The Quick Questions About World Building Thread

Yea the answer to that is going to depend heavily on how elves actually age. But also, why would their development be so much slower? unless they're also twice as smart and capable as humans. A major reason humans take so long to develop (compared to many animals) is simply that our brain is quite big and capable and so we have to birth babies early or we can't birth them at all. Babies will then continue to develop their brain. It's also part of why we have no childhood memories, since how we store memories changes after like age 4-5.

If Elves age twice as slow, the question would be why.

But broadly speaking, if their appearance also changes half as fast, wouldn't these elves behave exactly as humans do but simply on double the timeframe? they go to elementary twice as long, middle school twice as long, etc and simply learn at half the rate.

There are evolutionary reasons for aging rates to be coupled to physical development rates - if aging begins before one is ready to reproduce, it will be selected against. Whereas if it begins once you have had plenty of time to reproduce, it won't be selected against. Because of this, life expectancy tends to depend on development rate.

Note physical development - it's primarily about when you can begin to reproduce. Brain development follows different timelines that don't have to be correlated.

I know it might sound weird, but if elves evolved in mutagenic or nutrient-poor environments, they might naturally have a slower development speed. High mutation rates means that the body has to double check every new cell for potential cancer-causing mutations and this will slow down physical development. Nutrient-poor means that you can only grow slowly.

I have coined the following "levels" of "megacorp-ness", and would like feedback on them.

• Macrocorp: The corp is a highly influential, albeit not truly dominant force within the economy and politics of its host country (i.e. where's headquartered and mainly operates). On the global stage, it holds relatively limited ability to project power on its own.

• Megacorp: The corp is a dominant economic and political power within its host country (compare Samsung within South Korea), and can use that to project its power significantly on the global stage. At this level, the corp can butt heads with political middle powers and expect a reasonable chance of getting its way.

• Gigacorp: The great powers of the corporate world. The sperm whales to the megacorps' orcas and the macrocorps' sharks. They hold a position of economic and political dominance within numerous countries, and can project enough of both soft and hard power on the global stage that they can stand toe to toe with the political great powers.

If I were to compare them to the different levels of power within international politics, macrocorps are small powers, megacorps are middle/regional powers, and gigacorps are great powers/superpowers.

PS: The way I imagine it, coalitions of lower-level corps can effectively act like the level above them.

Edited by MarqFJA on Jun 16th 2023 at 3:32:36 PM

Never thought of dividing megacorps like that. I'm not sure what to think about it.

I think it says something that such divisions are even necessary.

I'd add one more category though. The Omegacorp, which is to say the class of hypothetical megacorps that control the host planet if not beyond. The goal all lower tiers strive to reach.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jun 12th 2023 at 4:48:44 AM

To be fair, the categories are just a useful guide that acknowleges the fuzziness of their boundaries. And it's born from my dissatisfaction with Shadowrun's megacorp ratings, which go "unrated" (operates in a single country, no matter its size and influence), "A" (multinational), AA (huge multinational, gets to be caled a megacorp and holds extraterratoriality), and AAA (the "prime megacorps", which act as great powers and bully even the most powerful countries).

I mean, we categorize countries into small, middle and great powers based on, well, their level of "power" in the system of international relations. I don't see why we can't do the same to megacorps. Hell, the fact that people even came up with the term "megacorporation" to denote extraordinarily large and powerful companies shows that such distinctions have utility, so why not distinguish them based on how large and powerful they are in a manner that's neither too complicated nor too simplified?

I would personally call that a hypercorp, because there's always higher levels to go, provided that you have an interstellar civilization. Might have to use numerical orders from here on out, though, e.g. "1st-order hypercorp" is planet-level, "2nd-order hypercorp" is star system-level, 3rd order is across some volume of interstellar space that's probably dependent on how interstellar travel works, and so on so forth until you reach the level where the corp has unrivalled dominance over the entire galaxy, and then you can go to the intergalactic level... See what I mean? Not that I need those right now, though; I'm using this system for a setting where being the planetary hegemon is about the highest you could theoretically get, though nobody actually holds it.

Anyway, I would stipulate that a hypercorp's dominance doesn't have to be one of openly dictating to the world, but rather can be through holding a predominant position among all other corporations through a combination of hard and soft power, the same way a political hyperpower would do. It doesn't even have to appoint politicians, its popularity with the general public can be enough to ensure that most elected officials are ones that are at least friendly to its interests.

Edited by MarqFJA on Jun 12th 2023 at 3:48:41 PM

So I take it that those three categories and the names chosen for them are reasonable?

Incidentally, would it be fair to say that macrocorps could be likened to those US corporations that are commonly considered to be "Big Business" (like oil giant Chevron, which has and continues to abuse its vast resources to subvert the US judicial system just to make Steven Donziger's life a living hell), owing to the fact that while they significantly influence the US political system (in no small part thanks to Citizens United v. FEC), none of them are a truly dominant force like Samsung is within South Korea?

