Fallout Texas (yeah this old thread again)

Discussion in 'Future Fallout Game Discussion' started by The Dutch Ghost, Apr 3, 2020.

  1. Hardboiled Android

    Hardboiled Android A Smooth-Skin

    648
    Jun 7, 2015
    For some reason the premise of communists in Fallout almost always skeeves me out - probably just because of Beth's over focus on it, but I've just always found the idea sort of repulsive. In general playing with specific ideologies rather than general ideologies in fallout just always comes across moreso like Star Trek than Fallout.

    I do think that the New Texas Rangers* is a great idea, and as a sort of loose form of government that gives you a lot of leeway to hang a narrative off of.

    *Might want to remove the "New" from the name, I think just Texas Rangers is sufficient, or alternatively Wasteland Rangers
     
  2. Post-War Tribal

    Post-War Tribal If I'm salty, u probably deserve it.

    73
    Nov 8, 2018
    Mhm I'd imagine atleast a few tribal factions would roam the area. I'd also belive a heavy presense of arsenal and artillary alike. I Wonder what effect It would have on the region?
     
  3. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    Well I wanted an ideological opponent to the Confederacy, one that is about centralization and authoritarian in nature with a political class that in general is a separate group from the common people.
    And I also did not want to recycle Republic vs Confederacy, Yanks vs Rebs.

    One could say "Why not NCR vs the Lone Star Confederacy" but I don't want to stretch the NCR all over Arizona and New Mexico so that it can border on Texas (plus there is that radioactive no man's land).
    I would like to maintain there is quite some distance between any of the newly arisen governments in the former United States.

    Lone Star Confederacy vs Texas Rangers would not work as both in principle are the same; settlements having self rule, but the LSC is more about that focus on financial pursuits will in time improve the conditions and quality of life for everyone (hence why they primarily only want settlements that can help to the continued economic growth) were as the Texas Rangers are less focused on that and rather that the big players don't crush the little guy.

    Plus the Rangers' ideological opponent is more the Cartel, the organized crime gang that seeks to influence control settlements from behind the scenes or extort them for their own personal benefit.
    They don't care who gets hurt or if settlements in general progress or remain the same as long as they get their piece of everything.

    Edit: and for personal reasons the Texas Rangers do not want to take control of any alliance of settlements. In the past their decision led to the destruction of a community.
    The Black Hats on the other hand think they are the most suitable to lead.


    There would actually be quite some tribals in the area; the Kerrs, the Brontes, the Windmill People, the Children of Poseidon, a tribal raider gang that split into two groups that hate each other.
    But I would like to add more to the mix.



    Edit: looking back at this post I feel I kind of lost the point but the idea was that there would be two political systems the player could choose between each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
    One would be about centralizing. They would be more authoritarian in nature but they made sure that economic entities for example would not get out of control and basically take over.
    The other was more about self rule of each settlement in general and cooperation on a number of point but without much central supervision allowing economic entities to twist laws to their benefit and create a wide divide within society, some settlements would benefit but others would suffer.