Different Titius-Bode Tables?

[Crucis]

In the "3 Empires" thread, I mentioned the idea of a different Titius-Bode table using different multipliers for the TB equation ( orbit = A + (B X 2^n), where 2 is the multiplier I refer to ). Well, here's one possible idea for a new TB Table. This TB table will be 50 or 52 rows long (it's currently 48 rows long). I use the first 4 rows from 1st orbits 1-4, and then create 3 different orbital sets for those 16 rows, using multipliers of 2 (the current standard), 2.25, and 2.5. As you can see, M=2.25 and M=2.5 causes the orbits to become less dense and thus fewer orbits under 350 LM.

As for how the table would be used, my thinking is that the player would just make a 1d100 roll, where each row in the table would have 2 percentage points (i.e. the first row would be 01-02%, the second row would be 03-04%, and so on).

The remaining 2 (2% per row) or 4 rows (1% per row) would probably be for anomaly orbital sets. For example, perhaps one possibility might be an "orbital set" comprised of a single orbit, where the player rolls 1d100 and the result is the orbit in LM (1-100 LM). Another could be no orbits at all. Another could be for the player to roll again against the table (ignoring the anomaly orbits), but remove all the odd numbered orbits (or the even numbered orbits) from the row. Or maybe wipe out all orbits over 50 LM. There's room for some strangeness.

Anyways, comments, criticisms, flames? Fire away.

Code: Select all

1   2    3    4    5     6     7     8     9
==============================================================================
M=2
1   3    5    9   17    33    65   129   257
1   4    7   13   25    49    97   193   
1   5    9   17   33    65   129   257   
1   6   11   21   41    81   161   321   
2   4    6   10   18    34    66   130   258
2   5    8   14   26    50    98   194   
2   6   10   18   34    66   130   258   
2   7   12   22   42    82   162   322   
3   5    7   11   19    35    67   131   259
3   6    9   15   27    51    99   195   
3   7   11   19   35    67   131   259   
3   8   13   23   43    83   163   323   
4   6    8   12   20    36    68   132   260
4   7   10   16   28    52   100   196   
4   8   12   20   36    68   132   260   
4   9   14   24   44    84   164   324   

M=2.25                        
1   3    6   11   24    52   116   260   
1   4    8   16   35    78   174   
1   5   10   21   47   104   232   
1   6   12   26   58   129   289   
2   4    7   12   25    53   117   261   
2   5    9   17   36    79   175   
2   6   11   22   48   105   233   
2   7   13   27   59   130   290   
3   5    8   13   26    54   118   262   
3   6   10   18   37    80   176   
3   7   12   23   49   106   234   
3   8   14   28   60   131   291   
4   6    9   14   27    55   119   263   
4   7   11   19   38    81   177   
4   8   13   24   50   107   235   
4   9   15   29   61   132   292   

M=2.5                  
1   3    6   14   32    79   196   
1   4    9   20   48   118   294   
1   5   11   26   64   157      
1   6   14   32   79   196   
2   4    7   15   33    80   197   
2   5   10   21   49   119   295   
2   6   12   27   65   158   
2   7   15   33   80   197   
3   5    8   16   34    81   198   
3   6   11   22   50   120   296   
3   7   13   28   66   159   
3   8   16   34   81   198   
4   6    9   17   35    82   199   
4   7   12   23   51   121   297   
4   8   14   29   67   160   
4   9   17   35   82   199   


[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I like it in that it cuts down on the number of potential T/ST worlds, especially in white primary systems. It also means that there will be more opportunities for T/ST worlds in orange primary systems due to only 9 rows NOT having an orbit between 4 and 6 LM compared to 15 rows on the existing chart. As K class stars are currently considered ideal candidates to have potentially habitable worlds the proposed table makes sense to me.

[Crucis]

I like it in that it cuts down on the number of potential T/ST worlds, especially in white primary systems. It also means that there will be more opportunities for T/ST worlds in orange primary systems due to only 9 rows NOT having an orbit between 4 and 6 LM compared to 15 rows on the existing chart. As K class stars are currently considered ideal candidates to have potentially habitable worlds the proposed table makes sense to me.

Alexei, it wasn't my intention to make the table more friendly to Orange Stars. I'm going to have to compare this table to the HZ's for each star type, to see how well it produces T/ST's. I don't want the table to favor any particular star type too much.

Any thoughts on the idea of having anomalous orbital sets?

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

I like the idea of anomalous systems. In fact one anomaly could be all orbits being asteroid belts, which would represent a very young star with a proto planetary disk.

Kappa Andromedae is a good example is a good example (so far) of a system with a single planet in orbit.

[Vandervecken]

Due to encounters with other stars, anomalous orbital sets will happen, more often in clusters but often enough out her in the arms that having a few actually works fine. Also, encounters with Loner gas giants could also make an anomalous system. And of course, just the planet - planet interactions inside a system could produce them. I have no problem with them.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

It may be because of our existing technology, but so far, the majority of the planetary systems that we have discovered seem to have their initial orbit within 4 LM. That's one other reason that I like the proposed table.

[Crucis]

Due to encounters with other stars, anomalous orbital sets will happen, more often in clusters but often enough out her in the arms that having a few actually works fine. Also, encounters with Loner gas giants could also make an anomalous system. And of course, just the planet - planet interactions inside a system could produce them. I have no problem with them.

Vandervecken, I'm sure that I/we could come up with a pretty fair number of them, though I don't want to go overboard.

As an alternative to four 1% chance anomalies, I could have that 4% chance re-direct to another table for anomalous orbital sets. Perhaps 10 of them with a 1d10 die roll.

Let's see, here's some ideas for starters...

1. Roll again against the TB table (ignoring anomalies) and ignore even numbered orbits.
2. Same as #1, but ignoring odd numbered orbits.
3. One orbit, roll 1d100 with the result being the orbit in LM.
4. Same as #3, but the orbit contains an asteroid belt rather than a planet.
5. Roll again against the TB table, but wipe out all orbits above 50 LM.


6. Roll again against the TB table (ignoring anomalies), but wipe out all rocky zone orbits and replace with a Gas Giant in the innermost of the orbits that was removed. (If this places the GG in the star's HZ, there's a chance that the innermost moon may be habitable and the other moons would be removed.) ((This entry would probably only be legit for non-Red and Red Dwarf stars. Would need a replacement for R&RD's.


Any other ideas?

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

1) All orbits are asteroid belts. Primary is pre main sequence.

2) Outermost orbit is a brown subdwarf. Adjust inner orbits accordingly.

[Crucis]

1) All orbits are asteroid belts. Primary is pre main sequence.

I actually have the proto-system handled as an anomaly system, though I've removed all orbits outside of the rocky zone.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

Are you thinking proto star stage? What I'm thinking of is T Tauri/FU Orionis type objects where the accretion has started to produce some sizable proto planets and the overall disk has thinned out somewhat.