Vector Map

[ClymAngus]

Let's not discuss G7 eh? (so many oxp's so many problems)

[PhantorGorth]

I also find it a little odd how a group could exist that has no direct link to itself. Then there is the matter of Dead Diplomats. Some of the regions shrank a little due to the unfortunate number of A systems and F systems that would have made communication "difficult".

I see your concern but how do you explain the industrial/agricultural clumping then?

[ClymAngus]

I also find it a little odd how a group could exist that has no direct link to itself. Then there is the matter of Dead Diplomats. Some of the regions shrank a little due to the unfortunate number of A systems and F systems that would have made communication "difficult".

I see your concern but how do you explain the industrial/agricultural clumping then?

I don't, I interprate based on a broad spectrum of factors. Anything else is a circular argument. "It has a high number of industrial planets in it because it's the industrial zone, because it's the industrial zone it has a high number of industrial planets in it."

Technically mineral rich swaith of planets might suggest a core blast wave from say a distant supernova, that happened to run in a line along this particular system. But then plants need minerals too. It is a contributing factor to the bounds of a sector. but in all seriousness are we really considering defining sectors that just happen to produce roughly the same type of commodity? America and Russia both make tractors and they nearly blew each other apart in the 50's. But they are both tractor makers so they SHOULD be put in the Tractor making regon of earth. Technically true but a bit

I did take this idea as a starting point but then added the other factors that would alter the sectors. I suppose it all comes down to what you want to show with the regons at the end of the day and I suppose what will breed the most stories, oxps and so on. Will a map that defines purely fields and factories alone do that?

That said we might be able to come up with a cross sector compromise that illistrates the unique geographic of this particular sector. Much in the same way we sorted the war zones of gal 4. I'd need a nice colour that doesn't conflict with the special routes or the sectors or the background or the systems, maybe something in a nice sandy yellow.

[PhantorGorth]

I don't, I interprate based on a broad spectrum of factors. Anything else is a circular argument. "It has a high number of industrial planets in it because it's the industrial zone, because it's the industrial zone it has a high number of industrial planets in it."

We are not talking that sort of circular argument here. Industrial zones were put there because the clumping of Industrial world is there never the other way round. There is a statistically significant clustering going on in G6 that really needs some sort of explanation. To have an industrial zone that only encompasses part of an industrial cluster just doesn't make sense on its own. No explanation or reason is equally unsatisfactory.

Technically mineral rich swaith of planets might suggest a core blast wave from say a distant supernova, that happened to run in a line along this particular system. But then plants need minerals too.

Industrial doesn't mean minerally rich. Britain is an industrial nation (more so in the past that now) but it doesn't have much mineral resources. Supernovae don't add much that could be called minerals to existing planets. They just enrich the dust and gas fields of interstellar space from which new systems are created.

It is a contributing factor to the bounds of a sector. but in all seriousness are we really considering defining sectors that just happen to produce roughly the same type of commodity? America and Russia both make tractors and they nearly blew each other apart in the 50's. But they are both tractor makers so they SHOULD be put in the Tractor making regon of earth. Technically true but a bit

That's a daft argument as there is no sense of clustering with those two nations. In fact I would say that as most western/northern nations make tractors you really have a cluster of industrial nations. These are mostly close together because of past imperialism. In these galaxies the worlds can not have been populated for that long so the reason they are clustered as is must have been a recent or current event. Without such a reason you have a bunch of clusters that appear only in one galaxy only by random which pretty unlikely. After all if a world choses to specialise it more likely to choose a different specialism to its nearest markets otherwise worlds in the middle of a cluster end up having to expend more in transportation to sell their goods. On Earth it doesn't matter as much these days as we have made it relatively cheap to transport goods anywhere.

I did take this idea as a starting point but then added the other factors that would alter the sectors. I suppose it all comes down to what you want to show with the regons at the end of the day and I suppose what will breed the most stories, oxps and so on. Will a map that defines purely fields and factories alone do that?

