PDA

View Full Version : Zombies! (the eternal debate continues)



big teej
2012-01-31, 07:48 PM
I ask you playgrounders



FAST ZOMBIES?


OR


SLOW ZOMBIES?

Pokonic
2012-01-31, 07:51 PM
Ghouls. Bloodythingscanrun

Candle Jack
2012-01-31, 07:54 PM
Fast zombies for horror, slow zombies for comedy.

I sort of like how they handled it in Death Valley: zombies start out fast, but slow down as they decay.

TheSummoner
2012-01-31, 07:56 PM
Slow zombies. Slow zombies in numbers that far surpass the number of survivors. Hell, slow zombies in numbers that far surpass the number of bullets the survivors have access to.

You want a good Zombie movie/game? You give me that. The protagonists aren't action heroes gunning down wave after wave of the undead, they're far outnumbered and every bullet counts. They don't kill every zombie... They just plain lack the resources for that. They kill as many as they have to in order to get where they need to go and they get the hell outta there as fast as they can.

Traab
2012-01-31, 08:04 PM
Fast zombies. Slow ones just arent a freaking threat. Even with limited ammo, slow zombies are so pathetic that a melee weapon is actually a perfectly viable choice for anything less than facing a swarm in an open field. Slow zombies also have no reason to ever achieve swarm status. At least fast zombies are dangerous to unsuspecting civilians. They actually CAN reach swarm status.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-31, 08:29 PM
Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat.

turkishproverb
2012-01-31, 09:37 PM
Singing Zombies.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-01-31, 09:44 PM
Mummies. 10

Tiki Snakes
2012-01-31, 09:44 PM
As Dead Island proved for me, a mixture is by far preferable. Also including freakisly massive zombies in that mix, too.

kpenguin
2012-01-31, 09:45 PM
Singing Zombies.

Funky undead is best undead.

Pokonic
2012-01-31, 09:57 PM
Funky undead is best undead.

Night creatures calling, the dead start to walk in their masquerade
There's no escaping the jaws of the alien this time
(They're open wide)
This is the end of your life!

Weezer
2012-01-31, 09:58 PM
It all depends on the mood that you want to set. Slow zombies are perfect for a slowly building feeling of fatalism, the fact that they are slow and you can out-run them but they will still get you is perfect for that kind of mood. However if you want fast paced, dangerous action, fast zombies are the way to go.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-31, 09:58 PM
Mummies. 10

The Brendan Fraser variety, I presume?

Nerd-o-rama
2012-01-31, 10:00 PM
Funky undead is best undead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam8JNMwT9s

Forum Explorer
2012-01-31, 11:49 PM
Fast Zombies for virus. Dark magic zombies can be slow.

Flickerdart
2012-02-01, 12:25 AM
Fast zombies carrying slow zombies on their backs.

Killer Angel
2012-02-01, 04:02 AM
Slow zombies are perfect for a slowly building feeling of fatalism, the fact that they are slow and you can out-run them but they will still get you is perfect for that kind of mood.

This sums it up. I like slow zombies for the sense of unavoidable doom.


Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat.

We all need more left4dead zombies. Fast ones with special abilities are the only credible threat.

Dumbledore lives
2012-02-01, 04:15 AM
Voodoo zombies of one variety or another.

dehro
2012-02-01, 04:22 AM
whatever suits the plot

KingofMadCows
2012-02-01, 04:54 AM
Zombies that are slow when you see them coming but are fast when you turn your back.

The Succubus
2012-02-01, 05:01 AM
Zombie cows.

The burgers that bite back.

Killer Angel
2012-02-01, 06:53 AM
The debate on what's best is open, but obviously, the worst zombies are the romantic ones (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229907). :smalltongue:

Traab
2012-02-01, 09:08 AM
Fast zombies carrying slow zombies on their backs.

Zombie dogs that have zombie bees in their mouths, so when they open their mouths to bark at you they shoot zombie bees at you!

Adanedhel
2012-02-01, 09:32 AM
Zombies that are slow when you see them coming but are fast when you turn your back.

I think you'd like Weeping Angels :p

Tyndmyr
2012-02-01, 09:39 AM
Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat.

Yes. Unless they have some way to deal with armored vehicles, zombies should never achieve swarm status.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-02-01, 09:50 AM
Yes. Unless they have some way to deal with armored vehicles, zombies should never achieve swarm status.

I don't know, I think you could get a pretty good swarm going in a major city before the military had time to respond. They would eventually get mowed down, but the swarm could get pretty extensive before then, especially in a 28 Days Later Fast Zombies + high virulence scenario, or if someone successfully infected the water supply with a virus.

I'm ignoring mystical zombies here since you can raise those in arbitrary numbers.

Eerie
2012-02-01, 09:58 AM
As an eternal fan of the WOW Forsaken, I say sapient zombies are the best.

Eerie
2012-02-01, 10:08 AM
I'm ignoring mystical zombies here since you can raise those in arbitrary numbers.

