Why are sectors universal?

SteveS · 02-28-2017, 09:47 PM

I understand why subsectors are the way they are: that's how many rows and columns of hexadecimal map fit on one page of a little black book at a convenient hex size. And I can see that subsectors were a pretty small mapping unit, so they were combined into sectors.

But that's the out of game history. Is there an in-game explanation too? Why do the Imperium, the Zhodani Consulate, the Hive Federation, the 2000 Worlds, the Aslan Hierate, and even the thoroughly fractious Vargr Extents all use the same sized sectors and even the same sector boundaries based on Reference? Is that ever explained anywhere?

I suppose it could be attributed to some ancient Vilani thing that the Vargr adopted because they couldn't agree on which of many home grown mapping systems to use, and that the Aslan adopted it for administrative convenience in trade with the Vilani because they hadn't seen fit to invent their own system. But the Hivers do things in sixes and developed for a long time before meeting the Vilani. The Zhodani likewise developed for a long time before meeting the Vilani. And the K'kree hate those nasty human omnivores, so why would they adopt their mapping convention?

Was it all a quirky Hiver manipulation? Was it the Ancients? Some forgotten sublight interstellar empire?

Or is it just something that became established as a Traveller convention before anyone thought of this question?

cptbutton · 03-01-2017, 06:08 AM

I don't know anything about writing history or gamer discussion on this, but my speculation is that it is a simple idea that won't make the game better by complicating it. Having different organizational sized and shaped regions for different species and cultures would be more realistic, but what does it add to the game? It gives some flavor of exoticism overall, but it makes things more difficult to work with.

In a lot of fantasy games you get decimal coinage 1 gold = 10 silver = 100 copper. You don't get 1 pound = 20 schillings = 240 pence, or any of the other more complicated systems you get from history. Such things might be more realistic but cumbersome, and they make the game more difficult and confusing in ways that most games won't enjoy.

I vague recall at least some deviation from the sector/subsector system for cases where a few systems technically in subsector X are administered by subsector Y because a big gap separates them from most of the other systems in the subsector. Logically, organization by travel distance and jump number requirements might make more sense.

On the other hand, a non-standardized system based on historical precedent and political or bureaucratic wrangling would be very plausible. Inefficient and nominal unfair if not irrational, but history is like that.

Related question: How much variation is there in canon about political and military organization? That is, how much central control there is, how stuff is divided up like Navy vs Patrol vs Customs service is set up, etc.

jason taylor · 03-01-2017, 11:37 AM

An in-verse justification is simply that the system was created by the Terrans and overlayed on maps by anyone within the cultural sphere of the Rule of Man continuing to this day. There is no reason other cultures cannot have their own system but this is the reference in the Imperium. Just like there are towns with both German and Polish names.

inexorableTash · 03-01-2017, 06:52 PM

We get all our maps published by TAS (adapted from data by the IISS) so they have an Imperial bias when it comes to cartographic standards.

Perhaps the Zhodani publish their maps with Rimward at the top...

http://zho.berka.com/2017/02/26/spin...s-upside-down/

SteveS · 03-01-2017, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason taylor

. . . There is no reason other cultures cannot have their own system but this is the reference in the Imperium.

The thing about that is that canon gives names for sectors in space well outside the territory ever controlled or meaningfully influenced by the Ziru Sirka, the Rule of Man, or the Third Imperium, most notably the Zhodani (who had an interstellar empire long before meeting the Vilani) and the K'kree (who see themselves as superior to all others, particularly G'naak). If they hadn't adopted the sector mapping system, why give their own names to sectors?

Randyman · 03-01-2017, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

The thing about that is that canon gives names for sectors in space well outside the territory ever controlled or meaningfully influenced by the Ziru Sirka, the Rule of Man, or the Third Imperium, most notably the Zhodani (who had an interstellar empire long before meeting the Vilani) and the K'kree (who see themselves as superior to all others, particularly G'naak). If they hadn't adopted the sector mapping system, why give their own names to sectors?

Look up "Galaxiad".

SteveS · 03-02-2017, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randyman

Look up "Galaxiad"

I found that almost, but not entirely, uninformative.

Did I look at the wrong search results?

robkelk · 03-02-2017, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

The thing about that is that canon gives names for sectors in space well outside the territory ever controlled or meaningfully influenced by the Ziru Sirka, the Rule of Man, or the Third Imperium, most notably the Zhodani (who had an interstellar empire long before meeting the Vilani) and the K'kree (who see themselves as superior to all others, particularly G'naak). If they hadn't adopted the sector mapping system, why give their own names to sectors?

Any or all of the below might apply:

The local names are unpronounceable, unknown, or nonexistent.
Some people like naming things.
Cultural imperialism.

Randyman · 03-02-2017, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

I found that almost, but not entirely, uninformative.

Did I look at the wrong search results?

Possible. Here's a summary.

The Galaxiad (as I recall) is a later time period in the Traveller Universe. The eras of play published so far are historical to the Galaxiad era. If you view the non-Imperial sectors and their naming as contemporary to the Galaxiad era rather than contemporary to the era of play, it makes sense.

