Has anyone already played through the new police officer stuff and wants to share his or her thoughts? What I would like to know is, did you feel that your choices mattered? Is the scene believable? And do you think the police officer has now enough prologue content? I recommend playing the supply distribution site scene multiple times, with different stats, as the ranged, hand-to-hand, stealth and notice skills will have a big impact how this scene develops.
1 Like
Hello everyone,
This is just a little info that I haven’t had much time to write lately, which means that the next update will take longer. But it will definitely be finished this year and besides bugfixes and smaller improvements it will mainly consist of the prologue content for the teacher.
6 Likes
It’s fine just take your time with it. No need to rush. Just make it an epic update when your ready
2 Likes
Hello everyone,
I’ve just updated the links in the top post. I have now two seperate feedback surveys. One General Feedback Survey and one specifically for the Farmer Storyline (the other professions will also receive their own survey). If you have completely played the prologue at least once (regardless which profession) please make sure to do the General Feedback Survey. If you played as a Farmer, please also answer the Farmer Survey. Feedback is very important to me, because I’m writing this story to entertain you and therefore I need to know what is good and what is bad. And since I received very little feedback after the recent updates, I try this approach now, where I have one General Feedback Survey (which can be done in 5-10 Minutes) and more detailed profession surveys (which take more time, maybe 10-20 minutes). Please be aware, that the profession surveys will contain spoilers, so please make sure to not read them before you have played that profession.
2 Likes
The Survey for the Soldier Storyline is now online.
2 Likes
I submitted my surveys. Hope it can help
1 Like
Absolutely, I received some good feedback so far. Keep it coming guys.
1 Like
Interesting stuff, the dialogue is a bit too formal at times but otherwise fine.
Can’t wait to see how the actual Apocalypse part plays out.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback. Do you have an example or two of the dialogue in question?
1 Like
Mostly the talks with the farmers in the Farmer origin, they sounded more like a bunch of corporates aching out a contract than a bunch of farmers setting up emergency plans, at least as far as the MC’s part of the dialogue was concerned IMO.
Thanks, when I’m done with the next update I will revisit the farmer content. There was still some stuff missing anyway (mostly a scene where they help the MC to prepare his basement), so I’m now having another reason to check up on them.
2 Likes
I too, am a fan of heavy customisation and would also like to see a cheat mode for stats at some point. Other than that, awesome stuff.
1 Like
Thank you, I’m glad you like it!
A cheat mode of some sort is planned later down the line. But it’s probably one of the last things I’m going to do. Customization is an important part, and while I’m satisfied for now, I’m thinking about adding even more options to customize your character’s background. But that is also something for later. Right now I’m prioritizing finishing the prologue for all professions (which will take a while, considering all the professions that do not have unique content yet).
3 Likes
The survey for the police officer is now online.
3 Likes
I find this concept highly intriguing and compelling. I shall look forward to future updates.
However, I do have some questions:
- Prior to the nuclear escalation of the conflict, there was sufficient time for the United Nations to have an emergency meeting, I presume in the SC. If the international community had enough time to do so, and the involved parties had sufficient time to relocate their assets to the region, I would also assume that NATO’s Article 4 would have been triggered. I must have either missed mentions of NATO coordination before the nuclear escalation, or there was no mention thereof.
Under Article 4 of NATO’s founding treaty, member countries can bring an issue to the attention of the North Atlantic Council (often simply called “the Council” or “the NAC” – NATO’s principal political decision-making body) and discuss it with Allies. The article states:
“The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
Any member country can formally invoke Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. As soon as it is invoked, the issue is discussed and can potentially lead to some form of joint decision or action on behalf of the Alliance. Whatever the scenario, fellow members sitting around the Council table are encouraged to react to a situation brought to their attention by a member country.
- The United States of America, and other Nato members have ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, which are designed to intercept and destroy potential ballistic threats. I’m aware that at least the US, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have such systems, Germany also recently signed a deal with Israel to purchase the Arrow 3 system. China and Russia also have ABM systems. (Other nations have ABM systems too.)
Considering that the nuclear escalation was not immediate, I would assume that nations that possess ABM capabilities would have readied them.
While the ABM systems would likely be unable to intercept and destroy all inbound ICBMs due to the sheer number of nuclear missiles, I would assume that the respective nations would focus their ABM capabilities on protecting some of the major population centers and military bases.
Specifically, I would assume that the United States would be dedicated to the protection of cities such as Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and major military bases, especially naval bases on the West Coast. Other NATO allies would seek to protect their respective population centers and military bases. (In the meantime, I assume some of the world leaders would be evacuated.)