All zombies are mystical, in the sense that they fail biology forever (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtisticLicenseBiology).

Nerd-o-rama
2012-02-01, 10:54 AM
Yes, but there's sci fi bullcrap virus zombies (which have a slight basis (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110511-zombies-ants-fungus-infection-spores-bite-noon-animals-science/) in reality (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/parasite-turns-honey-bees-zombies-212258832.html)), and there's "A wizard did it" fantasy zombies.

Traab
2012-02-01, 10:57 AM
I don't know, I think you could get a pretty good swarm going in a major city before the military had time to respond. They would eventually get mowed down, but the swarm could get pretty extensive before then, especially in a 28 Days Later Fast Zombies + high virulence scenario, or if someone successfully infected the water supply with a virus.

I'm ignoring mystical zombies here since you can raise those in arbitrary numbers.

Honestly, I dont know. Fast zombies are scary. Especially if we go with the whole fabled head shots only route. Sure you could cripple them with a machine gun cutting them almost in half with bullets at the waist, but they will still be trying to bite anything that comes near. And even if they DID wipe out the sprinters, by the time they figure out whats happening, and are able to organize a large enough army to stop it, they would have likely slaughtered a large cities worth or more of civillians and created a higher death toll than most natural disasters. Then there is the problem of figuring out if you got them all. It only takes one to wander off away from the main containment area to start the whole cycle over again elsewhere.

Even without the head shot only type of zombies, just think about how long it would take for the military to respond. They arent going to hear a report of some crazy guy breaking into a house and killing everyone and think "OMG! Zombies! Get suited and booted people!" No, first itll just be the local cops who get called in. Then when they get wiped out, because by now we likely have a couple dozen sprinters in the area, they will call in riot police. They wont realize they are dealing with the walking dead. They will likely treat it as a drug crazed gang running amok. It wont be till they notice members of the 'gang" attacking them are dressed in torn and bloody police gear that they will start to figure it out. There is almost no way to stop fast zombies before they hit massive swarm status without being ridiculously genre savvy and having a script in advance. And that massive swarm means a massive number of people have already been killed. So even with it being contained. Say we lose the equivalent of chicago to the zombie horde, its still a scary thing. And way worse than any group of shambling shufflers could hope to match. Maybe if they attacked a city full of grade schoolers it would be devastating, but id put even odds on the average joe taking down most of the threat before the military can even show up.

The Succubus
2012-02-01, 11:14 AM
As an eternal fan of the WOW Forsaken, I say sapient zombies are the best.

I was once kicked from a WoW guild because I was Forsaken. The fact that I kept eating the dead bodies of other people in the raid and doing a little food critique of them had nothing to do with it.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 11:44 AM
Mystical Zombies can be a threat because they

a) require complete destruction to destroy them

b) can be directed by the source of whatever is animating them.

c) works equally well on dead animals

Alex Star
2012-02-01, 12:47 PM
Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.

In function the Living Dead Zombie (ie: Slow) is the only version that is truly a credible threat in cinema. The Living Virus Zombie (ie: Fast) is still held hostage by the human machine, whereas the Living Dead Zombie is not.

Example:

Living Dead Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It keeps coming, Blow off an Arm = It keeps coming, Blow off both legs = It crawls.

Living Virus Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It dies, Blow off an arm = It dies from blood loss, Blow off both legs = It dies from blood loss.

The cardinal difference between the Living Dead and Living Virus Zombies are the fact that one is in fact still Human, while the other is not. The Living Dead Zombie does not rely on the complex machine that is the human body, destroy anything but the brain and all you've done is at best limit it's mobility. The Living Virus Zombie on the other hand is vulnerable to nearly all of the same threats that a Human is, if it does not eat it will starve, if it does not breath it will suffocate.

We as humans have tons of experience killing humans, we have multiple vocational career paths associated with doing just that.

We have exactly 0 vocations that train or prepare a person for killing something that follows none of our natural or physical laws.

Herpestidae
2012-02-01, 12:55 PM
Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.

In function the Living Dead Zombie (ie: Slow) is the only version that is truly a credible threat in cinema. The Living Virus Zombie (ie: Fast) is still held hostage by the human machine, whereas the Living Dead Zombie is not.

Example:

Living Dead Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It keeps coming, Blow off an Arm = It keeps coming, Blow off both legs = It crawls.

Living Virus Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It dies, Blow off an arm = It dies from blood loss, Blow off both legs = It dies from blood loss.

The cardinal difference between the Living Dead and Living Virus Zombies are the fact that one is in fact still Human, while the other is not. The Living Dead Zombie does not rely on the complex machine that is the human body, destroy anything but the brain and all you've done is at best limit it's mobility. The Living Virus Zombie on the other hand is vulnerable to nearly all of the same threats that a Human is, if it does not eat it will starve, if it does not breath it will suffocate.

We as humans have tons of experience killing humans, we have multiple vocational career paths associated with doing just that.

We have exactly 0 vocations that train or prepare a person for killing something that follows none of our natural or physical laws.

