Official Second Edition Public Playtest Thread

Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

I was messing with a tech spreadsheet idea over lunch today, and found a major disconnect in the tech info (or a major disconnect in my understanding).

If you look at 11.5.7 Tech Database, the first entry is Anti-Air (Weapons). It has a prereq of Attrition (0), Mobility (0), and Command (0).

Neither or Attrition and Mobility are in the tech list anywhere that I could find. There are other examples of this.

Now, these items do appear on the draft tech tree.

This forced me to really go back and read the sections, thinking I had missed things and try to correlate the listed techs, the tree, and the pre-req concepts. (I did some fast searches here, if I missed a conversation on this, my apologies.)

I am going to try to articulate my suggestion of what I got to as a workable re-design and maybe what the tech development section is trying to achieve.

===
Tech development includes two branches: Macro/Concept (defense, electronics, propulsion, basing, etc.) and Component/Applied (anti-ship capabilities, FTL, stealth, CIC).

Concept Tech is a relatively short list (replacing the tech tree and equipment tech categories). An empire advances in these tech levels through research, but only rarely does an advance directly impact unit design options. However, the tech level of the Concepts open the path to research/development of specific Applied Tech.

That is, each Applied Tech has a prereq of one or more Concept levels.

Concepts may be more expensive to research, but once an empire has... Electronics (3) they unlock and are able to develop the Applied Techs of EWS(1) or Stealth(1). Once unlocked, each Applied Tech would track its own level. So an Empire may stay at Elec (3), but have achieved Stealth (5) due to strict program focus on that Applied Tech.

Maybe if an empire's Concept is higher than the unlock requirement for an Applied there is a discount on the project to unlock that Applied item. Using my example above, if Stealth unlocks at Elec (3), but my Elec is (5), then there is a lower research cost to unlock Stealth.

I'd have to think through the nuts and bolts of it more, but I have to get back to work :lol:

===

Additional thoughts.

For simplicity any undeveloped tech is rated at zero. Unlocking a tech moves it to one. You either have it (1+) or you don't (0).

I do not see a reason tech advances couldn't allow for non-military items, such as improved productivity investment or bio change. though, I imagine these are companion material. In addition, several of the Menagerie traits (cyborg pops to mind quickly) would be prime candidate for tech research to make available for a race.
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
OldnGrey
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: West Sussex, UK

Post by OldnGrey »

That is a bit weird, the 11.0 technology section that i downloaded (version 12/2/2009) has Attrition on page 9 and Mobility on page 14.

Is there a later version?
On the sheet that I started I had the technologies as "Locked" and then going to 0.

Paul
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

OldnGrey wrote:That is a bit weird, the 11.0 technology section that i downloaded (version 12/2/2009) has Attrition on page 9 and Mobility on page 14.
odd, I must have missed them, but I had copy pasted the list and sorted in excel. very odd. Regardless, despite their presence I still think my suggested approach may be cleaner, particularly with some other thought turned to it. The current proposed seems a little spaghetti to me... though I have not play tested it yet.
Is there a later version?
On the sheet that I started I had the technologies as "Locked" and then going to 0.

Paul
right, I am suggesting locked should be 0 and unlocked starts at 1. It seems more logical to me.
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
nimrodd
Commander
Commander
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:59 am
Location: DFW, TX

Post by nimrodd »

Chyll wrote:
Is there a later version?
On the sheet that I started I had the technologies as "Locked" and then going to 0.

Paul
right, I am suggesting locked should be 0 and unlocked starts at 1. It seems more logical to me.
The problem with this is that the size of the tech is based on the .87 to the TL Power (.87^TL). You have to have the unlocked tech be 0, because anything to the 0 power is 1. So assuming a tech takes up 100 spaces, at TL 0 it is 100 spaces, at TL 1 it is 87 spaces, at TL 5 it is 50 spaces (rounding up), at TL 10 it is 25 spaces.

If you don't have that TL 0, you have to scrap the system and come up with something else.
Jimmy Simpson
OldnGrey
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: West Sussex, UK

Post by OldnGrey »

Sorry, probably talking at cross purposes.
My sheet idea for unit construction was that there would be one list of all technology initially recorded as "Locked"
When unlocked the technology is changed to 0 (11.4.1 para 4). Then advancement is recorded here as normal.
This being the "base" for all unit construction.

The unit construction section then has options based on unit type (ground based or space)(Infantry, vehicle, fixed installation etc.).

However the options list would only contain technolgy which has been unlocked so size of the tech does not become an issue - if it aint unlocked it aint there to be chosen:wink:

The only problem I was having was being sure of which technologies should be available (when unlocked) to each type of unit.

