Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Ormur]

I kind of think the unrealistic part of space battles isn't the huge explosion but the proximity at which they are fought and the amount of damage the ship can take. I assume any seriously space worthy ship would be packing so much destructive capability a single hit might be enough. I'm thinking nuke-pumped x-ray lasers, anti matter missiles and relativistic kill vehicles vs ships that are still quite flimsy.

I guess you could construct battlestar like ships that could take direct hits by nukes but I doubt you could actually make them go anywhere with real life physics. And yeah, antimatter powered ships would go out in a vaporizing bang if something compromised the magnetic containment or whatever other method they'd use to store it.

[fusilier]

Likely, many of those ships wouldn't be carrying troops at all, but food and ammunition, as well as any heavy equipment.

But at the Battle of Sluys the French were in port on the defensive -- they wouldn't have had to have loaded the ships with munitions. Perhaps more importantly, it was a military fleet, so the ships weren't simply operating with normal crew levels, they were loaded with soldiers. I don't think that the loading of soldiers was typically done at much expense to cargo. At least I've never had been given that impression from what I've read.

[Beleriphon]

I kind of think the unrealistic part of space battles isn't the huge explosion but the proximity at which they are fought and the amount of damage the ship can take. I assume any seriously space worthy ship would be packing so much destructive capability a single hit might be enough. I'm thinking nuke-pumped x-ray lasers, anti matter missiles and relativistic kill vehicles vs ships that are still quite flimsy.

Space battles would actually have to be fought at pretty close ranges, no more than a few hundred kilometers otherwise the other ships can easily avoid weapons. Even a laser at hundreds of thousands of kilometers gives just enough reaction time to avoid being hit completed.

Also a nuclear detonation in space isn't going to be terrible effective. There's no atmosphere to super heat and cause a fireball with. You'd be better of with solid slugs traveling a 0.01% the speed of light. You might find success with AP rockets or missiles.

[Ksheep]

Actually, long-range battles might be effective, but they would require different tactics. How about launching a missile via railgun toward the enemy, but have the first stage of the flight be unpowered. Then, when it gets within a few kilometers, have its engine start up, RCS jets help aim, and accelerate for the final leg of the flight. This would result in a relatively small, hard to detect, yet highly accurate weapon (depending on target acquisition method) for long range.

[TuggyNE]

Space battles would actually have to be fought at pretty close ranges, no more than a few hundred kilometers otherwise the other ships can easily avoid weapons. Even a laser at hundreds of thousands of kilometers gives just enough reaction time to avoid being hit completed.

Launch detection is the problem here; sure, random-walking your ship around to try to avoid laser fire can work, but eventually you'll get unlucky (or, more likely, they'll just fire a pattern of simultaneous beams around your possible positions that you literally can't avoid), since there's no way you can detect where they're firing a laser until after it has, y'know, reached you. And even relativistic kill vehicles give some stiff problems figuring out trajectories and speeds to work out where to intercept/dodge them: determining, from electromagnetic pulse data 1e+9 meters away, exactly where the slug is going to end up in another 96.6 s is a bit sticky! (Add electromagnetic shielding on the railguns, deliberate spoofing signals, simultaneous firing, and so on and you have a serious problem.)

[hymer]

Just spit-balling here, but if it's so hard to realize you're being fired on, isn't it also hard to figure out where the enemy ship is, was or would be? Once you've got a moving and manouvreing weapons platform and a likewise target both at extremely high velocity and at extremely long range, possibly complicated by any nearby gravity generator... Sounds to me like there is an upper limit to the distance you can carry out succesful strikes from.

[TuggyNE]

Just spit-balling here, but if it's so hard to realize you're being fired on, isn't it also hard to figure out where the enemy ship is, was or would be? Once you've got a moving and manouvreing weapons platform and a likewise target both at extremely high velocity and at extremely long range, possibly complicated by any nearby gravity generator... Sounds to me like there is an upper limit to the distance you can carry out succesful strikes from.

To some extent, sure, but here's the thing: if the enemy is using chemical rockets or similar for maneuvering (well, really, any sort of "shoot heated/excited particles at high speed" system, which covers basically all the ones we can think of so far, including ion and nuclear), then you can trace how much acceleration is being applied. You do this by tracking the velocity of the gas emitted and comparing that to the delta velocity of the source it's being emitted from. Once you know that, and especially if you can use temperature readings (emission spectra) to gauge how much energy was applied, you can figure out how much mass they have, and therefore, to a high degree of accuracy, where they'll be. (After you've figured out mass you can use that for other things as well.)

