Come for the Mods, Stay for the Community!
 
HomeCalendarInterviewsFAQMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Info Panel
Stay Connected

_
June 2018
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
CalendarCalendar

Share | 
 

 FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:59 am

Now, I already made up my mind on this, but I want to hear other peoples' ideas on this question as arguably this is the deciding factor for most players. Bethesda isn't always praised for their story telling(something I often criticize), but it seems they may have unintentionally done something good here. I'll explain that later.

First, let's talk about each faction, who they are, what are their goals, and what do they do. Keep in mind that these are my takes on the faction based on my own experiences and the wiki. I'm going to ignore any Sole Survivor involvement until later on. I will also be talking in the lore, not gameplay. So I'm not going to say A is tougher than B because A can take one more .308 round to the noggin than B. Game mechanics are going to be ignored because they don't portray everything accurately.

The Railroad

The Railroad is pretty straight forward. Their main goal is to free all synth kind because they believe them to be human or at least worthy of being equals. A noble goal, but let's look at the big picture. Realistically, they're the smallest of all factions(unless you choose to not help the Minute Men at all) and really only concern their time and resources to helping and freeing synths. They don't really care about anyone else, or at least don't do anything for them that can be viewed as helping. Raiders still attack people, super mutants still attack people, and the Institute still captures people. They are so few in numbers that they really can't do a whole lot towards their own goal aside from hiding in the shadows and praying the Institute or Brotherhood of Steel doesn't stumble upon them. Part of the reason they are so small is that they are so secretive and rarely take in new people. This coupled with not many people wanting to give the few resources they can to help some stranger start a new life with a new face and memory(not a cheap or easy procedure). Though I don't recall it ever coming up, I wouldn't be surprised if they stole resources once in a while. They don't have a settlement so they can't reliably produce enough food, water, and power to sustain themselves. Maybe they can rig up a small generator for their underground base, but you can't grow a lot of food underground and scavenging is hard and dangerous(lore-wise). This would also prevent them from growing too big as well. They have to stay small in numbers so their few supplies can sustain them. If they tried to make an above-ground settlement and it grew to be noticeable, the BoS and Institute would be there in a heartbeat(we see this in both questlines).

The Minutemen

Easily the most morally good faction of all the options. There goal is noble and simple. To create connections between settlements so they will help each other out whenever need be. Let's say the settlement on the other side of the river needed water. You'd ship some out there so they would have some and the next time you needed something, other settlements would chip in. Kind of like a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". While this is good in theory, I believe it would also lead to problems. It sounds a bit like communism and that always fails. The General and Minutemen are essentially in charge of all these settlements and can control their resources and tell them what to do and they have to follow. The General is kind of like a dictator in this sense. Yes yes, it probably sounds like a buzzword type of thing to say, but realistically their roles and powers are similar. The General/Dictator will command their people to do whatever they want. The system the Minutemen want to introduce is essentially communism. To cut it simple, look at some of the many reasons communism fails. Unfair compensation. Everyone pools resources and ships it where it needs to go/wherever the General tells it to go. On paper, this sounds like it would be perfect, but it's not so good in reality. In reality, nothing is ever so black and white. Some settlements will inevitably produce more than others and need to pitch it all in in exchange for the same compensation a less productive settlement gets for significantly less. Abernathy Farm would be pitching all of their food while only receiving the same exact benefits as the ghouls who pitch in a few tarberries from their pool. Realistically, Abernathy Farm would break off fairly quickly because they'd be operating at a loss with no real long term benefits. With that food they chipped in, they could trade for more workers to farm more food and then hire guards so the Minutemen's protection scheme would be rather useless. Other settlements would follow suit because they wouldn't want to pitch in more for the same results as the little group of 3 people by a campfire. So in order to keep this system functioning, the Minutemen would have to find a way to reward the bigger, more productive settlements or straight up occupy all the settlements by force. Either way will lead to problems.

So again, noble intentions, but realistically not effective. Moving on, without the Sole Survivor's intervention, the Minutemen would probably never grow outside Preston. He'd be the only one left assuming he could have fought off those raiders and deathclaw. Assuming he managed to get away with the group, they'd make their home in Sanctuary. While there, they may repair a few homes and just become another helpless settlement.

The Brotherhood of Steel

One of the most iconic parts of the Fallout games. While their motives and actions differ from game to game, this falls back on how they're each different chapters. While they all have the same set of codes, they may stray from it a bit and operate differently than others. Many of you probably know this so I'll skip out on that part and focus on the DC Brotherhood as they are the ones in Fallout 4. So, their goals are essentially to only wipe out the synth threat. That's the whole reason they came to the Commonwealth. The synth threat translates to anyone who creates them and anyone who aids them. That again translates to the Institute and Railroad. While the Railroad does aid synths, as I mentioned above they are so few in numbers that they are probably more of a secondary objective. They really aren't too much of an immediate threat. I mean, why go after them first when the Institute are the ones creating synths in the first place? Undeniably they would go after the Railroad next, but they are clearly a secondary objective. As we all know, the Brotherhood of Steel is a rather extremist bunch. They don't want anyone to have advanced technology out of fear something like the Great War might happen again. A noble goal, but they are so extreme in their methods that they effectively halt most attempts at rebuilding society. The DC branch was more lenient under Lyons, but when Maxson took over, he took that branch a bit more back to their old ways of hoarding technology. Lyons would help and protect the people in DC, but Maxson kind of just pushes everyone else away. This may seem effective on paper with him accomplishing many great feats, but the cost of doing so is great. In the Commonwealth, we see them being rather ruthless in their quest. They only seem focused on the Institute and not about helping anyone. They only really attack super mutants if they see them or are in the way. They won't go hunt any down to help protect others. They definitely won't send people out to clear out raiders. The only reason they'd ship out a squad is if it was synths and they likely would't care if the settlement nearby got caught in the crossfire. We can even see how they actually take resources from settlements as "payment" so they really aren't doing the people of the Commonwealth too much good. Without the Sole Survivor's interactions, the BoS may not have shown up in Boston when they did, but likely would have shown up shortly after considering Danse's squad would be the second group to lose contact there after following the Institute's trail. Without the Sole Survivor, they might be comparable to the Institute in might, but without the Sole Survivor, they never learn where they are so it becomes a waiting game and the Institute would win that one since they've been isolated and fairly self-sufficient for centuries.