Actually, question, what about Bottleneck corporations that aren't themselves huge, but dominate the market in an important resource? Where do they sit on the chart?

For example, Applied Materials, a company most people haven't heard of, and not a truly enormous company in value, but one that effectively controls the world's access to computer chips because it's the main company that makes and maintains the machines that make the wafers that computer chips are cut from.

That sounds much like how a small power can more or less wield a lot more influence than it otherwise would (possibly even rivalling the average middle power), thanks to possessing something intrinsic to it that stronger powers desire and thus gives the small power considerable ability to bargain with them, such as its geographic position (e.g. the Baltic states giving NATO a very good position to strike at Russia's most important cities) or an economically valuable natural resource (e.g. Qatar having some of the largest oil and natural gas fields).

Incidentally, I'd like to amend a previous comparison I had made: "normal" corporations are small powers, macrocorps are middle powers, megacorps are regional powers, and gigacorps are great powers.

So if we apply this to Applied Materials, I'd say that it's technically a "normal" corporation that has effectively monopolized such a "niche" in the overall market that's so valuable, it effectively can wield influence that you would expect from a small macrocorp. It's actually has a parallel in Shadowrun's Horizon Group, which is not only the youngest and "smallest" in terms of overall assets among the current Big Ten AAA Prime Megacorps, it's actually outsized by a few AA-rated megacorps (which must piss them off, given how hard it is to get the coveted AAA rating); Horizon's mastery of all things PR and social engineering is more or less unparalleled (Aztechnology is its only real rival), yes, but in-universe there's plenty of speculation that this wasn't the only reason behind its admission to the Big Ten (some suspect that it got sufficient blackmail material against the other AAAs, and bargained for a seat at the table in exchange for burying the evidence).

Edited by MarqFJA on Mar 28th 2024 at 8:28:52 PM

I'm working on a Tom Clancyesk / "Tom Clancy" Endwar'esk / Act of Aggression setting'esk setting. I've been having some issues with how changing events leads to more things changing and I admit to using text generators for ideas or to have a half decent write-up of events I don't know how to explain.

I have a weird novel thing that has branching paths on Twine, and I've run wargames and RPG campaigns in this setting during different years.

Is there a specific way that would appeal to the most people to convey lore information or technical stuff I think is cool?

I've been having issues working on an advanced Southern Europe faction, because Southern Europe is so broke IRL that it's unclear what they would even have. Eastern Europe has all these cancelled projects or things they wish they had the money or oversight to build, but they don't.

I'm considering looking at those weird Shadowrun Euro War books more. I can think of so many RTS's, but they don't use Southern European vehicles.

Anyone want to help fill in the gaps for minor players or factions?

Oh and I think Africa is super cool, but it's not in games a lot and when it's in war games, it's super corrupt regimes with lots of problems. I'm literally down to having cows be a mechanic like in Age of Empires 3, along with them having their own special bard-like people.

Any ideas?

Edited by WorkingOnBeingGood on Aug 17th 2023 at 6:28:43 AM

You could perhaps write a companion-work that functions as an encyclopaedia of the setting.

Or of course fill out appendices.

You say that you have a Twine-work, but you haven't specified whether it's for that work that you're asking. If it is, you could perhaps have tangents available via links in the text.

All that said, I don't claim to know what approach would appeal to the most people.

On a side-note, would you be interested in a minor correction to spelling?

Is it the 'esk?

It is, yes.

Ah, I see, for some reason it's spelled "esque".

Indeed; I'd guess that it's a result of being derived from French.

(In fact, checking, it does indeed seem to derive from French—hence, I daresay, the spelling.)

So what would be the potential dangers of inhabiting a world with about 15% CO 2 in the atmosphere. Let's say that 15% was necessary to keep the world warm enough to live on. Obviously, you'd need a breathing mask when outside but would structures need to worry about carbonic acid slowly melting their exposed surfaces?

Acid formation by CO 2 is pretty weak. Surface water might be weakly acidic but plain old rusting process would still dominate.

As to other effects, difficult to say. The impact on the biosphere would be humongous, of course. But a civilization establishing a colony on such a world would not have a lot of trouble with it, beyond the fact that breathing so much CO 2 in would be very lethal.

So I asked my choice of software:

"If an alliance like NATO was founded between North America, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia: what are some possible names?"

(This is for a setting where NATO has disbanded by the way)

The suggestions I was given were.

• "Pacific Rim Alliance (PRA): This name emphasizes the geographic location of most of the countries along the Pacific Ocean, and their shared interest in maintaining peace and stability in the region.

• Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): This name is based on the existing trade agreement between some of the countries, and their mutual interest in promoting economic cooperation and free trade across the Pacific.