And, in space, it's extremely difficult to disguise that; there's no atmosphere to disperse the heat from the particles or merge them in or mask emission, so it's basically applied astronomy to work out where the target will be.

To be sure, it's complicated a bit by the latency of light, and complicated rather more by the latency of whatever you're firing, but you basically just have to work out the envelope they're likely to be in and then spam shots all over that.

---

1All that said, there is a technique I've thought of that might work to mask the amount of maneuvering. Every ship of varying size carries one or more standardized detachable thruster modules; to maneuver, the module is pushed gently in one direction (attached by sturdy spools of cable) and then the thruster is ignited to impart momentum in the desired direction. The cables exert drag at a defined rate to transfer thrust to the ship, and when the needed acceleration is complete, the cables finish spooling out until the module has completely transferred its momentum to the ship, and then it's dragged back in. The key thing here is that, because the modules all have the same mass, you can tell how much thrust was applied, but you can't tell how much mass the ship itself has, and therefore can't tell how much its position and velocity have changed. Of course, it works best with a mix of ship sizes in a given squadron/fleet/battle group/whatever, so that their thrust signatures overlap and confuse things still further.

[hymer]

I can think of another way to disguise it: Fire several rockets that do not work in tandem, one of which is shooting a narrow stream straight away from the ship you're fighting. You can't see how much thrust that one rocket applied (if any) until positions have changed.
Even if that doesn't work, light only travels so fast. By the time you've picked up the reading (and your computers have made the calculation), the ship is already somewhere else, manoeuvreing in a different way.

[avr]

At a one light second distance, a target ship which can accelerate at 6G will be somewhere within a 120 metre (.5 * accel * time squared, where time includes the travel time of light from the target to the shooter) sphere of its estimated position when the relativistic beam arrives. Not a laser, they disperse to harmlessness over that distance.

This is assuming perfectly accurate measurement of its position and relative velocity using passive sensors and zero time taken to process the info and guide the beam. If processing and aiming add another second you'd be looking at a 270 m radius sphere. Possibly somewhat less if the target takes time to change the direction of its acceleration which it probably does. Imprecise position/velocity measurements are probably a smaller problem. So initially it sounds doable if you can spam the attack enough and if you can get the aiming and processing speed down.

Tricks short of actual magitech on the defence might include letting off decoys. So long as the target can afford to let off decoys and the decoys aren't discerned from the target, the chance of being hit is reduced. I'm not sure how well it might work, but the Traveller RPGs have always included sandcasters which put bands of powder between the target and the shooter which ablates when hit by lasers and which tends to trigger missiles early. Slightly closer to magitech would be a drive which uses photons as reaction mass; unless the drive beam hits dust you won't know where it's pointing, and you might have to use active sensors to even find the target.

On the original topic, a pyrotechnic explosion doesn't seem reasonable. In space you can eject a reactor core or whatever explosively rapidly and decent safety systems should if an explosion aboard ship is possible. Explosions from pressurised gas on the other hand seem entirely possible.

[Gnoman]

On the original topic, a pyrotechnic explosion doesn't seem reasonable. In space you can eject a reactor core or whatever explosively rapidly and decent safety systems should if an explosion aboard ship is possible. Explosions from pressurised gas on the other hand seem entirely possible.

Sure you can, as long as you don't mind your volatiles being penetrable by even the tiniest of weapons, since it's impossible to armor a blastaway ejection hatch without making things impractical. Even if you do that, it won't prevent explosions, since anything that will cause them to detonate still will unless you make a habit of dumping everything at the start of every fight (which makes one wonder how you intend to fight back), so all you've done is make explosions more likely. Armoring a ship against transluminal projectiles or nuclear warheads is quite doable, especially if you have a point-defense system that can deflect a projectile or detonate a warhead early. It means you have to have a larger drive system, but that's to be expected in a warship. If you get within a light-second and start blasting away with lasers and short-range ballistic weapons, armor's even more valuable. Thus it increases your survivability more to bury your volatiles in an armored compartment than it does to place them in quick-ejection systems near the surface of the hull.