Anaraxes · 03-02-2017, 06:27 AM

The first question is whether there's even really a question. Certainly, the maps we have are made with an Imperial bias. For good in-game reasons, of course, but the real reason is meta -- that's where the game designers set things -- as has been noted.

But turning that around and demanding to know why other polities use those maps is a itself a meta objection, not an in-setting one. We don't have Zhodani or Vargr maps for meta reasons. That doesn't mean those maps don't exist in-setting. Demanding an in-setting reason for their absence is both imposing that meta-absence into the setting, and then in turn demanding that the setting explain your meta decision, which someone else's setting can hardly be expected to do.

If it bothers you that such things don't exist from the publisher, feel free to create them, and redraw the arbitrary sector boundaries as you wish. If you're happy adopting that absence and using an Imperially-biased system in setting for invented in-setting reasons, you can feel free to do that as well. The problem only appears when you cross the streams.

02-28-2017, 09:47 PM	#1
SteveS Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: near Seattle WA USA	Why are sectors universal? I understand why subsectors are the way they are: that's how many rows and columns of hexadecimal map fit on one page of a little black book at a convenient hex size. And I can see that subsectors were a pretty small mapping unit, so they were combined into sectors. But that's the out of game history. Is there an in-game explanation too? Why do the Imperium, the Zhodani Consulate, the Hive Federation, the 2000 Worlds, the Aslan Hierate, and even the thoroughly fractious Vargr Extents all use the same sized sectors and even the same sector boundaries based on Reference? Is that ever explained anywhere? I suppose it could be attributed to some ancient Vilani thing that the Vargr adopted because they couldn't agree on which of many home grown mapping systems to use, and that the Aslan adopted it for administrative convenience in trade with the Vilani because they hadn't seen fit to invent their own system. But the Hivers do things in sixes and developed for a long time before meeting the Vilani. The Zhodani likewise developed for a long time before meeting the Vilani. And the K'kree hate those nasty human omnivores, so why would they adopt their mapping convention? Was it all a quirky Hiver manipulation? Was it the Ancients? Some forgotten sublight interstellar empire? Or is it just something that became established as a Traveller convention before anyone thought of this question?

03-01-2017, 06:08 AM	#2
cptbutton Join Date: Jul 2007	Re: Why are sectors universal? I don't know anything about writing history or gamer discussion on this, but my speculation is that it is a simple idea that won't make the game better by complicating it. Having different organizational sized and shaped regions for different species and cultures would be more realistic, but what does it add to the game? It gives some flavor of exoticism overall, but it makes things more difficult to work with. In a lot of fantasy games you get decimal coinage 1 gold = 10 silver = 100 copper. You don't get 1 pound = 20 schillings = 240 pence, or any of the other more complicated systems you get from history. Such things might be more realistic but cumbersome, and they make the game more difficult and confusing in ways that most games won't enjoy. I vague recall at least some deviation from the sector/subsector system for cases where a few systems technically in subsector X are administered by subsector Y because a big gap separates them from most of the other systems in the subsector. Logically, organization by travel distance and jump number requirements might make more sense. On the other hand, a non-standardized system based on historical precedent and political or bureaucratic wrangling would be very plausible. Inefficient and nominal unfair if not irrational, but history is like that. Related question: How much variation is there in canon about political and military organization? That is, how much central control there is, how stuff is divided up like Navy vs Patrol vs Customs service is set up, etc. __________________ -- Burma!

03-01-2017, 11:37 AM	#3
jason taylor Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, Oregon	Re: Why are sectors universal? An in-verse justification is simply that the system was created by the Terrans and overlayed on maps by anyone within the cultural sphere of the Rule of Man continuing to this day. There is no reason other cultures cannot have their own system but this is the reference in the Imperium. Just like there are towns with both German and Polish names. __________________ "The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison

03-01-2017, 06:52 PM	#4
inexorableTash Join Date: Nov 2012	Re: Why are sectors universal? We get all our maps published by TAS (adapted from data by the IISS) so they have an Imperial bias when it comes to cartographic standards. Perhaps the Zhodani publish their maps with Rimward at the top... http://zho.berka.com/2017/02/26/spin...s-upside-down/

03-02-2017, 06:27 AM	#10
Anaraxes Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: Why are sectors universal? The first question is whether there's even really a question. Certainly, the maps we have are made with an Imperial bias. For good in-game reasons, of course, but the real reason is meta -- that's where the game designers set things -- as has been noted. But turning that around and demanding to know why other polities use those maps is a itself a meta objection, not an in-setting one. We don't have Zhodani or Vargr maps for meta reasons. That doesn't mean those maps don't exist in-setting. Demanding an in-setting reason for their absence is both imposing that meta-absence into the setting, and then in turn demanding that the setting explain your meta decision, which someone else's setting can hardly be expected to do. If it bothers you that such things don't exist from the publisher, feel free to create them, and redraw the arbitrary sector boundaries as you wish. If you're happy adopting that absence and using an Imperially-biased system in setting for invented in-setting reasons, you can feel free to do that as well. The problem only appears when you cross the streams.