Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Phil Pugliese (30 Aug 2016 16:07 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Christopher Sean Hilton (30 Aug 2016 16:32 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... shadow@xxxxxx (30 Aug 2016 23:37 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Bruce Johnson (31 Aug 2016 15:36 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Richard Aiken (01 Sep 2016 01:48 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Jerry Barrington (01 Sep 2016 14:12 UTC)
Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... C. Berry (30 Aug 2016 17:46 UTC)

Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions... Phil Pugliese 30 Aug 2016 16:07 UTC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see the lack of an 'ag' rating to mean that a system can't feed itself.
In fact, I believe the vast majority do just that.
It could be argued that 'ag' worlds are something of an anomaly in an ultra Hi-Tech setting such as the TU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 8/30/16, Jerry Barrington <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Fun facts: Was: [TML] CT: "Far" companions...
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016, 5:57 AM

 Well,
 that's only 64 modern Earths worth of population.  134
 modern Earth's worth of agriculture is over twice what
 you need to feed them, let alone future agriculture + what
 all the less agricultural planets will produce.  I
 don't think you really have a problem.  Of course, it
 *does* mean a lot of food is going to be shipping around the
 Imperium.
 On Mon,
 Aug 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton <xxxxxx@vindaloo.com>
 wrote:
 On Mon,
 Aug 29, 2016 at 10:32:21AM +1000, Tim wrote:

 [ ...snip... ]

 >

 > I expect every star in the galaxy to have been
 catalogued thousands of

 > years before even the First Imperium.  Even most of
 the planets and

 > their orbits would have been identified.  Certainly
 that would hold

 > for every system within a thousand parsecs of
 Traveller's charted

 > space.

 >

 This statement got me thinking this morning and I did a
 little SQL

 hacking...

 I "diced" up sector this morning my CT expanded
 system generator, I

 notice that Agricultural Worlds are really rare. I created
 a

 sector this morning and out of 14207 total worlds 134 would
 be

 classified Ag by Book 7. These 14207 worlds have a total
 population of

 468.8 billion sophants.

 My system is still currently still in test. I just fixed a
 bug in

 atmosphere and hydrographics generation. My system only
 generates Solo

 star systems so there is a shortage of habitable zone
 planets. All of

 these factors should depress the number of Ag planets, but I
 don't

 expect it to go up by a factor of ten when these problems
 are

 fixed.

 I think that the driver for this the fact is the DM of -2
 for planets

 generated around spectral class M stars. Class M stars are
 by far the

 most commonly generated. It's important because the
 basic Mainworld

 generation sequence has no size DM and imposes a reverse DM
 on the

 star's spectral class when you expand a system by
 detailing what it's

 star is.

 --

 Chris

       __o          "All I was trying to do was
 get home from work."

     _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks

 ___(*)/_(*)____.___o____..___.
 .o...________ooO...___________ __________

 Christopher Sean Hilton                   
 [chris/at/vindaloo/dot/com]

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.
 com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://www.simplelists.com/
 confirm.php?u= z4ykj54zpoNxz3pUaE773cJHeATwsg Su

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a