Biomes in biome progression makes no sense

[Lax]

Without faster modes of transportation it would be hard to encourage players to visit every biome regularly....

I may be in the minority but if the reason is compelling enough, I'll make the trip regularly. If I know I can gather an ingredient that will let me make a meal/drink that keeps my stamina up for 30 minutes, I'll make that trip regularly to keep stocking up.

 

[khzmusik]

A few things, seperated as it relates to your thread -

Forest - Why would someone want to be in the nuclear wasteland full of supplies, technology, resources, etc instead of the forest that lack those things in any amount considering that trading , making dukes, and power are the obvious things the big baddie cares about. That being said I would like it if we had a choice to flip things around or be able to dictate what biome is the "end game" biome. Personally, I leave the forest as soon as possible, skip the burnt forest, and go straight to the desert so I can get to snow as fast as possible.

Burnt forest - Makes perfect sense. Your assumption is wrong that nothing exists or it isn't worth going to for two main reasons -
1. Coal really as simple as that. Really, Charcoal but semantics.
2. From the ashes new life rises which creates fertile soil for growing and things like mushrooms to flourish...odd that.

Desert - From a survival aspect the Desert should be the 2nd hardest place to exist. The absence of water, high heat, venomous animals & insects. I will agree they need to have more snakes and it was a bit better when the desert was where you really found the vultures as it makes sense.

Winter - Bears enter more of a Torpor than hibernation and not all bears do this. They do this only when not disturbed and the food source is lacking. If we start including things like their main meals will be zombies, rotten flesh, and infection leading to zombie bears it doesn't make sense to assume Bears will naturally adhere to previously observed behaviors.

Wasteland - If we are assuming this is Nuclear Fallout than most of what you say wouldnt be accurate. Now if they added like Radioactive elements in the ground like Uranium than your concerns would make more sense.

This is a good starting point for this discussion.

Regarding the forest biome - Maybe the solution is to make progressive biomes give players "supplies, technology, etc." instead of the current biome. That is OK with me, but is it enough? (The answer to that question is going to be yes or no depending upon player - and is it OK with the game that players have that choice?.)

The rest is stuff that I actually agree with, but it makes me think that I was correct about the specific biome progression.

The fact that coal is prevalent in the burnt biome doesn't seem, to me, to make it more difficult than the desert.

Also the burnt biome's "dedicated crop" is mushrooms, and if it's changed to be the final-to-last biome next to the wasteland, it would make more sense to have the normal mushrooms be a "preclude" to the radiated biome's radiated mushrooms.

 

[KirillWright]

You broke up the thread nicely to make it readable.

I would suggest instead of making crops unavailable at all in some of the harsher biomes to require a type of greenhouse to compensate, maybe hydroponics or something similar.

I also think starting out in the Pine Forest is fine and makes sense to let players get their grounding when entering the game.

Or go back to previous versions and allow random spawning in any biome, leaving the decision to the player to stay or move on to safer biomes. That would kinda disrupt progression though.

I would add a setting to the game with real random spawn like before!

 

[khzmusik]

I would add a setting to the game with real random spawn like before!

I, like most other players, would absolutely love if TFP took your advice and implemented a new game option that could be toggled on or off.

The problem is that many options are not really a kind of "on or "off" setting. This seems to be one of those cases.

How could you enable a setting that determines which biome to to go after the forest biome? Let's say you choose "desert" as the next biome. How do you make the trader dialogs match that selection? How do you tell the player what they need to do to survive there without a quest or challenge that tells them how to do it? Assuming it's a quest reward, then how will it behave like any other item (removed on death, crafted for another player, etc.)?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm only bringing them up because TFP would have to consider them.

Until you have specific answers, you probably shouldn't complain. (Or, propose practical solutions. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't speak your mind.)

 

[KirillWright]

I, like most other players, would absolutely love if TFP took your advice and implemented a new game option that could be toggled on or off.