Of course, these systems would likely be unable to protect the entirety of a nation, especially should the other party launch their entire arsenal. I would still assume that the ABM systems would be able to defend some of the major population centers and military bases.
In light of this, I found it slightly perplexing that the news broadcaster announced that it would be their last broadcast for the time being, operations would likely be able to continue in unaffected areas.
(I live in Europe and started to inform myself more on the topic of nuclear war when Russia invaded Ukraine.)
You can’t really do that because a major population center with a destroyed and irradiated countryside is just gonna starve, same for military bases.
Hi, thanks for your interest in my story. I will gladly elaborate on your questions. Give me maybe until tomorrow and I will give you a comprehensive answer.
3 Likes
The level of radiation would not be a major concern. After two weeks radiation levels are generally already considered safe.
Humans can survive approximately 3 weeks without food, access to drinkable water would remain a concern, but stringent food rationing could be able to save significant portions of the population. (Unless nations immediately launch their entire nuclear arsenal; it would be sensible to not launch the entire nuclear arsenal, to be able to strike again.)
People are unlikely to starve with proper resource management.
Further, parts of the countryside with neither military bases nor major population centers are unlikely to be targeted in the event of a nuclear war if the nuclear exchange remains somewhat limited in scope (strategic and tactical).
A prolonged blackout can pose a far greater threat to survival than radiation from nuclear bombs does.
1 Like
It would because good luck growing food safely in irradiated soil.
And millions of people would just accept it with no struggle to themselves or flinching while their kids starve faster and start dropping dead, without mentioning diseases? You’d have riots after 2 days. Cities cannot sustain themselves.
And you’re not making more food to feed New York in 3 weeks if the countryside is nuked.
There’s nothing reasonable about the situations and you can easily find that there’s a lot more going on than what the news said. The nuking is actually due to a fight over something mysterious both sides want no matter what.
Also we’re talking about China and the US, they have thousands of nukes and just launching a few hundreds is more than enough to target all strategic targets and have nukes left over for secondary objectives.
Strategically, if your enemy has defense on its main population center, you nuke the countryside and the population center dissolve or starve by itself.
It really doesn’t, you clearly underestimate the devastation of a ruined harvest, especially in a situation where international food trading is a no go. People calm down after a while under a black out, people don’t starve less as you try to get more food.
Nuclear winter would be much more of a concern than irradiated soil.
“During most of the growing season, a sharp decline in temperature for only a few days may be sufficient to destroy crops. The lack of rain that has been predicted after a nuclear war would contribute to crop failures. Since most of the wheat and coarse grains are grown in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which would be the zones most affected by a ‘nuclear winter,’ it is evident that a nuclear war, especially during the spring or summer, would have a devastating effect on crop production and food supplies for at least that year.” Food and Nutrition in the Aftermath of Nuclear War - The Medical Implications of Nuclear War - NCBI Bookshelf
The article is quite old, however, its points remain true.
You are aware that martial law would be declared, right? The right to assembly would likely no longer exist. People who riot will have to face the (remnants of the) military.
Control over the South Chinese Sea and a large portion of global trade is not something “mysterious”. It is “reasonable,” and about denying the other party control.
China currently is estimated to have less than 1000 nuclear warheads.
It would largely depend on the intended strike–decapitation, counterforce, countervalue, etc.–that would also depend on the doctrine of each nation. For instance, currently, both China and India have a NFU (no first use) nuclear doctrine.
Are you familiar with nuclear and military doctrines?
It is unlikely that nations would launch their entire arsenal for several reasons. Even in today’s world where MAD is a deterrent, a nuclear escalation would likely not target an entire nation, nations do not tend to be suicidal.
Apart from that, the rest of the world (non-involved parties) would also be affected by the nuclear exchange in the event of a nuclear winter. By exhausting their nuclear capabilities, and through the decimation of their military in counterstrikes they would become vulnerable to invasion by non-involved parties. In such a hypothetical event (if Pakistan and India do not nuke each other), India could reasonably subdue China. China and India have border disputes, this is of course only one example, and would be contingent upon Pakistan and India not launching their nuclear weapons against each other.
Nations tend to have grain and food reserves that are intended to sustain their population for several months. I don’t underestimate the effect of nuclear winter, but I don’t overestimate the effect of radiation.
Modern nations, however, are incredibly reliant on electricity for their economic activities, as well as the maintenance of society. The threat blackouts pose is genuinely underestimated by many.