Except killing isn't as easy as it appears. If you're of the mindset that the Fast Zombie "is still Human" you're not likely to be able to kill it if you tried. It is, however, loads easier to rationalize that it's okay to kill "something that follows none of our natural or physical laws," as you so delightfully put it.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-01, 12:56 PM
To be fair, virus zombies rarely drop anywhere near as quickly as if they were actually as vulnerable as they are supposed to be, the difference in durability is really negligable.

And non-Virus Zombies are often just as vulnerable to massive damage as virus zombies, even ignoring headshots.

[edit]Oh, and I put no weight at all in anything that comes from World War Z.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-02-01, 01:00 PM
The difference between Virus Zombies and humans is that Virus Zombies have no pain aversion. If you shoot their arm off, they won't panic, or feel fear or even feel pain, with all the various psycho-somatic effects that entails.

Alex Star
2012-02-01, 01:02 PM
Except killing isn't as easy as it appears. If you're of the mindset that the Fast Zombie "is still Human" you're not likely to be able to kill it if you tried. It is, however, loads easier to rationalize that it's okay to kill "something that follows none of our natural or physical laws," as you so delightfully put it.

That logic is admissable both ways, and has been used as such in both versions of the media.

It's really not a defining factor in determining a delta between the two, as it applies to both. Hence, why I didn't mention it.

To bring up something else I didn't mention, but I noticed was posted already. The "Swarm" possibility.

The "pandemic" of either the Living Virus or Living Dead Zombie would begin same way, in hospitals, with sick friends or family members either bringing in their "zombified" loved ones or simply walking through the door infected but not yet turned themselves.

Alex Star
2012-02-01, 01:03 PM
The difference between Virus Zombies and humans is that Virus Zombies have no pain aversion. If you shoot their arm off, they won't panic, or feel fear or even feel pain, with all the various psycho-somatic effects that entails.

This is the ONLY thing that makes a Virus Zombie dangerous at all, is it's single-minded nature. But what will kill a human will still kill it. This can not be said for the Living Dead Zombie.

Traab
2012-02-01, 01:17 PM
This is the ONLY thing that makes a Virus Zombie dangerous at all, is it's single-minded nature. But what will kill a human will still kill it. This can not be said for the Living Dead Zombie.

True, eventually that missing arm virus zombie will die. The question is, will he die before, or after he tears out your throat? If a virus zombie feels no pain, doesnt go into shock, and only dies when his heart gives out, that means he could have as much as a minute to sprint towards you before he bleeds out. A human traveling at a dead sprint for a minute can cover quite a distance. Unless you are firing a sniper rifle from 900 meters away when you tear off that arm, he is likely going to reach you before he keels over. Unless you make his brain breathe out of an extra hole, or otherwise cripple him, that virus zombie will keep charging towards you for as long as he is physically capable of it. Thats a bit better than mystical head shot only zombies, but not by much.

Eerie
2012-02-01, 01:30 PM
The difference between Virus Zombies and humans is that Virus Zombies have no pain aversion. If you shoot their arm off, they won't panic, or feel fear or even feel pain, with all the various psycho-somatic effects that entails.

Except that anything with no working brain and no pain aversion will kill itself very quickly.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 01:31 PM
Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.

In function the Living Dead Zombie (ie: Slow) is the only version that is truly a credible threat in cinema. The Living Virus Zombie (ie: Fast) is still held hostage by the human machine, whereas the Living Dead Zombie is not.

Example:

Living Dead Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It keeps coming, Blow off an Arm = It keeps coming, Blow off both legs = It crawls.

Living Virus Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It dies, Blow off an arm = It dies from blood loss, Blow off both legs = It dies from blood loss.

The cardinal difference between the Living Dead and Living Virus Zombies are the fact that one is in fact still Human, while the other is not. The Living Dead Zombie does not rely on the complex machine that is the human body, destroy anything but the brain and all you've done is at best limit it's mobility. The Living Virus Zombie on the other hand is vulnerable to nearly all of the same threats that a Human is, if it does not eat it will starve, if it does not breath it will suffocate.

We as humans have tons of experience killing humans, we have multiple vocational career paths associated with doing just that.

We have exactly 0 vocations that train or prepare a person for killing something that follows none of our natural or physical laws.

I disagree so much. I haven't read world war Z personally (I have heard a lot about it to know I wouldn't like it) I did read the Zombie Survival Guide on which (to my understanding) the Zombies in World War Z are based on. Basically the author does not know what he's talking about when it comes to damage to a human body.

Someone who doesn't heal from their injuries would be a cripple within a week if they were exposed to the average stresses a normal person goes through. If they also couldn't feel pain? They would worsen the damage even faster. If they didn't have any sort of common sense? They would likely be dead within the week.

It wouldn't be a matter of controlling the zombies, just a matter of protecting people for a short period of time. Honestly most of which could be done by getting people to stay inside and perhaps barricade the upstairs. After a week perhaps two the zombies still have the potential to infect someone but aren't a threat because now they are too slow and weak.

