[Space] System Generator

[Anders]

Year length?

[Rupert]

By about 6mm, IIRC.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I thought of using 'V', but than I got to worrying about how to distinguish between III and IV subgiants and II and I giants within the context that this is intended as an instantiation, not an extension of the GURPS Space star system generation sequence.

I don't have my book with me, but if GURPS Space doesn't give rules for III vs. IV and II vs. I, then I agree--go with main sequence (or dwarf), giant, and supergiant.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

if people are going to want to generate systems around companion stars

They are and this should be done automatically as part of randomly generating a star system. Good luck with that. :) When I did it, I basically generated a complete system for the companion star(s), then got rid of any planets that were in the shared zone with a companion that had already generated planets for that shared region. I also list any companion stars as an orbiting body.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I usually give system numbers in Arabic, followed by planet number in Roman, followed by a bullet and the moon number in Arabic....example given being listed as follows?

I
II
III
III.12
III.13
III.14
III.15
III.16

I prefer Greek letter for the star, Arabic numeral for the planet, lower case Arabic letter for the moon--ignoring moonlets.

Sol alpha 1
Sol alpha 2
Sol alpha 3
Sol alpha 3a
Sol alpha 4

If Sol had a companion star, those planets would read like

Sol beta 1
Sol beta 2

Obviously, you'd prefer to use actual Greek letters and not write them out.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

This is a game aid and not entirely a prop. And I will be creating a rather different version for use in my own campaign. I decided to go with the more accessible result, the one that is directly accessible to game mechanics.

Ah, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I'd definitely prefer to keep the hydrographic percentage because it makes sense of the HI in terms of what can be seen from space.

Are you saying non-water hydrograph coverage effects the Habitability Index?

Originally Posted by Agemegos

On teh other, it is not visible from space, so if you were running an exploration campaign you couldn't hand over the system summary sheet to the players and say "this is what you see through the Big Eye while you are cruising in from the jump zone".

Ah! I get it now. In that case, I can see why you'd want to include non-water hydrographics and not include a Resource Value.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I would follow the existing procedures for forbidden zones, except that I would not generate anything outside the forbidden zone for a companion (objects outside the forbidden zone of a primary star must be considered as orbiting both stars, of course. The failure of the sequence in Space to deal adequately with this is one of its significant weaknesses, in my opinion.

But, isn't what you just said the RAW?

Originally Posted by Agemegos

...'a', 'b', and 'c' etc. are already in use for designating both components in a multiple system and for designating extrasolar planets: in order of discovery within their systems.

Then I'd go with: 'a', 'b', and 'c' for stellar companions, Roman numbers for planets, and letters for moons. It's a shame Greek letters are a hassle to implement. It's just too cool to be able to say "Ceti Alpha V". :)

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

...no implementable mechanics for combining the masses or the luminosities of the objects in the middle where determining orbital periods, black-body temperatures &c.

Oh, that's right. The companions are typically small enough and/or far enough away that their effects are usually negligible on the primary star's planets. At least, that's what I tell my players. :) It may in fact be true in general.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I don't feel like dealing with number-letter conversion.

I'm going to pretend I didn't read that.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

And it is clear that in Wrath of Khan Ceti Alpha V and Ceti Alpha VI were different moons in the same system,

Not according to Memory Alpha. Wow, Agemegos, this may mark the first time I've ever known you to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

which makes 'Ceti Alpha' the name of a system. And that is bound to be confusing because there is a real star called Alpha Ceti.

Oh, that's right, they use Greek letters to ID stars in a constellation. So, forget Greek letters then. I say use capital letters to distinguish between companions, Roman numerals for planets, and lower case letters for moons. E.g. Alpha Centauri B IVe would be the 5th major moon around the 4th planet of the 2nd largest star in the Alpha Centauri trinary system. Now you've got to like that. (Wait, isn't that what you've been saying all along? It's late, I'm going to stop posting for the night.)

[Flyndaran]

Me too ignant to follow completely. But blast it. I... want... all... your... systems'... results!
Though when going through numerous random rolling creations, I did come upon the most improbable sytem imaginable. Four earth type planets habitable to unprotected humans in a G2/G2/G2 star system, only one marginal atmosphere due to hazardous biologicals. Naturally, I named it "Bonanza".
Any idea just how unlikely my rolls were?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

A good form of encouragement would be to check the latest sample output and give me some obviously intelligent commentary. In particular, I should value your views on whether you prefer moons with identifying numbers like "III•3", or whether you would prefer the format "IIIc", and whether you like the implication that moonlets are numbered in some catalogue even through they aren't in the Popular Handbook of the Planets or whether you would prefer that I cut the fuss and give consecutive numbers to all and only major moons.

I prefer the 'IIIc' style - I think 'number, number' is more like to confuse when spoken than 'number, letter', and so IMO a hypothetical standards committee would favour this pattern (unless they're incompetent, of course).

As for sequencing, I say do all the moons - it saves kludgy namings when some insignificant rockball suddenly becomes a big deal down the road because someone puts a highly successful casino on it.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Rupert

As for sequencing, I say do all the moons - it saves kludgy namings when some insignificant rockball suddenly becomes a big deal down the road because someone puts a highly successful casino on it.

Or religious zealots.
Or simply places to crash. Close enough to see a garden world, but stranded on Podunk Dustball 3.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

A good form of encouragement would be to check the latest sample output and give me some obviously intelligent commentary. In particular, I should value your views on whether you prefer moons with identifying numbers like "III•3", or whether you would prefer the format "IIIc", and whether you like the implication that moonlets are numbered in some catalogue even through they aren't in the Popular Handbook of the Planets or whether you would prefer that I cut the fuss and give consecutive numbers to all and only major moons.

Admittedly I have little experience with proper astronomical designation rules. But using numerals for planets and letters for moons keeps them distinct and easier to read at a glance.
A simple number of moonlets with proper listing for major moons seems the best choice for gaming printouts. Especially since moonlets are often temporary things of which even large space stations might qualify.

Bonanza was a very strange set of rolls with no fudging on my part. One of the tow on the cold side of the habitable zones even had thicker than normal atmospheres rendering it even more comfortable for humans.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Well, give me some encouragement and I will probably be finished early next week.

A good form of encouragement would be to check the latest sample output and give me some obviously intelligent commentary. In particular, I should value your views on whether you prefer moons with identifying numbers like "III•3", or whether you would prefer the format "IIIc", and whether you like the implication that moonlets are numbered in some catalogue even through they aren't in the Popular Handbook of the Planets or whether you would prefer that I cut the fuss and give consecutive numbers to all and only major moons.

a) "obviously intelligent commentary" ? Hm. But you failed and didn´t deter me. :-)

b) All moons please. I don´t care whether letters or numerals.

c) Couldn´t the space for Hydrographics be shortened by using abbreviations like H²O or W and HC ? This would create space to show Mass and Density. IMO it´s interesting whether we find something with Density 3 or Density 7.

d) Would it be possible to say not just - for example - Thin atmosphere, but give the pressure as a number as well ? If necessary, I would even prefer the number.