Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 0:49:30 GMT
I say 3-6 because unless its organized military, they don't stand a chance, and smaller groups can move around more easily and hide more easily then 20 or so people... I'm not saying they can fight any amount of zombies, just organize better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 17:39:20 GMT
That's almost as ludicrous an idea as the people who think they're going to snag heavy machine guns and armored transports from the local military base. Besides the fact that sailing a ship isn't quite as easy as jumping in a boat and heading out, finding a livable yet uninhabited island would be nearly impossible. That's extremely true. Also consider that many other people had the same idea and may have been bitten while strapped into life-jackets and drifted about to various islands or ships full of infected washing up on shore and populating the island with zombies (Or having them over-run whoever was on it before). Islands are also attractive havens for human sea raiders who want a place to stay for the same reason you want to go there. Islands can make a good temporary haven but in the long term you are still at risk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 19:00:33 GMT
That's almost as ludicrous an idea as the people who think they're going to snag heavy machine guns and armored transports from the local military base. If it is deserted, why couldn't you? We're all going on the assumption that they were either killed off or converted- either way, not gonna be needing that hardware from that point on. We're talking an actual base, not an outpost or kiosk right? Even the outpost SHOULD have an ordinance locker. Personally speaking, the HMGs and the like would draw way too much attention; since these beasties are unarmored, small arms should do the trick. Maybe a couple heavy gunners to thin down the ranks should we be chased, but for the most part, pistols, shotguns and assault rifles if you can find'm in NATO spec ammo, no specialty bs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 19:23:44 GMT
guess my ultimate goal would be to get to a sea worthy boat...if you were able to locate an uninhabited island preferably one with a large fresh water source and fertile land.. no inhabitants..no zombies That's almost as ludicrous an idea as the people who think they're going to snag heavy machine guns and armored transports from the local military base. Besides the fact that sailing a ship isn't quite as easy as jumping in a boat and heading out, finding a livable yet uninhabited island would be nearly impossible. Its not that ludicrous, I know of, and have sailed to, several uninhabited Islands off the coast of the UK, all of which have fresh water sources and many of which were inhabited in the past. I can think of at least two islands that still have the remains of abandoned villages that could be quite easily rebuilt, I can think of another three islands where old abandoned farmsteads have been rebuilt to accommodate summer tourists. All could be potential refuges in the event of a zombie apocalypse No doubt some of these islands would be difficult to get to if you did not have some sailing experience. But others are fairly accessible, and with a little bit of planning and forethought its not wholy unbelievable that a small band of people could make their way out to one of them. On many of the islands there is archaeological evidence of inhabitation running back thousands of years . I know a couple which have evidence of human occupation as far back as 6000 BC. If Stone age man could make it out to these islands in dug out canoes, I’m fairly sure a modern man could. [ ...it would be very difficult to have any kind of specialisation, so no one is efficient at any one task, but you are all just competent at everything... That's somewhat irresponsible thinking. Regardless of group size, everyone SHOULD be fully capable of doing everything required to survive. It's one thing if the group is permanently settled and you need farmers, smiths, laborers, defenders, doctors, etc, but in any sort of nomadic group everyone should damn well be capable of doing any necessary actions. This isn't always possible, but every member should be ready to procure food, defend themselves, and have at least a minor grasp of field medicine should the group require/accidentally split up. On a side note, even when a community is established, defense should be an effort by all capable individuals, male and female. This prevents a select, military group from forming within the village and attempting to seize power over the community. Two points Firstly, you presume I am talking about small mobile bands when I am not. I would envisage medium sized settled groups, in isolated places where farming could take place. Secondly, I do not see why suggesting that a community where there is a degree of specialisation in roles is “irresponsible”. Don’t all societies, apart from the most basic hunter gather, have forms of specialisation? I’m not suggesting that people should avoid responsibility or that those with specialist skills would not be required to join in other activities. But specialisation is just more efficient. If I have a mechanic in my group, and I have cars that need fixing, a large group can support him while he gets on with fixing cars. Personally I would prefer to relieve him of some duties if it means getting the car fixed. I agree in a survival situation everyone should have basic skill set, but that does not mean that everyone has the same role
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 19:42:16 GMT
Good arguments on both sides...I like your points Rat, well said.
In keeping with the spirit of Reign of Fire, I get HR's point too- you wouldn't want the ones with the guns running the show necessarily...unless you're the leader and you ARE the one with the guns.
