|
Agreed. I'd say the radios along with the other "survivalist" type of features really added to the tension of the experience. I think the low-point of them is that they sometimes really do feel a bit too "game-y" in the way they're laid out but they were highly succesful in making the environment feel as dangerous (or moreso) as the actual enemies.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:In my mind this somehow became a bizarre mash-up of Dead Money and Honest Hearts, wherein a mildly-annoyed Joshua Graham is walking way from the brutally executed corpses of Elijah, God/Dog, and Dean Domino. Joshua Graham came from the Mormons, and in the Fallout timeline the bombs fell before the LDS finally admitted that black people have souls; so I think the FEV subjects fall under "Sons of Ham"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
As an former Mormon I can agree that the church is pretty hosed up, but the bombs dropped in 2077.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Astroturf Man posted:National parks are notoriously high value military targets. For example, in this projection, national parks and forests are virtually ignored. http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/ca.htm rope kid fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Oops, bad link. Same with this one:
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
rope kid posted:Oops, bad link. Same with this one: It's interesting to me to look at that little leg extending up I-69 off of Indianapolis; for some reason, it was apparently important to nuke Anderson and Muncie. Although Anderson used to be a serious GM town, so I suppose that's what you'd be targeting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
rope kid posted:Oops, bad link. Same with this one: Little bit of an Idaho sperg here but I like that they target Boise and McCall(?) but apparently completely ignore the nuclear R&D facility over in the eastern part of the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
rope kid posted:It's possible I missed something, but in the various Cold War-era bombing projections I saw, almost everything was focused on targeting areas of direct civic, military, or communication value. That's a cool map, but I wasn't seriously suggesting they were planning a devastating first strike on America's inspiring natural wonders. Astroturf Man fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Little bit of an Idaho sperg here but I like that they target Boise and McCall(?) but apparently completely ignore the nuclear R&D facility over in the eastern part of the state. Man I miss seeing those signs when driving through southern Idaho. I think the property of the INL cuts through almost the entire width of the state or something. Also, Atomic City is pretty depressing (but Craters of the Moon is awesome) I'm thinking of getting this game soon, is it advisable to just run it vanilla the first time through or are there any graphical mods that are worth doing on a first run?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Astroturf Man posted:That's a cool map, but I wasn't seriously suggesting they were planning a devastating first strike on America's inspiring natural wonders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Apologies if this is has been covered before, but I am starting my third playthrough with the amazing new Ultimate Edition on 360 and I am am working exclusively with Energy Weapons (thanks to this thread). Are tales of the Ash/Goo Pile persistance warranted and what are the chances of it causing problems? I want to have a save where I basically go into every nook and cranny and I wonder if I should either do well to do it in another game, or eventually move on from energy weapons. I have 4 luck and haven't seen too many disintegrations since Goodsprings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
keithy george posted:Apologies if this is has been covered before, but I am starting my third playthrough with the amazing new Ultimate Edition on 360 and I am am working exclusively with Energy Weapons (thanks to this thread). Are tales of the Ash/Goo Pile persistance warranted and what are the chances of it causing problems? I want to have a save where I basically go into every nook and cranny and I wonder if I should either do well to do it in another game, or eventually move on from energy weapons. I have 4 luck and haven't seen too many disintegrations since Goodsprings. Wouldn't worry about it, my 120 hour mostly-energy weapons game featuring Meltdown never had any noticeable slowdown even near the end. The piles do tend to stick around but I don't think all of them stay there forever. If you're anything like me though you'll probably find a gun that you can't resist using after 30 hours or so of plasma 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
