Universe Thoughts

From post #1853 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

I am working on Equipment Kits to be introduced in a new adventure series slowly being crafted in the Universe Development Group (UDG). A kit is pretty much exactly what it sounds like - an assembly of equipment and devices to aid a particular activity. An example will look something like this:

Swimmers/Snorkel Kit - Gender specific swim suit, adjustable flippers, respirator-snorkel, variable tint swimmers goggles, swimmers belt w/ sealed compartments and equipment loops, compact self inflating flotation device, 25.0m fine rope, waterproof head lamp, aquatic in-ear radio receiver and waterproof first aid kit with water resistant bandages and salves.
CIV Level: 6, Wt (Kg): 4.0, Price (T): 0.25, Skill Bonus: n/a, TNFU: AR, BRT: 10 min

Providing kits give characters a good variety of mundane items without the player, GM, or adventure designer having to micro manage every thimble at their disposal. Kits of course would vary, and the chance of a kit containing a particular pertinent item in good working order would be: Base Chance + IN + Skill^2. The intelligence and skill levels are those of the individual that purchased the kit, reflecting an understanding of what items are important to have, and how best to keep these items in good condition.

Category Base Chance
Common Item/Commonly used kit 75%
Uncommon Item/Uncommonly Used Kit 50%
Rare Item/Rarely Used Kit 25%

You will note in the Categories above that both the typical availability of a sought after item, and the frequency that the kit is used play a role in determining the base chance of successfully finding the item in good working order. In the event that a mix of Categories are pertinent (seeking a Common Item in Rarely Used Kit), two rolls are made: one for availability, and one for usable condition. Also, devious GMs may determine that parties that have gone a long time between opportunities to resupply may have commonly used kits treated as uncommonly used or rarely used kits due to ware of items, depletion of consumable items in the kit, etc..

Using this formula and the example given above, upon going to the kit for some item, they may find that Billy, with the low skill and questionable intelligence, has a kit that contains an unusable swim suit (common) as it was simply stuffed back into the kit after its last use, without any effort to make sure it was ready for the next usage, whereas Sarah, with the descent skill and impressive intelligence, not only has the self inflating flotation device in good working order, but has the self adhesive repair patch for it (rare), which is what they were hoping to find in the first place.

I realize this seems like an awful lot of rules in order to cover an equipment item, but these rules would apply to a large array of different kits, in the end possibly representing hundreds of items.

I think the greatest benefit to the further incorporation of kits (we already have Tech kits) comes when a party is far from populated worlds, trying to conduct activities, repairs, etc. with the mix of things they happened to have brought with them. If the party narrowly escapes an encounter with the bog monster by shoving their first aid kit into its open maw, it gives them a chance of recovering by pressing a smaller first aid kit from a Swimmers or Climbers kit into use.

The only disadvantage I can see is that it may undo some GM planning. For example, if the GM creates a situation that yields the parties flashlight useless, so as to have the party better appreciate the pit strewn caverns, he may see his efforts undone by an enterprising party that finds an alternative light source in one of their sundry kits. Incorporating a die roll into the process is specifically designed to keep control over what might be available to a party via these kits in the GMs hands.

Before I go incorporating all of this into the adventure series, I thought it prudent to gather the advice of GMs and Players familiar with the game mechanics. Is this adding a beneficial system to the game, or just further complicating things? Please take a look at it, and let me know what you think.

-Drew

From post #1780 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

I've recently discovered that there is NO mechanic in Universe for using a club as a weapon.
The three mechanics covered are: Unarmed Combat, Blade Combat, and Body Armor Combat - all listed in section [29.9] and all pretty similar.

In trying to come up with a way to address Clubs and other Blunt Object attacks, I'm considering the following, and wanted to run it past this group, in case someone had already dealt with it, and had some ideas.

