit the storyline? If the latter, do
we
>stick to "real" stars only, or make the whole thing up once we get past
a
>few LY out?
>

	Personnaly real stars would be just great. The
mini-power-munchers 
seem to be happier if they can actually find info on "their" planet or
star
system, or where their fleet throunced the more experienced opposition
(always lose, just, to a new junior gamer. Gets them hooked!) Where you
will then have to take artistic licence is the planets in the star
systems.
Places like Albion are exceptional because they well developed native
life.
Given some terraforming others might be made so but there are probably a
number that are dreadful but useful where the people live under domes or
underground. The planets, their type and why they were settled is where
the
artistic creativity should be used.

>2) Of those people who use the "official" background, or a minor
>modification of it (on the assumption that those who hate the
background
>won't be interested in all this anyway!), do you actually WANT to see
it
>defined in this sort of detail, or left loose (as we have done so far)
to
>allow more freedom to come up with your own colonies, campaigns etc.?
Would
>you want to see detail of specific events/places in the timeline, and
>exhaustive lists of whose settlements are on which worlds etc.? This
sort
>of background "fluff' is fairly easy to produce once you get it rolling
>(provided it is carefully cross-checked for contradictions - I'm sure
you
>guys (and girls - sorry Beth....) will gleefully go through it all with
>fine-tooth combs... <grin>), but I am aware that some people can also
see
>it as too restrictive on their creativity.
>

	Core worlds could be well defined and upset no-one. The U.N.
makes sure
nothing happens there. Some of the more important inner worlds might be
OK
like Albion and New Moscow. After that I'd be leaving it open so that
people can create their on colonies or new nations. Outside of the
"offical" nations we have just on the list the Nea Rhomanoi and Antartic
States. The Romanov Hegemony is offical but no background has been done
until noe and that is being done by an interested party. I might even
get
around to doing an O.U. page yet (after I move). In short define the
core
worlds and major inner worlds and nothing else.

>I'd be keen to get as much response as possible to these thoughts, so
we
>can see where we should be heading.....
>
>
>>At 15ly, you get a only couple useful systems (Tau Ceti, 61 Cygni).
>At 25ly, you get a good number (Xi Ursae Majoris, etc), maybe about a
>dozen and a half.
>
>>So, I would postulate this (assuming that most worlds are earth-type
(to
>allow more DSII games)):

	I don't know about this. One of our club members has been
working on some
rules for SGII in hostile enviroments. I can't see why you can't do the
same for DSII although it might take more thought.

>Core Worlds:
>	Sol (G2V)
>	Centaurus (G2V)
>	Barnard's Star (M3V)
>
>Inner Colonies: (out to about 25ly from Sol)
>	includes-
>	Beta Hydri (G1IV)
>	61 Cygni (K3V)
>	Tau Ceti (G8V)
>	Delta Pavonis (G5V)
>	82 Eridani (G5V)
>	Procyon (F5V)
>	Xi Bootis (G8V)
>	Xi Ursae Majoris (G0V)
>	...and others
>
>Outworlds: (worlds beyond 25ly from Sol)
>	...other worlds
>
>
>>It would not be to difficult to whip up a CHView file with systems
>labled for FT.  The only question that realy needs to be answered is:
>what is the speed/endurance of FT's FTL drives?
>
>Realspace "speed" will depend on frequency of jumps -	once out into
>interstellar space each jump is probably around 2  light-years for
Military
>drives, 1 for Merchants. Following the fluff I put in the FB, you need
an
>undefined number of shorter jumps at the beginning and end of the trip,
and
>average jump frequency is about 1 per day (maximum with Milspec drives
is 4
>a day). So, we could say that trip time by merchant ship is about 1 LY
per
>day, plus (say) 2-3 days of corrective jumps at each end, with an
average
>warship being able to halve that - so a "slow" freighter would do Sol
to
>Centaurus in around 10 days, Barnard in 12, Ross 154 in 16; to an
Outworld
>at 50LY would take around 56 days if the ship had the endurance to keep
up
>the constant jumps, which is highly unlikely - it would probably do it
in
>stages, with several layovers that would increase the trip time
>considerably. A Warship would do Centaurus in (say) 5-6 days at normal
>cruise, but could do it in a couple of days in a flat-out emergency
run.
>Endurance could be either in time (crew stamina and lifesupport
supplies
>etc.) or number of jumps (power/fuel requirements, and crew stamina
again).
>For gameplay purposes it is probably better to keep endurance
relatively
>short, even for military ships, to prevent bypassing of large chunks of
>territory - if layovers have to be fairly frequent then it becomes more
>tactically necessary to hold star systems rather than	just detour
round
>them.
>

	Funnily enough I do not use the drive system exactly as it is
described in
the offical background. For a campaign I was writing I had Alderson like
tram lines that allowed you to travel faster (longer jumps with same
accuracy) along them as not. As these allowed travel to be 7 times
faster
the maths for a campaign was simple. The system made some star systems
more
important strategically than others without forcing you to fight down a
tunnel like the computer game "Pax Imperia" does (sux). Such a situation
can only lead to head-to-head confrontations and allows no latitude for
creative strategic/tactical thought.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au

 
>This is all JUST IDEAS at this stage - not hard-and-fast rules!! It is
also
>quite late, so don't blame me if the math is wonky.... :)
>
>Jon (GZG)
>
>
>
>
>