Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

Black Leviathan · 04-02-2019, 12:50 PM

even a few feet of water would actually destroy most coastal cities. It would stop sewage systems for functioning and it would erode building foundations. It could mean that less than 10% of the city was under water but that 10% would be a health and infrastructure nightmare. If it happened in the course of three years it would be a destructive momentum that would take massive amounts of capital to stop. If it happened during a plague or a viral outbreak it would make cities like San Diego, new York, or Washinton DC into necropolises.

In-land ports are a fallback that would allow trade, especially along riverways where channels don't have to be dug or trees cleared but the infrastructure to build a sea-port would take decades. There would likely be these Global Warming boomtowns that are up-river from river outlets where there's lots of piers and warehouses under construction and the rivers are being dredged for large hull ships. Meanwhile the old ports would be barely above water likely connected to continuous ground by shakey floating bridges, half-sunken cities full of those that can't afford to move living in lawless mega-poverty. The more trade shifts to these growing inland ports the more desperate things become in New York and Baltimore where the next rainstorm could trigger a domino fall of old skyscrapers full of squatters trying to scrounge and farm.

04-02-2019, 12:50 PM	#11
Black Leviathan Join Date: Sep 2018	Re: World Setting even a few feet of water would actually destroy most coastal cities. It would stop sewage systems for functioning and it would erode building foundations. It could mean that less than 10% of the city was under water but that 10% would be a health and infrastructure nightmare. If it happened in the course of three years it would be a destructive momentum that would take massive amounts of capital to stop. If it happened during a plague or a viral outbreak it would make cities like San Diego, new York, or Washinton DC into necropolises. In-land ports are a fallback that would allow trade, especially along riverways where channels don't have to be dug or trees cleared but the infrastructure to build a sea-port would take decades. There would likely be these Global Warming boomtowns that are up-river from river outlets where there's lots of piers and warehouses under construction and the rivers are being dredged for large hull ships. Meanwhile the old ports would be barely above water likely connected to continuous ground by shakey floating bridges, half-sunken cities full of those that can't afford to move living in lawless mega-poverty. The more trade shifts to these growing inland ports the more desperate things become in New York and Baltimore where the next rainstorm could trigger a domino fall of old skyscrapers full of squatters trying to scrounge and farm.