And now, a star that is there, but should be missing...
Amwold, 2116 Old Expanses, 21 Worlds Subsector.
Not present in Atlas of the Imperium, though present on a dot-map in Traveller Digest 12. Not included in any sector listing pre-TNE. Present in the Traveller Navigator programme for the Old Expanses. I recall, but cannot track down the quote, that Geo Gelinas said he included it to bring the 21 Worlds Subsector up from 20 systems to 21. My own thoughts on that were that the 21 Worlds Empire might not have been completely contained in the bounds of the Imperial subsector.
Eamon
Sent from my iPad
On 14 Jun 2014, at 09:50, " [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
> Harold found a star missing. I consulted with Joshua Bell who astounded me by examining my data and very promptly pinpointing the problem. Evidently, the Traveller Map doesn't like allegiance codes starting with lower case letters. For that one missing star, I had entered "wi" instead of "Wi", and so the program just ignored that line.
>
> I've just uploaded an amended map.
>
> Now Harold, how in the hell did you notice one missing star in all those hundreds? I just have to know!
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
Interesting. I see it's also not present in the Traveller Map. So is there
some sort of authority or general agreement among the fans for which maps
or sector listings take precedence?
And yeah, your interpretation of the 21 Worlds empire makes sense.
Scott
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Eamon Watters
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> And now, a star that is there, but should be missing...
>
> Amwold, 2116 Old Expanses, 21 Worlds Subsector.
>
> Not present in Atlas of the Imperium, though present on a dot-map in
> Traveller Digest 12. Not included in any sector listing pre-TNE. Present in
> the Traveller Navigator programme for the Old Expanses. I recall, but
> cannot track down the quote, that Geo Gelinas said he included it to bring
> the 21 Worlds Subsector up from 20 systems to 21. My own thoughts on that
> were that the 21 Worlds Empire might not have been completely contained in
> the bounds of the Imperial subsector.
>
> Eamon
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 14 Jun 2014, at 09:50, " [Traveller_TNE]" <
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Harold found a star missing. I consulted with Joshua Bell who astounded me
> by examining my data and very promptly pinpointing the problem. Evidently,
> the Traveller Map doesn't like allegiance codes starting with lower case
> letters. For that one missing star, I had entered "wi" instead of "Wi", and
> so the program just ignored that line.
>
> I've just uploaded an amended map.
>
> Now Harold, how in the hell did you notice one missing star in all those
> hundreds? I just have to know!
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
Personally speaking, as the addition seems to have been made on a false premise, I would ditch Amwold - unless it has been incorporated in any published works.
Eamon
Sent from my iPad
On 15 Jun 2014, at 00:38, "Scott Nolan [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
> Interesting. I see it's also not present in the Traveller Map. So is there some sort of authority or general agreement among the fans for which maps or sector listings take precedence?
>
> And yeah, your interpretation of the 21 Worlds empire makes sense.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Eamon Watters [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> And now, a star that is there, but should be missing...
>
> Amwold, 2116 Old Expanses, 21 Worlds Subsector.
>
> Not present in Atlas of the Imperium, though present on a dot-map in Traveller Digest 12. Not included in any sector listing pre-TNE. Present in the Traveller Navigator programme for the Old Expanses. I recall, but cannot track down the quote, that Geo Gelinas said he included it to bring the 21 Worlds Subsector up from 20 systems to 21. My own thoughts on that were that the 21 Worlds Empire might not have been completely contained in the bounds of the Imperial subsector.
>
> Eamon
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 14 Jun 2014, at 09:50, " [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
>>
>> Harold found a star missing. I consulted with Joshua Bell who astounded me by examining my data and very promptly pinpointing the problem. Evidently, the Traveller Map doesn't like allegiance codes starting with lower case letters. For that one missing star, I had entered "wi" instead of "Wi", and so the program just ignored that line.
>>
>> I've just uploaded an amended map.
>>
>> Now Harold, how in the hell did you notice one missing star in all those hundreds? I just have to know!
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Simple. I'm working on a map of the Vampire Highway. I started with all the star systems mentioned in 'Vampire Fleets' and sure enough...oops. No Darrians around, gotta be misprint. ;-)
I've always treated 'Atlas of the Imperium' as definitive in terms of the location of star systems. Sector and subsector names have been a bit more problematic (e.g. Alpha Leonis vs. Alpha Crucis), as have locations of stars (e.g. Aldebaran). For sectors that didn't appear in 'Atlas of the Imperium', the usual canon requirements come into play ("did GDW print it?", "was it printed by one of the main line Traveller license holders?" "was it printed by someone with authorization from GDW?", "is it generally accepted as canon by one or more of the Traveller communities?" and so on).
In this case, Geo did a common sense thing, but it's not official and may have been generally accepted at some point by a segment of the TNE community, but as others have suggested, there are better explanations for the location of the 21 worlds and adding an entire star system probably isn't the best one.