My understanding was that the bombs dropped in the Fallout universe were all Fat Man style bombs that would barely classify as mini-nukes by later standards, like the one that dropped in Megaton. That's why the cities recovered (comparatively) quickly, the mountain ranges didn't collapse, there are still national forests, etc.; there was a massive amount of destruction but a hundred years later or so and things are recovering, just like you can walk through Hiroshima today safely. Otherwise the Fallout universe doesn't make sense, given the scale of the war the planet surface would be a universal moonscape if fought using even 1960's-70's level atomic warheads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Fallout 2's intro posited that most of the nukes dropped detonate well before impacting the environment, to maximize distribution of, uh, fallout. I follow you otherwise, but would pre-impact detonation still crater the planet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:40
|
|
rope kid posted:Sorry, but I have to inform you that I've spent the past few days answering questions on my Formspring about how sequoias could have survived Tsar Bomba-level fault-cracking attacks on the Sierra Nevadas. This is why you need an ideas guy like me. I can pull a David Gaider and, you know, explain why there are still forests. I wouldn't expect you to understand; it's real complicated science stuff. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Little bit of an Idaho sperg here but I like that they target Boise and McCall(?) but apparently completely ignore the nuclear R&D facility over in the eastern part of the state. McCall? No, man, that's Mountain Home AFB. Being stationed there does make you wish for a nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
doomfunk posted:Fallout 2's intro posited that most of the nukes dropped detonate well before impacting the environment, to maximize distribution of, uh, fallout. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Otherwise the Fallout universe doesn't make sense, given the scale of the war the planet surface would be a universal moonscape if fought using even 1960's-70's level atomic warheads.  The earth is really big. Like, the U.S. uses mostly W78s (350 kt) and W87s (300 kt) on its ICBMs.Crater radius (in feet, for ground burst weapons) can be roughly predicted from bomb yield according to r = 40 * yield1/3 (yield in kt); these warheads then have crater sizes of ~280 and ~268 feet respectively, or areas of ~250,000 and ~225,000 sq. feet. (Or, .009 and .0081 sq. miles). Given that the land area of the earth is about 57.5 million square miles, you'd need sixty-four million of the larger warhead to get even 1% of the earth's area within a crater radius. edit: You know, I got that factor of 40 from here, but it may be off. I'm looking elsewhere now. http://keith.aa.washington.edu/craterdata/ appears to use a formula of r (meters) = 41.327*yield^(.28), and predicts a crater radius of 107 meters for the larger warhead, and an area of .036 km2. Which would be ~42 million of the warheads to get 1% coverage. Somewhat fewer, but still not exactly likely. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Mar 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
doomfunk posted:Fallout 2's intro posited that most of the nukes dropped detonate well before impacting the environment, to maximize distribution of, uh, fallout. I follow you otherwise, but would pre-impact detonation still crater the planet? If you want to maximize fallout, you nuke the ground. Air bursts are to maximize damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
I suppose I'm either misremembering the text or completely misinterpreted it, then. Why does a ground burst maximize fallout?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
doomfunk posted:I suppose I'm either misremembering the text or completely misinterpreted it, then. Why does a ground burst maximize fallout? I'm pretty sure it's just because detonating the bomb on the ground kicks up more dirt and poo poo that comes back down as fallout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
doomfunk posted:I suppose I'm either misremembering the text or completely misinterpreted it, then. Why does a ground burst maximize fallout? From what I understand, a ground burst forces a lot of irradiated dirt and other crap up in the air, because it has no where else to go after the explosion. Then it falls back down, contaminating the area where it lands. With an air burst, the force of the explosion mostly just knocks everything down. While there is still some irradiation of the atmosphere, the results are mostly short lived isotopes of elements like nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, plus whatever was created in the initial blast. Since most of those isotopes decay pretty rapidly, and in the upper atmosphere as well, it generally results in less overall radiation to the surrounding area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:From what I understand, a ground burst forces a lot of irradiated dirt and other crap up in the air, because it has no where else to go after the explosion. Then it falls back down, contaminating the area where it lands. How long would the radiation in the air last from an airburst bomb? I've got no idea about this poo poo and it's pretty interesting. I hope this isn't a derail, but it is my Fallout love driving inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