The problem is that many options are not really a kind of "on or "off" setting. This seems to be one of those cases.

How could you enable a setting that determines which biome to to go after the forest biome? Let's say you choose "desert" as the next biome. How do you make the trader dialogs match that selection? How do you tell the player what they need to do to survive there without a quest or challenge that tells them how to do it? Assuming it's a quest reward, then how will it behave like any other item (removed on death, crafted for another player, etc.)?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm only bringing them up because TFP would have to consider them.

Until you have specific answers, you probably shouldn't complain.

I think you're researching the issue too deeply. Random spawn would be enough for me. It would be nice to be able to customize the randomness of traders. I'm not a big fan of realism and excessive logic in games.

 

[KirillWright]

I think this was a miscommunication. Greenhouses imply that crops could only grow in certain temperatures, and this is not something that is in the game now, and is not easy to implement.

I should know, because it's something that I've been trying to mod in for a long time. Temperatures are easy to determine for blocks, but most of the temperature calculations have nothing to do with blocks - they're related to entities (specifically player entities). An example would be the (old) heat system. Player entities could be affected by heat-related conditions, such as whether they're indoors or wearing a specific mod. But blocks can't - for example, there's no game variable that shows whether a block is "indoors". Crops grow on blocks, not entities. Players could get anti-cold buffs from a campfire, or from being indoors; farm plots can't.


There is no indication that players need to go to the wasteland because the Duke "banishes" them to it. The game devs have made it clear that the wasteland is the end goal in the biome progression, and that the biome progression is a fundamental part of the story, not some kind of punishment.

Also, I wouldn't count on the 7D2D devs writing a subtle or human plot. They're simply not capable. This is not a diss, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that they haven't hired a dedicated writer, and only a dedicated writer could make their plot work. Hopefully that will change before the story is written and set in stone.

I don't think they'll write the plot details themselves. Otherwise it'll be a failure. I think they'll find a good scriptwriter!

Post automatically merged: Aug 3, 2025

I, like most other players, would absolutely love if TFP took your advice and implemented a new game option that could be toggled on or off.

The problem is that many options are not really a kind of "on or "off" setting. This seems to be one of those cases.

How could you enable a setting that determines which biome to to go after the forest biome? Let's say you choose "desert" as the next biome. How do you make the trader dialogs match that selection? How do you tell the player what they need to do to survive there without a quest or challenge that tells them how to do it? Assuming it's a quest reward, then how will it behave like any other item (removed on death, crafted for another player, etc.)?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm only bringing them up because TFP would have to consider them.

Until you have specific answers, you probably shouldn't complain. (Or, propose practical solutions. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't speak your mind.)

This was not a complaint, but a suggestion. Random spawn used to be in the foundation of the game (I understand that it was a long time ago, but I don't think it's impossible to implement now)

 

[KirillWright]

I don't think putting restrictions on crops is the best idea. Perhaps different species of crops, but at the end of the day you will only force people out of unsustainable biomes and that doesn't seem like the thing that would make many happy as we just got done removing biome progression order and loot caps.

The burnt forest is where it is as it aesthetically looks similar to the wasteland. The progression starts the way it does because there wouldn't be a point in starting out fighting harder enemies in a harder biome and then move to safer and better biomes. It's reverse progression. You would have harder enemies to start and easier ones to finish. I agree with the logic, but for gameplay purposes I can't say I agree.

Also they could do bear skins such as polar bear, but mountain lions, etc. all live comfortably in colder weather. It's not Antartica, but a cold area in Arizona.

As far as things needed to further facilitate growing crops or general living I wouldn't be against it so long as it's reasonable.

Again, I appreciate the thought process, but disagree that it would make for a fun game.

Offer better visuals to start and more variety. It's nice to have a fancy can eating animation, but when I am looking at a ground texture that is ugly and repeating then it takes away from the enjoyment. I would think each biome needs it's own version of grass, plants, rocks, etc. For example wasteland with pools of radioactive water, mutated grass species, tinted rocks. The burnt forest should have a few scattered flaming trees (we already have flaming pipes), mounds of burnt flora/trees, trees with glowing red hot embers at the base of the tree, etc. Either way the general idea is to spruce up the world with more visual eye candy.