After all, aren't subsectors and thus subsector maps a Third Imperium creation? Sure the Solomani use them, but they were once part of the Imperium. Subsector maps for places outside the Imperium and Solomani Confederation wouldn't denote any sort of administrative boundaries.
Okay. I'll do that unless I hear an objection from the group.
Is there a way to have this change made to the BARD data?
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Eamon Watters [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
> Personally speaking, as the addition seems to have been made on a false premise, I would ditch Amwold - unless it has been incorporated in any published works.
>
> Eamon
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 15 Jun 2014, at 00:38, "Scott Nolan [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Interesting. I see it's also not present in the Traveller Map. So is there some sort of authority or general agreement among the fans for which maps or sector listings take precedence?
>>
>> And yeah, your interpretation of the 21 Worlds empire makes sense.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Eamon Watters [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>>
>>> And now, a star that is there, but should be missing...
>>>
>>> Amwold, 2116 Old Expanses, 21 Worlds Subsector.
>>>
>>> Not present in Atlas of the Imperium, though present on a dot-map in Traveller Digest 12. Not included in any sector listing pre-TNE. Present in the Traveller Navigator programme for the Old Expanses. I recall, but cannot track down the quote, that Geo Gelinas said he included it to bring the 21 Worlds Subsector up from 20 systems to 21. My own thoughts on that were that the 21 Worlds Empire might not have been completely contained in the bounds of the Imperial subsector.
>>>
>>> Eamon
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On 14 Jun 2014, at 09:50, " [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Harold found a star missing. I consulted with Joshua Bell who astounded me by examining my data and very promptly pinpointing the problem. Evidently, the Traveller Map doesn't like allegiance codes starting with lower case letters. For that one missing star, I had entered "wi" instead of "Wi", and so the program just ignored that line.
>>>>
>>>> I've just uploaded an amended map.
>>>>
>>>> Now Harold, how in the hell did you notice one missing star in all those hundreds? I just have to know!
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>
>
I'd be very interested in your map and possibly integrating it into mine.
As I look at the maps of Solomani Rim and Diaspora I see numerous strands of stars running Coreward/Rimward towards Massillia. In my mind all of those could be "Vampire Highways."
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 14, 2014, at 1:40 PM, "Harold Hale [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
> Simple. I'm working on a map of the Vampire Highway. I started with all the star systems mentioned in 'Vampire Fleets' and sure enough...oops. No Darrians around, gotta be misprint. ;-)
>
>
It's called 21 worlds not 21 solar systems. Could one of the stars have 2 habitable worlds? Or perhaps they were just being hipster ironic when they named the place.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2014, at 11:08 AM, "Harold Hale [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
> I've always treated 'Atlas of the Imperium' as definitive in terms of the location of star systems. Sector and subsector names have been a bit more problematic (e.g. Alpha Leonis vs. Alpha Crucis), as have locations of stars (e.g. Aldebaran). For sectors that didn't appear in 'Atlas of the Imperium', the usual canon requirements come into play ("did GDW print it?", "was it printed by one of the main line Traveller license holders?" "was it printed by someone with authorization from GDW?", "is it generally accepted as canon by one or more of the Traveller communities?" and so on).
>
> In this case, Geo did a common sense thing, but it's not official and may have been generally accepted at some point by a segment of the TNE community, but as others have suggested, there are better explanations for the location of the 21 worlds and adding an entire star system probably isn't the best one.
>
> After all, aren't subsectors and thus subsector maps a Third Imperium creation? Sure the Solomani use them, but they were once part of the Imperium. Subsector maps for places outside the Imperium and Solomani Confederation wouldn't denote any sort of administrative boundaries.
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: "DEREK STANLEY [Traveller_TNE]"
Sent: â6/â14/â2014 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Once More Unto the Reformation Coalition Campaign Map!
It's called 21 worlds not 21 solar systems. Could one of the stars have 2 habitable worlds? Or perhaps they were just being hipster ironic when they named the place.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 14, 2014, at 11:08 AM, "Harold Hale [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
I've always treated 'Atlas of the Imperium' as definitive in terms of the location of star systems. Sector and subsector names have been a bit more problematic (e.g. Alpha Leonis vs. Alpha Crucis), as have locations of stars (e.g. Aldebaran). For sectors that didn't appear in 'Atlas of the Imperium', the usual canon requirements come into play ("did GDW print it?", "was it printed by one of the main line Traveller license holders?" "was it printed by someone with authorization from GDW?", "is it generally accepted as canon by one or more of the Traveller communities?" and so on).
In this case, Geo did a common sense thing, but it's not official and may have been generally accepted at some point by a segment of the TNE community, but as others have suggested, there are better explanations for the location of the 21 worlds and adding an entire star system probably isn't the best one.
After all, aren't subsectors and thus subsector maps a Third Imperium creation? Sure the Solomani use them, but they were once part of the Imperium. Subsector maps for places outside the Imperium and Solomani Confederation wouldn't denote any sort of administrative boundaries.