That said we might be able to come up with a cross sector compromise that illistrates the unique geographic of this particular sector. Much in the same way we sorted the war zones of gal 4. I'd need a nice colour that doesn't conflict with the special routes or the sectors or the background or the systems, maybe something in a nice sandy yellow.

What I suggest as a compromise position is that there was in the recent-ish past Gal6 consisted of a handful of zone like I had. Most likely they were a single empires and therefore each world in the same zone was of the same government type. Since the war in Gal4 refugees from there that spread to Gals 5, 6 and 7 (see my list of total populations in each Galaxy in an earlier post - last one on page 26) and destabilising/changing each Galaxy they moved to. In Gal 6 this was the breakup of these empires now the zones are smaller and altered but remnants remain through commonwealths and similar organisations. Importantly each world has gone each own way particularly with government type. Few if any have changed economy. Now we still need a reason for the G6 to have had the empires in the first place but that now becomes one step further removed.

[Disembodied]

There's a fair bit of randomius factoria in there ... since only the human planets are marked as colonies, we can assume that the others developed independently over many millennia. Just by the luck of the draw there are going to be clumps of industrially- or agriculturally-leaning worlds out there when they enter into the Co-operative economy. If we assume that the Co-operative is a loose set of generally agreed principles, rather than a major overarching political force – which to me sounds like more potential variety, and therefore more fun – then planets are going to be pretty independent of each other. Sure, space trade is important to us, as space traders, but the huge bulk of the population of the Co-operative are ground-bound and more concerned with the immediately local than they are with their interstellar neighbours. I don't think it's necessary to find a backstory for every feature of the maps.

[PhantorGorth]

There's a fair bit of randomius factoria in there ... since only the human planets are marked as colonies, we can assume that the others developed independently over many millennia. Just by the luck of the draw there are going to be clumps of industrially- or agriculturally-leaning worlds out there when they enter into the Co-operative economy. If we assume that the Co-operative is a loose set of generally agreed principles, rather than a major overarching political force – which to me sounds like more potential variety, and therefore more fun – then planets are going to be pretty independent of each other. Sure, space trade is important to us, as space traders, but the huge bulk of the population of the Co-operative are ground-bound and more concerned with the immediately local than they are with their interstellar neighbours. I don't think it's necessary to find a backstory for every feature of the maps.

As to the idea that the non-human colonies is open for debate which we have had before so you know my thoughts on that so I don't accept that assumption but in either case it does change too much my argument. Even if you have all those systems populated for a long time you could certainly have something that caused empires to appear of mixed races. Empires tend just to change who is at the top not the general population.

What I do agree with is that we don't need a backstory for everything but not to hint at something for such a huge feature that stares you in the face does seem incomplete. I don't think we need to fill in the reason for why they existed or what they actually entailed just that that empires or something like them existed and has collapsed and we are in the middle of the development of a new order. You wouldn't want to put all the detail I described on these maps anyway just enough to show what sort of thing was there and what it has become. Further detail can be left for people's imagination and fiction. My scenario was more of an example and a compromise with Clym.

If you say it is some sort of overarching political forces that isn't government type effected it then should be no reason for it not to be still applying right now and we are back to something like my maps with their co-operatives and collectives.

[Disembodied]

True, but it could be a hiccup in the formation of the Co-operative. We can imagine that setting up the Co-op, across eight sectors, wasn't a smooth process. All you'd need is one rebellion against the notion, one charismatic leader pushing for their own sectoral federation ... and then perhaps, as it attempted to exercise too much central control, or if one species started getting too much of a slice for itself, it fractured into a nasty civil war encompassing dozens of worlds. By the time the Co-operative was sorted out enough to have its own significant Navy, Gal6 was a mess. Brushfire conflicts flickered along the borders, and raids, counter-raids and an ever-shifting network of alliances, betrayals and feuds had locked the nascent mini-empires into a futile stalemate. Their exhausted populations welcomed the Co-operative's elegant balance of interstellar order and local autonomy with open forelimbs. The Co-operative policed the spaceways, with a minimum of fuss and a legal code you could fit on the back of a packet of Rizalan cheroots. Under the atmosphere, each planet governs itself – or even bits of itself – as the population sees fit (or is unlucky enough to have to endure). No local leader is put out, no local custom or practice, no matter how repellent, is upset. Plus, there are the Thargoids to worry about. Much better to spread the misery there throughout all 2000+ star systems ...