Attacking or Defending with a Blunt Object. The character's Dexterity, Strength, or Agility Rating (his choice) is added to the Hit Strength* of the object being used as a weapon plus the square of his Unarmed Combat Skill Level. If the character is not skilled, he uses only the Hit Strength of the Weapon.

Formula: Trained Hit Strength = (DX** or ST or AY) + Weapon HS + Unarmed Combat Skill^2

Formula: Untrained Hit Strength = Weapon HS only

*Weapon Hit Strength for Blunt Objects shall be the Mass of the object in full Kilograms (fractions ignored). A character may only wield a weapon that is equal to or less than his Strength in Kilograms. (For example, a large 15 lb (6.78 kg) wrench would have a Hit Strength of 6, and require a Strength of 6 to wield.)

** In order to use the Dexterity Rating the Blunt Object must have a mass in kilograms of 1/2 (rounding up) of the character's Strength rating.

For anyone trying special actions with their Blunt Object (knocking out a window, Smashing the camp's generator, etc) we go back to the Accident Avoidance Mechanic, with a 75% chance of success with an Common act, a 50% chance of success with an Uncommon act, and 25% chance with a Rare Act (Accident/Act Type to be determined by GM). Skilled Characters get to add a pertinent characteristic (DX or ST or AY) and the square of their Unarmed Combat Skill to this base chance.

Trying to use a Blunt Object that exceeds the Strength limitation forces the character to use the weapon as if unskilled.

Throwing a Blunt Object is identical to throwing a dagger (same range modifiers, etc), but uses the Hit Strength of the Blunt Object. The Unarmed Combat Skill is still used for this purpose.

This adds quite a bit to the Unarmed Combat Skill, but as our game is already in play, we try not to invent skills that the players did nothave a chance to pick during character creation. Anyway, Unarmed Combat benefits from experience like all skills, and part of a character's brawling history and experience likely includes using what ever was handy as a makeshift weapon.

The dexterity limitation allows brass knuckle type weapons that allow dexterity to be used, but prevents a character from using a baseball bat as a finesse weapon unless he's strong enough to manage it.

Using the Mass of an object to determine a weapon's Hit Strength stems from the encumbrance rules [26.5]. Anything more massive than this would leave the character "hindered" which would offset it's usefulness as a weapon.

Any input, advice, or feedback is welcome.

Drew

From post #1775 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

Has anyone worked with Indoor Terrain Modifiers? Since Terrain Modifiers are used for calculating movement rates, and have such an impact on ranged weapons, it seems that indoor terrain modifiers are needed, reflecting the obstacles and cover an indoor environ may contain.

We already have the URBAN environ skill to cover these indoor terrains, but it appears that every urban environ is treated the same. I'm thinking it may be split into at least 3 different types of Terrains.

Indoor Cramped/Cluttered: Areas that control the flow of traffic through an area filled with equipment or other obstructions, or simply small in size. (examples: Small craft interiors, Bridge, inside of a Hunter pod, Air duct, etc.)
Terrain Modifier: 5(3), Action Modifier: -10 Note: TM of 5 for movement, TM of 3 for targeting.
Indoor Standard: Open enough to dodge about, but not normally open enough to build to a full run. Also applies to an open room with significant obstacles, such as a fountain or equipment. (examples: most rooms with furniture, many pods, engineering section, hallways, and most port facilities)
Terrain Modifier: 2, Action Modifier: -4

Indoor Open: A large room, or other open area that is easy to move (or aim) through. (examples: plaza, Cargo hold, ship bay, etc.)
Terrain Modifier: 1, Action Modifier: 0

I'm not completely satisfied with splitting movement and targeting terrain modifiers for the Cramped/cluttered terrain, but I can't think of a better way to do it. It's as difficult to move through as Jungle/Mountains or Forest/Peaks, but doesn't offer the same kind of escape from attack. There may be a better way to do this.

