To quote the newsletter & hoping that people are actually listening to what it says about our alliances in general"No faction should be considered friendly or enemies by nature. Your experiences with them influence your relationship to them and your choices dictate whether they are peaceful, neutral or hostile.
@poison_mara How can you say that you’ll only have one choice when it comes to interacting with the other raider group when you don’t actually know what the choices that are going to be presented to you actually are yet ? If you want to kill them because, they’re a threat to resources that you want to claim, I completely understand that. They’re competition and there probably won’t be enough resources to sustain all the raiding groups in one area.
What I am saying My character in role won’t have other choice. Not that there aren’t other choices available. More from friendly people.
Mara will kill their leaders anyway. Like Scarface did in Chicago only a Raider boss could be possible in a so small area. Or they kill me and take my people or I kill them. I have no friendship or any trust tie to them. And they won’t surrender to me So I won’t have other choice.
knowing Jim there will be millions of way to kill them so I am excited.
They are raiders. My character plays as a person with high honnor and he wants to make nightfall a safe place so there is no room for raiders or groups like the Silverthornes.
If you are good you always can defeat their leaders in a duel and let the others to a righteous path. Or converted them to your religion. Or offered them another choice goodies always have more choices
In raiders if you go for parley and you are charismatic or leader You can taunt them to duel with you for the leadership of both groups. Normally Every one respect that since prehistoric times. Is one of oldest ways of rule Egyptians Asirians etc had written the rule of conquest by duel in stone.
Is also very common in apocalyptic settings from movies to books and in many cultures
Doesn’t sound very noble to make a vow to murder people you don’t know anything about besides the fact they decided to be bandits to me. For all we know they were desperate and thought that was the only way to survive. If that isn’t case than, I have no problem killing them but, jumping to conclusions like that comes across as being murderer who has to come up with shallow reasons just to satisfy their bloodlust rather than actually save people and be honorable.
I only found out until now that I wasn’t actually subscribed to the newsletter, so I’m in the dark about the 5 factions and what they’ll be like. But even then, I assume that the newsletter would only give so much information about them. I’ll wait until I play the game, interact with them, form an opinion and act from there.
Yeah, yeah, it’s a big shock and disappointment coming from the guy who used to come up with really elaborate and complex plans about how to deal with the apocalypse, but you can only get so much information from a couple of comments on a forum board.
Newsletter is useful so SUBSCRIBE however that type of social posting makes me grumpy because I always think in negative. Anyway Mara will definitively open the kill love list except some way they surrender to Mara… And even then she won’t trust their leaders…
I mean, I can make some guesses on what I’d do for the sake of the discussion.
I know for a fact that the whole “surrender to me/annexing groups” tactic is something I’d avoid with a ten foot pole. The more groups I control, the more people I have to deal with, the more unstable the climate becomes, the higher the chances of it falling down over my head are. Instead, I’d focus on the quality of my small group and turning it into the very best survival group there ever was. The states of the other groups don’t concern me much-as long as my group is alive and well, they can go about doing whatever it is they do.
As for how to deal with groups should they run into me, it’s all about first impressions.
If a group proves to be friendly, then I’ll reciprocate will small acts of goodwill on my own. I won’t bow to them or immediately suggest an alliance-I’ll only make genuine alliances when I’m confident my base can survive on its own without any, so as to not grow too dependent on others-and I’ll for the most part be neutral towards them, with small acts of kindness and friendly banter here and there. I’m basically treating them more as a friendly neighbor rather than bloodbrothers. As time has passed and they prove that they have no ill will against me and are competent enough when it comes to dealing with the apocalypse and surviving, then an alliance would be worth it.
If a group proves neutral, then that’s that-they’re neutral. I won’t be friendly, I won’t be hostile. And until they do something that shows otherwise, I pretty much won’t acknowledge their existence.