For example, Hanger has been mentioned for infantry units, I would not have imagined that.

A chart of technology against unit type would be very helpful.

Paul
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

nimrodd wrote:
Chyll wrote:
Is there a later version?
On the sheet that I started I had the technologies as "Locked" and then going to 0.

Paul
right, I am suggesting locked should be 0 and unlocked starts at 1. It seems more logical to me.
The problem with this is that the size of the tech is based on the .87 to the TL Power (.87^TL). You have to have the unlocked tech be 0, because anything to the 0 power is 1. So assuming a tech takes up 100 spaces, at TL 0 it is 100 spaces, at TL 1 it is 87 spaces, at TL 5 it is 50 spaces (rounding up), at TL 10 it is 25 spaces.

If you don't have that TL 0, you have to scrap the system and come up with something else.
Ah.
I can never mix math with logic. :lol:
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

My "month from hell" is ebbing a bit, so I actually here to respond to some of the comments and questions.

First, as nimrodd pointed out, the tech level interactions are a requirement of the miniaturization formula. Without it, you would have to add a subtraction step to the calculation (TL - 1), which would become very confusing.

From a logic perspective, your empire doesn't even have a technology on its tech list until it is unlocked, at which point it starts at the absolute minimal level of technical skill (TL 0). It then increases from there.

Regarding the prerequisites, I still need to post an updated copy of that to reflect certain changes, including fixes for some technologies that had problematic prerequisites (such as those that would prevent it from being researched). I have been hoping to get that done sooner, but I need to revisit it first to make sure that the corrections have actually been made.

As for which equipment technologies can be installed aboard which equipment types, I have added notes to this effect to all applicable technologies. In a nut shell, as it stands Defense, Engine, FTL, Anti-Ship, Anti-Fighter, and Atmospheric can only be equipped aboard space combat units, while Attrition, Mobility, Anti-Ground, Anti-Air, and Anti-Sea can only be equipped on ground combat units. Additionally, Flight and Aircraft units cannot be equipped with Basing technologies (as a preemptive defense against the Russian Doll problem).

Otherwise, unless I am missing something, I think all other technologies are completely universal. For example, Stealth on a ship represents sensor-masking technologies, while for a ground unit it might just represent a small, dispersed combat structure that makes it easier for the unit to infiltrate enemy positions.

I think that covers most of the questions, at least those that I immediately saw.

-Tyrel

EDIT: Forgot to include the Engine/Mobility techs up there, as well as FTL. You can't build FTL-capable ground units :)
Last edited by Tyrel Lohr on Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

OK, based on several response it is clear to me that either my post was a muddled, unclear mess OR I really did not understand what I read in the tech file. Or both.
Tyrel Lohr wrote:My "month from hell" is ebbing a bit, so I actually here to respond to some of the comments and questions.

First, as nimrodd pointed out, the tech level interactions are a requirement of the miniaturization formula. Without it, you would have to add a subtraction step to the calculation (TL - 1), which would become very confusing.
*shrug* I understand the math element at this point (which I had not considered before the suggestion). I'd argue that adding a '-1' in the midst of all the other math (throughout the game I mean) in favor of an easy eye check looking at a list as a player is neglible, but I concede the idea as passed over.
From a logic perspective, your empire doesn't even have a technology on its tech list until it is unlocked, at which point it starts at the absolute minimal level of technical skill (TL 0). It then increases from there.
Wait, I'll go back here to use this to explain what I meant. However, I don't just want a list of what I have. I want a list also of what I don't have. A binary on/off is 1/0 seems more logical on the surface. OK, now I concede. I'll have to figure out a way to design my tech reference spreadsheet to use another visual cue. no problem.
Regarding the prerequisites, I still need to post an updated copy of that to reflect certain changes, including fixes for some technologies that had problematic prerequisites (such as those that would prevent it from being researched). I have been hoping to get that done sooner, but I need to revisit it first to make sure that the corrections have actually been made.
Maybe that's what I need to see. My suggestion is that prereqs are always what I am calling the Concept Tech (Orbital, Defense, Weapons, Electronics, Weapons, Cargo, Basing, Propulsion, Command, Medical, Structural,...) Then Applied Tech is rated development of equipment - or available to add to a design - technologies.

So if I want to run the tech development program to unlock Electronic Protections, I need to have reached the prereqs of Defense(1) and Electronics(2).

I want to build a Military Academy, I need Command(2) and maybe something else.

Shipyard (orbital), Maybe I need Orbital(1) and Construction(0).