I completely agree with you! Biomes began to look better (it would be good if this was not the final version) The game lacks new plants, filling the water world, etc. There is a mod that adds a lot of diversity in vegetation in the style of how TFP does it (I don't remember the name). There are not enough models of human and animal corpses in the game, I would like more of this. It would be good if they added more of this to the game.

 

[KirillWright]

The key issue I believe is that the "reason for its existence" needs to be compelling/appealing to the player.

Why would I return to the Burnt Forest just to gather Nitrate when I can gather it in another biome while I'm also gathering iron?

Why would I hunt for boar there when I can hunt for deer, wolf, lion and bear in the Snow Biome?

What would make a biome like the Burnt Forest more appealing? It needs to possess something that I really desire, early game and possibly end game.

The things you need and want early game are obvious, but end game needs/wants are a challenge because by then you're really no longer surviving but thriving. That's usually when the game starts to feel somewhat boring/repetitive, less of a challenge and the time to start over kicks in.

Is there a compelling reason to keep playing once you have enough food, water, ammo, Dukes, Zed kills? Usually not.

I will say this: no matter how many times I play or how unfulfilling the end game becomes, I always seem to want to start over. The gameplay is compelling and unmatched by other games which keeps me coming back. Expand on that, incorporate that feeling into end game content and you'll have your solution.

Once upon a time, there were many types of meat in the game. If more profitable food used different types of meat, it would be an incentive to hunt different animals!

 

[KirillWright]

I would be very happy to see different types of meat come back. It makes more sense.

 

[Adam the Waster]

An Apology

Before I start, I just want to apologize about the length of this post. It's only because I've been thinking about the topic for a long time.

I know a lot of people won't make it through this post, and that's OK.

I have tried to make this comprehensible for people who actually want to think about this, but obviously YMMV. If your mileage doesn't vary then I'm OK with it.

About Biome Progression

The purpose of this post is not to question whether biome progression is necessary. Topics like loot caps or biome smoothies are off topic.

This post assumes that people should go through some kind of biome progression, however it is done. The post is considering which biomes should follow which other biomes.

Existing biomes

Forest biome

While it totally makes sense to start the player there, an argument could be made that this should be the destination biome for users. They start out in Hell and try to make their way into Heaven (metaphorically speaking).

It also does not make sense from a story point of view. The "big bad" is supposed to be a Native American. Native American traditions are connected to nature (I do not think it is controversial to say this, even among Native Americans).

Why would a Native American leader choose to rule from a desolated nuclear wasteland?

I don't want to dwell on this too much, because it goes against the general goals of a survival game, but I wanted to bring it up as something to think about.

Burnt Forest biome

This doesn't make sense as the second biome a player visits. This is supposed to be a desolated biome, where nothing survived because it was all burned to the ground.

If the goal is to survive, it should be a later stage biome.

Desert biome

Deserts in Arizona are harsh, but not so harsh that it should be harder to survive in them than in a biome where everything died by fire.

In reality deserts contain a lot of life. For an in-game example, this is the area where most rattlesnakes live, so it would make sense that in 7D2D snakes should spawn a lot here. Not in the burned forest biome.

As far as the game is concerned, many Native Americans live (and sometimes thrive) in desert environments. If the game is basing its survival upon Native American recipes or skill sets, then the desert is far more hospitable than the burnt forest.

Snow biome

What's interesting about the snow biome is that it is not all that different than the burnt forest biome in real life.

The game includes all kinds of animals there, and they probably shouldn't. The primary example is the bear. Except that bears hibernate in the winter, so if anything, bears should be absent from this biome.

That does not mean this should be an easy biome. Survival should be harder, not because of harder enemies, but because survival mechanics (dew collectors, farming crops, digging up clay) should be nerfed or even impossible here.