Gal6's experience is often cited by Co-operative historians as a prime example of how the Co-operative is both a) uniquely suited to the multiethnic political rainbow of the eight sectors, and b) inevitable (all regimes are historically inevitable, at least in the official histories).

[PhantorGorth]

True, but it could be a hiccup in the formation of the Co-operative. We can imagine that setting up the Co-op, across eight sectors, wasn't a smooth process. All you'd need is one rebellion against the notion, one charismatic leader pushing for their own sectoral federation ... and then perhaps, as it attempted to exercise too much central control, or if one species started getting too much of a slice for itself, it fractured into a nasty civil war encompassing dozens of worlds. By the time the Co-operative was sorted out enough to have its own significant Navy, Gal6 was a mess. Brushfire conflicts flickered along the borders, and raids, counter-raids and an ever-shifting network of alliances, betrayals and feuds had locked the nascent mini-empires into a futile stalemate. Their exhausted populations welcomed the Co-operative's elegant balance of interstellar order and local autonomy with open forelimbs. The Co-operative policed the spaceways, with a minimum of fuss and a legal code you could fit on the back of a packet of Rizalan cheroots. Under the atmosphere, each planet governs itself – or even bits of itself – as the population sees fit (or is unlucky enough to have to endure). No local leader is put out, no local custom or practice, no matter how repellent, is upset. Plus, there are the Thargoids to worry about. Much better to spread the misery there throughout all 2000+ star systems ...

Gal6's experience is often cited by Co-operative historians as a prime example of how the Co-operative is both a) uniquely suited to the multiethnic political rainbow of the eight sectors, and b) inevitable (all regimes are historically inevitable, at least in the official histories).

You paint another possible reason for the change politically from what came before. But it sounds too chaotic to have bred the economic clustering we are see unless you suggest they came before all that chaos.

[Disembodied]

You paint another possible reason for the change politically from what came before. But it sounds too chaotic to have bred the economic clustering we are see unless you suggest they came before all that chaos.

It's possible. As I said, it could just be random chance that these clusters of industrial and agricultural worlds grew up in those locations. A lot of planetary development would have happened before the Co-operative arrived, and indeed before the populations became spacefaring – assuming that they are all independently spacefaring. Some would never have got there by themselves, and others just might not be all that interested. If the individual planets are pretty much independent, within the Co-operative, such clusters could just be a matter of chance. Of course, to the external perspective of the space-trader – and it's space-traders who are making the map, and who will want to use it – they'll naturally see these clusters, and give them names, even if their inhabitants aren't really aware of living in them. Like "The Golden Triangle": it's not an actual cartel of opium-producing nations, but an external observer can see it and name it all the same.

[PhantorGorth]

As I said, it could just be random chance that these clusters of industrial and agricultural worlds grew up in those locations.

I really can not agree that that is likely. Not that statistical flukes don't happen but only rarely. The arrangement is truly down to the not so random nature of the fibonacci series used by B&B. I just feel that from an in-game point of view it needs remarking on somehow on the map.

Of course, to the external perspective of the space-trader – and it's space-traders who are making the map, and who will want to use it – they'll naturally see these clusters

You can't be serious in thinking these clusters are only a trick of perspective? Surely I don't need to do something like Spatial Clustering Analysis to show that they are statistically significant. That's like saying that G4 only having 4 government types is a random fluke too. (OK, maybe its not quite that bad but you get my point. )

As for Space traders, I could imagine them wanting to emphasize such a feature when they see it real or not.

... give them names, even if their inhabitants aren't really aware of living in them. Like "The Golden Triangle": it's not an actual cartel of opium-producing nations, but an external observer can see it and name it all the same.

