It sounds like the Travellermap is unsatisfactory (for perhaps subjective
reasons, but all reasons are subjective, and yours sound reasonable) and
is unofficial anyway.
GT sounds like there is actually "no there there." There are some sparse
datapoints, but no locations nor UWPs, so there's really nothing to
"ignore" or "discard." What little is there you can overlay onto something
else to show that you were congruent with it. "Monterey" is the sort of
thing you don't even need to change a name for. You could say it was the
name of the sun or another world in the system that had a military base on
it, or the reporter was looking at an old map, or the Solomani press
officer was using a code name for Opsec, etc., the usual apologetics. It
is semi, plausible-deniability official, so would be nice to paper over
to, and since there's so little there, won't require any heavy lifting.
Traveller wiki no real data, not official anyway.
It sounds like the DGP data is the only data worthy of the name, along
with the Travellermap, but as deuterocanonical sources go, the DGP data is
older and therefore takes precedence. As it was accepted by the bulk of
the faithful back in 1992 that's why we went with it, so you could do
worse, and this way you're being consistent with the rest of that stuff,
and can be damned alongside us "for fellowship." (Robert Bolt, A Man for
All Seasons)
In a universe of non-ideal solutions, the DGP data is probably the least
non-ideal of all of them.
So here's the loaded question: did you base your existing CoE stuff on the
DGP data or something else?
> Here's the basic data problems as I see it...
> Travellermap: I can accept that the sector might be more sparse in terms
> of the number of stars, but there are far too many systems with no
> starport or only poor facilities. Aldebaran should be bit more civilized
> than what is presented. Not Solomani Rim civilized, but....
>
> GT: Names of systems, but no locations and only sketchy details.
>
> Example: "Amajor fleet engagement is currently being fought in the
> vicinity of this starsystem39;s primary gas giant, according to Solomani
> observers reporting to TNS.The identities of the warring fleets are not
> known at this time. The fact of abattle in the Monterey star system is
> significant because of its proximity tothe Solomani capital of Home."
> So we know Monterey is near Home, has more than one gas giant, and that's
> about it.
> DGP: Nice dot map, a few named systems, including UWPs and locations for
> those systems.
> Traveller Wiki: Some more data, nothing comprehensive.
>
> Side Note: My current thinking is that Home takes a big hit and would not
> be the center of a pocket empire. Logically there should be a pocket
> empire in the sector, but I was thinking perhaps it would be more
> rimward. This leaves lots of expansion area for the Terrans and helps to
> explain why they are busy doing things other than finding the RC and
> scaring the crap out of them.
>
reasons, but all reasons are subjective, and yours sound reasonable) and
is unofficial anyway.
GT sounds like there is actually "no there there." There are some sparse
datapoints, but no locations nor UWPs, so there's really nothing to
"ignore" or "discard." What little is there you can overlay onto something
else to show that you were congruent with it. "Monterey" is the sort of
thing you don't even need to change a name for. You could say it was the
name of the sun or another world in the system that had a military base on
it, or the reporter was looking at an old map, or the Solomani press
officer was using a code name for Opsec, etc., the usual apologetics. It
is semi, plausible-deniability official, so would be nice to paper over
to, and since there's so little there, won't require any heavy lifting.
Traveller wiki no real data, not official anyway.
It sounds like the DGP data is the only data worthy of the name, along
with the Travellermap, but as deuterocanonical sources go, the DGP data is
older and therefore takes precedence. As it was accepted by the bulk of
the faithful back in 1992 that's why we went with it, so you could do
worse, and this way you're being consistent with the rest of that stuff,
and can be damned alongside us "for fellowship." (Robert Bolt, A Man for
All Seasons)
In a universe of non-ideal solutions, the DGP data is probably the least
non-ideal of all of them.
So here's the loaded question: did you base your existing CoE stuff on the
DGP data or something else?
> Here's the basic data problems as I see it...
> Travellermap: I can accept that the sector might be more sparse in terms
> of the number of stars, but there are far too many systems with no
> starport or only poor facilities. Aldebaran should be bit more civilized
> than what is presented. Not Solomani Rim civilized, but....
>
> GT: Names of systems, but no locations and only sketchy details.
>
> Example: "Amajor fleet engagement is currently being fought in the
> vicinity of this starsystem39;s primary gas giant, according to Solomani
> observers reporting to TNS.The identities of the warring fleets are not
> known at this time. The fact of abattle in the Monterey star system is
> significant because of its proximity tothe Solomani capital of Home."
> So we know Monterey is near Home, has more than one gas giant, and that's
> about it.
> DGP: Nice dot map, a few named systems, including UWPs and locations for
> those systems.
> Traveller Wiki: Some more data, nothing comprehensive.
>
> Side Note: My current thinking is that Home takes a big hit and would not
> be the center of a pocket empire. Logically there should be a pocket
> empire in the sector, but I was thinking perhaps it would be more
> rimward. This leaves lots of expansion area for the Terrans and helps to
> explain why they are busy doing things other than finding the RC and
> scaring the crap out of them.
>