This suggested approach would just be my starting point if I was tackling it. The current version seemed a little confusing, but that clearly has already been identified in feedback. I guess I need to see the updated version to get a better feel.
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

From the system generation rules:

Is there any particular reason why asteroid belts are a feature of a planet (in 5.6.9.3) rather than as a system-body (or possibly a system terrain)? (indeed, a single planet may have several asteroid belts if it has several moons!)

Also, is the chart in 5.6.1 organised correctly? It seems that hospitable worlds should be close to the middle of the chart (more likely in the middle-zone - your e.g.: Earth) and dead worlds to the top (more likely in the inner-zone, your e.g.: mercury), etc

I'm not sure how complete this chapter is but generally it is very rough reading at the moment, and requires a lot of flicking backwards and forwards (as well as deciphering which bits are relevant to the system generation level you are using)...

Can I suggest at the very least ensuring that the commander/captain/commodore/admiral walk-throughs at the start are very thorough (i.e.: note every single applicable step in the walk-through with page/rule refs at every step), that there are good examples throughout and ideally a couple of different complete examples at the end (perhaps one at commander level and one at admiral level),

Also, can you explain the jump-lane premise? Are jump-lanes intended to have an "exit/entrance" as an object within a system (kind of important as this would represent an important tactical bottleneck when assaulting a system)? I seem to recall that the jumplane premise is from B5, but in B5 the jumplane entrances seem to be large structures? (are they just entrances into "jump space" or are their specific routes through jump space? How do the craft with built-in jump-gates work in this context? Do they still need to follow specific routes? How do they connect with those routes if not near a regular entrance?)

Since jumplanes are the "default" setting, it would be useful to understand them a little better,
Gareth Lazelle
wminsing
Commander
Commander
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:06 pm

Post by wminsing »

Is there any particular reason why asteroid belts are a feature of a planet (in 5.6.9.3) rather than as a system-body (or possibly a system terrain)? (indeed, a single planet may have several asteroid belts if it has several moons!)
Agreed, this struck as odd as well- it certainly would be possible for a planet to have an asteroid belt around it (destroyed moon as an example), but it should be possible for a system to have one as well.
Since jumplanes are the "default" setting, it would be useful to understand them a little better,
I'd actually prefer that we leave jump lanes somewhat abstracted- since they are the default I'd prefer the 'science' behind them be capable of being morphed to fit a variety of games. We can leave the more advanced or alternative movement rules to the CM Guide.

-Will
"Ships and sail proper for the heavenly air should be fashioned. Then there will also be people, who do not shrink from the dreary vastness of space."
-- Johannes Kepler, 1609
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

wminsing wrote:I'd actually prefer that we leave jump lanes somewhat abstracted- since they are the default I'd prefer the 'science' behind them be capable of being morphed to fit a variety of games. We can leave the more advanced or alternative movement rules to the CM Guide.
Thing is that the way they work in-game sort of infers some very specific things about the way they work, which therefore doesn't allow much wiggle-room in the way of morphing,

So to some extent you're already there - it just hasn't been codified into text, just game-rules,

And for a CM it's easier to decide whether I want to keep it or use a different mechanic if I understand what it represents... As well as what the other options are,
Gareth Lazelle
User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by Charles Lewis »

wminsing wrote:
Is there any particular reason why asteroid belts are a feature of a planet (in 5.6.9.3) rather than as a system-body (or possibly a system terrain)? (indeed, a single planet may have several asteroid belts if it has several moons!)
Agreed, this struck as odd as well- it certainly would be possible for a planet to have an asteroid belt around it (destroyed moon as an example), but it should be possible for a system to have one as well.
We had a lengthy discussion about this when Tyrel was first putting these rules together. He had a convincing argument about why they should be done this way, but thanks to small children and chronic sleep deprivation, the details are murky. Hopefully he'll chime in before too long. :)
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

I am finally crawling back out of the pit that has been my uncomfortable abode for the last month...
Gareth_Perkins wrote:From the system generation rules:

Is there any particular reason why asteroid belts are a feature of a planet (in 5.6.9.3) rather than as a system-body (or possibly a system terrain)? (indeed, a single planet may have several asteroid belts if it has several moons!)
The decision was mainly fueled by the fact that asteroid belts on their own don't add much to play, and they are in fact a bit difficult to balance and make interesting enough to keep around. At one point I toyed with throwing them back in, but then relented and tossed them out. I couldn't find a "niche" for them to fill, and they work fairly well as just a type of orbital terrain for a specific planet.

Another reason for the change is that, when Pluto lost planet-hood and Ceres et al. got promoted, the solar system no longer has a distinct asteroid belt, per se -- it has a Cerean dwarf planet in an asteroid belt.