That factor certainly would be common. You could apply that to the Raonbe Cluster for instance, but I don't see it working with the economic clustering though because I feel we need to have in principle the notion that there is real reason even if we don't say or come up with what it is.

[ClymAngus]

We are not talking that sort of circular argument here. Industrial zones were put there because the clumping of Industrial world is there never the other way round. There is a statistically significant clustering going on in G6 that really needs some sort of explanation. To have an industrial zone that only encompasses part of an industrial cluster just doesn't make sense on its own. No explanation or reason is equally unsatisfactory.

Possibly but drawing big circles round groups of systems that are all colored the same (just because they are all coloured the same). Is just dumb.

Industrial doesn't mean minerally rich. Britain is an industrial nation (more so in the past that now) but it doesn't have much mineral resources.

Really? The UK is an important producer of a range of minerals that are consumed in many sectors of the economy. Some 293.0 million tonnes of minerals were extracted from the UK landmass for sale in 2007. These can be broken down into the following main categories with percentages of total production in brackets:
249.5 million tonnes (85%) of construction minerals
25.2 million tonnes (9%) of industrial minerals
18.5 million tonnes (6%) of coal
1.3 million tonnes (1%) of oil and gas (oil equivalent)

Admittedly that isn't self sufficiency but industry (at least to start with) tends to grow up around a plentiful supply of resources. The point is arguable.

Supernovae don't add much that could be called minerals to existing planets. They just enrich the dust and gas fields of interstellar space from which new systems are created.

Could have happened when the systems were forming. "generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth."
Basically far from being easy to disregard with brash but incorrect statements. Its possible. Possible enough for us to argue back and forth. AGAIN.

It is a contributing factor to the bounds of a sector. but in all seriousness are we really considering defining sectors that just happen to produce roughly the same type of commodity? America and Russia both make tractors and they nearly blew each other apart in the 50's. But they are both tractor makers so they SHOULD be put in the Tractor making regon of earth. Technically true but a bit

That's a daft argument

No it's not.

as there is no sense of clustering with those two nations. In fact I would say that as most western/northern nations make tractors you really have a cluster of industrial nations. These are mostly close together because of past imperialism. In these galaxies the worlds can not have been populated for that long so the reason they are clustered as is must have been a recent or current event. Without such a reason you have a bunch of clusters that appear only in one galaxy only by random which pretty unlikely.

but it DID happen. What we need to do here is know when to stop making groups. I find the initial basis for group making to be fundamentally flawed. You do this, you get an idea and rightly or wrongly you dig your little heels in. It was the same with the races. The jury's still out on that one.

What I suggest as a compromise position is that there was in the recent-ish past Gal6 consisted of a handful of zone like I had. Most likely they were a single empires and therefore each world in the same zone was of the same government type. Since the war in Gal4 refugees from there that spread to Gals 5, 6 and 7 (see my list of total populations in each Galaxy in an earlier post - last one on page 26) and destabilising/changing each Galaxy they moved to. In Gal 6 this was the breakup of these empires now the zones are smaller and altered but remnants remain through commonwealths and similar organisations. Importantly each world has gone each own way particularly with government type. Few if any have changed economy. Now we still need a reason for the G6 to have had the empires in the first place but that now becomes one step further removed.

So how does that explain the ones in the same group that were not connected? Political systems change I'll grant you that but the routes stay the same. I think I'm fundamentally with the brain in a jar.

so that's 2 against 2 do we have anyone else wanting to throw their hat in whilst we're at it?

[PhantorGorth]

Possibly but drawing big circles round groups of systems that are all colored the same (just because they are all coloured the same). Is just dumb.

I would agree if the colours meant nothing but they are the split in economy type and are clustered differently that other galaxies.