GenericGuy
2012-02-01, 01:37 PM
I like them both, and I like to think that all zombies start off as fast (to spread the virus as fast as possible) but slow down as they decay (but by then there are so damn many of the them it doesn't make them less dangerous to the survivors).

Oh, and I HATE smart Zombies with a passion of a thousand burning suns, ruins the whole movie/book/game/etc. for me:smallfurious:.

Alex Star
2012-02-01, 01:50 PM
True, eventually that missing arm virus zombie will die. The question is, will he die before, or after he tears out your throat? If a virus zombie feels no pain, doesnt go into shock, and only dies when his heart gives out, that means he could have as much as a minute to sprint towards you before he bleeds out. A human traveling at a dead sprint for a minute can cover quite a distance. Unless you are firing a sniper rifle from 900 meters away when you tear off that arm, he is likely going to reach you before he keels over. Unless you make his brain breathe out of an extra hole, or otherwise cripple him, that virus zombie will keep charging towards you for as long as he is physically capable of it. Thats a bit better than mystical head shot only zombies, but not by much.

The big problem with it is that we wouldn't be able to kill them. Either way.

Hard science shows that humans just don't want to kill other humans.

Fact: Only 1 in 5 soldiers in World War II ever fired on the enemy, when confronted with a situation where they had the opportunity to.

That's not 1 in 5 soldiers who enlisted, thats 1 in 5 allied troops looking at a Nazi solider carrying a gun who is a possible significant threat to his life.

ONE percent of all pilots in WW2 accounted for 30-40% of all enemies planes that were shot down.

The rate of shots to kills in vietnam was 52,000 Bullets fired, to 1 regular infantry unit killed. 52,000 to 1. And these are people killing other people who dressed differently, looked different, sounded different, and who they KNEW were actively fighting against them.

Are you so sure you'd pull the trigger if your Mom, Dad, Sister, Brother, Guy you know from work, Acquaintance met at a party, Person who kinda looks like someone you might know. Was shambling towards you?

The facts say you might, that 1 in 5 of us would pull the trigger. And even then we'd be so conflicted about doing so that we better have a lot of ammo sitting in reserve if we intend to score that kill shot.

And now you finally shot Mom in the chest, and she doesn't go down. Can you pull the trigger again? Can you keep a clear enough head to remember how to deal with a "zombie". Maybe you can, in this one on one situation you manage to pull through and land that killing shot. Assuming that it took you lets say 5 shots to do so.

Well, now the math doesn't look so good does it. Lets say 100,000 Humans, 80,000 of them can't fire and become zombies. 20,000 fire just like you 5 shots a piece. Lets be nice and say that ratio of shots fired to kill is actually only 10,000 to 1. You know allowing for the fact that not only are these untrained civilians but the credible threat is literally feet away from them. Another 19,990 People fail to kill their target, and are now Zombies. 10 manage a kill.

So now it's 199,980 Zombies to 10 surivors. Oh you forgot about the 100,000 original zombies that were each attacking a human right? Well minus the 10 survivors and the 1 they each killed that's the sum total. You like those 199,980:10 odds? Hope you got plenty of Ammo. And I hope that none of those 10 surivors with you flake out after they just killed someone and can't take it.

*Cited statistics from http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm (although there are several other places out there you can find the same numbers).

Traab
2012-02-01, 01:54 PM
I like them both, and I like to think that all zombies start off as fast (to spread the virus as fast as possible) but slow down as they decay (but by then there are so damn many of the them it doesn't make them less dangerous to the survivors).

Oh, and I HATE smart Zombies with a passion of a thousand burning suns, ruins the whole movie/book/game/etc. for me:smallfurious:.

Same here, zombies should never be intelligent. Intelligent zombies might as well just be vampires or something and leave it at that. I just think that the slow zombies are a laughable threat against anything but isolated farmsteads when they are already in large numbers. A single fast zombie is a threat to your average unsuspecting person, a single slow zombie is an annoyance to that same person.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-01, 02:00 PM
I disagree so much. I haven't read world war Z personally (I have heard a lot about it to know I wouldn't like it) I did read the Zombie Survival Guide on which (to my understanding) the Zombies in World War Z are based on. Basically the author does not know what he's talking about when it comes to damage to a human body.

Someone who doesn't heal from their injuries would be a cripple within a week if they were exposed to the average stresses a normal person goes through. If they also couldn't feel pain? They would worsen the damage even faster. If they didn't have any sort of common sense? They would likely be dead within the week.

This. This so very much.

Even with completely dead zombies (ragezeds need not apply) you can't walk when a reasonably high caliber round aimed low shreds legs to paste and shatters bone. It just doesn't work mechanically.You have to have zombie running completely of magic and even if they can decay into skeletons and still be mobile, bone isn't that durable.