Also, as it is going to come up, we might be able to use indoor terrain modifiers when firing through an opening or aperture. Maybe something like this:

When firing through a LARGE aperture (open double doors, archway, etc.), the Terrain Modifier of the target is treated as +1 higher than stated (max 5).

When firing through a HUMAN SIZED single door or large window, the Terrain Modifier of the target is treated as +2 higher than stated (max 5).

LARGE and HUMAN SIZED are the same terms used for describing target size in figure [29.6] of the GM's guide. With grenades and other area effect weapons, just getting it though the doorway is often all that is required.

I know this adds math and complexity to a system that is already rife with both, but it seems a bit more consistent with the scheme used for representing obstacles and cover in the many outdoor environ types.

Anyway, let me know if this sounds right, and whether there may be a better way to go about doing this.

Drew

From post #1756 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

James Goltz writes:
>There's no way to get the science to make sense as is.
>Either accept much longer trip times or worry about game mechanics and
>not science.

And Timmothy Lanza responded:
>Sure there is... Change the mass of one "unit" of radioactives. The rest of
>the values involved are real-world known science values. The unit/mass
>conversion is a game abstraction, so adjust the abstraction layer.

I think this "change the mass" idea may work, and it kind of helps by changing the way we look at some other numbers in Universe.

First it helps a bit with the Energy capacities of spacecraft and energy pods. The energy pod, having 144 units of energy, only needs space enough for 144 kilograms, which for Uranium, is about the size of a cube 20 cm per side. One could argue that the rest of the energy pod's mass and space is taken up by shielding, energy converters, relays, etc., but using the e-pod stacking rules, we need to account for PERHAPS as much as 17,000+ kg of this extra stuff. The same problem comes up in the little bit we are given on designing new ships. It costs 10 Trans per energy unit in new ship designs, yet we could very likely fit as much as 144 kgs in the same space a 1 passenger compartment at 100 Trans.

The other number thing it may change a bit is how we look at radioactives. One kg of raw radioactives has a base value of 40 Trans/ton (0.04 Trans/kg). One energy unit sells for 0.3 Trans/kg. One presumes that refining to fuel grade increases the value of the radioactives by 750%.

One way to use TLanza's idea of increasing the mass of one unit of fuel, would be to say 1 unit of fuel is 7.5 kg, and that all that extra mass taken up by ship energy capacities and energy pods include fuel processing. Doing this, we have 7.5 kg of mass to use in total conversion processes (e=mc^2), yet 1 unit of fuel still cost 0.3 Trans/unit and 1 kilogram of raw radioactives still go for 0.04 Trans/kg.

The energy pod still only accounts for 1,080 kg of fuel (a bit over 1 cubic meter of uranium), but we now KNOW that radioactive processing/refining is taking place as well as all the relays, shielding, etc. We've gained something.

7.5 kg of fuel, using e=mc^2 yields e = 7.5 kg * (3.0e8 m/sec)^2 or 6.75e17 kg-m^2/sec^2 (Joules) for total conversion of mass to energy.

Assuming that 1 Universe Energy Unit (ueu) = 6.75e17 Joules, we can calculate ship mass.

For an example, lets look at a ship with energy burn rate (ebr) of 3, making an 89 AU trip at 1 gee acceleration with mid-point turn-around and deceleration.

Remembering that 1 AU = 1.5e11 meters, the mid point is a distance of 6,675,000,000,000 meters. Since d=.5*a*t^2, the time to reach this mid point is 1,166,557 seconds. (I could have used 1/2 of the 68*sqrt(d) time formula from the GM's guide, but it rounds a bit more than I want for this).

At the midpoint our velocity is v=at or 9.81 m/sec^2 * 1,166,557 sec or 11,443,924 m/sec.

At one Gee, a ship with a mass of 3 ebr would spend 3 ueu per hour, and 1/2 of this total or 40.5 ueu during the acceleration leg.

Since we are assuming 1 energy unit = 6.75e17 Joules, the total energy for this leg is 40.5 * 6.75e17 or 27,337,500,000,000,000,000 Joules.