J Bjelke-Postersen posted:How long would the radiation in the air last from an airburst bomb? I've got no idea about this poo poo and it's pretty interesting. I hope this isn't a derail, but it is my Fallout love driving inquiry. http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/index.html quote:After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly so if the explosive yield exceeds 10 Kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout. The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than those which are associated with local fallout and, therefore, is not discussed at length in this publication. quote:An air burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated in air at an altitude below 30 km but at sufficient height that the fireball does not contact the surface of the earth. After such a burst, blast may cause considerable damage and injury. The altitude of an air burst can be varied to obtain maximum blast effects, maximum thermal effects, desired radiation effects, or a balanced combination of these effects. Burns to exposed skin may be produced over many square kilometers and eye injuries over a still larger area. Initial nuclear radiation will be a significant hazard with smaller weapons, but the fallout hazard can be ignored as there is essentially no local fallout from an air burst. The fission products are generally dispersed over a large area of the globe unless there is local rainfall resulting in localized fallout. In the vicinity of ground zero, there may be a small area of neutron-induced activity which could be hazardous to troops required to pass through the area. Tactically, air bursts are the most likely to be used against ground forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean "moonscape" as in "completely pocked with craters" but "moonscape" as in "sterile"; my understanding has always been that later, more "modern" nuclear bomb designs would render massive areas void of life for thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:From what I understand, a ground burst forces a lot of irradiated dirt and other crap up in the air, because it has no where else to go after the explosion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Going back to the map, I live in South Carolina, and I see that they targeted Columbia and Charleston (which makes sense), but there's also a sprinkling around the rest of the state. I wonder why, aside from those two biggish cities there's not much here of strategic importance. That dot up in the Blue Ridge really confuses me, what's up there that they needed to nuke?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
razorrozar7 posted:Going back to the map, I live in South Carolina, and I see that they targeted Columbia and Charleston (which makes sense), but there's also a sprinkling around the rest of the state. I wonder why, aside from those two biggish cities there's not much here of strategic importance. That dot up in the Blue Ridge really confuses me, what's up there that they needed to nuke? Natural resources like mines, food farms (like giant fisheries) or things like power plants that are often placed remotely? Anything that makes recovering really hard I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
razorrozar7 posted:Going back to the map, I live in South Carolina, and I see that they targeted Columbia and Charleston (which makes sense), but there's also a sprinkling around the rest of the state. I wonder why, aside from those two biggish cities there's not much here of strategic importance. That dot up in the Blue Ridge really confuses me, what's up there that they needed to nuke? Looks to me like it's hitting Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head / Savannah, Sumter (Florence?) and the Savannah River nuclear plant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
I like the idea that East St. Louis would apparently be nuked just as heavily as Regular St. Louis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Looks to me like it's hitting Charleston, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head / Savannah, Sumter (Florence?) and the Savannah River nuclear plant. Yeah, I spotted HH/Savannah and the plant too (I live here). We've got an AAFB and another infantry drilling base, among other things. I'm really out of the loop these days but apparently a lot of infantry come through here post-basic. I think I'm also seeing a target right on top of Atlanta, which is also not surprising, and on top of the army surgical proving grounds in the San Antonio area. Nevada seems... mostly okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean "moonscape" as in "completely pocked with craters" but "moonscape" as in "sterile"; my understanding has always been that later, more "modern" nuclear bomb designs would render massive areas void of life for thousands of years. Not really. As has been pointed out, Earth is enormous. What seems massive to us is really minor on a planetary scale. More importantly, even if you're maximizing radioactive fallout, you're certainly not going to sterilize a region, and more importantly radioactive material will disperse over time. In terms of human health, you still have to worry about topsoil and groundwater contamination for decades, and the immediate future will see a rise in cancer and birth-defect incidence in downwind areas. Radiation hotspots will stick around for a while where longer-lived radioactive material (metals in particular) builds up in pockets. If you have a Geiger counter they can be avoided. In terms of the survival of the human race, nukes aren't actually that scary, even a whole lot of them. Sure, it'll mess pretty much everything up, but plenty of people are still going to be able to grow up and squeeze out a couple of babies. The real military power of a nuke comes from its ability to destroy any infrastructure that's not at the center of a mountain. You can see that on the map, where the couple hundred most important manufacturing regions are targeted. In a nuclear exchange, the goal was to cripple the other country's ability to fight back in one fell swoop: take out their missile silos to prevent nuclear retaliation and stop most of their manufacturing to cripple their army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
doomfunk posted:Yeah, I spotted HH/Savannah and the plant too (I live here). Oh, yeah, that's what that Sumter/florence blot is. It isn't Sumter precisely, it's Shaw air force base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Moe_Rahn posted:I like the idea that East St. Louis would apparently be nuked just as heavily as Regular St. Louis. It almost looks like ESL would get it worse. Which would probably be good for St. Louis in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Okay, I understand the spot just south of Miami, that's Homestead Air Force Base and the Turkey Point Reactor for the cost of one bomb. But why hit Miami itself that hard when that's where the Cubans would be rolling in through?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Stroth posted:Okay, I understand the spot just south of Miami, that's Homestead Air Force Base and the Turkey Point Reactor for the cost of one bomb. But why hit Miami itself that hard when that's where the Cubans would be rolling in through? If the city gets nuked the Cubans can drive around it with virtually no resistance. Also, Cuba would probably be completely hosed as soon as the first nuke landed. It wouldn't really matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
rope kid posted:Oops, bad link. Same with this one: I was gonna ask what the gently caress there was to nuke in CT, then I remembered I grew up across the street from what is probably their primary target (Pratt and Whitney, major jet part manufacturer). Also kind of funny that Alaska and Wyoming got a token nuke. Like "Oh, poo poo, almost forgot you were there." EDIT: And Groton, but I didn't grow up anywhere near there  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:31
|
|
rope kid posted:Part of the redundant saturation nuking strategy was to keep kicking up irradiated material, theoretically making executing retaliatory nuclear strikes difficult. I was under the impression that it was the other way around: Large clouds of dust and debris from first strikes would make it more difficult for redundant attacks, as the warheads would most likely be damaged, destroyed, or have incredible difficulty finding their targets through the mushroom clouds generated by the first wave. Conversely, retaliatory attacks wouldn't be inhibited by this first strike (if they were still functioning) as missiles travel slower during their "boost" phase and are capable of passing through the debris relatively unscathed. Ah the things I remember from U.S. Foreign Policy classes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
So am I to understand that the whole nuclear armageddon thing wouldn't really happen? Is it because no one is capable of launching their missiles capable of destroying earth ten times over or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
J Bjelke-Postersen posted:So am I to understand that the whole nuclear armageddon thing wouldn't really happen? Is it because no one is capable of launching their missiles capable of destroying earth ten times over or what? You can't really destroy the world with existing nuclear arsenals, but you can make large parts of it hostile to human life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
J Bjelke-Postersen posted:So am I to understand that the whole nuclear armageddon thing wouldn't really happen? Is it because no one is capable of launching their missiles capable of destroying earth ten times over or what? We're perfectly capable of launching them, albeit no one wants to because of MAD. What we're not capable of is getting enough of a payload out to completely reduce the Earth to the point of being uninhabitable by humans. We just don't have the power, and hopefully we never will. Also, if you'll excuse me while I entomology-sperg for a minute, insects that gigantic would not happen. They might increase in size a little bit, but barring a decrease in the strength of Earth's gravity, they would never be that big. Everything has a size threshold where it simply cannot support its own weight without a drastic change in design; for exoskeletal creatures that threshold's a lot lower. That exoskeleton gets mighty heavy mighty fast. Sorry, I'm not sure why, but I felt like bringing that up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:33
|
|