And living ragezeds have it even worse, if they ever actually got to reasonable size swarms those swarms would start loosing speed quickly with their lifestyle. Quickly from lack of food, then dehydration, and dead. Or they start eating each other and the problem solves its. Th


It wouldn't be a matter of controlling the zombies, just a matter of protecting people for a short period of time. Honestly most of which could be done by getting people to stay inside and perhaps barricade the upstairs. After a week perhaps two the zombies still have the potential to infect someone but aren't a threat because now they are too slow and weak.

I considered the case of zombie and aparment buildings. If you don't live on the first floor, lock the deadbolt. Supplement with your heaviest furniture and you are set. If you have advance warning jam/lock the doors on all the stairwells and shut down the elevators. Its really not hard to keep brainless humans out.

For a house like you said, barricade upstairs or any windowless room. Better yet barricade your upstairs, then get in the attic. Its a double layer fortress. Just snip the string most of those ladder doors use to get pulled down, take it up behind you, and you are set.

Lets face it the only way zeds can actually spread is by giving the entire human race an idiot ball the size of Everest.

(Or by the original and still about only decent idea of having any and all dead getting back up)

Traab
2012-02-01, 02:19 PM
(Or by the original and still about only decent idea of having any and all dead getting back up)

But even these scenarios have the shamblers being very little threat. Didnt the woman basically escape from a damn cemetery in the first night of the living dead movie? She was alone, unarmed, and had no freaking clue what was going on, and she escaped. Had they been fast zombies, she would have died quickly and been turned. They got stuck in a farmhouse, and I think the only real issue was finding a way to escape. (until the little girl turned and bit her family iirc) Any townie with a shotgun was able to lay waste to the zombies, they didnt even need the army, except to get extra bullets.

At best, the slow zombie films are effective frights for small scale short term scenarios like that one. On the same level of danger as Jason. He stays in one area, threatens one group of kids, and thats it. There isnt a threat of him wiping out everyone on earth, he couldnt. He is only dangerous to unarmed teenagers more concerned with knocking boots than avoiding a campsite that has killed dozens of people over the years.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-01, 02:27 PM
They wont realize they are dealing with the walking dead. They will likely treat it as a drug crazed gang running amok. It wont be till they notice members of the 'gang" attacking them are dressed in torn and bloody police gear that they will start to figure it out.

Seriously, you think a unit of police can just vanish and they'll ascribe it to a gang war without noticing the police uniforms that match the people who JUST went missing there?

That seems...ridiculously horror-movie like, in which people ignore obvious signs of problems.


Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.

Yeah, I read that. It made me realize that his understanding of the military, physics, etc consists entirely of watching action movies and theorizing about things he doesn't understand. It's no more credible than "My buddies and I think that..."


We as humans have tons of experience killing humans, we have multiple vocational career paths associated with doing just that.

We have exactly 0 vocations that train or prepare a person for killing something that follows none of our natural or physical laws.

As an eight year military veteran, I have yet to ever be in a unit which lacked members with a zombie contingency plan. Seriously, military people watch zombie movies too. Also, we have guns.

Killing things that are not human is known as hunting. It's an old, old tradition, and it's usually considered easier/better than killing people. The "it's not really human" makes it easier, not harder, to kill it.


True, eventually that missing arm virus zombie will die. The question is, will he die before, or after he tears out your throat? If a virus zombie feels no pain, doesnt go into shock, and only dies when his heart gives out, that means he could have as much as a minute to sprint towards you before he bleeds out. A human traveling at a dead sprint for a minute can cover quite a distance. Unless you are firing a sniper rifle from 900 meters away when you tear off that arm, he is likely going to reach you before he keels over. Unless you make his brain breathe out of an extra hole, or otherwise cripple him, that virus zombie will keep charging towards you for as long as he is physically capable of it. Thats a bit better than mystical head shot only zombies, but not by much.

Yknow why humans react as they do to pain and injury? To keep from further destroying ourselves.

If your reaction to having an arm blown off is a dead sprint, followed by combat, you will pump blood out of your body ridiculously fast.



ONE percent of all pilots in WW2 accounted for 30-40% of all enemies planes that were shot down.

The top 1% of performers in basically any field have most of the money, recognition, and accomplishments. Combat is little different.

See, the bottom, what, 50-ish, die before they get any experience, right? Assuming equal training, there's roughly a 50/50 chance of dying before killing even one person. That's bog standard statistics. If you live longer, you likely kill more. Also, practice. You get better. So, the top 1% are good/lucky/whatever. Probably a lot of both. But you're focusing entirely on the unlucky chaps, without considering that yes, you will have those who survive as well.



So now it's 199,980 Zombies to 10 surivors. Oh you forgot about the 100,000 original zombies that were each attacking a human right? Well minus the 10 survivors and the 1 they each killed that's the sum total. You like those 199,980:10 odds? Hope you got plenty of Ammo. And I hope that none of those 10 surivors with you flake out after they just killed someone and can't take it.

Leaving aside the terrible math...yes. Absolutely plenty of ammo. I live in the US. We have substantially more GUNS than people. People that own guns also own ammo for those guns.

There's always plenty of ammo.