With KE = .5 * mass * v^2 if follows that 2.7e19 Joules = .5 * mass * (11,443,924 m/sec)^2, or mass (in Kg) = 2 * (2.7e19 joules) / (11,443,924 m/sec)^2) or 412,328 kgs. Since we are kind of trying to equate mass with ebr's, our 3 ebr ship has a mass of 412,328 kgs, or 137,443 kg per point of ebr.

That seems too much mass for a spacecraft with energy burn rate of 3 (to me), so lets try it a different way. Lets say that every EBR represents 40,000 kg - the 35 metric tons of cargo for a cargo pod + 5000 kg of structure, air lock, etc. (A refrigerated 40' x 8' x 8' cargo container has an empty mass of around 4500 kg - regular containers are less massive, but refrigerated units are sealed and insulated the way we would expect a pod to be.)

A ship with an energy burn rate of 3 would then mass near 120,000 kgs. Going back to the formulas, we see that using the same trip details, our less massive craft needs:

KE = .5 * 120,000 kgs * (11,443,924 m/sec)^2 or 7,857,803,791,066,560,000 Joules. Since it takes 40.5 units of energy to make the first leg of the trip, thats 194,019,846,693,001,481 Joules per Unit.

Since we already know 7.5 kgs can produce 6.75e17 Joules, yet in this case it's only producing 1.94e17 Joules, it follows that we are only converting mass to energy at 28.74% efficiency.

It's important to note that some chunky rounding takes place in order to get EBR's to whole numbers, and we have a range of kg to EBR conversions that will work without pushing the mass to energy conversion over 100% efficiency.

Put in a chart, the 40,000 kg per EBR assumption, looks something like this.

EBR Mean Mass (kg) Mass Range (kg)
1 40,000 20,000 to 60,000
2 80,000 60,000 to 100,000
3 120,000 100,000 to 140,000
...

Using some of the real world masses JimG gave earlier, it would make the Apollo Command and Service Module (30 tons) a 1 EBR craft and the shuttle orbiter at 100 tons (fuel, no payload) on the cusp between 2 and 3, with a load pushing it more squarely into 3. (JimG gave figures in Tons instead of Tonnes, but they're close enough for the broad mass ranges).

For Universe Craft, it may mean that a 4-pod Civ 8 Flute with an EBR of 6, has a full mass of 240,000 kg, and that if it was moving around with all 4 pods missing (at 40,000 kg per pod), it may only have a mass around 80,000 kg (down to EBR 2). This makes a lot of assumptions about the mass for different pods, but it's a fair enough abstraction for these purposes.

I think the TLanza "adjust the abstraction" method, with further development, has the potential to fix some of the problems being discussed. It doesn't change the fact that the amount of energy we are talking about is enormous and it leaves us dealing with reactionless drives, but at least we can find the energy to make the math work, and it can yield ship masses that are not entirely out of line.

All this may also require one more adjustment. It has already been pointed out that the given energy rates per hour for the various accelerations come close to 24/a^2. As this does not come close to the KE formula and doesn't yield recognizable energy units - it may well need adjusted when using real mass values.

The current formula for determining total trip energy required for a trip is:

Total Energy = EBR * (68 * sqrt(d))/24 for 1 gee acceleration

For a universal formula, we get something that works for any acceleration, with some known problems (see other post) around 2.5 gees.

Total energy = ebr * a^2/24 * 68.64 * sqrt(1/a) * sqrt (d) (This can be simplified a bit, but it doesn't make it prettier).

Using the Known Mass method, and the 1.94e17 Joule per Energy Unit figure, the Total Trip Energy formula becomes:

KE (in ueu) = 0.3 * EBR * A (in gees) * D (in AU's)

It's already universal for all masses, gees, and AU's. It's also a much friendlier formula, and yields a unit that can be recognized as an energy unit. However, it only matches the traditional formula at 89 au, and yields less energy than the traditional formulas on shorter trips, and more energy on the longer trips, again because the traditional formula is not a real energy formula.