Really? The UK is an important producer of a range of minerals that are consumed in many sectors of the economy. Some 293.0 million tonnes of minerals were extracted from the UK landmass for sale in 2007. These can be broken down into the following main categories with percentages of total production in brackets:
249.5 million tonnes (85%) of construction minerals
25.2 million tonnes (9%) of industrial minerals
18.5 million tonnes (6%) of coal
1.3 million tonnes (1%) of oil and gas (oil equivalent)

Admittedly that isn't self sufficiency but industry (at least to start with) tends to grow up around a plentiful supply of resources. The point is arguable.

Compared to other nations we don't have that much. But that wasn't what I was getting at. The point is is that you don't have to have a lot of minerals to be industrial you could just import what you don't have. So Industrial-ness is really independent of mineralogy. It may help but then with asteroid mining there should be enough in most systems. So as to whether a system is industrial or agricultural must be caused by other factors.

Supernovae don't add much that could be called minerals to existing planets. They just enrich the dust and gas fields of interstellar space from which new systems are created.

Could have happened when the systems were forming.

True, but then the stars would have drifted apart so still wouldn't be together in one small region of space. A star forming cluster remain a coherent group only for a few 100 million years, if I remember correctly, after which each system just becomes a member of the general population of stars.

"generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth."
Basically far from being easy to disregard with brash but incorrect statements. Its possible.

Not really most of that 40 tons would come from the material already in the system not interstellar space. A supernova's ejected material will spread that far eventually but a solar system is rather small compared to the volume between stars. Most of the matter would remain between stars and most of that is still hydrogen and helium so can't be counted as mineral making material. Then only a very tiny fraction would make it to a solar system never mind a particular planet. And that is ignoring solar wind/heliopause effects that reduces what gets in from interstellar space.

Possible enough for us to argue back and forth. AGAIN.

I did all that work and in one sweep after saying it was good wipe it most away and you expect me to say nothing and not argue my point! I was willing to walk away but you encouraged me not too. So it sounds like you want me to hang about while you remove the heart of the work I did and keep quiet.

but it DID happen. What we need to do here is know when to stop making groups. I find the initial basis for group making to be fundamentally flawed. You do this, you get an idea and rightly or wrongly you dig your little heels in. It was the same with the races. The jury's still out on that one.

Yes it happened but you wish ignore the fact and say that it must be a random event. Where as I believe that such a clustering needs an explanation. So I am digging heels in a bit, aren't you doing the same? I am conceding points to you I see nothing coming the other way. I did offer an compromise. I thought you were too:

"That said we might be able to come up with a cross sector compromise that illistrates the unique geographic of this particular sector. Much in the same way we sorted the war zones of gal 4. I'd need a nice colour that doesn't conflict with the special routes or the sectors or the background or the systems, maybe something in a nice sandy yellow. Smile"

So how does that explain the ones in the same group that were not connected? Political systems change I'll grant you that but the routes stay the same. I think I'm fundamentally with the brain in a jar.

If you are particularly referring to the east and west industrial zone you have a point I would say that they needed a different names. Otherwise most of the rest had no more than a single world separating them. But any modifications there doesn't change my arguments.

so that's 2 against 2 do we have anyone else wanting to throw their hat in whilst we're at it?

Other's opinions would be most welcome.

[Disembodied]

You can't be serious in thinking these clusters are only a trick of perspective? Surely I don't need to do something like Spatial Clustering Analysis to show that they are statistically significant. That's like saying that G4 only having 4 government types is a random fluke too. (OK, maybe its not quite that bad but you get my point. )

But they're not significant. They're the product of a pseudorandom seed. If we try too hard to force meaning on the inherently meaningless, we'll only produce something that feels like an obvious kludge. Random chance works fine for me. The clusters are there, right enough, but with hundreds of planets evolving in isolation for millennia, independently developing their own political and economic systems, you're going to get clumping. Especially considering the vague classifications provided by the game, where there are only eight government types and eight economic types, when in "reality" we can imagine hundreds of different variations simply on the theme of e.g. "Dictatorship". An even spread of governments and economies would be truly non-random and really would require some sort of convincing explanation.

... give them names, even if their inhabitants aren't really aware of living in them. Like "The Golden Triangle": it's not an actual cartel of opium-producing nations, but an external observer can see it and name it all the same.