The Institute

Clearly, they were designed as the big bad guys. Meant to be the new evil guys on the block. Their goals aren't quite too clear(probably thanks to Bethesda's writers). From what I can gather, their main goal is self preservation and the advancement of science. Initially, they tried to help the people above to rebuild, but that didn't go so well so they decided to remain hidden. To be frank, the scientists mostly seem detached with how they operate(probably stemming from their isolated society that grew less and less humane each year). They were similar to the Think Tank from Big MT. They often did experiments because they could. They experimented with the FEV and just dumped the super mutants above ground which started to hurt all above. While they did many morally bad and questionable things, they did still have some good in them. Not all in the Institute were "evil". Some were fairly decent people who didn't want to hurt anyone. They just wanted to be allowed to work on their projects. They replace people with synths from time to time, but this is mostly to keep an eye on the people above and subtly manipulate them away from their interests. If it wasn't for the synth mayor in Diamond City, they would have likely gone on a hunt for synths and any Institute operative they could find. Replacing people isn't their goal as many people often think. They want to further humanity and synths aren't the way to do that. The synth replacements are just to ensure that they can keep others out of the way and keep an eye on them. Now, without the Sole Survivor's help, it's safe to say that not much would have changed. X6 would have captured that raider synth. They would have obliterated the Railroad. They would have gotten the Beryllium Agitator from Mass Fusion and gotten virtually unlimited power. They also would have likely beaten the BoS. Their only real threat was the BoS, but without Liberty Prime, they stood no chance. There is no way they would have been able to finish Prime before the Institute came knocking at their door. They needed Li to finish it and she was with the Institute. The BoS had stronger armor and ground forces, but the Institute had the numbers and resources. That along with the ability to teleport anywhere they damn well pleased would help in most battles. It'd become a waiting game over who got weak enough to finally be killed off first. The Institute was in no immediate danger while the BoS was operating at a cost just to have presence in Boston.

Without the Sole Survivor's interference, I believe the Institute would be on top in the end. Though, that wouldn't necessarily be the best ending. In fact, it'd arguably be the worst.

Now, the Sole Survivor can flip the whole chess board over with whomever they side with so rather than decide who is best based on that, we should look at all the perks each faction can offer the Commonwealth. These will take the Sole Survivor's actions into consideration. Each list will be reading it as if that particular faction was the one the Sole Survivor chose and had won.

The Railroad:
I honestly can't think of any real perks. They don't really seem focused on anyone's well being aside from synths and sentient robots and they are far too weak to be of any help anyways. So they offer the least in the long run.

The Minutemen:
They would offer a somewhat unified Commonwealth. The minor settlements outside the city would grow to potentially rival Diamond City and Goodneighbor. They would also encourage and offer incentive for others to join up and help protect others, thus creating a safer and more friendly wasteland.

The Brotherhood of Steel:
They would offer the end of any threat synths would bring as they'd kill them all. They might even hunt down the remaining super mutants. They would eventually leave though and either go back to DC or move on to another location. When they leave, the Commonwealth would arguably be more or less in the same state, just without synths and mutants. Raiders and rad creatures would still be prevalent. Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference.

The Institute:
This one is hard to answer because it all depends on who the Sole Survivor is. They become the Director of the Institute and that means they are in charge. The board meetings of the division heads are only to update the Director on important matters. What they say has no bearing on what the Director chooses. The Director could make them do just about anything and they'll follow their orders. This means that the benefits they offer are completely up to how the player chooses to be. For example, if you choose to keep things as is, the Commonwealth would essentially be the same before the Brotherhood of Steel showed up. Nothing would really have changed. People would still die by all the same things and some would still be replaced. Nobody would really notice. However, if you choose to direct the Institute to more benevolent actions, you can arguably offer so much to the Commonwealth.

So if we combine all of this, I'd have to say the Institute can potentially offer the most to the Commonwealth or at the very least, keep things as is. The other factions would arguably make things worse or keep them the same.

For more clarification on my thoughts on why the Institute is the best option:

You are the Director. What you say goes. The only other faction you can effectively control is the Minutemen and they don't really have much to offer the rest of the Commonwealth. Just basics. As Director of the Institute, you can choose how you interact with the surface. In my first good file, I decided I would make the Institute a beacon of humanities triumphs. I would share the technologies and advancements with the people above. I'd start with Diamond City by deposing the Mayor and tell them he's a synth. I'd then offer them the chance to work with us. The only thing it would cost them would be allegiance and various supplies and materials. In exchange, they would get full protection. Gen 2s would patrol the walls and outskirts while gen 3s would be more for the general policing and coordinating since they would be able to handle it better. DC could elect it's own mayor and go about their own normal daily lives, but paying a small "tax" of sorts. We wouldn't need water or power, but food and various metals and other materials are things we'd need. DC would prosper because they would have the best defenses. Anyone aligned with us would also be able to call for help outside settlements which would mean synths would be teleported directly to them to help them. I would also offer this agreement to all settlements in the area. Eventually, they'd all sign up. After that, we'd have so many resources to advance projects and synth production. I would then create a synth army that would scour through the Boston city and eliminate every single raider, feral ghoul, and other hostile forms. This would make the whole city pretty much devoid of all threats. The people could move back in. Then we could start to rebuild the city and over the next few decades, the whole city could be like it was before the war. Eventually, we'd become prosperous enough that other places outside the Commonwealth would take notice and want in. Then we'd branch out further. We would be educating the people all along the way. Maybe even a few would prove intelligent enough to join the Institute's divisions and produce some new projects. Progress all around.

This is what I would have done as the Director and I believe it would be the best for all in the Commonwealth.

Who do you think is the best for long term results for the Commonwealth?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ahyuser001

avatar

Posts : 211
Join date : 2018-01-28

Character sheet
Name: Character
Faction:
Level:

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

The only real choices are the Institute and the Minutemen because...

The Railroads main focus is the "liberation of synths" which means they could not care less what happens to the people of the commonwealth.

The Brotherhood of Steel came to the commonwealth to destroy the source of the synths(The Institute) and the chapter that Elder Maxson brought with him are more like the west coast BOS(except the isolationism) so I do not see them helping settlers from raiders/ghouls/gunners/super mutants if it's not going to benefit them.


The Minutemen is a militia formed to help protect the settlements in the commonwealth from threats such as raiders and super mutants. The problem is when these militiamen start creating factions of their own within the group.

This was the problem of the original minutemen where they eventually turned on each other which brought their downfall. There is also the problem of the fracture in their organization that they need help from an outsider to fix it(ie the Sole Survivor).

And even if the Sole Survivor manages to help the minutemen get back up on their feet, what is there to stop them from turning on each other.

Apart from this there is also the issue with the settlers. Each settler is a unique individual with their own agenda and this will lead to conflict with other settlers.