This is really just a first look at what could be done. EBR is mainly mass, but it also reflects differences in drive efficiency that may vary over CIV level, among dozens of other things that may be incorporated to complicate the basic math. Anyway its done, the real work comes in determining ship component and pod masses, and once this is done, dealing with the inevitable question that follows - how big is a pod?


Drew

From post #1672 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

Hi Rodger, and thank you for delurking!

Rodger writes (a couple of posts back):
>I initially liked the idea of a jump point station. But how much
>margin of error is there in jump arrival points? If it is not a
>specific point, but a region sufficiently distant from the gravity
>wells of planet and star, then isn't there a possibility of an inbound
>ship colliding with such a station?

On the hyperjump table, a PERFECT jump arrives at the jump-point, and a GOOD jump is 1-10 AU away from the jump-point. This implies that anything within 1 AU of the jump-point is considered a great success, and reveals that the successful jump-region is enormous enough to discount the chance of collision with any jump-point stations or inbound/outbound traffic.

This brings up something new. An inbound ship may still be as much as 68 hours away (at 1 gee) from the quick-stop near-jump-point station on a successful jump. If a craft is just hopping through the system, deciding to visit the near jump-point station is still adding days to their interstellar trip.

We may use a percentile role to see what percent of the 1 AU the arriving ship is from the station. Even a roll of 1% of the full 1 AU, would take 6.8 hours to cross (at 1 gee) and be represented by 75 Delta Vee Hexes. Getting close to a jump-point station when we make a PERFECT jump may be the real problem.

If we want to rendezvous with another craft arriving at a jump-point, we may be as far away as 2 AU.

>Then again, maybe such a station could be positioned to be just inside
>the gravity margin, so that it wasn't in peril of colliding with a
>ship, but was close enough to be useful, without being down in
>planetary orbit.

Realizing that the successful jump region is fairly enormous, we don't need to tuck the near jump-point station inside the gravity well for collision avoidance, but there is another reason that we may want to do this, especially once we realize that any inbound craft is going to have a bit of transit time anyway.

In Universe, the best object scan is the military 10 hex scan associated with the Battle Communications Pod. The CIV 8 guided missile has 10 energy points, so after 10 fifteen minute Delta Vee Rounds, it could be traveling at 10 hexes per round,and impact the station on the round after detection. It is true that a missile traveling at this velocity only has a 30% chance of hitting the station, but the station also has a tough time hitting a target moving at this velocity, so a flock of missiles has a good chance of taking the station out.

If we tuck the station just inside the jump-point distance, instead of using a spherical scan of 10 hexes in all directions, we may be able to focus a conical scan on the jump-point region, and reach out a bit further in a 15 minute active scan - maybe even to 100 hexes for a tight cone. It will also help if our near jump-point station is capable of performing a WEAVE command.

This is not full proof protection. All inbound traffic to the near jump-point station will be accelerating toward the station, performing a turn around (or reversing thrust), and decelerating. If they launched missiles at the turn-around point, these missiles are approaching the station at enormous velocities, even if they just release the missiles in a stealthy zero-burn approach. The good news is that at this kind of velocity the missiles have a very hard time hitting the station, and do not have sufficient energy to turn around for a second attempt.

Drifting further off topic, this launch from the turn-around point may be indefensible when it is used to attack something large like a planet or moon. It may not be able to hit a specific target on the surface, and it may well burn up in the atmosphere (if one exists), but it might be impossible to stop it from getting at least this far with such little time between detection and impact.

Drew

From post #1653 of http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

LJim writes:
>Of course since Universe does have the Psionic Institute, I am also
>o.k. with and mildly in favor with, the idea that the Institute might
>actually have a way around this - but it would have to be extremely
>difficult to use and probably so high priced that only wealthy
>governments and coporations can afford to use it in minimal
>situations.