Traab
2012-02-01, 02:49 PM
Seriously, you think a unit of police can just vanish and they'll ascribe it to a gang war without noticing the police uniforms that match the people who JUST went missing there?

That seems...ridiculously horror-movie like, in which people ignore obvious signs of problems.

No, what will happen is this. A squad car or two will be sent out to the scene of the murder. These cops will either vanish or report that they are under attack just before they die screaming. What happens next? Im honestly not sure, but I doubt they will call in the national guard unless the last report sounds something like this.

"OH DEAR GOD! BLAM BLAM BLAM! They are everywhere! We are under attack by dozens of people! They dont seem to feel pain and keep attacking. LOOK OUT FR-" /static noises

Most likely they will send out swat teams or a larger number of cops to investigate, and yes they will be fully armed. However, they dont know that like a virus, the "bad guys" are multiplying rapidly, engulfing the entire neighborhood and beyond. They may even kill a few before getting swarmed under, who knows? The point being, by the time they realize its for all intents and purposes, a crazed ARMY of murderous lunatics that dont seem to feel pain, half the city will likely be turned. By the time the military gets there and establishes containment protocols, there is no telling how far things will have spread. It could be more than a day later, with these sprinters swarming all over the place increasing their numbers at a meteoric rate. In the movie Resident Evil 2, Raccoon City was only contained more or less successfully because they knew about the outbreak before it could spread and got to work sealing off the city before anyone else even noticed a problem.


Yknow why humans react as they do to pain and injury? To keep from further destroying ourselves.

If your reaction to having an arm blown off is a dead sprint, followed by combat, you will pump blood out of your body ridiculously fast.

Yep, that zombie wont last long without his arm. But my point was to ask if he would die fast enough to not return the favor and turn you before he dies. Blow the arm off a person and he is out of the fight. Blow the arm off a sprinter and he still has enough juice to fight for a short time before he keels over. And when you have a crowd of sprinters coming for you, you have to drop them FAST to survive. You dont have time to let them bleed out. Its instantly fatal wounds, or close enough to it to not matter, or you are just wasting bullets. Only exception is blasting away from a safe point.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-01, 02:52 PM
No, what will happen is this. A squad car or two will be sent out to the scene of the murder. These cops will either vanish or report that they are under attack just before they die screaming. What happens next? Im honestly not sure, but I doubt they will call in the national guard unless the last report sounds something like this.

"OH DEAR GOD! BLAM BLAM BLAM! They are everywhere! We are under attack by dozens of people! They dont seem to feel pain and keep attacking. LOOK OUT FR-" /static noises

Most likely they will send out swat teams or a larger number of cops to investigate, and yes they will be fully armed. However, they dont know that like a virus, the "bad guys" are multiplying rapidly, engulfing the entire neighborhood and beyond. They may even kill a few before getting swarmed under, who knows? The point being, by the time they realize its for all intents and purposes, a crazed ARMY of murderous lunatics that dont seem to feel pain, half the city will likely be turned.

Zombies walk. Cops have vehicles. The latter will respond faster than the former will spread.



Yep, that zombie wont last long without his arm. But my point was to ask if he would die fast enough to not return the favor and turn you before he dies. Blow the arm off a person and he is out of the fight. Blow the arm off a sprinter and he still has enough juice to fight for a short time before he keels over. And when you have a crowd of sprinters coming for you, you have to drop them FAST to survive. You dont have time to let them bleed out. Its instantly fatal wounds, or close enough to it to not matter, or you are just wasting bullets. Only exception is blasting away from a safe point.

Look, if you're full on sprinting while pumping blood out of major arteries, you will fall over in seconds, not minutes.

If they behave like that, they will never get to swarm levels, because they are acting in a way that will eliminate themselves, even to what would be normally minor injuries to a normal human.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 03:00 PM
The big problem with it is that we wouldn't be able to kill them. Either way.

Hard science shows that humans just don't want to kill other humans.

Fact: Only 1 in 5 soldiers in World War II ever fired on the enemy, when confronted with a situation where they had the opportunity to.

That's not 1 in 5 soldiers who enlisted, thats 1 in 5 allied troops looking at a Nazi solider carrying a gun who is a possible significant threat to his life.

ONE percent of all pilots in WW2 accounted for 30-40% of all enemies planes that were shot down.

The rate of shots to kills in vietnam was 52,000 Bullets fired, to 1 regular infantry unit killed. 52,000 to 1. And these are people killing other people who dressed differently, looked different, sounded different, and who they KNEW were actively fighting against them.

Are you so sure you'd pull the trigger if your Mom, Dad, Sister, Brother, Guy you know from work, Acquaintance met at a party, Person who kinda looks like someone you might know. Was shambling towards you?

The facts say you might, that 1 in 5 of us would pull the trigger. And even then we'd be so conflicted about doing so that we better have a lot of ammo sitting in reserve if we intend to score that kill shot.

And now you finally shot Mom in the chest, and she doesn't go down. Can you pull the trigger again? Can you keep a clear enough head to remember how to deal with a "zombie". Maybe you can, in this one on one situation you manage to pull through and land that killing shot. Assuming that it took you lets say 5 shots to do so.