Going forward, what role do you see yourselves serving in such an itinerant community? Would you be the leader, the mediator, hunter/gatherer/warrior, medic, caretaker, what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 21:03:28 GMT
[/quote] That's almost as ludicrous an idea as the people who think they're going to snag heavy machine guns and armored transports from the local military base. Besides the fact that sailing a ship isn't quite as easy as jumping in a boat and heading out, finding a livable yet uninhabited island would be nearly impossible. [/quote]
lol..whats o ludricrous about it..believe it or not there are seafaring ships that dont have sails!!..and personally not having much exp..id stay within sight of land..until i figured out naval navigation...i have personally been in units where their motor pool is guarded my nothing more than a chainlink fence with no guards on the perimeter...on a good night with low visibility and bolt cutters you could feasibly make off with one of their bradleys...now after a zombie attack i doubt it...but their is still a chance...every humvee or bradley i ever entered required no key to operate...simply remove the lock securing the "Club" type security device that is attached and turn a switch...not exactly rocket science
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 21:52:45 GMT
That's almost as ludicrous an idea as the people who think they're going to snag heavy machine guns and armored transports from the local military base. Besides the fact that sailing a ship isn't quite as easy as jumping in a boat and heading out, finding a livable yet uninhabited island would be nearly impossible. That's extremely true. Also consider that many other people had the same idea and may have been bitten while strapped into life-jackets and drifted about to various islands or ships full of infected washing up on shore and populating the island with zombies (Or having them over-run whoever was on it before). Islands are also attractive havens for human sea raiders who want a place to stay for the same reason you want to go there. Islands can make a good temporary haven but in the long term you are still at risk. You probably would want to check out any potential island first, If people have already claimed it you would just move on to the net until you find a suitable candidate. I think the big advantage of an island would be that you could clear it of any the undead, then apart form the odd floating body washing up on the shore you could keep it clear. This would allow you to start producing your own food which is going to be the key to long term survival On the mainland you would be constantly battling to keep the undead away it would be almost impossible to become self sufficient so you would have to rely on scavenging, As for raiders, I think they would be more interested in hanging round old population centres where there are all sorts of goodies worth stealing from other groups, I can’t see them going out to search little deserted islands out in the middle of no ware.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2009 0:46:21 GMT
Going forward, what role do you see yourselves serving in such an itinerant community? Would you be the leader, the mediator, hunter/gatherer/warrior, medic, caretaker, what? I would think of my self as a mediator, aiding and assisting in leading the group but not actually the leader. Right hand man if you will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2009 20:40:03 GMT
I think I'd probably fall into the hunter/warrior group; I have no stomach for politics and anyone who leads had best be good at it, otherwise they may not be leading for long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2009 23:13:12 GMT
I think I'd probably fall into the hunter/warrior group; I have no stomach for politics and anyone who leads had best be good at it, otherwise they may not be leading for long. That's why, in that situation, you want to be both the leader of the group, And good with weapons. People in my group who don't like my leadership are free to leave anytime. Enforced by my gun's muzzle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 9:40:24 GMT
I think I'd probably fall into the hunter/warrior group; I have no stomach for politics and anyone who leads had best be good at it, otherwise they may not be leading for long. That's why, in that situation, you want to be both the leader of the group, And good with weapons. People in my group who don't like my leadership are free to leave anytime. Enforced by my gun's muzzle. that's how things go bad... you should be with a group of people you get along with, last thing anyone needs when surrounded by zombies is a teammate that wants you dead!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 17:30:20 GMT
Exactly, lork- we all need to be able to work together and trust eachother to get through the dark night; and depending on how dire the situation is, someone dissenting from the rest of the group in such a fashion might just have to be executed on the spot! By that I mean someone who wants to take over, wants someone dead, what have you. We work, and live as a unit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 3:51:00 GMT
that's how things go bad... you should be with a group of people you get along with, last thing anyone needs when surrounded by zombies is a teammate that wants you dead! In the initial group, yes. My starting family-size unit, which would probably be just my family, we'd have no such problems. I'm talking about later on as we start to grow and incorporate other groups. In such a situation, a leader can hardly afford to even appear weak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 22:25:01 GMT
I agree with taran, it woundnt be a problem for the first part cause youd be with family and close friends, killing them is not an option, thats who your protecting. its the additional people that join up with you. in that kind of situation, i would definately let anyone i didnt know joining my crew know that if they do something stupid and get one of my family members/close friends killed, theyre dead also. leading a group as large as even 10-25 you have to keep your edge. the last thing i want is to be shot in the back by someone who thinks they can do a better job than me. if your a leader, you have to be ruthless if you want to survive. you have to make it clear to other non-infected humans, that if they attack you they will be killed, they can join up and come with you, but if they do, they follow what YOU say, because YOU are the leader. you cant have people coming in and try to undermine your leadership over your crew. plus, while im at it, someone very close to you with a good gun should ALWAYS be watching your back for you. just in case said people do try to backshoot you or try to take control some other way.
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on May 31, 2009 10:06:50 GMT
I know it is typical to say, but I would be the leader type, as I usually am anyway. But I would always be up for suggestions, and would prefer a small government of sorts. I also tend to give others major choices as well, as I like leading, but hate feeling like the boss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 11:36:36 GMT
sadly I am a freak that has a plan (and back up plans) for Z-day... most of my plan is thought out except party sizes, cause facing the harsh reality of it... good chance someone you know is gunna die. If I ended up with a community of people then we split up people accordingly, assign leaders to the factions and work it that way.
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on May 31, 2009 21:55:38 GMT
I do have a rough plan, but do not plan on stocking on food and such. Or even making a barricade, although I have though of making sliding metal plates to cover my windows. I like to use thieves as my excuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 13:18:07 GMT
I do have a rough plan, but do not plan on stocking on food and such. Or even making a barricade, although I have though of making sliding metal plates to cover my windows. I like to use thieves as my excuse. lol glad I'm not alone!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 18:30:03 GMT
Everyone would like an attractive role, one that they can pick to suit their ego's.
I think however the reality(if you can use such words when referring, to Zombies) is that there would be a desperate struggle between individuals and groups. where the strongest would emerge. I think people would be desperate to find larger groups which would offer greater security. With that desperation people would accept whatever role they could get. Initially with the break down in law and order there would be a fairly high turnover of “leaders” . Early groups would have a fairly fluid natures with new refugees joining groups, bringing new mixes of desperate people. Eventually the structures of groups would settle down, with the emergence of strong leaders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 19:14:43 GMT
Good point, KR...you can forget civility, at least expect it to erode rather quickly in prolonged adverse situations; if stronger, calmer heads do not prevail there will be much more blood.
|
|