• North Atlantic and Pacific Treaty Organization (NAPTO): This name is a variation of NATO, which includes the North Atlantic countries of North America and the UK, and extends it to the Pacific countries of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia.

• Democracy and Security Alliance (DSA): This name reflects the common values of democracy and human rights that the countries share, and their joint commitment to defend each other from external threats and aggression."

I'm considering having PRA be put into place first, and be a "You have to invade their sovereign territory, as in the mainland or the islands by the mainland, for everyone else to declare war".

Later on, if the UK ever gets added, it'll get renamed or a second treaty will be written called "NAPTO" or "DSA".

I am currently not sure which to pick. The second one sounds too "Patriot Act" or "Democratic Peoples Republic" in it's naming pattern. The first one sounds too close to NATO and I don't know if that is a good or bad thing, considering only like three NATO (Canada, UK, US) nations will be in this new alliance.

Do you have any better names? I think naming it after the Secretary of Defense like COD BO 3, is just really poor taste. If it's the US promising to defend other nations, it make sense, but if they're guaranteeing each other, it sounds too imperialistic.

Edited by WorkingOnBeingGood on Aug 22nd 2023 at 8:35:39 AM

If only three countries that border the Atlantic are part of this alliance, then maybe call it the PNATO (Pacific and North Atlantic Treaty Organization)? One issue I have with DSA is that what if, one of the countries in the organization elects a more successful version of Trump and stops being a democracy, or a democracy in name only, then is that country going to be kicked out? Of course, with a big enough PR budget (supplemented by the CIA), you can call anyone a leader of a 'free country' where opposition politicians get thrown into the ocean from a helicopter 'disappear'.

I have doubts about the feasibility of this alliance, because of the clause "You have to invade their sovereign territory, as in the mainland or the islands by the mainland, for everyone else to declare war". The ROK claims the entire peninsula as its sovereign territory, and the Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan) claims all of China as its territory as well, so getting those countries to agree to such a clause would require them to give up significant parts (in Taiwan's case, the majority) of their de jure territory. In South Korea's case, that would require a constitutional amendment since article 3 of the Republic of Korea's constitution stipulates that "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands." and article 4 says "The Republic of Korea shall seek unification and shall formulate and carry out a policy of peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order.". So you're going to have to very carefully word the treaty in a way that lets Taiwan and South Korea to not change their de jure territorial claims but not have the alliance go to war with the PRC and the DPRK as soon as the treaty takes effect.
This is of course, assuming that you have an in-universe backstory where the member states have sufficient assurances that Japan does not have ambitions to return to its Imperial glory, which is a hurdle that prevents an alliance between Japan and any of its neighbors IRL.

Edited by minseok42 on Aug 22nd 2023 at 11:57:19 AM

Okay, well, if we're going to get that political. Japan and South Korea are basically one party states, but Japan is rated as more democratic than the US, which makes no sense at all.

Also, I'm pretty sure fine print and negotiations are a thing. I don't see why some loophole in legal systems would be left untouched. My point is that embassies being attacked or troops oversees being ambushed wouldn't count as an attack on the nation.

"So you're going to have to very carefully word the treaty in a way that lets Taiwan and South Korea to not change their de jure territorial claims"

Or we won't use the words "territory claims" or sovereign territory, and the use "currently held territory on mainland or surrounding islands" or even spell out the exact square coordinates to be protected.

I have a feeling that West Germany claimed East Germany, but forming NATO didn't start a war.

There are a lot of news stories about how the countries around Japan, and the US are almost begging the nation to militarize, but such an idea is deeply unpopular in Japan. (Yes I know the ruling party are openly imperialist and won't apologize for anything)

This isn't too surprising, because the situation is so bad, Vietnam has warmer relations with the US than China, out of fear of China.

EDIT:

It turns out South Korea and Japan have given each other assurances because of North Korea. There have been a lot of meetings, but no concrete military alliance treaty, but I'm not sure if one is needed.

Edited by WorkingOnBeingGood on Aug 23rd 2023 at 6:40:23 AM

15% of gas at which pressure? An atmosphere of 85% oxygen, 15% carbon dioxide would have noticeable toxic effects if the pressure component of oxygen is comparable to that in Earth's atmosphere, but quite a lot below lethal.

I was thinking about 64% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 15% CO 2 at roughly earthlike pressures. The greenhouse effect counteracts the low sunlight.

Pretty sure that about 7-10% CO 2 you will just asphyxiate. And you'll get all sorts of bad symptoms and potential permanent damage well under that.

It's definitely not breathable but you should be able to walk around in short sleeves and a SCBA mask and enjoy the carbonic acid rain

May I please have some suggestions for small fantasy races. Or for Earth Elemental races? The problem is Gnome is the one that I like most for both.

It can't be both.