If a group proves to be aggressive, now that’s where the real fun kicks in. Now, I won’t go around automatically killing their members and vowing to destroy their base in the name of honor; I’ve got enough shit to deal with as it is. But I will remember the little scuffle they did, and I won’t exactly hold them in the highest opinion. And hey, if there ever comes a time where I need to raid someone, they’d be the first option to pop up. Granted, I’m not going to rely on raiding solely for supplies, but I am aware that shit can hit the fan-plants can die off, local wildlife could be scarce and not yield much in hunts, food can rot in the storage, we might not have enough medical/construction/hygiene supplies for daily upkeep, you get the idea. So in those times, when crafting and hunting and trading don’t seem to work, I see no problem in “borrowing” from others. It’s more of a last resort option. And hey, might as well do it on those I have a problem with instead of the ones who are actually friendly towards me.
As for people who choose to raid me…let them come. I’ll be sure to provide an ass whooping that’ll make them regret the day they were born, let alone regret the decision of attacking my base.
In my more idealistic routes I aim to forge a close-knit community that looks out for each other and all contribute with their individual strengths for the greater good, while my teenage MC (I just find it hilarious how a teenager can potentially be be looked up to lead the survivors and how other groups like the Silverthorne militia react to that) can be relied upon to protect them with their master class close combat abilities (thank you New Character Plus).
But I am worried since its not like we can rely on a nomadic lifestyle indefinitely. Merging with other groups to form a more permanent settlement seems necessary if we’re to build something that can last but is that even possible? And what if Reilly’s right about a dictatorship being better?
I remain concerned for the nephew’s well being, although I’ve chosen not to shield them from the horrors of the apocalypse and given him a weapon in hopes that he can adapt to protect himself, there remains a lingering doubt that I may be unwittingly creating a potential sociopath.
I was heartbroken when I accidentally got my Irish Wolfhound killed during the hilltop battle and restarted immediately. I’ve really come to care for my loyal canine companion and look forward to see how far they can last.
I’m also experimenting with a more cynical route as a short-fused intimidating bank robber operating on a kill-or-be-killed mentality just to see how far they can go in what seems like a self-destructive lone wolf playthrough that will probably leave them with no allies.
And I’m trying to take a middle (pragmatic, neither overtly idealistic nor cynical) approach in the scientist route. Its so exciting to see what they can do and how the group might react to the potential of creating a vaccine someday and how that could be used.
That sounds like you’re just simply making a carbon copy of Reilly without the influence and restraint of his mother.
I think that’s an incredibly subjective and debatable question and I don’t currently have an opinion on it. So, I’m going to wait until someone else says something about it.
Have you actually completed part 2 and are you aware of what’s going to happen in part 3 ? If so, then I think that should answer your question on the nomadic lifestyle…
I don’t know about turning him into a sociopath just because he knows how the world is actually like. If you’re doing this in your exceptionally moral playthrough and simply teaching him how to defend himself while making sure he retains empathy for other people then I doubt he’ll become a child soldier who kills anyone he views as weak(of course we don’t know what kind of person the nephew will become we can only hope our lessons stick with him and hopefully influence him for the better.)
In my opinion, the only proper ways to run the faction are either the militaristic style with order and discipline or vowing to put the safety of the group first no matter the cost.
Democracy won’t achieve much. Most of them have wildly different opinions and some of them just don’t have the survivor mindset needed to give actual feedback (looking at you Parker and Kelly). All it’d lead to is a bunch of bickering, a bunch of bitter relationship and no progress getting done.
The altruistic community…it’s just a naive sort of stupid. Helping others when you can barely sustain your own people and vowing to take others in even when you can barely manage with the number you have is just dumb.
The raider lifestyle is only short term. If you look past the badassery and epicness that happens in raids, you’ll realize it’s not exactly the most efficient way to get food and supplies. Sure, it can get them, but scavenging and trading could get you practically the same amount. As for food, there’s planting, foraging, fishing, hunting, setting traps, trading and so many more options you can choose from. But hey, by the time you realize that you’ll probably have pissed off every major faction around and have them wanting for your head.