From a story point of view, if you're going to have NPCs here, make sure they're NPCs that the user can see are specifically designed to survive here (e.g. fur or pelt coats). The stereotypical Native American garb will not work for this.

Radioactive biome

I don't think anyone disagrees that this should be the most difficult biome. But what should be in it is controversial.

Since this is the hardest difficulty biome, surviving in it should be a chore. Everything should be radioactive. Maybe you should not be able to dig up clay soil in this biome, and digging only gives you useless (or worse) radioactive dirt. Dew collectors shouldn't work or should produce only radioactive water.

If there are animals, perhaps they should be animals that never give edible meat, like the zombie bear or dire wolf.

But this doesn't make sense from a story perspective. There is no reason that a Native American leader should choose the Wasteland as their home, and if you do away with that, then the story does not dictate going to the radioactive biome in order to finish it.

What I Advocate

This is how I, personally, think players should progress through biomes.

1. Forest biome. I have no objection to this biome. But, we have to keep in mind that we're starting the players in the most aesthetically pleasing biome, and that can often trump better weapons or equipment. From a story perspective, you'd probably want friendly Native Americans to live here.
2. Forest biome. It is easier - but not impossible - to grow crops in the desert. The temperature is extreme, but not so extreme that people cannot live there (yet). The animals attack but can be avoided. Native Americans can live here.
3. Snow biome. Most crops cannot grow here, they freeze. The temperature is extreme enough so you can't live there without protection - think Antarctica. There are lots of animals that can kill you (but not bears since they're hibernating).
4. Wasteland. You can't construct farm plots, because you can only dig up radioactive dirt. Temperature is often hot, but the biggest issue is radiation. Animals should all be zombies which give no usable meat. No Native American would ever step foot here.

Hope this makes sense to people, and thanks for listening.

I agree with this.

One the one handed and few more biomes like what Roland said would be good for the game and story, plains other types of forest etc

The burnt forest still burning and having smoke issues imo is/should be as bad as the wasteland. Because smoke and EMBER STORMS would make life significantly harder and doesn't make sense as the second biome. Maybe second to last.

The wasteland should be seen as the place the natives/duke/Noah go for resources due to it bring basicly unliveable but highly valued in terms of loot.

Granted airzona isn't really the most. "Biome varried" according too Google and my knowledge.

• Forest. And a few forest types would make sense, like a pine, mapple
• Plains: green or dry glass lands
• Chaparral, dry shrub like areas that are dense and dry.
• Tundra/cold forest
• Deserts/Badlands
• Mountains/hills

All these naturally biomes is where humanity should be fighting both the wildlife and the undead. These biomes are (more or less) habitat able. Full of wildlife and people trying to survive with the duke/his trube maybe being in the desert.

Biomes Made "artificially" should be less forgiving and thus less people

• Burnt forest that somehow is still burning and the fact that FIRE DUST STORMS and smoke insulation is still a massive problem. I highly doubt people would wanna live here
• The wasteland im not even going to explain why people can't live there

If I was going to do biome progression it would be

• Grassy Plains
• Oak forest
• Maple forest
• Pine forest
• Dried Plains
• Chaparral
• Desert
• Cold forest
• Snow forest
• Dead forest
• Burnt forest
• Wasteland
• Desert wasteland
• Snowy wasteland

Post automatically merged: Aug 3, 2025

As much as I would love like a swamp. It wouldn't make sense for the setting

 

[Riamus]

This thread is too long for me to read what everyone said, so I'll just respond to the OP. If it's already been discussed, you can ignore what I'm saying.