This is the main reason why the commonwealth will have a hard time uniting to create a centralized government(CPG). The commonwealth will have a hard time making progress if they are in conflict with each other.


The Institute has a lot of bad reputation in the commonwealth but I think it is because of the decisions of their directors. They have the technology to help the commonwealth but they are also disconnected from the people above ground, being underground for such a long time, to understand how they can help.

I think this is why "Father" chose you to be the next director because you are not a scientist and you probably have an idea of how the world works above ground. This could serve as a catalyst to help the institute create better relations with the people in the commonwealth and in turn help create a better future for the region but this is also a problem because without you they are doomed to repeat the same thing their previous leaders did.



None of the factions in the commonwealth can be the best for the Commonwealth on their own but with the help of the Sole Survivor it would have to be the Institute. They have enough power and influence to make a difference without relying to other people too much.

The Minutemen rely too much on the unity of the settlements to make a difference. They will eventually bicker with each other once the threat that keeps them united is gone.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sacremas

avatar

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-03-11
Age : 36
Location : Norway

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:24 am

While I agree with your overall conclusion, that a benevolent Director would be the best outcome for the Commonwealth, I do have a few points.

While the Brotherhood does have the stated goals, they would definitely wipe out the supermutants also, too much bad blood there to begin with and they are as much if not more of an abomination compared to the Synths, they just aren't a priority issue. After a Brotherhood ending and a Cambridge crater (which is incidentally stupid; why the hell not just march through and wipe out the synths, capture and interrogate the scientists and either reeducate into scribes or execute for their crimes on a case by case basis, then just make the institute the Brotherhood's awesome new bunker headquarters, like they have on the west coast? Seriously that was my main issue with the BOS campaign), the Brotherhood will place checkpoints all around the area, and constantly sends patrols all over the map, this just ramps up after endgame rather than slow down, so they are clearly here for the duration.

Eventually they'd leave, but they'd pacify the area quite a lot by just tromping through, they would wipe out the supermutants and the ferals (probably a few non-ferals also, they might leave Goodneighbour alone but the Slog would be history), or at least decimate their numbers if not exterminate them, and probably a few deathclaw nests and the like also in the process (there's multiple BOS vs Deathclaw random encounters set up post game), scrounge up the tech they could find, and probably in the process scare most raiders into at least being a lot more cautionary than they are now, as while the Brotherhood wouldn't care too much about the Raiders and protecting random settlements by their mere presence tromping around doing their other stuff they'd mess up quite a few raiders.

The Gunners would be a clear target after the supermutants, hell possibly before; them having access to vertibirds, plasma weapons and so on just makes them too much of an obvious target for the Brotherhood to at least check out where they are getting their gear (my guess is old Enclave bases, I really dig Outcasts and Remnants idea that they actually ARE the Enclave), and they'd at a minimum cut off their access to more tech, and might just wipe them out while at it. Honestly with the gunners having that much tech there should have been a small BOS questline to check out these guys.

Then they'd leave, and while the raiders would return to their old habits once the risk of running into a squad of power-armored goons are reduced, the Commonwealth would be a lot better off, maybe a few of the settlements meanwhile would have had time enough to build up sufficiently to be able to fend for themselves, or someone else would have built up something like a Minutemen militia even if Preston died in the Museum of Freedom.

Ironically if we add the Nuka World Raiders to the mix as well, overall we just have another Minuteman faction. Once taking over the place and making a few 'examples' to prove their power, they'd pacify the area and keep the settlements safe for the simple reason that if they were wiped out by mutants or whatever they could no longer give the raiders caps. If it would be a better life could be argued, they'd be alive (for the most part, a few settlements would just vanish) but probably not very happy and you'd see a few Pipers and Lucys on the auction block at Nuka World, but morals aside the long-term end result for the Commonwealth as a whole would be pretty much the same as a Minutemen win. No idea about the Mechanist if we were to bring in that crazy plot, probably total extinction if the Institute or Brotherhood didn't step in and squash the brains. To be honest I have a love/hate relationship with that DLC, I love it because of the robots you can make and fairly decent quest, I hate it for the constant rust devil and rogue robot attacks, which to me at least seem to show up way more often than other random encounters.

In total I'd still say the benevolent Director ending is the best, and it was what I also chose in my first playthrough. For my current BOS playthrough, my character's idea was first to use the Minutemen system to build up all the settlements to a point where they can be self sufficient and don't really need me any more, basically if they rely on caravans for food and water I set that place up wrong, and also set up and arm enough guards that they'd do fine without me, with the Minutemen the infantry on the ground as well as a viable source of new BOS recruits. Except that failed; no matter what I do there's still a good chance that any raider attack will get through my wall of missile turrets and power armored guards and loot the place unless I show up in person (game mechanics issue; unless you use a mod then there's never going to be more than a 50 % chance that they'll manage to defend themselves, but it's enough a part of the game it's obvious beyond mechanics). Clearly these commonwealth settlers are just morons that can't take care of themselves. So the solution is simple; recruit the damn raiders instead, set them up with incentives they need to protect the farmers, kill the mutants and keep their own kind in check, then have the raiders be expendable shock troops. We'd monitor the raider forces and recruit particularly disciplined subjects like Porter Gage into the Brotherhood, and sooner or later that should end up as a self-sufficient society, at which point the Brotherhood can turn their eyes to the next hotspot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Waffenbaum

avatar

Posts : 300
Join date : 2016-07-07
Age : 32
Location : Denmark

Character sheet
Name: Lucky
Faction: Vault 13
Level: 22

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:21 pm

The Minutemen seems like the default "good" choice, but assuming the NCR consolidates themselves and manages to eventually reach Boston, they'd likely assimilate the Minutemen into the NCR ranks with minimal difficulty. I honestly feel like they wouldn't be out of place in it either, since both have a similar command structure and similar end goals. They'd probably find common ground fast and realize that the Commonwealth would stand a better chance as part of a whole rather than trying to be a neutral bystander.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
vaultboy2121

avatar

Posts : 3
Join date : 2015-06-12

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:37 pm

I personally would/did choose the Minutemen because if you don't set them up like a communist faction(which the Sole Survivor being married/a vet and being a Pre-War American wouldn't) the Minutemen would be one of the best choices. That's assuming that the institute gets more malevolent, doesn't change, or potentially falls apart with Father depending on the SS joining to be the new director, not to forget the whole explody part.