One middle-ground option would be to have ALL Cerean dwarfs have an asteroid belt present. That would give you us a de facto asteroid belt result, but be consistent with the rest of the rules.

Also, is the chart in 5.6.1 organised correctly? It seems that hospitable worlds should be close to the middle of the chart (more likely in the middle-zone - your e.g.: Earth) and dead worlds to the top (more likely in the inner-zone, your e.g.: mercury), etc
All of the rocky planets in our solar system are in the inner zone. The middle zone is from Ceres on out to Saturn, and then the outer zone is everything beyond that. You are really only ever going to find Hospitable planets in the inner zone, as that is the only zone that is close enough to the star to allow for a Goldilocks zone to exist. The further you get away from the star, the worse the planets become.

I'm not sure how complete this chapter is but generally it is very rough reading at the moment, and requires a lot of flicking backwards and forwards (as well as deciphering which bits are relevant to the system generation level you are using)...
Most of the info is here, but it is a patchwork of new rules and unpublished material from Star Charts. The steps for all of the system generation options still have to be completed (I don't think Commodore and Admiral even have steps yet in this draft), but they will provide an overview of what steps are required to complete system generation for that option. As mentioned in another thread, IIRC, there will be crib sheet versions that can be printed that will have all of the necessary charts in one place for ease of use during play.

Unfortunately, however, there is no way to get around the page turning in the final book, because all of the system generation options use the same set of rules. And, because of that, it doesn't make much sense to push the star generation rules to the back when they are the first step for one of the options (and could be used by any of them, actually, if the players wanted to).

Originally the planet statistic information was in the front of the chapter, but that ended up not making sense because those stats are tied to planets, not star systems -- so it makes more sense to discuss them alongside planets.

Can I suggest at the very least ensuring that the commander/captain/commodore/admiral walk-throughs at the start are very thorough (i.e.: note every single applicable step in the walk-through with page/rule refs at every step), that there are good examples throughout and ideally a couple of different complete examples at the end (perhaps one at commander level and one at admiral level),
Page references are a bad idea (because they break too easily), but rules references will be used (and fairly easy to find on a skim through). The steps for each option will be fairly thorough, providing you with what you are supposed to be doing -- which basically ends up being instructions to roll on a specified table.

In relation to examples, the best option will be to have some integrated examples, likely at the end of each option, that demonstrates exactly what is required to create a star system using that option.

Also, can you explain the jump-lane premise? Are jump-lanes intended to have an "exit/entrance" as an object within a system (kind of important as this would represent an important tactical bottleneck when assaulting a system)? I seem to recall that the jumplane premise is from B5, but in B5 the jumplane entrances seem to be large structures? (are they just entrances into "jump space" or are their specific routes through jump space? How do the craft with built-in jump-gates work in this context? Do they still need to follow specific routes? How do they connect with those routes if not near a regular entrance?)
Jump lanes will have exit/entrance points (jump points) if using detailed system maps. The rules for this can be found in the VBAM promo PDF that I posted yesterday in the other thread. They don't exist elsewhere, other than units that enter or exit a system must be in the system's outskirts before they can move.

This basic jump lane conceit that units must be in the outskirts to perform interstellar jumps is mostly a game mechanic chose than anything else, and if it runs contrary to your setting you can always remove that limit.

In the case of B5-like jump gates, something similar will appear in the Engineering Manual that will allow ships to enter hyperspace and begin movement wherever the jump gate is located.

As for the more basic question of "what is a jump lane?", they are whatever you want them to be. They can be B5-style hyperspace beacon paths, or they might just be mapped paths through space that ships with warp engines or hyperdrives use to move from one location to another.

Since jumplanes are the "default" setting, it would be useful to understand them a little better,
Understood. I will add some background to the jump lanes section of the rules explaining what they are.

-Tyrel
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

wminsing wrote:Agreed, this struck as odd as well- it certainly would be possible for a planet to have an asteroid belt around it (destroyed moon as an example), but it should be possible for a system to have one as well.
As I stated in the previous post, I could go either way with the asteroid belt debate, and I have actually added them and removed them several times as I fought that personal battle over whether they are worth including or not.

If they were included, they would be pretty worthless astronomic bodies with no real reason for anyone to visit them.... which is another reason that I ended up just bundling them into a planet special in the current build; they just don't serve enough of a purpose to make them worthwhile, unless I moved the siphoning and asteroid mining rules back into the main book.

