Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
Good argument Mert!Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Hi !
Maybe people on a vacuum world or one with a corrosive atmo might be better prepared to get along with a disaster as those on a pretty planet.
This might be, because the environment was/is a constant threat, which already existed even during settlement and people are better adopted to such a situation.
So safety and rescue facilities might be much more frequent, as well as safety-training.
Even the technical layout might be much more redundant, to provide LS even if some modules are toast.
Just a thought....
Regards,
Mert
I would think those living on such a world (hostile environment) would be better trained to deal with such a crises, and would have a back up system in case of the worst ever happening.
What the GM ref must calculate is of course the "panic factor". How well organized is the government? How fast will they respond as the "first line"?
@Will they stay and keep control, or will they bail take a ship and save their own skins?
@How flexible are they to such "acts of God/ Nature"?
@You can have the smallest totalitarian regime with the most fearsome army, yet be unable to feed your population through even lean years without outside support/ imports.
@Amber zoned worlds with lots of system civil unrest would be powderkeg situations if we translate this broadly in the event of such dire circumstances.
@On worlds with breathable atmospheres (4-9)it isn't lack of air that will kill them, but dehydration, starvation, loss of basic services.
On these latter, perhaps the 1248 OoTD planetary MSP (Maximum sustained population) tables could be used to calculate what affect an event like that could have?
Again, this is dealing with worlds with massive populations over what the world's resources can provide.
One could extrapolate the trade modifier "Na" (non agricultural) as particualr vulnerable to loss of food shipments!
Thanks Mert!