[Space] System Generator

[zorg]

Agegmegos, just so you know: I'm watching this with great interest. I'm sure it's an ungodly amount of work to type all those formulae into Excel.

As for the labeling: Why not simply use VI-l? Though the dot you used looks very stylish, too.

[TheDS]

I don't think a whole line for each moonlet would be needed. Maybe devote one line to say how many of them there are, their inner-most and outer-most orbits, and that's about it.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by TheDS

I don't think a whole line for each moonlet would be needed. Maybe devote one line to say how many of them there are, their inner-most and outer-most orbits, and that's about it.

I'm sure that is Agemegos's plan.

It looks like I'll get out-voted, but I would prefer not giving moonlets a number/letter. I'm sure gas giants have all kinds of crap orbiting them, from large planet sized moons to pebbles. At some point, you have to choose a cut-off and say, "Bodies smaller than--insert size here--will not be given a designation". Since moonlets aren't assigned a mass or RVM, they're not important enough to be given a number/letter, IMHO.

I am very pleased that Agemegos is considering using a letter designation for moons instead of a number. I recommend using upper case Roman numerals for the planet and lower case letters for the moons. E.g. VIIi. I wouldn't even bother with a bullet or period or a space to separate them. I agree, the "i" moons will be hard to read, but and the number "1" and the letters "I", "l", and "i" have always looked like each other and there's nothing to be done about it.

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

As you see in the latest output example, I am giving only one line to each family of moonlets. There isn't a column in the table suitable to their innermost and outermost orbital radii. In fact, the only quality they have that can be reported is an average surface temperature.

If I succumb to Captain Joy's recommendations and put in a 'resources' column, there will also be an 'RVM' for the family, indicating possible moonlet mining.

This looks great. Will the final version be available for download soon? Please??? :)

Mark

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I hadn't looked at the rules for asteroids. I had been planning to estimate an RVM for the family as a whole.

If I recall correctly, asteroid belts do get assigned an RVM. Assigning an RVM to the inner and outer moonlets would justify giving them a row in the survey. Assigning each moonlet an RVM would justify giving each moon a number designation. Personally, I just list the number of inner moonlets, ring type, and numer of outer moons on each planet's row.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Perhaps a time will come when people are a bit more blasé about moonlets.

Perhaps, Agemegos, you will usher that time in. Perhaps, that time is now! :)

Originally Posted by Agemegos

We can always suppose that moons and moonlets are given different sorts of designations: IIIa for Luna, V.11 for Pasiphae.

Now that doesn't sound bad at all.

[Fnordianslip]

Looks pretty good to me. The only real color coding scheme that I think would be nice would be the orbital radius habitability zones. Otherwise, I don't think more colors would add much to it. If you do add one more narrow column, density would be a fine choice. That would give a general idea of the mineral wealth available. Not a huge thing, but meaningful in most of the space games I've played. Once again, fantastic work!

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Here is the very latest sample output.

I'm surprised to see such long days on the first two gas giants, but maybe that's normal. I'm surprised to see superdence corrosive atmospheres on the gas giants. Is that GURPS RAW?

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I'm pretty happy with content and layout for the system summary sheet, though I'm still open to adding one more narrow column if someone makes a good suggestion.

Since you've got day, year seems obvious; but I don't really think it adds much. You could add RVM; but this would imply these read-outs to be more than an "I look at the system. What do I see?" kind of survey.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Now, about colour coding.

I love colour! I'd limit it to very friendly stats in green and very alarming stats in red.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I'm off to design a planet display sheet.

Joy!

[Anders]

I would still like "orbital period" (year for planets, month for moons) but perhaps that's just me. Otherwise it looks fine.

[balzacq]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

I'm surprised to see such long days on the first two gas giants, but maybe that's normal. I'm surprised to see superdence corrosive atmospheres on the gas giants. Is that GURPS RAW?

I don't bother generating atmosphere type for gas giants at all -- what's the point?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

If you play RPGs, you roll dice. If you play for long, you roll lots of dice. So of course you do get freaks like this, once per career. And for some reason it never seems to happen in the middle of a crucial fight.

It does if the freakish rolls are freakish the other way. Or if you're the GM and you'd rather not have a total party kill at this point in the campaign. :(