The GM's guide says the Interstellar Commlink costs 2 trans for the device, plus a 50 mil connection charge, and a 5 mil per light year long-distance charge per call. This is pretty steep for a "short message." If the Commlink communication is anything akin to the Psionic Communications Skill, the resulting message might not just be short, but also vague, and often only a one-way message may come through. Also, the psionic communications skill is limited to 1 use per day between 2 specific individuals, which may mean commlink delays.

MK's Interstellar Commlink rings, indicating that he has an Interstellar Communication being transmitted to him by the local psionic institute.

"Yes Sir, you have a call from Commlink 32933232 in the Eridani System - your message reads, 'We need something orange.'"

It's easy to imagine the comedy that follows, as numerous interstellar Commlink messages go back and forth, trying to figure out just what the folks on Eridani need, especially with the helpful psions always seeming to be just one more call away from getting the last bit of necessary detail, at 100 mill per call.

We are not told that the Intsteller Commlink is similar to Psionic Communication, but it's hard to imagine that Interstellar Communication results in a more reliable exchange of information than communicating psionically with someone across the room. I agree with LJim, this is not a viable system for placing Interstellar orders.

LJim Continues
>...Independent "Free Traders" become a very
>powerful class of society on which worlds are rather dependant as
>they can't phone in orders and have Galactic Express jump them next
>day. There might well even be a large Guild along the line of
>Cherryh's Merchanter novels. The trading itself is going to be
>highly speculative, even upon frequently travelled established
>routes...

Free Traders, and speculative trading are the premises upon which Star Trader is based. However, if I run a remote colony, I am not going to count on traders arriving with the goods I need to sustain operations, nor will I tolerate free traders setting the prices I'm going to pay for incoming goods, or the income I receive for the goods my colony produces.

I will send a purchasing agent to where the goods are, let him purchase those goods at a good price from the source, and arrange for transportation among the competing freighters in that less remote system, with the promise of reloading the ship with my goods when he gets here, and sending him back toward civilization, where I have already negotiated prices for my commodity. If I'm too tight to pay the going rate for freight, then I'll buy a ship, and transport the stuff myself.

I will do this for everything I need, and to the best of my ability, I will stockpile those things at my colony. In many cases, Federation worker protection agencies, and Colonial Insurance Companies will have insisted that I submit a plan detailing how I intend to keep the colony supplied, and what stockpiles and backup systems I intend to maintain.

So when the free traders come, with their steaks, my colonist will be assured that I have already provided them with SPAM, that I have a few Pods worth in storage, and that there is more on the way, They will enter negotiations because they are interested in some variety, not because they are hungry. This makes the Free Traders popular, but not necessarily powerful.

I will provide my colonist with food, water, air, shelter, medical care, any tools and safety gear they need for the job, and a wage or share of the profits for the work they do. Trying to do this based solely on speculative trade, and free trader traffic to my colony, means I will have good months, and I will have bad months, and the few good months I see, is often due to more than one free trader showing up with the same commodity at the same time. When I'm not so lucky, there will be times that I'm operating at a loss, or I have to explain to my share-workers that their share is so low this month, because we ate steak last month. It's hard to draw workers out to the colony unless I can guarantee them a certain wage. It's even harder to draw them out to the colony, when they realize a poor run of free traders may leave the colony lacking something they need for survival. It's hard to gather backers for the colony in the first place, unless I can show that I intend to have profits.

Now if the workers want to spend their wages on what free traders may bring, this is entirely up to them, and there may even be times when a free trader has something I want. But for the most part, my colony will be a Cake of a very precise recipe, with all the ingredients very carefully measured, and ordered months in advance to arrive on schedule. The free traders only get to provide the icing.