Forest - Although the idea of going from the worst to the best sounds nice, I don't really think making the easiest biome the hardest is a good option. A forest is hardly dangerous if you know anything about survival. A desert offers more risk than a forest if you are stuck in it for an extended period of time. Also, we don't know that the Duke is actually the bad guy. It is likely that both Noah and Duke are equally "bad". They both want to control things and wipe out their opposite (presumably). If they do the story even remotely well, they will make both factions relatively equal in how good or bad they are and let you choose which side to be on. In the end, they are both gang leaders. As far as where they'd set up their operations, if there are resources they want in the wasteland, there's no reason they wouldn't set up shop there, assuming they can survive there. This game lets POI have power everywhere, which doesn't really make sense. But if it were after a real disaster, there likely wouldn't be power anywhere. But perhaps there was still some kind of nuclear power plant or something that still works in the wasteland. That power could make people decide to live there regardless of the dangers.

Burnt forest - Once a forest is burned down, it will start to regrow pretty quickly. Larger growth like trees can take longer, but plants and animals will generally be back within a few months (plants only if it's not winter). There's not really a lot of risk in a burnt forest beyond stepping on half-burned plants and stuff that might be sharp. Unless the forest is still burning, things like smoke and fire are of little risk. That's one thing they really messed up with the burnt forest, imo. Either it's already done burning or else the burning just recently happened, and why would it be burnt except if it happened really close to when the disaster happened? The way things are, it doesn't seem like they are saying that the disaster happened within the last month. It seems like it's been at least a couple of years. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more corpses and there's still be people alive trying to survive besides just you and the traders. So that would mean that the burnt forest should not be smoldering anymore.

Desert - A desert may not be much risk to go in and out of for short periods of time. But if you were to stay in a desert for an extended amount of time (say a week or more), it becomes more and more dangerous unless you have a reliable source of water and shade. It may not be as dangerous as the game makes it out to be, but I'd consider it more of a danger to a player than the forest or burnt forest.

Snowy Forest - I agree about the bears. Not that they shouldn't be present at all - although bears hibernate, they are known to come out at times during the winter. But I'd agree that they should not be abundant. I'd be happy to see them return to the forest. Regarding survival, the things you suggested to make the biome more difficult really only impact someone who puts their base there. If the dangers are only related to having a base there, it makes it trivial for anyone who has their base somewhere else. If the biome is intended to be more challenging, it should have more challenging enemies. You can still add additional difficulties for things like farming, but those should not be the only things that add difficulty to the biome.

Wasteland - As with the snowy forest, you can add additional issues related to bases there if you want. But that's not really a big deal considering I don't think too many players build their base there. Some will, of course. But I think most don't. Doesn't mean things like dew collectors not working can't still be added if the devs want to make the biome more challenging. The problem with that is that people will just decide putting a base there is not worth it and the small percentage who currently build in the wasteland will mostly just build somewhere else instead, which isn't a great thing for the game. As far as radiation goes, radiation lasts for a very long time. If they wanted it to be realistic, we'd have to be long enough after the disaster that power would be gone, gas would be evaporated, buildings would mostly be overgrown, most asphalt streets would be broken up badly from plants pushing through and most gravel roads would be practically invisible, and the burnt forest would be fully regrown. That doesn't really work for the game, so we can't consider radiation to act like real life. We have to treat it as being easy enough to deal with - after all, if you can be fully protected from it, so can the NPCs. As far as the Duke, I've pointed out one possible reason why they'd be there above (power). There can be other reasons (mostly related to some kind of resources) why they'd be there. Even just because it makes for a strong defensible location where they won't be bothered.

Regarding Native Americans - I think you have an incorrect view about them. Native Americans thrive in pretty much any environment. Suggesting that they are best suited to one environment isn't true. They can survive just fine in snowy and cold environments. The "stereotypical Native American garb" that you call it shows that you aren't really aware of Native Americans beyond just a single group of them. Traditional Native American clothing depends on where they lived. Fur pelts and clothing ARE traditional for Native Americans living in colder areas. And if you want to discuss stereotypes, such clothing is also often used when depicting Native Americans for colder climates. We should really not start getting into stereotypes, though. That borders on becoming offensive. Instead, understand that Native Americans thrive in any climate that isn't so extreme that you can't survive there.

As far as your suggestions - As I said, making the biomes harder to build a base in just increases the number of people who build only in the forest. It might be more realistic, but it messes up gameplay options. You might have some survival game enthusiasts who will take on that challenge, but the majority of players are likely to see that building a base in the other biomes is too much of a hassle and so they don't bother. I really think such limitations to bases will increase the number of people who stay in the forest, which is opposite what the devs want. And regarding NPCs, I doubt we're going to ever see neutral NPCs hanging out in the different biomes. And even if you did, they'd be a mixed group of people and not only Native Americans. For the gangs - Duke's and Noah's - they are going to be seen everywhere but will be based in a specific biome (there is a good chance that will be the wasteland). Also, keep in mind that the Duke's gang is not only Native Americans. The Duke may be Native American, but his gang will be a mix of people.

 

[zztong]

I'm commenting on the original post not having read the responses, yet...

While it totally makes sense to start the player there, an argument could be made that this should be the destination biome for users. They start out in Hell and try to make their way into Heaven (metaphorically speaking).

It also does not make sense from a story point of view. The "big bad" is supposed to be a Native American. Native American traditions are connected to nature (I do not think it is controversial to say this, even among Native Americans).

Why would a Native American leader choose to rule from a desolated nuclear wasteland?

This resonates with me. I'd it makes more sense to start having been stranded in the Wasteland. That would be the most intense survival.

I, personally, hate calling it a "nuclear wasteland" as there's all sorts of problems with that. If, for instance, it continues to be an irradiated place, then it wasn't from a nuclear weapon. It would have to be something like a destroyed nuclear power plant and we could look to Chernobyl.

Instead, I'd leave it to be a "toxic wasteland" and never try to explain it.

This doesn't make sense as the second biome a player visits. This is supposed to be a desolated biome, where nothing survived because it was all burned to the ground.

If the goal is to survive, it should be a later stage biome.

It seems like what you might find close to the Wasteland, to me.

What's interesting about the snow biome is that it is not all that different than the burnt forest biome in real life.

We're different there. To me, the snow biome is the closest to the forest biome. It is teaming with life and there's an abundance of water.

but because survival mechanics (dew collectors, farming crops, digging up clay) should be nerfed or even impossible here.

Yes, nerf the dew collector in the snow biome. Sure, a dew collector can collect some daily snow melt under the right conditions, but why have one when you're surrounded by water?

I don't think anyone disagrees that this should be the most difficult biome. But what should be in it is controversial.

Since this is the hardest difficulty biome, surviving in it should be a chore. Everything should be radioactive. Maybe you should not be able to dig up clay soil in this biome, and digging only gives you useless (or worse) radioactive dirt. Dew collectors shouldn't work or should produce only radioactive water.

If there are animals, perhaps they should be animals that never give edible meat, like the zombie bear or dire wolf.

But this doesn't make sense from a story perspective. There is no reason that a Native American leader should choose the Wasteland as their home, and if you do away with that, then the story does not dictate going to the radioactive biome in order to finish it.

I might disagree.

As you say, the Forest is the gem. Wouldn't folks be fighting for it? Isn't that the place folks can farm and have a civilization. Those doomed to carve out a life in the wasteland amongst the ruins sound like folks who might eventually bring order to the Forest.

If the Forest represents a return to civilization, then it is an escape.

If the Forest represents a place where civilization is dominated by an oppressive Duke, then it is the final showdown.

That's what I'm thinking, anyways.

 

[Adam the Waster]

personally, hate calling it a "nuclear wasteland" as there's all sorts of problems with that. If, for instance, it continues to be an irradiated place, then it wasn't from a nuclear weapon. It would have to be something like a destroyed nuclear power plant and we could look to Chernobyl.