[Jeff the Green]

So, assuming that the language is a blend of Celtic and Semitic elements, what would you call someone who hails from the Gallo Vale?

[Marcus Amakar]

I was watching Transformers 2 and was inspired, not by the transformers but by the idea of a special ops team which fought/covered up extraterrestrial/supernatural foes.

While this is obviously a common trope, what appealed to me was the idea that they're for the most part completely outmatch and conventional weaponry is ineffective.

So, to the actual questions. Assuming this is set in the present/near future, what opponents would fulfil the following criteria:

• Are weaker to weapons like flame-throwers, grenade launchers, melee weapon (anything in which exotic nature or coolness trumps practicality) than your usual assault rifles, heavy machine guns etc. (put another way, the squad should have logical reasons to want to go into combat with stuff like, flamethrowers, katanas, high-tech crossbows etc)
• Outmatch humans physically but are not so powerful that humans with 'movie realistic' health are likely to die from one hit.
• Are such that if things go bad, bringing in the bigger guns is not optimal (though may effective)

I'm open to all suggestions; robots, cyborgs, aliens, magical creatures, supernatural stuff, mutants. I've hit a creative wall and need the playgrounds help!

Thanks in advance.

[headwarpage]

I was watching Transformers 2 and was inspired, not by the transformers but by the idea of a special ops team which fought/covered up extraterrestrial/supernatural foes.

While this is obviously a common trope, what appealed to me was the idea that they're for the most part completely outmatch and conventional weaponry is ineffective.

So, to the actual questions. Assuming this is set in the present/near future, what opponents would fulfil the following criteria:

• Are weaker to weapons like flame-throwers, grenade launchers, melee weapon (anything in which exotic nature or coolness trumps practicality) than your usual assault rifles, heavy machine guns etc. (put another way, the squad should have logical reasons to want to go into combat with stuff like, flamethrowers, katanas, high-tech crossbows etc)
• Outmatch humans physically but are not so powerful that humans with 'movie realistic' health are likely to die from one hit.
• Are such that if things go bad, bringing in the bigger guns is not optimal (though may effective)

I'm open to all suggestions; robots, cyborgs, aliens, magical creatures, supernatural stuff, mutants. I've hit a creative wall and need the playgrounds help!

Thanks in advance.

For whatever reason, this made me think of the personal shields in Dune. A technology that makes high-velocity projectiles ineffective would pretty much cover your criteria, but might seem too contrived (if not a blatant rip-off).

Alternately, anything supernatural can justify almost any weakness. Coincidentally, the werewolves/vampires/bogeymen of your universe can only be harmed by the katanas forged in a remote mountain village, where the secrets of the forging have been handed down for centuries against the werewolves/vampires/bogeymen's eventual return.

Or just set your special ops team in a locale where gunfire would draw way too much attention. It's not that guns don't work, but people will notice (and silencers don't work nearly as well as they do in movies). So guns are a weapon of last resort, and melee or (cross)bow is the preferred method of stealth kill (doesn't help with the flamethrowers, though).

As for being more physically powerful than humans, that describes pretty much every monster ever.

[Beleriphon]

So, to the actual questions. Assuming this is set in the present/near future, what opponents would fulfil the following criteria:

• Are weaker to weapons like flame-throwers, grenade launchers, melee weapon (anything in which exotic nature or coolness trumps practicality) than your usual assault rifles, heavy machine guns etc. (put another way, the squad should have logical reasons to want to go into combat with stuff like, flamethrowers, katanas, high-tech crossbows etc)
• Outmatch humans physically but are not so powerful that humans with 'movie realistic' health are likely to die from one hit.
• Are such that if things go bad, bringing in the bigger guns is not optimal (though may effective)

I'm open to all suggestions; robots, cyborgs, aliens, magical creatures, supernatural stuff, mutants. I've hit a creative wall and need the playgrounds help!

Thanks in advance.

Supernatural creatures are a good way to go. Most of them could reasonably be taken out with conventional weapons, but humanoid ones could only be engaged in melee combat for any of a variety of reason (big one is the same Dresden Files, only iron or its derivatives work on them and iron makes terrible bullets).