I've also always seen the caravans as actual caravans with food, materials, weapons, etc... that the actual settlements and settlers pay for, it was just that for gameplay purposes Bethesda made it free for the player to have a connection so that they could potentially have all of their recourse available. The Minuteman, Preston Gravy always said they were trying to protect the commonwealth in a minutes notice and that was the point of the settlements, to give the people protection further from Diamond City and have them as outposts. I also think the whole settlement failing to defend its self-self-wasn oversite on Bethesda's part, and not the first or last one either. That's also is assuming the SS sets up the Minutemen properly if he were to become the General and either try to set it up like prewar America, NCR, or the real original Minutemen.

Wertologist, I like the way you did this but I think that you could have been more objective on the first part when explaining the factions beliefs, objectives, backgrounds, and interaction with the rest of the factions. For example, stating that the Minutemen were kind of communist(I can see it but didn't until you stated that), was more of an opinion than fact. That's how you stated it though so more freedom to you. I could also explain why I don't like the other factions as much but that would be a whole lot more poorly structured paragraphs than any one person should be forced to read.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
farlas816

avatar

Posts : 311
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : (pale blue dot)

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:59 pm

Paying for the resources between settlements isn't necessarily. It pays for itself by value of the settlements gaining access to resources they wouldn't normally have. You set up a trade route between Abernathy farm and Sanctuary, they both get something out of it.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:29 pm

@vaultboy2121 @farlas816 The SS being a veteran/wife of a veteran makes no difference. That's the system the MM use pretty much and the General is the ruler of all. They could strip a settlement of resources and nobody would bat an eye. The settlement might break off, but that's my whole point. Taking all their resources while giving nothng back would make them want out. The problem is that all settlements have to pitch in everything while not getting equal services. Like the settlement on the edge of Gunner territory would not be bringing much to the table, but taking in a shit ton of resources like ammo and other materials for protection while some settlements like Abernathy Farm would be pitching in everything while getting virtually nothing in return. Many settlements are self sufficient. The caravans you send to other settlements are not the kinds of caravans that sell stuff like the wandering salespeople. The caravans you send out are specifically transferring resources so they share everything.

>I like the way you did this but I think that you could have been more objective on the first part when explaining the factions beliefs, objectives, backgrounds, and interaction with the rest of the factions.

I did that though. I listed the goals and how they get along with the other factions.

>For example, stating that the Minutemen were kind of communist(I can see it but didn't until you stated that), was more of an opinion than fact.

Not really an opinion. Their system resembles communism. Everyone pitching in all they have so that they all have equal resources, despite not giving equal amounts. Liberty Prime would be ashamed.

To sum it up:
"In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required."

All the settlements are working class, but not all produce the same amounts. So the more profitable settlements are the "rich" settlements. When they pool all the resources together, there is an unequal amount of work being done by the "rich", but they don't obtain anything extra for their larger contribution. The resources are distributed based on the needs of each settlement. A more well-off settlement won't need much so they won't get much. A poorer settlement in a bad area will need much more than they have so they are given more. It's quite literally a communist system the Minutemen have. That's less of an opinion than an objective fact.

>Paying for the resources between settlements isn't necessarily. It pays for itself by value of the settlements gaining access to resources they wouldn't normally have. You set up a trade route between Abernathy farm and Sanctuary, they both get something out of it.

That may work well if they were all profitable settlements, but add a settlement like Finch Farm, which is situated right next to a raider base and a super mutant stronghold, then a lot of those resources will be going to the Finch Farm people. That's not a fair deal for the well supplied settlements because Finch Farm doesn't offer anything in return. Abernathy farm has access to the most food considering it's a big ol farm while Finch Farm is a few rows of nutfruits. Abernathy would also have a decent access to wood(not gameplay-wise, but realistically) due to them being right next to a bunch of trees. Finch Farm beats Abernathy in nothing, but would suck up more resources. They might be fine on the food aspect(though realistically, they can't survive long off like 5 nutfruit trees), but every other resource would be needed to build up their defenses. See, the Finch Farm settlers would definitely benefit from the MM, but the more profitable settlements like Abernathy wouldn't. The only thing of value they'd be getting is a militia, but with the amount of resources they have to give up would be more than enough to hire a few guards themselves and cut out the middle/minute man.

It'll eventually lead to problems because why would the profitable settlement want to pretty much pay for every other settlement out there when they don't get an equal return? They'd be pitching in all their resources and get practically nothing back because they were already pretty much set up.

The Minutemen are filthy reds that deserve to be dead. So sayeth our lord and savior, Liberty Prime.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lallajuice

avatar

Posts : 4
Join date : 2015-07-26

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:27 pm

Trick Question.

Spoiler:
 

Back to top Go down
View user profile
IRORIEH

avatar

Posts : 639
Join date : 2015-04-09
Age : 21
Location : Manchester, England, UK

Character sheet
Name: Booker
Faction: The highest bidder
Level: 21

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:16 pm

@Wertologist

I don't remotely see how the minutemen are communist, or where people get that idea from.

They're a volunteer militia. General isn't a rank in the traditional sense, it's a title given to the commander of the militia, and as we see in the game, it holds no real power outside of the group. The thing you're really missing when you talk about settlers v minutemen is that the minutemen ARE the settlers. The minutemen defend the settlements of the commonwealth, making it safe for them to farm and trade with one another. That's not communism. A lot of the issues you're citing come down to game engine limitations. They couldn't have true simulated self sufficient settlements, so it's all dependant on the Sole Survivor.

People aren't forced to join the minutemen, it's voluntary. Communism isn't voluntary, it's a system you are placed in it. But like you say about some settlements being richer than others- just imagine how much more wealthy that settlement could be with others to trade with, and safe roads to travel...

Of course a lot of this can come down to headcanon and how you choose to play, but I don't see the minutemen as a big brother type entity watching over the settlements and kidnapping dissenters in the middle of the night to correct them for stepping out of line. Of all the factions, the minutemen offer the people of the commonwealth the most. They are the only faction that can avoid needless conflict between the Brotherhood and the Railroad, the only one that can achieve some level of peace with the Institute (provided you choose to evacuate non combatants), and the only one that seems to have any vested interest in creating infrastructure for trade and communication.

The Brotherhood treat the Wastelanders like shit for the most part and will happily let a settlement starve to feed their troops (Proctor Teagan's radiant quest). For all their talk of helping the commonwealth, the Brotherhood show remarkably little interest in helping these settlements grow in any way, or even culling the mutant and raider population outside of those they are forced to fight. Of course this comes from the Brotherhood's major flaw. Maxson thinks he and only he knows what's best for everyone, regardless of how that plays out. And everything he does seems far more centred around furthering his/the Brotherhood's own goals than helping the average people of the commonwealth.

