What stuff should not have made it into Tactics?
- Thread starter Ripper
- Start date
Hellion
Antediluvian Lurker
alec said:Toe? Note on the shelves? WTF are you guys talking about?
IIRC you only need an electronic lockpick to enter the "secret" room in the Toxic Caves?
These appear only if you haxx0r the game. Apart from that, haxx0ring the game will also unlock a special perk called "Sarcasm detector".
This is so friggin' priceless, Alec falling for another man's Fallout prank 
Silencer said:This is so friggin' priceless, Alec falling for another man's Fallout prank
I wasn't falling for it. I was being sceptic. It sounded like a bunch of rubbish to me, but I just wanted to be sure.
Guess I thought they were talking about something from FOT that I'd forgotten or something.
Anyway, Morpoggel, Mikael Grizzly and Hellion are now on my black list of 'Guys who thought they could fuck with me, but should have known better'.
No one fucks with alec's mind, man. No one! *raises fist whilst howling*
If there should have been any tank in the game, it should have been something like the MBT-70. Futuristic looking while still being slightly different. Very cool machine either way. I understand why they put the Sherman in the game though: National guard units. I've always thought that it was supposed to be a home defense force tank that just hadn't been destroyed when the bombs fell and considering how simple the Sherman was (yes main US battle tank in WWII) it wouldn't be surprising for it to still run with some work. The US government still has stockpiles of new and almost new WWII vintage firearms in storage in case they're ever needed, most governments do.
It's much more likely that a couple of tanks sitting in some militia depot in the midwest were to survive than forces on the west coast of North America where the Chinese were invading. Let's see, throw nukes at two tanks and a wheat field or a large population/transit/military center where I'm invading? Decisions, decisions. I don't think it should have been in the game but if they were going to do it, the MBT-70 would have been a good choice.
It's HMMWV or Hummvee, not Hummer. A Hummer is that stupid bastardized civilian SUV that only looks like a real HMMWV but's just an SUV. I think they should have had something like it in the game before a tank but they most definately should have changed it. The reason the design looks like it does is because that's what's needed but that doesn't mean they'd come to the exact same design. - Colt
It's much more likely that a couple of tanks sitting in some militia depot in the midwest were to survive than forces on the west coast of North America where the Chinese were invading. Let's see, throw nukes at two tanks and a wheat field or a large population/transit/military center where I'm invading? Decisions, decisions. I don't think it should have been in the game but if they were going to do it, the MBT-70 would have been a good choice.
It's HMMWV or Hummvee, not Hummer. A Hummer is that stupid bastardized civilian SUV that only looks like a real HMMWV but's just an SUV. I think they should have had something like it in the game before a tank but they most definately should have changed it. The reason the design looks like it does is because that's what's needed but that doesn't mean they'd come to the exact same design. - Colt
Colt said:
The Chinese had been thrown out of Alaska long before the Great War, in 2074 I think. They were getting hammered by the new power armors.
Umm yeah, maybe they do now, but I doubt they'll still have them in 72 years. That would be like the US keeping civil war rifles and cannons, in case they're needed.
IF they absolutely had to put a tank in, they could have gotten off their lazy asses and make a futuristic design, fusion-powered and adapted to warfare in 2077.
alec said:Anyway, Morpoggel, Mikael Grizzly and Hellion are now on my black list of 'Guys who thought they could fuck with me, but should have known better'.
No one fucks with alec's mind, man. No one! *raises fist whilst howling*
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that my entire previous comment was only ment to fuck with alec's mind. I mean, that's everyone's main goal , right?
Yes. You only had one though, vs a lot of power armors.
Max Demian
It Wandered In From the Wastes
IMNSHO, they should've left out everything after the St.Lois mission with the possible exclusion of Kansas city, coz it was kinda fun listening to that techno-zealot leader of theirs (Bishop?). Those heavy machineguns like the 0.50 Browning were really tedious to use, coz I had all my characters used as ammo mules just so that one guy could wreak mayhem with that outdated weapon. They probably should've made some provision for it's mounting on the Hummvee - that've made more sense in my reckoning.
the 50 cal shouldn't have made it into Tactics either, along with most of the other weapons. They're not true to the Fallout universe, being realistic and all. Mounting that huge machine gun on the Hummvee (note the posters' nearly unanimous opinion that this vehicle shouldn't have been in the game either) would have unbalanced the game completely, making it even worse.
Well, what I'm working on now (entities and text files) removes all these god-damned real world weapons replacing them with those more true to the setting of Fallout (as AK-97 or M1989NATO, I know, they arent in Fallout, are in Wasteland and W is not part of Fallout, I know, but come with something to replace the AK and M16?).
Also, WTF with 5,56mm? 5mm is the standard small caliber high velocity round.
Why FN Minimi? 5,56mm SAW in Fallout, where the basic HMG is a Rockwell CZ56 (AFAIR) Minigun?
Why Lewis? Dating back to the Civil war? 14 Degrees east and Microforte fucked up badly...
[Money, Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon]
Also, WTF with 5,56mm? 5mm is the standard small caliber high velocity round.
Why FN Minimi? 5,56mm SAW in Fallout, where the basic HMG is a Rockwell CZ56 (AFAIR) Minigun?
Why Lewis? Dating back to the Civil war? 14 Degrees east and Microforte fucked up badly...