The other two though-military style and group safety above all. Now that’s a proper way to run a group. The former makes sure that everyone just shuts up and works together and, should the leader be exceptional, the group will thrive. As for the latter (and my favorite one) it’s just the most practical. The people with you now are more than just a bunch of random strangers. They’re your group members, fellow survivors, the people who’ll have your back in times of need and struggle-they’ll practically be your family. As such, it is imperative that their safety comes before all else.
If that leads me down the path of darker moral choices, so be it. People are gonna die in the apocalypse, that’s a guarantee. Might as well ensure it’s not one of my guys.
I said it once, and I’ll say it again-I wholeheartedly disagree with merging, especially if you’re the leader. That’ll just give you more responsibilities, and more responsibilities means more ways to fuck up. And Reily isn’t the smartest tool in the shed, a dictatorship will eventually fall down and you’ll just find yourself with a bullet in the head. To me, the optimum way of dealing with others would be to observe all the factions in play, find the ones who are the strongest and at least morally neutral, and strike up an alliance with them. That way, they keep to themselves, I keep to myself and we both benefit from trade routes and combat assistance and the such.
It’s all about finding a good balance. Too much innocence will leave him unable to deal with the apocalypse-he’ll be a walking buffet for the zombies. Strip away too much of his humanity and you’ve got a soulless husk of a person who’ll act on instinct and is devoid of any empathy.
Find that balance, though, and you’ll end up making a proper survivor who can shield himself against the horrors he’ll face but also be able to sympathize with others and actually engage in human interaction.
Not to mention you’re not actually accomplishing anything in terms of creating a stable environment for your survivors, because now everyone has to work double time to gather enough resources for the new survivors and the ones that are already at home base as well make room in an already crowded location for the newcomers.
Which would probably just result in the one place that’s supposed to provide comfort for everyone and a sense of home and relief from the horrors of the outside world being a claustrophobic den where you’re a lot more desperate &miserable than when you started and you don’t even have time to yourself.
It’s also incredibly dangerous to help every survivor you come across because, you don’t know who they’re and what their actual intent is, they could secretly be part of a bandit group and actually stage a situation that makes them appear to be in danger when they actually aren’t and once they’ve earned your trust and take you home they inform their group where you live and just rob and kill you.
About raiding I totally agree is not for a long term as @AAO has said But we are in a moment that is really useful for survival when the usefulness run out I will do exactly the same as a military group. I try to let companions vote certain things to they understand that they are part of a team a family. That will be easier when the ones that have to die; ended dead.
More or less so. I saw it as a Earn Your Bad Ending route just to see what will happen. Its not something I consider my main playthrough where I place more thought into relationships and survival strategy.
I have and I get the feeling we might be settling on a farmland. Its the transition from nomadic to settled that I find interesting, the latter is certainly advantageous with regards to sustainability but I am wary of the danger of being targeted by raiders and unsure of the long-term future of settling (can it be maintained?).
That sounds viable - my hopes for a democracy was less altruistically inclined towards outsiders and more so on the lines of increasing morale and making every member feel valued knowing they have both a place and a voice in the group, whose survival remained my MC’s top priority. But I think now that to enforce this priority above all else operating the group as a democracy could indeed be counterproductive compared to a military or scavenger style.
Merging seems tempting with the possibility of creating a stronger group but the increased difficulty in management does offset the initial advantage. Maybe a high enough leadership stat could help in that area but my overall consideration towards merging would prefer to avoid it altogether if its unnecessary for the Nightfall group’s long-term survival. But I’m just not sure if the group can make it on their own just fine and how long alliances can hold before a competing faction attempts some takeover.
Trade and military agreements would certainly be ideal if achievable.
It will be an interesting challenge for sure, teaching him to be neither cruel nor naive but empathetic and smart.
however that type of social posting makes me grumpy because I always think in negative. Anyway Mara will definitively open the kill love list except some way they surrender to Mara… And even then she won’t trust their leaders…