Well, now the math doesn't look so good does it. Lets say 100,000 Humans, 80,000 of them can't fire and become zombies. 20,000 fire just like you 5 shots a piece. Lets be nice and say that ratio of shots fired to kill is actually only 10,000 to 1. You know allowing for the fact that not only are these untrained civilians but the credible threat is literally feet away from them. Another 19,990 People fail to kill their target, and are now Zombies. 10 manage a kill.

So now it's 199,980 Zombies to 10 surivors. Oh you forgot about the 100,000 original zombies that were each attacking a human right? Well minus the 10 survivors and the 1 they each killed that's the sum total. You like those 199,980:10 odds? Hope you got plenty of Ammo. And I hope that none of those 10 surivors with you flake out after they just killed someone and can't take it.

*Cited statistics from http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm (although there are several other places out there you can find the same numbers).

I doubt this is as bad as you are making it out to be. Yes most people will have trouble killing the zombies that resemble their faimly or even strangers. However that doesn't equal zombification. Also zombies are the prime example of the uncanny valley. They don't look or act human at all as well as offer an immediate threat to be destroyed.

I would ask you if you could destroy a mannakin that has your mom's picture on its face. Most people could excepically if their life was in danger because their isn't enough of a comparison to another human.

Plus unless they are fast zombies someone could just run walk away and leave it to a pro to deal with the zombies. Finally a lot of bullets are likely expended because people do their best to not be easy targets. We hide, take cover and try to pin the enemy with excess shots. A zombie won't have any of those factors.

Mixt
2012-02-01, 03:10 PM
Lets face it the only way zeds can actually spread is by giving the entire human race an idiot ball the size of Everest.

You mean like the one we already have?

"No, i don't care about the long-term consequences of my actions, as long as i get something out of it right now it doesn't matter what happens later!"

"Meh, nothing to worry about, the problem will go away if we ignore it"

"So what if my actions will cause the death of thousands, as long as i get something out of it. After all, i don't know any of those people, so their horrible demise is not my problem"

"I bet the walking corpse will go away if i shout at it enough!"

"I know, let's spend time and resources on killing each other instead of the zombies!"

"It's the Rapture! Let's all offer ourselves up to the zombies so we can get into heaven faster!"

"Oh no, i'm infected...but wait, i bet raping a virgin will cure me!"

"They can only be killed by destroying the brain, let's keep aiming at center mass!"

"Sound attracts zombies, let's yell at and insult each other for no good reason so the noise will lead them right to us!"

"What? Teamwork? With the enemy? No way, we rather die than work with that other country! In fact, we are going to actively sabotage their efforts to combat the zombies!"

^Average human intelligence at work :smallannoyed::smallyuk::smallsigh:

And that's not counting the terrorists who will surely try to worsen the situation on purpose just to spite everyone.

Traab
2012-02-01, 03:11 PM
Zombies walk. Cops have vehicles. The latter will respond faster than the former will spread.



Look, if you're full on sprinting while pumping blood out of major arteries, you will fall over in seconds, not minutes.

If they behave like that, they will never get to swarm levels, because they are acting in a way that will eliminate themselves, even to what would be normally minor injuries to a normal human.


Yeah and the cops arent coming en masse. At least not at first. Lets say patient zero wakes up in his house a zombie. Why doesnt matter as it isnt explored in 90% of zombie films either. He bits his family and they all turn. The 3-4 zombies break out of their house and attack the nearest home they can find. A neighbor inside sees this, hears the screaming, and calls the police. Meanwhile the zombies are biting and killing everything they can find, possibly going in all directions at this point. The police wont empty out the department over a case of a handful of crazies attacking people in their homes. They will send in a few cars at least. By the time they get there, the zombies could have attacked and turned a couple dozen people or more. The ones first spotted by the cops will attack them. Maybe they will get killed, maybe not, the rest are still spreading in other directions. By the time this gets figured out, the entire neighborhood could be infected, and they still wont understand whats going on. I mean come on, zombies? Who the hell would have the brass balls to be the first one to suggest that?

Then, after all this happens and the military is finally contacted, they have to figure out where the outbreaks are heading, and setup a cordon well outside that radius so they have time to prepare and seal it off. That could take massive amounts of manpower and that takes time to arrange. Im not saying ti wouldnt be contained in the end, im saying that contained or not, it would cause a HELL of alot more death and destruction than shamblers, even if every corpse in every cemetary stands up at the same time and shuffles off.

