Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Crucis on Thu 01 Nov 2012 19:36

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
That's one reason that I capped AB population at 180 PU. Note also that until TL11 desolate AB population caps at 60PU and extreme AB's can't be colonized at all.


Alexei, this is a bit of a non sequitur. I don't know what exactly you're responding to. Could you elaborate?
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 01 Nov 2012 20:32

Crucis, your AB proposal was 100PU per belt. At the end of your post, you stated that you wanted a somewhat higher limit, but nothing like what the current rules allow. I agree that asteroid belts shouldn't have populations in the multi million range especially early in the game. Even with a fairly high (in 3rd/cosmic terms) TL, 5-10 million AB population (individuals not PU) seems to be a reasonable limit.

The biggest difference that we have is that in your proposal, you have d10/2 (FRU) planetoids that can each support 20PU per belt. My version essentially starts with 1 outpost, then goes to 3 at TL6, then finally 9 at TL11 for desolate AB's. Extreme AB's have the same progression starting at TL11. I wanted a way to show a gradual increase in engineering expertise, rather than having an artificial limit based solely on the number of larger bodies available. I also didn't want a scenario where a race is placing populations in the Kuiper Belt at TL1. That to me is beyond the capability of a TL1 race. I'm basing my premise on the lack of extreme body populations in SAW, where the Alliance and Rigellians were all at TL9 by the end of ISW-3.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Crucis on Thu 01 Nov 2012 21:35

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:Crucis, your AB proposal was 100 PU per belt. At the end of your post, you stated that you wanted a somewhat higher limit, but nothing like what the current rules allow. I agree that asteroid belts shouldn't have populations in the multi million range especially early in the game. Even with a fairly high (in 3rd/cosmic terms) TL, 5-10 million AB population (individuals not PU) seems to be a reasonable limit.

The biggest difference that we have is that in your proposal, you have d10/2 (FRU) planetoids that can each support 20 PU per belt.


Do remember that it is 1-5 planetoids, so it's entirely possible that you could have only 1 planetoid and only 20 PU for the entire belt. That may seems a bit low. I suppose that it's the randomness, but then again you will have 1-5 moons per gas giant too.

And I suppose that it's possible that these planetoids could be allowed to have pop maxes equal to an equivalent moon, i.e. a planetoid in an aB type belt would be equivalent to an mB moon, meaning that an aB planetoid could have a pop max of Colony. This would prevent the belt from being in too rough a shape if the number of planetoids in the belt was really low. This would of course end up tripling a belt's population though...

Actually, if I wanted to allow the potential of colony level pops on planetoids, perhaps it'd be best to reduce the number of planetoids per belt to 1d10/3 FRU. BTW, it's worth noting that the largest asteroid, Ceres, constitutes 1/3 of our asteroid belt's mass, so there probably can't be all that many large asteroids in any belt.


My version essentially starts with 1 outpost, then goes to 3 at TL6, then finally 9 at TL11 for desolate AB's. Extreme AB's have the same progression starting at TL11. I wanted a way to show a gradual increase in engineering expertise, rather than having an artificial limit based solely on the number of larger bodies available. I also didn't want a scenario where a race is placing populations in the Kuiper Belt at TL1. That to me is beyond the capability of a TL1 race. I'm basing my premise on the lack of extreme body populations in SAW, where the Alliance and Rigellians were all at TL9 by the end of ISW-3.


Alexei, I'm trying to avoid talking about TL-linked pop brackets for now. I have some ideas in that area for later. Also, I have another idea or 2 for increasing the income in a reasonable way.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Cralis on Thu 01 Nov 2012 22:36

Crucis wrote:Actually, if I wanted to allow the potential of colony level pops on planetoids, perhaps it'd be best to reduce the number of planetoids per belt to 1d10/3 FRU. BTW, it's worth noting that the largest asteroid, Ceres, constitutes 1/3 of our asteroid belt's mass, so there probably can't be all that many large asteroids in any belt.