The Railroad are a group with good intentions I guess, but poor execution. They only care about synths. They don't have any interest in protecting the commonwealth, Desdemona views most of them as bigots, which puts her opinion of them on the same level as Maxson and the BoS; unwashed masses. If it isn't synth, the railroad don't care that much.

The institute kidnap and murder people, replace them with synths, destroy families, manipulate towns and spread fear. All in the name of scientific experiments that are often petty and fruitless. But think for a second, that the Institute constitute a greater threat. Suppose Synths as their sentience continues growing eventually, as more and more synths are made, they rise up within the Institute, much like what happens in the railroad ending. Except this time their is no Sole Survivor or Railroad to guide them. Suppose they take over. They now have access to synth manufacturing technology. These synths are vengeful against humanity and continue producing more and more. Eventually they surface and attack the commonwealth. Nothing could realistically stop them. In that, I think the BoS is right. Self aware synths represent a danger. Creating and unleashing them on the world is dangerous. Synths don't reproduce, but they can be created. They also supposedly (at least according to note on the Shawn synth) don't age, at least in a human sense. A synth army like that could truly be a threat to humanity. And with institute tech behind them? The Brotherhood or a force like them could probably beat them, but not without heavy losses, and the common citizen? Almost certainly doomed. So yeah, the institute is a ticking timebomb, as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, the minutemen are the best choice for the commonwealth. The Brotherhood has become so much like Enclave lite in Fallout 4 I can only hope it was intended and the Railroad don't care too much about helping the average settlement. The less said about the Institute's plans for the commonwealth the better.

_________________
Muwahahahahahahaha!!!
What do you mean evil laugh!? This is how I always laugh!
Bow Down:
 
Back to top Go down
View user profile
vaultboy2121

avatar

Posts : 3
Join date : 2015-06-12

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:10 pm

@"IRORIEH" Neat, you read my mind and were able to make it completely coherent, definitely stated what I couldn't.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:20 am

@IRORIEH They're more than just a militia. A militia doesn't govern how people live or how they handle their resources. The way the MM act is similar to communism.

>General isn't a rank in the traditional sense, it's a title given to the commander of the militia, and as we see in the game, it holds no real power outside of the group

Yeah, they're in charge of everyone who signs on with the MM. Any settlement that signs with the MM becomes part of the MM which means that the general is in charge of them. The general is also in charge of their resources. It has no power outside the group, but that's the same with every head of the other factions. Maxson's Elder rank means nothing outside the BoS.

>The thing you're really missing when you talk about settlers v minutemen is that the minutemen ARE the settlers. The minutemen defend the settlements of the commonwealth, making it safe for them to farm and trade with one another. That's not communism.

Except you're leaving out the whole process in which they operate. Them being settlers has no bearing. It's communist because all settlements kick in their resources and do not get equal return. That happens in communism. If your neighbor has 2 cows while you have 0, you would get one. You would prosper from it, but your neighbor gave more than you did with no return. That's communism. The MM do more than simply protecting. They command how settlements under their protection operate. They don't just protect settlements. When a settlement signs on, that means they are now MM. That's how their system goes. You don't just sign on and then go do your own thing without giving back. The MM commands your settlement and all your resources. They pool all settlement resources and put them where ever the General wants it.

>People aren't forced to join the minutemen, it's voluntary. Communism isn't voluntary

I never said they were forced. Communism is sometimes voluntary. If you lead a country, you can merge with a communist country. That's a false difference. It doesn't matter if they join the MM voluntarily. The system in which the MM operate with is very similar to communism.

>just imagine how much more wealthy that settlement could be with others to trade with, and safe roads to travel...

Except that the richer settlements have to pool in all their resources regardless. It's not theirs anymore. All settlements surrender all their resources to the MM when they join. The MM, specifically the General, choose how those resources are spent and where they go. So the rich settlements give more than the poor settlements because they have more. The poor settlements get access to all the resources they couldn't get before. The richer settlements now have less than they had before. It's essentially communism. They all have equal resources despite pooling in more than others.

>but I don't see the minutemen as a big brother type entity watching over the settlements and kidnapping dissenters in the middle of the night to correct them for stepping out of line.

I never said or implied they do that. That's not a real thing in communism. It often happens in countries that practice communism, but it's not a required feature of communism. The way the MM operates is similar to communism. No, this isn't me comparing them to Russia or China. I'm saying they are very similar to communism, not countries who practice it. The two comparisons are very different things.

"com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

That's pretty much exactly what the MM do. All property is public and all resources go to where they are needed, not taking into account who produces more. Yes, they voluntarily join the MM, but that doesn't mean they aren't or can't practice practice communism. Settlements more well off require less resources so they receive less than they give. Settlements that are in poor and dangerous areas receive more than they give. That's pretty much communism.

>the only one that seems to have any vested interest in creating infrastructure for trade and communication.

This is somewhat contradictory to an earlier statement of yours:
"The minutemen defend the settlements of the commonwealth, making it safe for them to farm and trade with one another. That's not communism."

Earlier you say that they're just militia and can't be communists because that's all they do, but now you're agreeing that they dictate how settlements operate. Even so, that's debatable if they're the only ones trying to create infastructure. That is what they seek, but if the SS is benevolent and becomes the Director, they can also seek this out and do it more effectively, hence why I said they would be best.

>So yeah, the institute is a ticking timebomb, as far as I'm concerned.

Except that's your perception(by your own admission). Not a fact. Your perception of synths being dangerous is your own thing. They are about as dangerous as the average joe. The Institute does have a shady past. that's not something I tried to hide. I just said that a benevolent SS Director would be able to change things for the better and make peace with most factions. They could stop Gen III production and free the remaining Gen IIIs to appease the RR and help out everyone else which makes the MM happy. Without Gen IIIs being produced anymore, all that's left is Gen IIs which nobody considered really dangerous because they weren't autonomous. Only the BoS would not be happy and that's their own fault.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
vaultboy2121

avatar

Posts : 3
Join date : 2015-06-12

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:38 am

I would like to make a few clarifications:
Are we assuming that the alternate factions are going to end with their assumed game canon endings(so potential explosion of the Inst. or destroyed Brotherhood with a MM end game), or are we going based off the assumption nothing happens to them and the SS doesn't do anything with them.

For the MM stuff and settlement building, are we talking as if we use any more than one settlement? I never branched out from more than one or two settlements and didn't use the caravans much except when I ran into CTD bugs at different locations.