Crossbows might be effective on the basis that they are functionally silent at most ranges. Melee works on basis that vampires are immune to bullets, you need to get all Van Helsing and chop off their heads and stuff the mouth with garlic (the stake just immobilizes them).

[avr]

Humans possessed by something. Spirits, alien entities, whatever. You can banish the possessor without killing the host by use of special materials (blessed, kryptonite, salt or pure iron, etc.) Special materials moving at bullet speeds tend to kill the host just like ordinary bullets do.

Flamethrowers with spiked fuel can be an option favored by a splinter church of nutcases.

[Marcus Amakar]

Thanks for all the responses folks!
Ok, so for opponents, how would the following work?

• Advanced robots with personal shields like in Dune, protecting against high velocity rounds. This means that the most effective weapons are melee weapon, grenades (but not fired from launchers), flamethrowers, thrown weapons, and if you’re reckless shotguns (as you can only fire at point-blank range).
• Some kind of supernatural creature that can only hurt by Iron and Flame, meaning the best weapons are melee weapon, thrown weapons, bows/crossbows, and flamethrowers and Molotov cocktails for support.

Now for a question more specific to world building. I don’t want the spec ops group to be another best of US/UK Special Forces group, so what events would have to happen for the UN get the legal power/sovereignty, political power, influence and funding required to realistically justify the UN having this type of quasi-military force?

Also, I was thinking about the outbreaks/occurrences, while occurring all over the globe, having an epicentre in Brazil, specifically one of the cities. Is there anything I should now that will help me give a more accurate portrayal?

[Salbazier]

• Advanced robots with personal shields like in Dune, protecting against high velocity rounds. This means that the most effective weapons are melee weapon, grenades (but not fired from launchers), flamethrowers, thrown weapons, and if you’re reckless shotguns (as you can only fire at point-blank range).
• Some kind of supernatural creature that can only hurt by Iron and Flame, meaning the best weapons are melee weapon, thrown weapons, bows/crossbows, and flamethrowers and Molotov cocktails for support.

How about magic that can stop gunpowder or certain other aspect of physics or technology from working? I have a setting where explosives (including gunpowder) and nucleosynthesis cannnot work so I can have the culture grow in technology and warfare without developing (mundane) firearms.

Now for a question more specific to world building. I don’t want the spec ops group to be another best of US/UK Special Forces group, so what events would have to happen for the UN get the legal power/sovereignty, political power, influence and funding required to realistically justify the UN having this type of quasi-military force?

Collapse of national governments? Or don't use UN. Read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six? By The Bear and The Dragon, NATO also include Russia and Rainbow team also cooperate with Spetnatz. Not a fully global team, but multinational enough. If you have a organization like Rainbow team in your world and it grows into multiple teams it would make sense if there is a team without any US/UK member.

Then say an outbreak happens in non-Nato nation, China, Japan, Egypt, Brazil, whatever. Now there is a reason to cooperate with those countries' special force in operations. Later when a more specialized agency formed to handle the supernatural those countries would also invited since this countries also have those outbreaks. Maybe even now with so many nations involved the authority over this new special force would be handed to UN.

[TuggyNE]

Some kind of supernatural creature that can only hurt by Iron and Flame, meaning the best weapons are melee weapon, thrown weapons, bows/crossbows, and flamethrowers and Molotov cocktails for support.

I don't think this'll work as well, since it's not difficult to make an artillery shell that explodes in iron shrapnel, or a mine, or even SMG ammunition. It might not be stock, but if you're going to the trouble of working up custom weapons anyway, it'd probably be easiest.

[Salbazier]

How about wood instead of iron? That would be harder to make into bombs or bullets.

Also, holy water (or something similiar) instead of flame. No napalm then.

[Beleriphon]

How about wood instead of iron? That would be harder to make into bombs or bullets.

Also, holy water (or something similiar) instead of flame. No napalm then.

Well, then you have riot APC with water cannons on them. Only they're full of holy water, bye bye vampires.

[fusilier]

Now for a question more specific to world building. I don’t want the spec ops group to be another best of US/UK Special Forces group, so what events would have to happen for the UN get the legal power/sovereignty, political power, influence and funding required to realistically justify the UN having this type of quasi-military force?

You should look into UNIT (United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) from Doctor Who.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIT

What's needed to create such an organization is an acknowledgement from the member nations that such a force is necessary. UNIT in the Doctor Who universe, was a special force designed to deal with Alien invasion, and other unusual events. Basically, the nations agreed to both fund the organization and to allow it to operate inside their borders. It's made up of soldiers from the host countries' militaries.

So if enough nations recognize there is some (potential) threat that requires, at least from time to time, international coordination to deal with, and that relying upon the usual, rather slow, military response of the UN would not be acceptable, the establishment of a permanent quick reaction force of some type seems possible.

In Doctor Who, an attempt by a disembodied, alien intelligence to conquer London with robotic Yeti was the catalyst to create UNIT.

Are weaker to weapons like flame-throwers, grenade launchers, melee weapon (anything in which exotic nature or coolness trumps practicality) than your usual assault rifles, heavy machine guns etc. (put another way, the squad should have logical reasons to want to go into combat with stuff like, flamethrowers, katanas, high-tech crossbows etc)

All I can do is repeat a quote from the UNIT leader in Doctor Who:

Brigadier: Just once I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets.

:-)

[Storm Bringer]

Now for a question more specific to world building. I don’t want the spec ops group to be another best of US/UK Special Forces group, so what events would have to happen for the UN get the legal power/sovereignty, political power, influence and funding required to realistically justify the UN having this type of quasi-military force?

Also, I was thinking about the outbreaks/occurrences, while occurring all over the globe, having an epicentre in Brazil, specifically one of the cities. Is there anything I should now that will help me give a more accurate portrayal?

simple, like others have suggested, and you plan, have the outbreaks occurring in random, out of the way countries. the only organisation with the diplomatic reach and respect that could co-ordinate defence against a globe trotting threat like that is basically the UN.

The UN already has several formations spread around the world on various peacekeeping ops (Cyprus, the Balkans, several locations in Africa, etc), and in most cases the majority of the troops for these forces come form non-nato states. For example, the large proportion of the troops that rescued the US army Rangers in the battle of Mogadishu (i.e. the Black Hawk Down battle) were Pakistani and Malaysian. the UN forces in Cyprus at the moment are drawn form nations including Argentina, Hungry and Serbia (to name a few).

it's not a stretch to imagine a UN led task force being made up to fight these outbreaks, with various nations contributing assets to the unit. For example the players may deploy to the site via a Brazilian owned helicopter, under control of a American AWACS airplane, to link up with a Swedish recon team already on site, so guide a Indian Air Force bomber onto a target, all under the watchful eye of a Russian spy sat that's downlinking to a control bunker in Brussels.

you get the idea. the best way to convey this to the players is to make mention of the nationality of the task forces NPCS whenever they meet or see them ("your briefing officer, a Czech this time, clears his throat...", or "the local agent is a Chinese man, by the name of Mao, though his nickname is "chairman".....")

[Saphir]

• Are weaker to weapons like flame-throwers, grenade launchers, melee weapon (anything in which exotic nature or coolness trumps practicality) than your usual assault rifles, heavy machine guns etc. (put another way, the squad should have logical reasons to want to go into combat with stuff like, flamethrowers, katanas, high-tech crossbows etc)
• Outmatch humans physically but are not so powerful that humans with 'movie realistic' health are likely to die from one hit.
• Are such that if things go bad, bringing in the bigger guns is not optimal (though may effective)

You might also want to consider creatures that function well despite high damage, for example creatures with a decentralized nervous system and similar. You'd want to either completely destroy them (flame-throwers, direct hits from grenade launchers) or chop off whatever limbs they use as weapons (with a sword or so). An assault rifle would make a hole in them and possibly hurt (assuming they can feel pain) but not stop them, but chopping of the equivalent of an arm would help you a lot. A machine gun could presumably be used to cut them in two - you can cut down trees - but that requires a lot of focused fire on a single target; as for calling in the big guns, even artillery would have to hit fairly close for a kill (tearing them apart) because the force of an explosion or damage from shrapnel would likely not be lethal.

A bigger monster made of smaller monsters might also work, but that might render melee weapons somewhat ineffective, unless the smaller creatures are snake-like or something.

[Yora]

I'm not a professional expert on this, but I think bullets really only are instantly deadly if you hit the brain or the heart. In any other place, it primarily causes bleeding that can eventually lead to death since the body can't deliver oxygen from the lungs to the cells. And eventually can be quite a long time in the range of several hours. If the bleeding stops by itself, there is still infection that is a real killer, but that will kill a person over days or even weeks.
Sometimes there is public outrage against suspects being shot by the police 27 times, but that's not wanton slaughter of a helpless person on the ground. It only takes one good hit to instantly kill any person regardless of training or physical health and there have been lots of cases of people still fighting with even more severe injuries before collapsing.

A creature that keeps fighting when heavily injured is not much of a stretch and would not require a lot of exotic anatomy.

[Salbazier]

How about undead (not the Resident Evil kind) then? Or something like the Flood combat form. No blood or vital organs.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm not a professional expert on this, but I think bullets really only are instantly deadly if you hit the brain or the heart. In any other place, it primarily causes bleeding that can eventually lead to death since the body can't deliver oxygen from the lungs to the cells.

This is pretty much true, but there are some exceptions. First, sometimes you can survive a bullet to the brain or heart. (There have been people who survived suicide attempts with a gun to the head.) But also, if you hit an artery it's not instantly deadly, but you can bleed out to the point of incapacitation within seconds.

So, assuming that the language is a blend of Celtic and Semitic elements, what would you call someone who hails from the Gallo Vale?

Any love from a linguist?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Any love from a linguist?

I'm sure there are resident linguists in the playground (or at least people who have given very helpful insights on language), but until you find one of them, here's a shot in the dark: Gael (singular) / Gaellim (plural). Does that sound right?

(I'm assuming that "Vale" means valley, and isn't part of the name itself.)

[Beleriphon]

I'm sure there are resident linguists in the playground (or at least people who have given very helpful insights on language), but until you find one of them, here's a shot in the dark: Gael (singular) / Gaellim (plural). Does that sound right?

(I'm assuming that "Vale" means valley, and isn't part of the name itself.)

It depends. Most words regarding the origin of a person tend to occur from outsiders. That being said all people have words to identify themselves as distinct from others. The Cherokee word for themselves in english is best translated as "human beings" or "people". Individuals coming from a place called the Gallo Vale (I'm assuming that's a "Commonization" of the original Gaelic/Semetic words) would probably be named after the place itself.

So what you need to do is look at is the genitive case for the local word for Gallo Vale and combine it with the word for person. In a general sense that is the origin of most words that identify a group of people.

As for combining Semetic and Gaelic what exactly is being combined? Because the two as far as grammar goes don't share much in common.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Now, let's say that the grammatic structure is mostly Arabic, because that's what I'm more familiar with.

If the context is something like "George of Gallo Vale", than you would say something that in English would be equivalent to "George the Gallovian" or something.

In Arabic, that would be "George al-galloviyye" or soemthing similar.

Adding -iyye for masculine or -iyya for feminine turns the word into an adjective, like "french", and also can be used for the people from that place.

Adding al- makes it definite. Adding -een makes it plural.

Now let's try applying these rules to something that sounds more celtic.

"Vale" is Dyffryn (edit: in welsh, dur), so if you wanted to use just that, it would be something "al-dyffryniyye" as equivalent to "The Frenchman" or "The French" to refer to the group as a whole, "dyffryniyye" as equivalent to "French" as an adjective, and "Dyffryniyyeen" as equivalent to "Frenchmen", or "al-dyffryniyyeen" as equivalent to "the Frenchmen".

To use some of HeadlessMermaids ideas, you could also use

"al-Gaeliyye", "Gaeliyye", "Gaeliyyeen" and "al-Gaeliyyeen", for the same equivalencies. Or combine the two somehow.

Edit: Oh right, you can also replace -een with -uun if you want, in Arabic it denotes a different case, but you can just use it if it feels more right. So Gaeliyyuun.

And modify sounds to similar sounds to make it less obvious. So you can do La or owl or et or something instead of "al-" to make it less obviously arabic-stolen

[Beleriphon]

As addendum to Gwyn's post here's a very rough Hebrew translation:

ADM FL GALW

Please note I have no idea how to actually make that work using Latin characters. My best guess would be adem ful galaw. Using that I might go with Galawites.

My only other bit of advice is to try and avoid Gaelxxxxian for anything here. Otherwise it makes your people sounds like Time Lords.