Lack of evidence... our belt may, in fact, be a light belt compared to the galactic...nay, universal... average. Just thought I'd throw that possibility out there :)
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Crucis on Thu 01 Nov 2012 22:53

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:Actually, if I wanted to allow the potential of colony level pops on planetoids, perhaps it'd be best to reduce the number of planetoids per belt to 1d10/3 FRU. BTW, it's worth noting that the largest asteroid, Ceres, constitutes 1/3 of our asteroid belt's mass, so there probably can't be all that many large asteroids in any belt.


Lack of evidence... our belt may, in fact, be a light belt compared to the galactic...nay, universal... average. Just thought I'd throw that possibility out there :)


Possibly true, but we have to start somewhere, and I am trying to keep a lid on belter populations, so I'm not exactly going to feel guilty about limiting the number of planetoids that asteroid belts possess.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Fri 02 Nov 2012 03:41

Given the number of larger bodies that we've found in the Kuiper belt, the d10/2 (FRU) roll may be a bit low. Granted it's a vastly larger region, but it seems that debris regions around other stars should have similar composition.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Fri 02 Nov 2012 03:49

Crucis wrote:Alexei, I'm trying to avoid talking about TL-linked pop brackets for now. I have some ideas in that area for later. Also, I have another idea or 2 for increasing the income in a reasonable way.


I can see your point on making the rules a bit easier to handle at start. What about just limiting colonization of extreme bodies to TL11? That would essentially follow the precedents from 3rd/ISF and allow for a supplement with higher TL's.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Crucis on Fri 02 Nov 2012 09:53

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:Given the number of larger bodies that we've found in the Kuiper belt, the d10/2 (FRU) roll may be a bit low. Granted it's a vastly larger region, but it seems that debris regions around other stars should have similar composition.


Yes, it may be low. But I'm also trying to reduce the number of bodies being tracked and their economic records.




AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:Alexei, I'm trying to avoid talking about TL-linked pop brackets for now. I have some ideas in that area for later. Also, I have another idea or 2 for increasing the income in a reasonable way.


I can see your point on making the rules a bit easier to handle at start. What about just limiting colonization of extreme bodies to TL11? That would essentially follow the precedents from 3rd/ISF and allow for a supplement with higher TL's.



No, Alexei, you're not seeing my point, perhaps because I didn't make my own point more clearly. I wasn't talking about population levels for TL1 or whatever. When I said "I'm trying to avoid talking about TL-linked pop brackets for now", I meant I didn't want to talk about them at the time I wrote the reply. I have some thoughts on the topic, but they aren't relevant to this specific topic, and I'm not ready to talk about those ideas at this time.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Fri 02 Nov 2012 17:58

I may not be entirely clear either. What I'm saying is NO colonization of extreme bodies in the initial product. I'm assuming a model similar to 3rd/ISF where the first products only went to TL10. Once a model with higher TL's is added, rules for colonization of extreme bodies can be introduced. Beyond that I'll accept your d10/2 (FRU) formula for planetoids in an AB.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Simplification of Desolate/Extreme populations

Postby Crucis on Fri 02 Nov 2012 18:07

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I may not be entirely clear either. What I'm saying is NO colonization of extreme bodies in the initial product. I'm assuming a model similar to 3rd/ISF where the first products only went to TL10. Once a model with higher TL's is added, rules for colonization of extreme bodies can be introduced. Beyond that I'll accept your d10/2 (FRU) formula for planetoids in an AB.



Alexei, I understood what you're talking about. I also said nothing about an initial product or some later product. Not wanting to talk about TL-linked colonization/population caps has nothing to do with later products. I simply don't want to TALK about it right now, as in it may be a topic for later discussion, but not a topic for current discussion.

Alexei, I'm not trying to be rude. I just don't know how to make it any plainer that this isn't a topic for discussion at this particular time. :|
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron