WHY just we can have more maps like ones that happen after the infection (weeks idk) and ones that happen
25 years after the infection ( or just fecking use workshop maps in case Nelson will not release maps that happen
25 fecking yers after the infection ( idk destroy the lore ) )
P.S I hope you get what i said.
let’s say the the map took 1 week after the outbreak and the military decided to bomb the cities and what about rioting and the chaos that would happen in the outbreak?, wouldnt there be some damaged buildings in that case ?
sandwich fox
1 Like
First of all, literally no millitary would bomb innocent civilians, bigger the crowd, bigger to no-no.
Also, any sort of riot would be easily supressed, especially if they started damaging private property. Remember, there’s a difference between borderline genocide and being tough on law enforcement.
hmmm well if there is an zombie outbreak then the military would start bombing if there were zombies in the city or town, if it is a week into the zombie outbreak the military would start killing whoever is in the city or town with the infected. Some militaries bomb towns with innocent civilians .
there are a shitton countries who would like to show basic human rights as a reason then declare war, you’re forgetting that there are tens of nations and do you really think they’re just gonna get together because of an unknown virus? Like I said, the second you start killing civilians, several countries will show human rights and the virus as an excuse then nuke it from orbit.
not to mention, do you really think people would not get mad after civilians get bombed? they would realize that the government is basically fucked then arm themselves, steal and loot and murder, and I don’t think the virus would survive when everyone is basically shooting at each other in a nation-wide guerilla war
also, remember, millitary generals are not heartless fuckers, I mean you can do some research, there are times where they refuse to bomb a mountain because there might be 2 civilian hostages, not even confirmed, you have to remember that the country is working for the people, not the other way around
what you said is literally impossible
1 Like
Well now i see your point i think it would make more sense if the goverment first evacuates the civilians and then they would bombard the city or they simply make quarantine zones inside the cities
As I said, damaged buildings, looters and zombies have been running through. Zombies could have done damage. Not all buildings will have damage. But prehaps leaks in roofs ect.
What I’m saying is if there is a zoMbie outbreak in a city most of it is infected. It would be dumb to send troops to kill the thousands of zombies in there most likely they will bomb a portion of a city with mostly zombies and civilians in it.
+
Since it’s a zombie outbreak other countries will be dealing with their own outbreak so I doubt any of them would care if another country had to destroy a city because most of it is infected.
1 Like
If the country is actually worried about losing all the cash that went into the city, they will send in troops.
Who the fuck cares about money?
Worry bout survival less about mon
If governments cared about humanity’s survival, they would actually work on getting people off this disaster waiting to happen of a planet.
True true but they went the cheaper way and set up survivor camps that didn’t work out
you can just put the entire area in quarantine and build an artifical wall of supplied soldiers (Yes, that’s a thing.) that can just kill whatever comes thru, zombie or not
do you see the issue with your claims? even someone with zero millitary planning expeirence can figure out better plans than yours, and not bomb survivors
This isnt relevant to the topic, discuss the gameplay and artistic value of the suggestion, not random real world implications.
2 Likes
Endeed we must not forget that we are looking for a reason to implement damaged buildings
Was talking about the real world but whatever \ ( -v- ) /
1 Like
yea that what neLson did for Germany
I forgot the fact cities in Unturned are tiny, so putting a section of it destroyed will be useless for looting. I was trying to give some sort of reason the city would be destroyed. To be honest if part of the city is a little destroyed it looks even cooler and more immersive.
If a country is desperate not trying to get infected they MIGHT bomb parts of the city for a greater good if there are too many zombies to kill. IDK maybe some countries do that if they dont want people be coming zombies and spreading throughout the country. Just trying to put a reason why a city in Unturned might be partially destroyed
1 Like
okay, I know I’m gonna sound like the biggest douche here, but okay.
Let’s just say the government got desperate, really despearte, and they decided to bomb a city. The thing is that your average city has enough population density to basically having people everywhere, which means zombies everywhere, so only dropping a few FaF’s would do basically nothing.
Okay, I’m gonna side with you for a second, what about two different versions of the map?
One would be start at the first 1-3 days of the apocalypse, with more or less all building having no damage, and another set in 20+ years later, with stuff like burnt down buildings and shell impact zones and some overgrown plants.
This way, while a part of the community will have to wait for the other version to be relased, everyone will eventually be happy? The thing is that you can’t just merge pristine cities with overgrown wastelands. A compromise will have to be made, either seperate maps or Nelson’s choice.
Hears an idea for why cities could possibly look absolutely wrecked in some areas. Now what would you think would happen if lets say the United Nations said there was a world wide zombie epidemic and the answer is complete and total anarchy i,m talking riots looters and gangs just running amok.