Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Most of the buildings are empty or boarded up, most pople live in either Diamond City or Good Neighbour and the yare holed up in there so the only people using the buildings are generic Raiders.
Why is Boston unhurt by the atomic bombs?
- Thread starter The_Proletarian
- Start date
This ghoul has seen it all
So Diamond City is the only and biggest settlement in the game?
Dr Fallout
Centurion
I found some small settlements but if we have some strict criteria... yeah...
Well, yeah because I don't consider a shack with 3 people a "city". Hell not even Diamond CITY, if we are at it. But I will be generous today and allow Diamond City to be a settlement. Still. I just can't accept such stuff anymore. Not after Witcher 3. It shows what can be and should be done - of course, not a direct copy, but I really would love to see a TRUE town in a wasteland setting for once.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Again, abstraction which some accuse me of hating, but let's say this, I hate BADLY done abstraction, or in this case Bethesda land!
Alright so the "wasteland" of Fallout 4 is not post-nuclear since no bombs hit it. Why wouldn't people just continue to live as normal in Boston after the war if it was so unhurt?
Nuclear bombs affect a large area. The city just wasn't totally levelled like D.C or the west because no bombs fell directly on it. It's still pretty bad though.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
How? Radiation is the only problem, because the military and police force could have taken a forceful stand there.
With a 750kt nuke (megaton nukes were retired in the fallout universe and most nukes used were 200-750kt as stated in the original Fallouts manual) everything and everyone in a 12.3km[SUP]2[/SUP] radius around the bomb is pretty much destroyed, past that up to a 54.4km[SUP]2 [/SUP]radius small residential buildings are destroyed, beyond that the flash of the bomb would cause third degree burns to people people and buildings, that alongside the increased radioactive fallout in place of thermal shock in the Fallout universe nukes (also from Fallouts manual) would kill everyone in a 279km[SUP]2[/SUP] radius around the bomb while leaving buildings intact if a bit burned up. This is assuming the nuke that hit Boston was exactly 750kt.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
I'm just explaining why buildings are broken down and in disrepair rather than demolished like DC or the west. Still doesn't explain why only 1 bomb landed near Boston, Idk if there's an ingame reason for that, you'd think hundreds of nukes would land on the city rather than just 1 outside the city.
The problem is that we are spending a lot more thought in to this than Bethesda ever has.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Bethesda just needed the knowledge to make an explosion, nothing else.
shengar
First time out of the vault
Las Vegas was targeted by 77 nukes. There's no way that the Chinese would only send ONE nuke to frikkin Boston.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Suspension of any kind logic.
I think that general decay and disrepair from simply not being lived in for so long would take just as much of a toll on the buildings. Look at Pripyat today, it was never nuked, but it's pretty bad, and that's just 30 years. Hell, there are dandelions growing through the asphalt outside my house, and that gets repaved every 5 years or so. I could buy the world looking like it does in Fallout 4 (and actually all the Fallout games) if it were 30-50 years since the bombs fell, but not 200.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
I think the originals handled it well, apart from San Fransisco.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Yeah that part makes less sense. The East Coast receiving less bombs, fine, but Boston is a big city. I'd say the 77 targeted at Las Vegas was probably gross overkill, however, but it still makes no sense that only 1 was slated to hit one of the biggest cities on the East Coast.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Gross overkill? Russia and the US at their height had around 40 fucking thousand, and in this the US is pulling no stops to their military production!