Are we assuming that everything in game was intentional or are we excusing the potential poor writing of Bethesda and assuming what they wanted outside of what the canon ending is because we wont know that for a while, this could make a great difference in what would be the best for the Commonwealth.

Are we taking in the players perception of the game into account over the face value of the game. That would almost completely nullify the point of discussing this because perception and understanding is typically going to be different for each person to enhance their own playing experience or at least make this far more difficult for the reason of filling in holes in lore for each player.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sacremas

avatar

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-03-11
Age : 36
Location : Norway

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:02 am

While the minutemen can resemble a technical communism, it can also resemble actual ones, with the General acting as the Premier. After all you are able (expected to in fact, or they won't make more) to just go around regularly and claim whatever surplus they have produced from each settlement, meaning the only one who in the end truly profits from such a society in the end is the General, even if it's expected (and likely also happens in a proper Minuteman/settlement playthrough) that you'll put those resources then to work building up the settlements fully. And if you bring in Nuka World, you got the other part of the bad sort of dictatorship where if some settlement offends you, or it would suit you better, you can just elect to wipe them out, or enslave them properly.

Note that I'm one of those that build up those settlements properly, 4 mutifruit trees at Finch Farm? Forget it, that place has over 40 settlers living there in my current playthrough, some of them on the overpass above with an elevator connecting them, self sufficient and not taking anything from other settlements, with guards enough able to hold off a Quincy-scale Gunner attack, more shops than in Diamond City (probably more than Diamond and Goodneighbor combined by now, thanks to Sim Settlements), as big as Abernathy farm while Sanctuary has over 60 (I need to get rid of some of those and ship them around, I ran into AI issues once I passed 100 plots), and none of them would have ever gotten that big and prosperous without the Minutemen and the General. And I still see the points there. Although once you get to that stage with shops and such in the settlement that you can claim rent from but not just take whatever they have for sale it changes the deal a little bit closer to capitalism, with the General then becoming more like the President than anything. Actually it changes it sort of toward's today's China, which is in a weird state of Capitalist Communism, which is part of the reason (that and their insane manpower) why China is taking more and more of a lead on the global market. I'm using a mod called Logistics Stations that even act as my tax collectors, sending all caps earned and surplus materials to my home base, and my empire is currently earning me about 1500 caps daily, it's not unusual to figure out I have 20k bottles of purified water, meaning thanks to all my settlement work I now have effective infinite purchasing power... not unlike a dictator. If it was a possibility I could have probably built a fleet of Prydwens by now, and I actually CAN (thanks to Workshop DLCs) produce enough power armor and energy weapons to outfit all my guards better than the BOS, as I already did that. But unlike a dictator it's in my best interest to keep settlements happy, because that will keep production at a max, so if people need something they usually get it, and I'm always looking to for ways make my peons even happier and more productive.

By the way this very recent (as in a few days old) Kurzgesagt video may interest some, about how even if you put all morals aside it's probably in everyone's interest to still make sure your fellow man has a better life, some of this can be applied to both a Minutemen (that is sort of following this plan regardless) and an Institute play (the Brotherhood doesn't care, and the Railroad are just assholes, if not for Deacon I would have wiped out those guys);

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:07 pm

@vaultboy2121 The analysis I did above for each faction was as if the SS didn't take part. Later I added them to each and picked which one I thought would have the most to offer. I picked the Institute due to their highly advanced technology and their ability to help if they were told to. With the BoS, the SS has absolutely no say in how much they help people as they are under Maxson. RR doesn't give a damn and I don't think you can become leader. MM cares, but there is only so much they can do.

The settlement building part is pretty much an integral part of the game and essential to the MM so yeah, we're talking about supply lines to all of the available settlements.

Not really sre what you mean by canon. The whole game is canon.

It's not about who you chose based on who you like. It's about looking at them objectively and finding out which faction can offer the most to everyone. I picked the Institute because you become the Director and can control them however you like and make them benevolent and helpful rather than shady sociopaths like they were.

@Sacremas
While I agree with most things you say, I think making the settlements as big and prosperous as DC isn't really "realistic". In a lore sense, I don't think they're supposed to get that big. I always got the feeling that they were supposed to be relatively small as they were just settlements, not actual towns or cities.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
IRORIEH

avatar

Posts : 639
Join date : 2015-04-09
Age : 21
Location : Manchester, England, UK

Character sheet
Name: Booker
Faction: The highest bidder
Level: 21

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:26 pm

@Wertologist wrote:
@IRORIEH They're more than just a militia. A militia doesn't govern how people live or how they handle their resources. The way the MM act is similar to communism.

>General isn't a rank in the traditional sense, it's a title given to the commander of the militia, and as we see in the game, it holds no real power outside of the group

Yeah, they're in charge of everyone who signs on with the MM. Any settlement that signs with the MM becomes part of the MM which means that the general is in charge of them. The general is also in charge of their resources. It has no power outside the group, but that's the same with every head of the other factions. Maxson's Elder rank means nothing outside the BoS.

>The thing you're really missing when you talk about settlers v minutemen is that the minutemen ARE the settlers. The minutemen defend the settlements of the commonwealth, making it safe for them to farm and trade with one another. That's not communism.

Except you're leaving out the whole process in which they operate. Them being settlers has no bearing. It's communist because all settlements kick in their resources and do not get equal return. That happens in communism. If your neighbor has 2 cows while you have 0, you would get one. You would prosper from it, but your neighbor gave more than you did with no return. That's communism. The MM do more than simply protecting. They command how settlements under their protection operate. They don't just protect settlements. When a settlement signs on, that means they are now MM. That's how their system goes. You don't just sign on and then go do your own thing without giving back. The MM commands your settlement and all your resources. They pool all settlement resources and put them where ever the General wants it.

>People aren't forced to join the minutemen, it's voluntary. Communism isn't voluntary

I never said they were forced. Communism is sometimes voluntary. If you lead a country, you can merge with a communist country. That's a false difference. It doesn't matter if they join the MM voluntarily. The system in which the MM operate with is very similar to communism.

>just imagine how much more wealthy that settlement could be with others to trade with, and safe roads to travel...

Except that the richer settlements have to pool in all their resources regardless. It's not theirs anymore. All settlements surrender all their resources to the MM when they join. The MM, specifically the General, choose how those resources are spent and where they go. So the rich settlements give more than the poor settlements because they have more. The poor settlements get access to all the resources they couldn't get before. The richer settlements now have less than they had before. It's essentially communism. They all have equal resources despite pooling in more than others.

>but I don't see the minutemen as a big brother type entity watching over the settlements and kidnapping dissenters in the middle of the night to correct them for stepping out of line.

