Looking at the video in depth, I notice that the number of people in your town is almost equal to the number of beds in your town.

Going out on a limb here, but assuming there is some correlation between beds and settlers, after raiders basically kill everyone in your town, in theory a number of raiders can be assigned to the town using the existing number of beds already in the town, giving a decent number of raiders for the size of the area.

If it were in the game that would be my guess...

Well they do have a safety number based on your defenses, and I don't think the game will understand the idea of choke-points thus rendering and safety number basically meaningless so I think this is completely possible, and I hope to be the case.

If attacks take place while you are away, notifications aren't really going to help you much. In these situations, combat will probably be over and done with in 15 minutes or less. If it takes you longer than that to get there, all you are going to be able to do is help clean up the mess. Provided there is anyone left to help....... Not like you can instantly transport yourself back to your settlement, from the opposite side of the map...... So, if attacks DO occur while you are gone, that kinda raises 'defenses' on your priority list. eh?

My guess is if they're too strong for you and your settlers to deal with, they'll kill them all and run you off and then just kind of "stick around" milling about until you are able to come back later deal with them somehow. I'd just stay out of range and pick them off one by one.

They may do damage to the settlement itself, (I doubt it, maybe the turrets as they were classed as a creature in the GECK and killable) but of course it all remains to be seen.

I hope that raids are organic and sensical. As in, I hope that there's a time when your settlement doesn't have too much to offer that the raiders rarely if ever take notice of it enough to launch an attack. Then, as you build it up, they begin to recognize the potential for resources and do start gunning for you. But then, after you've repelled them a few times and have built up a solid amount of defenses, they wise up and realize that attacking the settlement may not be the best idea and the attacks become rarer again.

I guess I was thinking the raiders and defenders are both dug in, so your base is under siege. Understand your point in an "outmanned" situation tho.

I'd prefer to see a number of possible results to be determined by the AI. The raiders should have at least three options:

1. Conquest. Take the settlement more or less intact (the inhabitants included) and occupy it until such time as you or some other party takes it from them.

2. Destruction. Plunder the settlement, ravage, enslave, or kill the inhabitants still inside, destroy the settlement completely, and return to "where they came from".

3. Raiding / Killing spree. The raiders kill every last man, woman, and child that they find, and strip the corpses. Perhaps they don't feel strong enough to hold what they've taken, just don't feel like hanging around, or already have a base of operations. Whatever the reason, they haul ass after damaging your settlement to some extent..

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"..

When you show up and see the settlement that you built under new mangement- or in ruins with the bodies of the NPCs that made that settlement worthwhile lying scattered around, you'll know what to do. In cases where the raiders don't stay on site, the player should be able to obtain something regarding where they went.Said information should be time sensitive. The more time that you take to gather rocket launchers, mini-nukes, and more followers, the less likely the raiders will be inclined to hang arould waiting to hammered. Throw enslaved former inhabitants into the equation, and a moral gray area of sorts arises. You either decide to go after the bad guys and erase them from the pages of history, or some survivor decides to erase a sizable chunk of your karma by spreading the word that you lacked the big ones to avenge your own friends. In any case, your best chance to avenge the dead and free any captives should be if you go with what you have and pursure them immediately.

Considering, the only thing we have seen so far on the subject is a bunch of raiders attempting to breach the defenses of a settlement, the only thing I can say is we will have to wait to find out what happens if you fail to defend your settlement.

I like the way you think. I find it highly unlikely that not a single raider will be killed.... so, maybe be able to trace him back to the rest of his gang. Also, for those with a fixed base of operations, that are just coming to raid/plunder/murder/enslave for the fun of it.... the 'time-sensitive' portion could be whether/how many of your settlers that were taken that you can rescue. The others having been sold-off, or killed. Something else to keep in mind is: Yes, you can set up automated defenses..... but then, so can the raiders.

I agree with you regarding your "...how many of your settlers that were taken that you can rescue" statement. Real- world considerations should apply if at all possible. What would real raiders do? Ice anyone who couldn't keep up- the older and wounded for starters. Those worth selling into slavery and also who present the least capacity for resistance would last longest. And yes- if the raiders get to where they're going before you catch up to them, then you get to assault their encampment- or walk away and take a noteworthy karma hit for letting your friends get killed or sold. Difficult decisions are the privelege of rank.

I can see the modders are going to have a FIELD DAY with this particular aspect of the game.

No doubt. Whole settlements, cities, new quests. Possibilities are almost endless.

I'm not trying to be vitriolic, but to have a consequence as tangible as raiders commandeering your settlement seems anti-Bethesda.Bethesda proclaims complete freedom, people complained about Fallout 3's definitive ending and Bethesda changed it, if settlements were constantly commandeered and destroyed people would complain and Bethesda would change it.

I don't know..... People complain about getting killed alot, but, I haven't seen beth make the player essential.

FO has always been about 'actions have consequences'. Building a settlement may have the consequence of having all that hard work, burnt to the ground. I actually rather like the idea....... folks will start allocating more resources for defenses...... they would actually start paying for themselves when they could hold off a raider assault, and give you lots of interesting loot on the field of corpses.

And then the essential merchants who have some of the best gear in the game would stand up...because people would always reload otherwise and they don't want that.At least according to Todd Howard.

Very true, but I don't think Bethesda has been able to truly deliver on those consequences. Remember Broken Steel? If you choose to poison the wasteland to create the enclave's perfect mutant-free utopia...very little happens. The water kills you if you drink too much, and the ghouls seem to have some problems, but all in all the storyline is about the same. A far cry from replacing Colonel Autumn and letting every wastelander not raised in a vault die.

Remember Skyrim? With the civil war? No matter who you side with, the opposite side is never truly defeated, the officers at their camps are always essential, and no high king is ever crowned. Most characters don't even update their dialogue to reflect that the civil war is over, with a few exceptions.

As cynical as it sounds, i don't trust Bethesda when it comes to consequences.

Very true, they do NOT have a good track record...... Maybe we can hope that they have improved on that score for this game. We will see come November. (I know I am certainly looking forward to it. The game anyway..... I rather dislike winter...... )

And then, after the steam stopped blowing out your ears, and you were able to pick up your jaw, you would have to go in and kill them. JUST for the sheer pleasure of it.

What would be interesting, is if they would hold your settlement/some settlers for ransom. Pay us, or you will never see them again.....

I don't think any of us truly know how this will work, however, I would welcome the possibility of fighting to regain control of ones settlement.

Very soul satisfying too I would imagine. But, are the buildings destructible?

I understand we don't have much to go on, but after watching some of the E3 footage I would guess not. Maybe a limited form of destructible environments. I do remember watching the pc fire a minigun while wearing power armor at some raiders (I think). In the process, I noticed a support beam to one of the buildings was hit pretty hard. I didn't notice any appreciable damage to the beam. If there were destructible environments, the beam would've been utterly decimated with the amount of bullets that hit it.

There are some clips from the e3 vids showing some loose panels coming off some buildings when the sole survivor is shooting at super mutants.

It seems like there will be a few things that can break off of some buildings, but overall, its impossible to really destroy them. As evidenced by the wooden beam thing you mentioned.

I do recall Todd saying they don't really like to destroy things unless they can really control it, like the Megaton destruction, when asked if dragons can destroy towns in Skyrim. So I assume this is one of those cases.

And my guess is, that's a pretty safe assumption.

I suppose, given the nature of the game, with a destructible environment, eventually, you would have a flat plain, where Boston used to be. Folks tend to get a bit free and easy with the ammo. Especially if you are an NPC, and can't run out.......