That factor certainly would be common. You could apply that to the Raonbe Cluster for instance, but I don't see it working with the economic clustering though because I feel we need to have in principle the notion that there is real reason even if we don't say or come up with what it is.

If we're not going to give (or even come up with) an explanation, then why do we need a rationale, even in principle? Those that want it can imagine one on their own. Those that don't, won't. To me, that's a better solution than trying to think up an underlying "reason" which at least as many people will disagree with as agree – because it doesn't fit with their own concept of their personal ooniverse. In a single-player game like Oolite, where everyone gets to customise the ooniverse to suit themselves, it makes sense to keep any backstory elements to a minimum, especially for something so large-scale as maps of all the galactic sectors.

[ClymAngus]

Possibly but drawing big circles round groups of systems that are all colored the same (just because they are all coloured the same). Is just dumb.

I would agree if the colours meant nothing but they are the split in economy type and are clustered differently that other galaxies.

Sweet so admittedly it is a contributing factor the basis of group construction (birds of a feather and all that) The problem I was having was it appeared to be the ONLY criteria for a group. So what I think we're aguing the toss about here is WHY. As I see it there are 4 options;

1) Random. (the "fight club" solution championed by the cerebellum under glass)
2) Natural there is something physically or enviromentally then lends these worlds to becoming industrial.
3) Past empire that encompassed most if not all of G6, so you can still see the "organising hand" but much like the soviet union it has since fractured into soveren states.
4) it's still an empire, and we go through and rename accordingly. Maybe pushing things a litte more in the direction of sector economic exclusivity.

Compared to other nations we don't have that much. But that wasn't what I was getting at. The point is is that you don't have to have a lot of minerals to be industrial you could just import what you don't have. So Industrial-ness is really independent of mineralogy. It may help but then with asteroid mining there should be enough in most systems. So as to whether a system is industrial or agricultural must be caused by other factors.

Oh you don't have to but it's helpful. It is a kickstarting factor. Asteroid mining, I like that! That's good, maybe there's a particularly rich belt of asteroids that cuts a swaith through this map. all worthy options and possible solutions to the current clumping issue.

True, but then the stars would have drifted apart so still wouldn't be together in one small region of space. A star forming cluster remain a coherent group only for a few 100 million years, if I remember correctly, after which each system just becomes a member of the general population of stars.

but due to inconsistences in the debris cloud it is quite possible (some would argue near garrenteed) that different parts of an interstella dust cloud are going to get differnt forces applied to them and get differnt mixes of exotic minerals. So it's still a possibility.

"generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth."
Basically far from being easy to disregard with brash but incorrect statements. Its possible.

Not really most of that 40 tons would come from the material already in the system not interstellar space. etc....

Now you see we're jumping round the time line here to suit our particular argument. If the nova had occured and resulted in the forming of the systems then it's possible that the mix of materials could have been effected by it. And round and round we go. It's still plausable.

I did all that work and in one sweep after saying it was good wipe it most away and you expect me to say nothing and not argue my point! I was willing to walk away but you encouraged me not too. So it sounds like you want me to hang about while you remove the heart of the work I did and keep quiet.

No I just want you to justify it. so far it's been six of one and half a dozen of the other. We're getting close to a good compromise that will keep everyone happy. That starts with exploring the options, challenging each other. There is a hell of a lot of your work in my map 6 already, alterations yes. "Tearing apart" is a tad strong for an evolutionary process. I suggest we both take a moment to calm down and take a look at the possibilities layed out at the top of my post. I hope this covers everything we have discussed here. from that we can whittle. What do you say?

[pmw57]

But they're not significant. They're the product of a pseudorandom seed. If we try too hard to force meaning on the inherently meaningless, we'll only produce something that feels like an obvious kludge.

Their generation may be by a pseudo-random seed, however that randomness was initially carefully selected by the creators, until it met certain needs.

Please don't fall in to the trap of discounting meaningfulness, based solely on its randomly generated nature.