I never said or implied they do that. That's not a real thing in communism. It often happens in countries that practice communism, but it's not a required feature of communism. The way the MM operates is similar to communism. No, this isn't me comparing them to Russia or China. I'm saying they are very similar to communism, not countries who practice it. The two comparisons are very different things.

"com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

That's pretty much exactly what the MM do. All property is public and all resources go to where they are needed, not taking into account who produces more. Yes, they voluntarily join the MM, but that doesn't mean they aren't or can't practice practice communism. Settlements more well off require less resources so they receive less than they give. Settlements that are in poor and dangerous areas receive more than they give. That's pretty much communism.

>the only one that seems to have any vested interest in creating infrastructure for trade and communication.

This is somewhat contradictory to an earlier statement of yours:
"The minutemen defend the settlements of the commonwealth, making it safe for them to farm and trade with one another. That's not communism."

Earlier you say that they're just militia and can't be communists because that's all they do, but now you're agreeing that they dictate how settlements operate. Even so, that's debatable if they're the only ones trying to create infastructure. That is what they seek, but if the SS is benevolent and becomes the Director, they can also seek this out and do it more effectively, hence why I said they would be best.

>So yeah, the institute is a ticking timebomb, as far as I'm concerned.

Except that's your perception(by your own admission). Not a fact. Your perception of synths being dangerous is your own thing. They are about as dangerous as the average joe. The Institute does have a shady past. that's not something I tried to hide. I just said that a benevolent SS Director would be able to change things for the better and make peace with most factions. They could stop Gen III production and free the remaining Gen IIIs to appease the RR and help out everyone else which makes the MM happy. Without Gen IIIs being produced anymore, all that's left is Gen IIs which nobody considered really dangerous because they weren't autonomous. Only the BoS would not be happy and that's their own fault.

How is that contradictory? A militia is a civilian military that exists to serve and protect. The minutemen are civilians, and so they would INDIVIDUALLY have an interest in improving the wasteland, but the point is that the Minutemen, nor the General do not own those settlements. The main goal of the minutemen isn't do that, if that's what you're implying I meant, but it's an adverse effect. Again, you only control all the resource because of game engine limitations and player customisation. Nowhere in the game does it once state that the minutemen distribute all supplies according to need, because a player could simply strip all the settlements, fortify the castle and sod everyone else. At that point it's no longer an equal spread of wealth and property. Settlements would drop in happiness and abandon you. See? It all depends how you play the game. If you take over settlements with the BoS, via Teagan's quest and use their workbench, set up trade routes allowing access to resources across settlements also "allied" with the BoS, SS, or the Railroad (settlements like Bunker Hill), does that make those groups communist? No, of course not. Again, you're putting way too much focus on a game mechanic that is by no means faction specific. The sharing of resources allows the player greater freedom in building, an adverse effect is that it allows crops, and water to be shared, but again, it never says they're free. Who's to say settlers aren't trading? It's purely speculation on either side of the argument.

I think the major point is that people are taking in game convenience methods seriously. See your own comments in response to my thoughts on the institute, which as I said was purely an opinion. Which is what this all is. It all comes down to how you play the game.

"Except that's your perception(by your own admission)."


And I agree, it is purely me hypothesising. But it's a scenario I felt was possible, without the SS as Director, and with no faction to help them. I just see the Minutemen as the most stable group.

_________________
Muwahahahahahahaha!!!
What do you mean evil laugh!? This is how I always laugh!
Bow Down:
 
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sacremas

avatar

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-03-11
Age : 36
Location : Norway

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:32 pm

That is entirely your opinion, much more so than the communism debate, it's possible in an unmodded game. Maybe not rivaling Diamond City (or realistically they'd see a lot more attacks than they already do without no Wall to protect them) and it's going to be bloody hard to get high charisma to get quite that amount of settlers to join without mods, but at the very least it's very easy without ever using the supply caravan system to make each settlement entirely independent of each other and only realistically relying on you.

They need specifically 1 bed under a roof (walls are optional) + 1 food and water per inhabitant, and their total population +20 in defense, done, move onto the next one, and you can carry the supplies with you on your own on Survival difficulty to do that just fine. It won't be able to defend itself any better or worse with that defense than it will with 400 defense, it'll still have a 50 % chance to lose in either way unless you show up yourself, at which point it doesn't really matter. Set up that much, and the settlement is 'successful', with that they cap out at 60 happiness and are actually much better off than when you found them, it doesn't rely on any other settlement and you can ignore them from then on unless they are actually attacked, anything you do beyond that including adding any new settlers to the place at all entirely depends on what you as the general want out of the place, you don't actually need the Local Leader perk to make every settlement in the game a 'successful' one, you just need it if you want something out of it in return. If you want it to actually be profitable as well, you need to do more than that, but then that becomes a 'bigger pie' issue as in the Kurzgesagt video I linked. At this point the settlers aren't really a communist state at work, they're more like your employees, who provide you with resources past what they actually need, and expect you to protect them in return. These are game mechanics I am talking about, but this is also something that is evident in the game. It's all a matter of a certain point of view, as an old loon would say.

Hell some of those game mechanics actually translate very well towards a realistic scenario, like the prime factor for determining if a settlement is going to be attacked is their amount of surplus caps, food and water stored in their workbench, if you happen to drop by every day to pick up all of that and deposit it in a super-defended fortress, that's the only place that will likely ever be attacked by anything but animals, and it makes sense, the raiders or gunners send an infiltrator like a trader (we know Trashcan Carla and Cricket at least actually works for the Institute or at least constantly feeds them info, so why not other factions also, tell the raiders of this wealthy place and they won't eat your brahmin this week) then attack if the place would be worth the hassle, game mechanics that translate well to reality, as do most of the settlement system.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:21 pm

@IRORIEH It's contradictory because you said all they do is protect like a militia and then later agree that they also govern. Militias do not govern.

>Nowhere in the game does it once state that the minutemen distribute all supplies according to need, because a player could simply strip all the settlements, fortify the castle and sod everyone else.

It's implied that you're supposed to. Preston tells you that stuff. What you're describing is often what makes communism fail. Pooling resources and only sending it to one location. It's still communism because they're taking everyone's resources to pool them together and distrubute them where you want. By your own admission, the MM have an interest in "improving the wasteland" and that means they would be distributing those resources to all settlements based one what they need. After all, it's just wasteful to send food to Abernathy Farms.

>Nowhere in the game does it once state that the minutemen distribute all supplies according to need, because a player could simply strip all the settlements, fortify the castle and sod everyone else.

