21
Not really, because the number of zombies out there means that when you're running away from them you're also running towards them.
You should really check out Dying Light then. I think you might find it interesting.
I have it and wasn't really for me. DayZ is the only zombie game I like, though project zomboid seems interesting as well.
Whenever anyone in my friend group discusses zombie survival, the default assumption is that we're discussing slow zombies, because it's universally understood that there's no good fast zombies survival situation
If the zombies die within a few weeks or months than survival with bunkers is possible. If they live forever without food than it depends on what they do eat. If they eat all living things things get hard, if they eat plants than I don't think there is hope.
TWD style zombies live indefinitely and they eat humans as well as animals but this is just an instinct. Zombies don't need food, water or shelter to survive nor do they even have a functional digestive system.
Than they are a perpetual motion machine and they can generate power for you endlessly walking on treadmills. Which is cool, but ultimately useless.
They're fictional creatures but that's not exactly the point of this thread.
It's a balancing factor that is supposed to make escaping to a secure location feasible. If zombies maintained full speed we'd basically have a force that is dumber humans with the ability to exponentially force-recruit and not caring about personal safety. This would be a very short struggle for everyone not physically separated from them at the start. It would be normies vs a growing crowd off their rocker on pcp.
On the other hand if you want to introduce any degree of realism:
- if it's a disease a vast majority of infected will be dead within a week. Fill your bathtub with water and barricade the door - it's going to be pretty much over by the time you really have to leave.
- If it's supernatural bs but decomposition still applies see above - you'll be down to facing skeletons
- In both cases extreme climate is your friend if it doesn't affect you
If we're going to be realistic about it, a zombie apocalypse wouldn't last too long, given that they are generally depicted with rotting flesh. So, regardless of whether they can run, you're correct that the best bet is avoidance until the whole thing blows over.
If they run but are not smarter, they will be more dangerous but not undefeatable. The biggest issue will still be the big crowd. Zombie fear is 80% fear of crowd. People in groups are highly dangerous.
I dunno.
Even slow movers in bad shape are a problem in numbers.
So, carefully eliminating individuals before they can turn into a horde should be the default.
Once you get enough living together, you fortify and get snipers trained up. Set up on the walls first and pick off anything undead that comes close. Slowly set up an expanding circle of raised emplacements with sniper observers to pick off individuals at a longer distance from the settlement, and give warning for any hordes as well as being able to thin out a horde as it gets closer, and continue depleting the horde if they surround the settlement.
But, for lone travelers, assuming that you have a ranged weapon that's quiet enough, always take them out. You never, ever leave an enemy behind you if you can take them out without causing a worse problem.
I think that's the key to long term zombie survival. You have to take every reasonable opportunity to reduce the spread of the agent that's causing it. Literal walking dead zombies, they're all a disease vector. Every one you put down makes future survival easier. So it's a calculated risk. Measure the risk of your infection in the attempt, measure the risk of attracting any unseen zombies, and if those risks are low to zero, it's going to be a long term benefit to take one out.
Obviously, in a WD scenario, firearms increase the risk significantly compared to quieter weapons. But there are other options available, including the old and trusty Pointy Stick™. Even the roughest spear you can make gives you the reach to make a quick finish to slow zombies 1v1 with very low risk of contact, so you only have to worry about being capable of moving faster if the weapon fails.
Bows can replace firearms at that kind of range, as long as you practice, and it takes the risk down to zero for a single shot, since the noise a miss will make is in a different direction than you.
You're right though, don't fight. Assassinate.
I disagree with this. What you describe requires that you’ve already survived for several years and managed to establish a secure base and survival group, which is unlikely if one is willing to kill zombies en masse like that. Every zombie encounter comes with the risk of getting bitten, and the more encounters you have, the more likely you are to make a mistake and die. The safest way to survive a conflict is always to avoid it. Even if you were able to make a dent in the local population, more are likely to wander in from further away, and the noise of constant shooting will probably attract even more of them, as well as other survivors, who are an even greater danger.
Ammo might be a pain in the ass. But standing atop a tall wall with a pike stabbing down into skulls would probably work well.
Plus a good fire pit to burn the bodies so other diseases don't crop up.
I've kind of wondered if you could make a sustainable fire using only zombie bodies. They could be an interesting source of fuel.
Bodies don't actually burn well at all. Even dried out bodies more smolder (people used to burn mummies, among other really silly things they did to them) than burn.
So, you can definitely make a pyre to make sure any flesh is gone, but the zombies won't make good fuel.
Fair enough. It's mostly just for preventing the rotting corpse from festering diseases.
Yup, makes sense :)
Watching TWD, and the various other zombie fiction, I'm always surprised how little attention gets paid to the other parts of what a walking, rotting corpse would mean. It never really gets covered in the kind of way I would expect it to.
Yeah, when excrement meets air conditioning, you don't stop and worry about the corpse juice on every little scratch and injury, but nobody ever dies from the kind of infections that would be running rampant after a zombie fight.
And nobody really cleans up the environment around them after a zombie fight near their camps. They'll drag the bodies off, but that's not really enough to prevent every risk from ever happening. You'd have tainted watersheds, possible contamination as insects and scavengers come to check out the smells of rot, then spreading pathogens.
TWD only had one plague pre-carl dying (I stopped after that), and that seems a bit low for what was years of time.
Which, there's all kinds of ways to explain that stuff away, but they never do lol.
I don't now about running but I agree with the non-fighting part. If I postulate than Zombie are dumb creatures that slowly rotten, I want to avoid them as much as I can until they are too rotten to move. It doesn't mean that I can build defense and even traps but I should not confronte them but I will let the zombie population almost rot out of existence, hoping the disease doesn't pass from the rotting bodies to the environnement.
Which fictional world are you talking about? "Zombies" vary from fiction to fiction: some are fast; some are slow. Which one specifically do you mean?
In the sidebar:
Unless stated otherwise, by zombie we’re refering to The Walking Dead -kind of undead creature.
Yup, sorry! I definitely should've checked the sidebar. That one's obviously on me.
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
21 points (95.7% liked)
Zombie Survival
190 readers
1 users here now
Discussion about the hypothetical scenario of a zombie apocalypse.
Unless stated otherwise, by zombie we're refering to The Walking Dead -kind of undead creature.
Serious discussion only.
Header by ThomasJakeRoss @ Deviantart
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS