This deal where none of the cities have been destroyed is ge

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:22 am

Well, a game like Fallout 3, they pointed out the reason that DC is mainly intact is that it'd not be fun to explore a flat irradiated crater.


Las Vegas is the only thing with a real reason for standing, and even then, it was logically written in.


This
User avatar
Avril Churchill
 
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:00 am

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:55 am

Yeah, don't you just hate how everything is standing?! SOOO unrealistic, unlike the giant ants, mutants, ghouls, and consumable 200 year old foodstuffs....
User avatar
El Khatiri
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:43 am

Post » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:36 pm

Mr. House and Robco sold just enough ABMs to the U.S. military/Enclave to not have all the major cities turned to burnt mud or craters.
User avatar
Daddy Cool!
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:34 pm

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:24 am

It's honestly a bit ridiculous. Especially when you consider that if you talk to House about it in New Vegas he claims that city was targeted by some absurd number of nukes (77!) that he mostly dealt with. Makes me think nukes in the Fallout universe are all suitcase-sized equivalents.
War isn't simply about killing a bigger number of the enemy's population; it's destroying the things that support them so their infrastructure collapses. Take Rome for instance. Once one of the single most powerful empires in the world, but then it quickly fell. Was it through civil war? Nope. Nearby enemy tribes realized they had been using caravans to bring in food and supplies, so they stayed far away from the walls and took out the caravans. Rome eventually began to starve and broke out into fights over the last bits left until finally the entire city had died.

Targeting Vegas would be an economical choice and also a casualty choice. A lot of people travel here to gamble and waste millions if not billions of dollars every year. Taking out that system would do tremendous damage to the state of Nevada and would do a bit of damage to the United States' economy as well (after all, those casinos had to pay taxes as well. Now they can't). The amount of nukes targeted at Vegas is yes, absurd, but there's also the fact of people driving in and out of Vegas every day. Those nukes may have also been traveling to hit I-15 and eradicate thousands of lives driving in and out of the city.

Also we see that House, the enigmatic leader of RobCo also based himself here. He alone was able to generate untold amounts of robots for civilian and military purposes, and taking him out would also have a large impact on the United States.
User avatar
*Chloe*
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:19 am

I was reading that the bomb yeilds were basically those of the hiroshima bombs, because there was no cold war no country was racing to create bigger yeild nuclear weapons and technology went in different directions, so that would explain the big boy bombs in dc and the damage, but not obviously the massive destruction in vegas. And if you look at the wide black and white aerial shot of the destruction of hiroshima, it mostly looks bad because there were alot of wooden buildings, i live in country victoria australia and weve had fire obliterate a few towns, and when you look at how much damage fire causes, its not just blast from a nuke that causes damage to structures.
User avatar
Ells
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:03 pm

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:39 am

and if you read the wiki i think it is about new vegas and house he had some kind of weapon to shoot the nukes before they hit but with a core overload the guns shut down and like one or two hit but idk where
User avatar
Sweets Sweets
 
Posts: 3339
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:26 am

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:43 am

There's only 1 nuke that was dropped on D.C successfully as the White House is the only place that's a crater. Obviously there were more as shown by the Megaton bomb


That was the only nuke that hit the ground. There could have been multiple airbursts as well which would explain less destruction but high radiation.
User avatar
Rozlyn Robinson
 
Posts: 3528
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:25 am

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:08 am

Even -one- nuclear bomb crater would take up so much of the landscape that it would be PROHIBITIVE. Would you really enjoy the game if you spent half of it skirting around the edge of a damn 50-mile wide crater smoldering with radiation?

It would be boring. Damn boring.


They would probabally put a location there too, right in the middle, so you have to take rad x/away ever 2 seconds because you feel compelled to get that location...
What no one else was like that in fallout 3, only to be pissed when they found an inacessibl door...
User avatar
asako
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:16 am

Post » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:35 am

Nukes aren't as devastating as you would conceive it to be. 1 Megaton nuke in the heart of London will destroy only 10% of the city and maybe 15% of the population.. Most of the Nukes smaller countries have are as small as 10-50 kilotons which would have 10 times less damage than a 1 Megaton nuke(rough estimate)

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_103.html


The whole 1 nuke = 1 city destroyed thing is just scare mongering ...

If you read these three articles entirely then you would understand why "duck and cover" really works and was promoted during the cold war era..



Great read. Thank you for that.
User avatar
jadie kell
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:54 pm

Previous

Return to Fallout Series Discussion