Thread: Re: Since Dave N is feeling Chatty-->Maps

Okay, so the "theorem" might be more descriptive than predictive, it
sounds like. I'll check the wiki entry.

And since everything reminds me of something else, my otherwise nifty J2
maps provide another reminder of the unique way that "Traveller is always
wrong:" it exposes how the random UPP and UWP generation is not based on
"real world" effects. I.e., how those two worlds on either side of a gulf
you've just discovered are too-often D starports, which they "would not"
be, requiring you to speculate, okay, how does all the traffic refuel,
well they've got this gas giant everyone goes to and meets at, and then
you start begging the question of, "isn't that then a better starport, so
why does the UPP say it's only a D" and we're right back at the stuff I've
already said about UPPs/UWPs being less useful than they ought to be
because of the order in which/purpose for which they were designed.

There! See? The horse twitched again. Hit it!

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM, <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Central Places Theorem"? Please do tell.
>>
>
> "Putting on my Theoretical Geographer Hat", Central Places Theorem
> stipulates that people organise themselves through economic need across
> the
> the landscape. People will only go so far to meet their basic needs in
> general, but will go farther to meet more specialized needs, providers of
> said specialized services/goods will congregate in more central locations.
> In an idealized territory this spread looks like a hex map, with the
> smallest market/settlement surrounding larger markets/settlements in
> multiple tiers.
> Here is the Wikipedia entry;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory
>
> In terms of Traveller we can use the basics of this for StarPort
> distribution, and general direction of commercial traffic analysis. Right
> now I am using the number of Gas Giants, Planetoid belts and potential
> habitable worlds as a mod on StarPort class. The assumption is a top down
> colonization model, driven by Belters looking for new resource sources and
> planetary colonization is a byproduct of the search instead of the
> reverse.
>
>
> --
> Evyn
>

Yikes! Math!

Off the top of my pointy little head I would say the theory is a little on
the tautological side, and to pull it over into Traveller you have to
accept that with the interstellar maps "topography" is the primary effect
which is abstracted out by the theory. In that way Traveller is more along
the lines of why many settlements in the US developed along the eastern
seaboard fall-line, how ports and other transshipment points develop, etc.

> Okay, so the "theorem" might be more descriptive than predictive, it
> sounds like. I'll check the wiki entry.
>
> And since everything reminds me of something else, my otherwise nifty J2
> maps provide another reminder of the unique way that "Traveller is always
> wrong:" it exposes how the random UPP and UWP generation is not based on
> "real world" effects. I.e., how those two worlds on either side of a gulf
> you've just discovered are too-often D starports, which they "would not"
> be, requiring you to speculate, okay, how does all the traffic refuel,
> well they've got this gas giant everyone goes to and meets at, and then
> you start begging the question of, "isn't that then a better starport, so
> why does the UPP say it's only a D" and we're right back at the stuff I've
> already said about UPPs/UWPs being less useful than they ought to be
> because of the order in which/purpose for which they were designed.
>
> There! See? The horse twitched again. Hit it!
>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM, <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Central Places Theorem"? Please do tell.
>>>
>>
>> "Putting on my Theoretical Geographer Hat", Central Places Theorem
>> stipulates that people organise themselves through economic need across
>> the
>> the landscape. People will only go so far to meet their basic needs in
>> general, but will go farther to meet more specialized needs, providers
>> of
>> said specialized services/goods will congregate in more central
>> locations.
>> In an idealized territory this spread looks like a hex map, with the
>> smallest market/settlement surrounding larger markets/settlements in
>> multiple tiers.
>> Here is the Wikipedia entry;
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory
>>
>> In terms of Traveller we can use the basics of this for StarPort
>> distribution, and general direction of commercial traffic analysis.
>> Right
>> now I am using the number of Gas Giants, Planetoid belts and potential
>> habitable worlds as a mod on StarPort class. The assumption is a top
>> down
>> colonization model, driven by Belters looking for new resource sources
>> and
>> planetary colonization is a byproduct of the search instead of the
>> reverse.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Evyn
>>
>
>
>

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:51 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> Yikes! Math!
>

Only a little bit.....

>
> Off the top of my pointy little head I would say the theory is a little on
> the tautological side, and to pull it over into Traveller you have to
> accept that with the interstellar maps "topography&quot; is the primary effect
> which is abstracted out by the theory. In that way Traveller is more along
> the lines of why many settlements in the US developed along the eastern
> seaboard fall-line, how ports and other transshipment points develop, etc.
>
Topography always trumps theory, or the very 1st thing they teach you when
you get to cartography portion of a Degree in Geography is "All maps are
lies...." In that they are rough representation of what is there, and Star
maps in Traveller are the greatest thing yet in that they are cognitive
maps for starships.

--
Evyn

> Star
> maps in Traveller are the greatest thing yet in that they are cognitive
> maps for starships.

Nice concept.

Except that Traveller maps are 2D and everyone knows that real space is
3D, so your game sucks!

I heard that a lot. 2300 tried to fix that (unsuccessfully as has been
pointed out, with newer/better data), but it basically worked out that you
just had 1D linear or 2D "Arm" maps, so it was kind of a distinction
without a difference for those with fine sensibilities. (Let's not go into
Brown Dwarves.) 3D is just too hard with the tools readily available, so
for me the Traveller abstraction worked fine. The Milky Way is a disk, so
is kinda sorta flat, and solar systems should basically all be in a single
ecliptic plane (Pluto), so all travel is effectively 2D. The latter
abstraction works a little better than the former, until we learn more
things that challenge our assumptions about solar system formation.

I tried once to tear apart a bunch of Battleship games and make stacked
game boards, but it's just too hard, and it would be too expensive to make
those and sell them as a game.

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:51 PM, <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yikes! Math!
>>
>
> Only a little bit.....
>
>>
>> Off the top of my pointy little head I would say the theory is a little
>> on
>> the tautological side, and to pull it over into Traveller you have to
>> accept that with the interstellar maps "topography&quot; is the primary
>> effect
>> which is abstracted out by the theory. In that way Traveller is more
>> along
>> the lines of why many settlements in the US developed along the eastern
>> seaboard fall-line, how ports and other transshipment points develop,
>> etc.
>>
> Topography always trumps theory, or the very 1st thing they teach you when
> you get to cartography portion of a Degree in Geography is "All maps are
> lies...." In that they are rough representation of what is there, and Star
> maps in Traveller are the greatest thing yet in that they are cognitive
> maps for starships.
>
> --
> Evyn
>