I'd actually prefer that we leave jump lanes somewhat abstracted- since they are the default I'd prefer the 'science' behind them be capable of being morphed to fit a variety of games. We can leave the more advanced or alternative movement rules to the CM Guide.
This is my preference, too. Jump lanes can represent anything; they're just travel routes that connect systems to one another. They might represent the only safe paths available, or simply the fastest. You might be flying through hyperspace, warp, mass relays, oblivion gates, or whatever when you travel across them. The particulars really don't matter, so long as the travel method allows for multi-turn movement and agrees that units need specific technologies to travel in that manner.

-Tyrel
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

Tyrel Lohr wrote:I am finally crawling back out of the pit that has been my uncomfortable abode for the last month...
Good to see you back,
Tyrel Lohr wrote:Asteroid Belt Stuff...
Just to throw fuel onto the fire here...

While you have a very good point from a purely scientific point of view, which of these situations seems more likely:

1. My scout returns from a newly discovered system and reports that there are a couple of gas giants, a large rocky planet and a couple of tiny rocky planetoids.
Later on when we do the system survey the survey team reports back "oh, by the way, those two planetoids are in a large asteroid belt".

- or -

2. My scout returns from a newly discovered system and reports that there are a couple of gas giants, a large rocky planet and a large asteroid belt.
Later on when we do the system survey the survey team reports back "good news, we discovered a couple of planetoids in the belt that are large enough to house a station".

To my mind in the sequence of likely events, 2 seems more plausible as a belt of asteroids is probably more noticeable than a couple of asteroids a bit bigger than the asteroids around them (or to put it another way - you could miss the cerean planetoids, but missing the belt seems off),

I figure there are a couple of options here:

1. Make Cerean Dwarfs a trait of an asteroid belt instead (or as well as) a planet-type (i.e.: if a system has a belt, then the belt gets rolls on a chart to discover if or how many cerean dwarfs, etc are present when the survey team goes in).

2. Make asteroid belts a system terrain item (this could work pretty well, but might require some thought to integrate it into the likelihood of cerean dwarfs showing up). This would allow you to have asteroid combats, etc which would be quite apt for some genres (so the belts definitely have some effect on the game),

or as you say, granting cerean dwarfs their own belt automatically (or perhaps on a simple die roll), if you go down this route then you may want the cerean dwarf planet item count for several dwarfs (you could have several cerean dwarfs in a belt)
Tyrel Lohr wrote:The decision was mainly fueled by the fact that asteroid belts on their own don't add much to play
Well, to be fair, neither do a whole bunch of other things in the Admiral system generation rules... I mean, the star type has no function once the system has been designed,

Tyrel Lohr wrote:All of the rocky planets in our solar system are in the inner zone. The middle zone is from Ceres on out to Saturn, and then the outer zone is everything beyond that. You are really only ever going to find Hospitable planets in the inner zone, as that is the only zone that is close enough to the star to allow for a Goldilocks zone to exist. The further you get away from the star, the worse the planets become.
Fair 'nuff,

Guess I'm used to RPGs defining inner as "too hot for life", middle as "just right" and outer as "too cold" - but by the sounds of it your choice makes better sense,
Tyrel Lohr wrote:Most of the info is here, but it is a patchwork of new rules and unpublished material from Star Charts. The steps for all of the system generation options still have to be completed (I don't think Commodore and Admiral even have steps yet in this draft), but they will provide an overview of what steps are required to complete system generation for that option. As mentioned in another thread, IIRC, there will be crib sheet versions that can be printed that will have all of the necessary charts in one place for ease of use during play.
Well, I mention it because I had a good look with an eye to producing a revised system-generation tool - so I had a fairly in-depth look at the differences between the four systems so that I could make decisions about the classes I will need to construct,

I think 90% of the needed materiel is there - it's mostly a case of tidying things up and finishing off odds and ends,
Tyrel Lohr wrote:As for the more basic question of "what is a jump lane?", they are whatever you want them to be. They can be B5-style hyperspace beacon paths, or they might just be mapped paths through space that ships with warp engines or hyperdrives use to move from one location to another.
The way the rules are written imply some definite stuff,

e.g.:

Jump lanes are almost certainly natural - why else would they cluster around black holes (+8 jumplane modifier?) and other inhospitable systems (I guess they could be an older civilisations leftovers, but they must have been really odd if so - Black Hole aliens -Yay!-), this more or less offs the "mapped paths" explanation, and suggests a naturally occurring fixed route (wormhole-like perhaps)

Jumplanes previously do not seem to have small fixed entrances/exits, as there is no way to effectively blockade them - so either the entrances are so vast that a blockade is ineffective, or it is simply a case that proximity to a star system prevents access to them,

etc, etc, etc...

I guess what I am saying is that the game already has evidence of what wormholes are - it just doesn't explicitly state anything, and given that most other options have a description this one feels absent,
Gareth Lazelle
Locked