Drew

From Post #1633 at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Universe_RPG/

SpyOne writes:
>Here's an interesting related question: how far from the nearest massive
>object must a ship be to jump?
>For example, the Jump Point for a planet in orbit 12 of an M Class star is
>0 AU from the planet. How far from the planet must one go?


You get kind of close to the base distances given for the 5 stellar types, by using the formula:

Base Distance (AU) = sqrt(Stellar Mass/.0001) where the stellar mass is in Sol masses, or in a friendlier format,

Base Distance (AU) = 100 x sqrt(Stellar Mass)

This is a distance where the stellar gravity field strength is 1/10,000 that which is experienced in our solar system at 1.0 AU from the Sun.

Converting this to Planetary Masses, yields:

Base Distance (AU) = 0.1726 x sqrt(Earth Mass) with planet mass in Earth masses

or

Base Distance (AU)= 3.0 x sqrt(Jovian Mass) with planet mass in Jupiter masses.

For visualization purposes, 1 AU = 7500 Delta Vee hexes.


It can get uglier, as this only gives us the Base Distance from where we start doing the rest of the math. You will note that Jump Points, using the GM's guide formula, always result in the jump point being less than Base Distance Given, since we subtract the distance to the Central Star from the Base Distance, to know how far above/below the jump point resides. In fact, based on your math, we know that the further the destination planet's orbit is from the star, the closer to the star the jump point actually is, as we get to reduce how far above/below the plane of the ecliptic we are. To put that another way, the further away the destination planet resides from the central star, the deeper the jump point is the gravity well of the star. Perplexing.

However, since it is so rare that we will be jumping to planet in the 12 orbit of an M star, I'd just use the Derived Base Distances as a good safe distance, and realize I may be able to reduce the distance a bit with some risk.


SpyOne Continues:
>Specifically, how close to the Jump Point could I build a space station
>before it would much with Jump Travel?
>Because the primary expense of interstellar travel is the cost of moving to
>and from the Jump Point, and because ships will sometimes need to make a
>long trip in several "hops" (because the Navigator cannot make the entire
>trip safely, but can make several shorter trips), there is some value in
>only sending to a world passengers and cargo actually destined for that
>world, while the rest stays closer to the Jump Point.

There may certainly be some savings in having a pod barge with a low Energy Burn Rate moving back and forth between the planets orbit and one of it's growing number of jump points, specifically to pick up pods destined for the planet.

>My biggest question about this, if it would work, would be putting it in a
>stable orbit. If it is orbiting the star, it might only be useful a few
>times a year, while spending most of it's orbit where a distance of X above
>it is still too far inside the gravity well. But if it could be worked out,
>it seems like not only an economical idea, but also 2 birds with one stone,
>in that it offers a "psychic target" that could be closer to the
>mathematical "closest point".

An alternate to this may be putting an interstellar trade hub exactly at the Base Distance from the Star, resulting in a situation similar to the 12th orbit of a class M Star. This station would be a long way from the other planets in the system, but it would make a quick stop for someone jumping in and out of the system. If the trade route between Planet Ester and Planet Gertrude is easier for most psions if they stop over at Planet Augusta, putting a station at the Base Distance from Planet Augusta's star, would give the psion a target, and permit a quick journey on to the next destination. It should be remembered, however, that if they do not need to interact with the local system at all, ANY jump point in the system is OK for a quick jump in, jump out.

For a less visited destination, Cargo may even gather at such a hub, until a pod or pods worth is accumulated, so that shipment can be arranged. The hub's economy may be totally unrelated to the systems economy, if the local system doesn't make anything the less visited system needs, and in fact it may be owned and operated by the less visited destination, allowing them to access interstellar trade, without actually drawing much traffic to their lonely planet.

I haven't done the math (I'm not sure I could) on your inclined, extremely elliptical orbit taking the station out near the closest possible jump point, but I'm guessing that it's approach to that distant point would be closer to every couple of years, rather than a couple of times a year, making it less useful.

Just some thoughts.

Drew