[Money, Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon]
Mikael Grizzly said:
Umm, If I recall correctly, there are patches to replace the FoT weapons with those from Fallout. the Ak 47 and M1989 are not really compatible with Fallout, make them generic "assault rifles". doesn't FoT already have too many weapons anyway? Many are exactly the same, they only look different. Just use the weapons from Fallout, no pre-war guns added.
I think 5.56 NATO is standard.
Okay, but I need someone to replace the .spr, cause I sucka at this. And there is more FOT guns to replace than there is in Fallout.
5mm is the standard ammunition in Fallout 1 and 2. 'A brick of lightwight ammunition' for AK112, an ol militray model assault rifle out of use around the time of the war.
Oh, and AK97 and M1989 are more fit for Fallout than AK47 and M16.
5mm is the standard ammunition in Fallout 1 and 2. 'A brick of lightwight ammunition' for AK112, an ol militray model assault rifle out of use around the time of the war.
Oh, and AK97 and M1989 are more fit for Fallout than AK47 and M16.
Well, if you found someone to replace the sprites, you could just go with the AK-112 . Teh most fallouty 
Baboon said:
Umm, yeah, use your pretty and expensive nukes without any plans of exploiting them? Let's blow up a mountain! Why?! It looks cool! No matter how stupid, a military objective usually isn't to blow up a wheatfield but to take out military and industrial centers or places that could be used for that.
You completely missed my point. The government stockpiles weapons in case of FUTURE need. Just because it's from WWII doesn't mean it won't work and won't kill you. What should they do with them, throw them in a big pile and light them up with some kerosene thrown on top? To what end? Just store the damn things in case you need them or to sell them later to collectors (which they do).
See the link to the MBT-70, futuristic and realistic while looking different. Better than just throwing a Sherman in the game. - Colt
Baboon said:
It wasn't just fashion. Fallout is set in an alternate timeline, as it is based on what people of the 40s and 50s imagined the world of the future would look like. Thus, there are laser and plasma weapons, but all the computers are lamp-based because no one imagined there would be such thing as transistors in the future at that time. While there certainly were more weapons in 2077 more advanced than in the 50s, they certainly weren't the ones we had, but some entirely different ones, mostly what people from the 40s and 50s imagined would be used in the 21st century. See:
http://vault.duckandcover.cx/index.php?title=Divergence
Colt said:
So they would blow up China, not Alaska. I was referring to the fact that you stated that China was invading the West coast of the US in 2077, which isn't true. Most of US troops were stationed in China at that time (Sadly, the Americans bombed their own troops).
So by your reasoning, they still have WW1 and Civil war equipment today, just in case they need it. If it kills, it works. Why not just equip your army with shovels?
You know, apart from selling the shermans to collectors or museums, they could turn it into scrap metal.
Yeah, or they could just have designed a new tank.
That wasn't my point. I'm saying Armies are always extremely pragmatic, not following any rules of estethics. And the resource-exploiting view of the future they had in the 50's is still largely incompatible to the energy crisis of 2077. No large 1950's tanks, airplane fleets, navies, and so forth. Unless they were driven by fusion power:
Your argument about transistors is the same as the one I'm about to throw out about fusion power here. True, they hadn't discovered transistors in the 50's, but the world of Fallout never did. However they developed and managed to control fusion power, something even we have failed to do so far, not to mention science in the 50's. This is where your transistor argument fails; they had no idea about transistors, but they knew about fusion power?
The 50's comeback in 2077 was in my opinion more about design than what people had imagined back then, because in reality the two are very different.
Oh, and the computers are vacuum tube based, not lampbased.
*edit* One of the things I disagree with in the Fallout Wiki is the lack of a nuclear winter being related to scientific ignorance in the 50's, when the whole nuclear winter theory was pretty much discarded in the 80's or 90's (I can't remember exactly).
*edit 2* Laser and plasma weapons and such aren't unrealistic for our own timeline. Research is most surely being conducted about such horrors by the US and other countries today.
As for the nuclear winter, maybe it was discarded then, but it wasn't developed yet in the 50s. Anyway, this explanation is based on the Fallout Bible, so complain to Chris Avellone.
As for transistors and fusion power - that's exactly the point. Fallout is based on 40s and 50s pulp sci-fi. Before the transistors were invented, the sci-fi authors probably imagined fusion power will be discovered at some point in the future, but they didn't imagine something as simple as transistors - and this is exactly how it works in Fallout.
As for transistors and fusion power - that's exactly the point. Fallout is based on 40s and 50s pulp sci-fi. Before the transistors were invented, the sci-fi authors probably imagined fusion power will be discovered at some point in the future, but they didn't imagine something as simple as transistors - and this is exactly how it works in Fallout.
Fusion power was well known in the 50's, as the first H-bombs were built. It was unknown how it could be controlled however. Maybe it wasn't even considered.
I find it pretty hard to believe that someone could've "imagined" fusion power before it was discovered.
Also, the transistor thing. Our computers are getting smaller, but maybe that won't be the desired path in the future.
I'm mostly criticising the Bibles, not your arguments. Maybe they should be edited.
I find it pretty hard to believe that someone could've "imagined" fusion power before it was discovered.
Also, the transistor thing. Our computers are getting smaller, but maybe that won't be the desired path in the future.
I'm mostly criticising the Bibles, not your arguments. Maybe they should be edited.