Something i wanna harp on is if it ether a melt down or a nuclear hit. Radation should have spread too other biomes. After chernobyl tons of radioactive fallout spread around the world. And it took years for it to heal not to mention contamination in the water/wildlife. They had to mass slaughter almost every animal in the zone from rats to cats and dogs. So animals should also be tainted. Water, etc

Post automatically merged: Aug 4, 2025

Yes, nerf the dew collector in the snow biome. Sure, a dew collector can collect some daily snow melt under the right conditions, but why have one when you're surrounded by water?

Again the radioactive elements in the snow would probably make the so at best. Toxic

Rain allows radioactive elements too seep and go into ground water and streams but snow it builds up and up until it melts.

Granted we dont know how many years sense the outbreak. Due to the makeshift nature of arnor and weapons and how the forest is more or less looted to hell and back and cars are basically dead shows it might have been awhile

 

[Sapient6]

Regarding Native Americans - I think you have an incorrect view about them. Native Americans thrive in pretty much any environment. Suggesting that they are best suited to one environment isn't true. They can survive just fine in snowy and cold environments. The "stereotypical Native American garb" that you call it shows that you aren't really aware of Native Americans beyond just a single group of them. Traditional Native American clothing depends on where they lived. Fur pelts and clothing ARE traditional for Native Americans living in colder areas. And if you want to discuss stereotypes, such clothing is also often used when depicting Native Americans for colder climates. We should really not start getting into stereotypes, though. That borders on becoming offensive. Instead, understand that Native Americans thrive in any climate that isn't so extreme that you can't survive there.

Excellent. I was thinking along similar lines: Native Americans are human beings. Human beings that live in the same world that we do and under the same conditions as we do. If we, as players, can decide to live there then Native Americans can too. Let's get real: the duke is just a guy. He happens to be NA and he's likely used that identity and his status within his community as a centerpiece of his rise to power (given the one depiction we have of him being in "traditional" NA dress.

Why the wasteland? Because it makes assault on him difficult.

BUT, if they were to tie that into something about a traditional connection to nature, then his compound POI could reflect that. Its interior could be lush and full of life. Then it would all make complete sense: why he'd live there, why people would continue to follow him, etc.

 

[zztong]

Something i wanna harp on is if it ether a melt down or a nuclear hit. Radation should have spread too other biomes. After chernobyl tons of radioactive fallout spread around the world. And it took years for it to heal not to mention contamination in the water/wildlife. They had to mass slaughter almost every animal in the zone from rats to cats and dogs. So animals should also be tainted. Water, etc

I don't seem to ever be able to give short answers. My apologies for a ramble...

There's a big difference between a nuclear detonation and a power plant melting down. There's also a big difference between a nuclear detonation in the air and a nuclear detonation on the ground. In short:

• A nuclear detonation in the air kills more people in the blast radius, leaves little to no crater, and does not throw up very much nuclear fallout so it doesn't kill lots of people down wind.
• A nuclear detonation on the ground doesn't kill as many people with a blast, leaves a crater, and kicks up a lot of radioactive particles which get carried down wind where it kills lots of people.
• Most of the radioactive particles in a nuclear detonation have short half-life. Those living a month later are largely running an increased chance of cancer.
• If you want to kill a bunch of zombies that have overrun a city, detonate in the air. You won't detonate on the ground if you hold out hope for civilization.

A power plant melting down, however is very different:

• It uses nuclear materials with very long half-lives.
• It gets deadly quickly (without shielding) if you're very close -- kind of like taking damage in the game. (I think it would be a distance measured in meters, not kilometers. 250m?)
• You have lots of data and observations from Chernobyl.

Now, if you really want humanity to suffer, here's a researched scenario from a book I once read but have forgotten the title:

• Have a nuclear detonation on the ground at the site of a nuclear power plant. I don't see the US military doing that. The scenario in the book was North Korea attacking a California nuclear power plant as a sort of ultimate FU.

To me, if realism is the goal, then it's pretty anti-climactic to threaten our hero with an exposure that amounts to "long term health issues."

