2
$\begingroup$

I am writing lore for a project and am mostly clueless about gravity's effect on human beings in these circumstances. The brief history is that bronze/iron age people had access to "primitive" technology enabling them to sail from one planet to another, enabling thousands of fighters transitioning from spears to early gunpowder. This was through usage of a gravitational phenomenon that lasted for several thousand years precisely for the two Terran planets as if their atmospheres were in synchronization.

The 0.8g planet is an arid planet with oceans and signature flat savanna's with some tropical regions naturally about. This planet frequently sent aggressive war parties to the other in recent history before the advent of industrial warfare and melee was mainstay, being historically more centralized.

The 1.4g planet was originally going to be a sea-less world with high elevations. Now, to broaden its depth, it consists of small seas and great lakes, with "continents" being entire valleys, grand canyons, massive Nile-esque rivers, and endless hilly Virginian terrain, often isolating tribal states and civilizations like China and Britannia was.

Most people on both planets have completely acclimatized to their native gravity, perhaps even genetically, to the point births on the 1.4g world are 2/3rd's lesser but their people are shorter and much more stronger and reflexive, whereas the 0.8g human's are naturally taller and weaker.

The third planet to appear is a barely colonized 1g planet basically like Earth's conditions.

So how would humans, typically military-trained handle landing and warring on the opposite planets? Overtime I would assume they would train and be prepared for the radical differences, but I assume fighters from the 1.4g world would more often than not crush the lighter-humans, as warfare transitioned from melee weapons to industrial weapons, correct?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ note canyons will be less impressive on a heavy world, the stable angle for sediment will be far less. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Apr 8, 2019 at 1:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If you have the technology to move from world to world then strength will not matter much. Strength does not have a huge impact on how well you can use a gun. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Apr 8, 2019 at 1:56
  • $\begingroup$ -What does stable angle of sediment mean? Meaning heavier gravity will reduce the sharpness of things like Everest or the Himalayas, rendering them into gigantic hills so to speak? -The technology to inter-planetary travel was being exploited by parties that a long time after a system-wide collapse, were left with receding back to iron-age tools but greater insight to advancement. $\endgroup$
    – Naga
    Apr 8, 2019 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Naga see angle of repose. Also maximum height of mountains. $\endgroup$ Apr 8, 2019 at 9:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The small-sized huns and mongols didn't have much problems in conquering most of the world against bigger, heavier, physically stronger enemies. I doubt that the difference in size and strength alone would do much of a difference even with swords and arrows, much less with the advent of gunpowder. All depends upon military tacticts, and this is far too broad to answer. $\endgroup$
    – Rekesoft
    Apr 8, 2019 at 9:22

0

Browse other questions tagged .