It's true that they could do that, but that just proves my point even further. In its core, it's a communist system and the player can abuse that system like most communist countries do/did. Again, by your own admission, the MM have an interest in "improving the wasteland" and that would mean pooling resources and sending them where they need to go because that's the most efficient way of doing it. It's stupid and wasteful to do it any other way while a settlement is under control of the MM. Garvey Has you go around building up settlements and to make caravans so obviously that implies they want to distribute resources. They aren't just a militia.

>At that point it's no longer an equal spread of wealth and property.

Which again, is why most communist countries have fallen in the past. It's still a communist system. That's my whole point as to why I don't think they'll last. They use a communist system and wealth isn't spread fairly so settlements would eventually break off. It's why most communist countries fail. because they started hoarding resources to one area.

> Settlements would drop in happiness and abandon you.

Which is what I said would happen. That also happens in communist countries. The people get sick of being treated like shit. This even hurts your argument even more because if you don't spread resources to build up settlements, they will leave so obviously the MM would want to spread the resources.

> See? It all depends how you play the game.

Not really. A communist system is a communist system. How you play doesn't change that. The only way you could change that is by not sharing any resources with any other settlement and have them produce their own shit, but the game strongly encourages you to do this. Preston, the face of the MM, often sends you out to do this. The MM even have a history of taking resources from settlements. They eventually got enough resources to rebuild the Fort and made it their base.

>If you take over settlements with the BoS, via Teagan's quest and use their workbench, set up trade routes allowing access to resources across settlements also "allied" with the BoS, SS, or the Railroad (settlements like Bunker Hill), does that make those groups communist?

Because it's a different situation with them all together. First, Teagan doesn't want you to set up a "Trade route". He straight up tells you before you accept the quest that it's basically stealing. He tells you this prior to accepting so you can back out if you want to. Relations with BoS and settlements is more akin to an corrupt militia you'd see in poor countries(like in South America), not communism. They just take the resources. The settlements don't really have a say in it. The BoS takes the resources under the claim it's to help them protect them and then never stick around. I don't think the BoS really touches any settlement as I've never seen any in any of them. As for the RR, I haven't played the RR yet so I can't really say how they operate on that part. Though if I had to guess, it'd be similar to the BoS. Taking resources to further their goals while offering nothing in return.

>Again, you're putting way too much focus on a game mechanic that is by no means faction specific

Except it's more than just a game mechanic. The MM quests send you around doing that shit so it's a MM thing. No other faction really has you do that. Preston always hears about a settlement that needs your help. He always got word from them. He always sends you to go help them and even has a few quests to show you how.

>The sharing of resources allows the player greater freedom in building, an adverse effect is that it allows crops, and water to be shared, but again, it never says they're free.

Of course it isn't free. You have to pool your resources in order to get them. A settlement can't get that extra water from their neighbor without pooling their resources via caravan. That's the whole point. They have to pool resources in order to get that stuff. That's the cost. That's what makes it communist.

>See your own comments in response to my thoughts on the institute, which as I said was purely an opinion. Which is what this all is. It all comes down to how you play the game.

Which is what I said from the very beginning. If you played as a benevolent Director, the Institute has the most to offer.

>And I agree, it is purely me hypothesising. But it's a scenario I felt was possible, without the SS as Director, and with no faction to help them. I just see the Minutemen as the most stable group.

Except my analysis was about which faction would be the most beneficial with and without the SS. Without the SS, yeah, the MM are probably the only option because the BoS and RR don't really care enough to do much for others. With the SS though, the Institute can be the best choice. The Institute and the MM are the only factions you can lead and control. The effectiveness of both depends on who the SS is and if we're aiming for the best for the Commonwealth, that means that the SS in this particular situation is benevolent and will use their faction as best as possible to help others. So with that in mind, the Institute clearly has more resources and advancements to offer. They may not have a ton of food to offer, but they clearly have made incredibly advancements in agriculture and can share that with settlements so they can produce more than enough food. They have a robotic army they can send out anywhere on a second's notice to protect others. They have incredibly advancements in all forms of technology that they could share. They even offer to most in terms of medical practice. They can make a synth copy of a sick/wounded person, then harvest the appropriate organs. They can even increase the natural life-span as seen with Kellogg. they just have so much to offer. Siding with the MM means they only have what other settlements have to offer and they purposely destroy everything the Institute has in their quest so they can't offer anything of the Institute's aside from maybe the people they just evicted(assuming you let them go).

@Sacremas

>At this point the settlers aren't really a communist state at work, they're more like your employees, who provide you with resources past what they actually need, and expect you to protect them in return.

You're still taking their resources and giving it back to them. With communism, the resources are in the hands of the government, which in this case is the MM. The MM take resources from them and "pay" them for the public work they do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
arvg

avatar

Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-02-05

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:17 pm

Well thought out arguments. But no one seems to consider that Hancock is of the people, for the people!

Kidding aside, I like the idea that the commonwealth has already attempted to band together once (despite sabotage from the institute) so it stands to reason a strong MM presence would give it a chance to get a proper start.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
EyeShotFirst

avatar

Posts : 103
Join date : 2018-03-20
Age : 27
Location : Away from the Mojave, and in the Commonwealth Now

Character sheet
Name: Sharpe
Faction: Legion
Level: 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:38 pm

I went with the Institute ending. Sure, there's plenty not to like about them, same can be said about all the factions. I just felt they had potential to save the wasteland. Perhaps not from it's previous course of action, but with you taking over after Father, you could really spread change through the commonwealth and onward. I don't feel you could've done that with BOS and The Minuteman, while the much more heroic and moral option, I feel they had little to offer, aside from protection.

Surely a group that had synth production resources could do a lot of good for the commonwealth. I'm a little rusty on my FO4 lore, but the Institute seemed like a bright light in the dark wastes. That being said, every faction has seemed that way depending on your outlook. Aside from the Legion...assholes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wertologist

avatar

Posts : 827
Join date : 2015-09-10
Age : 24

PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:27 am

@arvg Actually, the Institute were the ones to start that community meeting thing. Mutual distrust is what ended it. The Institute had a hand in ending it, but so did the other parties.

@EyeShotFirst Agreed. The part about bright lights and perspectives, while true, are somewhat "misleading" for lack of a better turn. Objectively, the Institute has the most to offer and the SS, assuming they side with them, becomes the Director and can steer them however they please. That's not so much a perspective, but rather an observation. The only other faction that you can lead is the MM, but they lack the resources the Institute has.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?   

Back to top Go down
 

FO4: Who is best for the Commonwealth?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Gaming Underground Network :: Fallout :: Discussion-