It's hard to devise a purely nuclear response by the military and explain the wasteland. This is why I suggest mixing in a number of other things that make it more generically toxic environment. Do something with chemicals, biological agents (other than a virus), an aggressive non-airborne disease, etc. Maybe an airborne nuclear detonation contributes to the mess.

As an undefined cocktail of problems, anything becomes possible.

If you do end up with power-plant like meltdown, then anything in the area that concentrates radioactive particles is bad and anything that lead you to eat a radioactive particle is bad, such as plants, animals, and stagnant unfiltered water in a ditch. Once you eat it, the proximity is zero and your skin cannot protect you. That said, there's no healing that. Likewise, digging in soil that contains irradiated particles is bad too as you tend to inhale it or get it on your skin and then transfer it to your nose or mouth.

 

[zztong]

Again the radioactive elements in the snow would probably make the so at best. Toxic

Rain allows radioactive elements too seep and go into ground water and streams but snow it builds up and up until it melts.

Snow ... they would so long as they remain radioactive. If from a nuclear detonation, that isn't necessarily a long time for most of it. The advice to surviving farmers would be to scrape away the top 6 inches of soil and wait for the next growing season. The trouble they get into is what radioactive particles that remain radioactive for a long time will get concentrated in the plants. (The plant will draw them in.)

If you were to melt it and filter it well enough to trap the particles, the resulting water would be okay. The filter, on the other hand, will become a concentrated source for whatever radioactive particles remain. Similarly, if you were to boil the water and condense the steam, the radioactive particles might be left on the bottom of the pan. I don't know if violent boiling can kick up particles into the water vapor, but you could also use a solar still and let normal evaporation create water vapor that you condense.

Ground Water ... tends to get filtered by the ground, so the surface (to some shallow depth) where the rain seeped into the ground likely has the particle.

Standing Water could be quite dangerous, specially if something is stirring it up to keep the particles from settling.

Running Water is harder for me to say. I suspect dilution will make it safer.

 

[EvilPolygons]

I don't seem to ever be able to give short answers. My apologies for a ramble...

There's a big difference between a nuclear detonation and a power plant melting down. There's also a big difference between a nuclear detonation in the air and a nuclear detonation on the ground. In short:

Standard thermonuclear weapons wouldn't create the kind of wasteland we have in this game, but cobalt nukes probably could. Cobalt-60 contamination would remain deadly for decades. It's basically the ultimate dirty bomb. We've been able to make them since the 1960's, so any explanation involving Cobalt-60 doesn't require future tech.

 

[zztong]

Standard thermonuclear weapons wouldn't create the kind of wasteland we have in this game, but cobalt nukes probably could. Cobalt-60 contamination would remain deadly for decades. It's basically the ultimate dirty bomb. We've been able to make them since the 1960's, so any explanation involving Cobalt-60 doesn't require future tech.

I'm not up on the dirty bombs; that sounds neat.

If the US Military is trying to contain a zombie apocalypse then I'm curious what they have learned that leads them to want to use a dirty weapon or employ a weapon in a manner that creates long-term issues for the survivors.

 

[Sapient6]

If you do end up with power-plant like meltdown

I much prefer the idea of a meltdown for a zombie apocalypse over nukes being dropped. Nukes are just the worst way to deal with a zombie outbreak. And as you pointed out, if our military went that way they'd use air bursts so we'd have hope of reclaiming that territory if humanity survives the zombie outbreak.

Meltdowns in a full blown zombie apocalypse, however, are an absolute certainty. And these would likely be uncontrolled meltdowns; nobody present to mitigate the extent of the meltdown, and nobody doing anything to contain\control the corium. There are so many fun ways that could go.

 

[Adam the Waster]

I'm not up on the dirty bombs; that sounds neat.

If the US Military is trying to contain a zombie apocalypse then I'm curious what they have learned that leads them to want to use a dirty weapon or employ a weapon in a manner that creates long-term issues for the survivors.

Maybe they were throwing anything they got not knowing that Radation didnt do anything but made them better.