As for them wiping themselves out due to injury, I doubt that. First off sprinters spread fast. Like, minutes, or hours. They dont take a day to walk 3 miles away. So minor injuries which may eventually kill them wont kill them fast enough to stop them from spreading. Secondly, with the arm example, who the hell is going to be in the area pre swarm to REMOVE the arm of an oncoming sprinter? You wont likely be seeing injuries like that till the army gets there with automatic weapons.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 03:43 PM
Yeah and the cops arent coming en masse. At least not at first. Lets say patient zero wakes up in his house a zombie. Why doesnt matter as it isnt explored in 90% of zombie films either. He bits his family and they all turn. The 3-4 zombies break out of their house and attack the nearest home they can find. A neighbor inside sees this, hears the screaming, and calls the police. Meanwhile the zombies are biting and killing everything they can find, possibly going in all directions at this point. The police wont empty out the department over a case of a handful of crazies attacking people in their homes. They will send in a few cars at least. By the time they get there, the zombies could have attacked and turned a couple dozen people or more. The ones first spotted by the cops will attack them. Maybe they will get killed, maybe not, the rest are still spreading in other directions. By the time this gets figured out, the entire neighborhood could be infected, and they still wont understand whats going on. I mean come on, zombies? Who the hell would have the brass balls to be the first one to suggest that?

Then, after all this happens and the military is finally contacted, they have to figure out where the outbreaks are heading, and setup a cordon well outside that radius so they have time to prepare and seal it off. That could take massive amounts of manpower and that takes time to arrange. Im not saying ti wouldnt be contained in the end, im saying that contained or not, it would cause a HELL of alot more death and destruction than shamblers, even if every corpse in every cemetary stands up at the same time and shuffles off.

As for them wiping themselves out due to injury, I doubt that. First off sprinters spread fast. Like, minutes, or hours. They dont take a day to walk 3 miles away. So minor injuries which may eventually kill them wont kill them fast enough to stop them from spreading. Secondly, with the arm example, who the hell is going to be in the area pre swarm to REMOVE the arm of an oncoming sprinter? You wont likely be seeing injuries like that till the army gets there with automatic weapons.

The biggest problem with this scenario is the initial infections beyond the first family. I can see patient zero easily taking our its own family but after that? Getting into a locked house is difficult enough when we can think straight. A being that can't think straight? After getting in those inside will be able to defend themselves to a degree. I doubt that after the first family they would be able to get any other human who is in good enough condition to simply walk away.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-01, 04:00 PM
Yeah and the cops arent coming en masse. At least not at first. Lets say patient zero wakes up in his house a zombie. Why doesnt matter as it isnt explored in 90% of zombie films either.

Right, I'll accept the single leap that a zombie virus of some sort exists. No worries there.


He bits his family and they all turn. The 3-4 zombies break out of their house and attack the nearest home they can find.

Being the family of patient zero is unfortunate. Little warning. That said, mindless undead breaking out of a house might take a minute. Odds of someone calling it in increase if someone sees people clawing their way out of walls.


A neighbor inside sees this, hears the screaming, and calls the police. Meanwhile the zombies are biting and killing everything they can find, possibly going in all directions at this point.

It takes a while for people to get bit and die. Zombies don't immediately leave you be when you take a bite. Not smart enough. The transmission rate is low, here. If you have one guy with a gun, it all ends here.


The police wont empty out the department over a case of a handful of crazies attacking people in their homes. They will send in a few cars at least. By the time they get there, the zombies could have attacked and turned a couple dozen people or more.

Turning is basically never instant. It tends to take at least a couple minutes, often longer, depending on source. That slows transmission rate further.

Also, violent calls tend to take priority. Police will generally be there fairly rapidly. And if there's angry people roaming the streets when they arrive, the cops will almost certainly call that in.


The ones first spotted by the cops will attack them. Maybe they will get killed, maybe not, the rest are still spreading in other directions. By the time this gets figured out, the entire neighborhood could be infected, and they still wont understand whats going on. I mean come on, zombies? Who the hell would have the brass balls to be the first one to suggest that?

The cops start out in cars, with guns and radios. Zombies can attack them, and they have a pretty notable advantage. "Holy crap, there's a mob of people attacking us" is going to get a response plenty quickly. No need for them to even ID it as a zombie thing.


Then, after all this happens and the military is finally contacted, they have to figure out where the outbreaks are heading, and setup a cordon well outside that radius so they have time to prepare and seal it off. That could take massive amounts of manpower and that takes time to arrange. Im not saying ti wouldnt be contained in the end, im saying that contained or not, it would cause a HELL of alot more death and destruction than shamblers, even if every corpse in every cemetary stands up at the same time and shuffles off.

Not really. Highly contagious flesh eating disease exist now, and do not spread like that, and those can spread through vectors other than walking. Walking is slow. You know how long it takes for even a fairly athletic person to run through an entire city? Most people, frankly, are not even that fast. Then you've got obstacle #2. Cars. Runners with no regard for their own safety who attack what they see? Splat.

No, you need the mass event, like everyone crawling from graves who ever died. That, while wild in itself, at least gets you the mass scale without making it a further implausible thing.


As for them wiping themselves out due to injury, I doubt that. First off sprinters spread fast. Like, minutes, or hours. They dont take a day to walk 3 miles away.

Say about...15 minutes. That puts you as a pretty fast runner, who likely wins competitions. 3 miles is not far, and if you attack whatever you see, that is going to take time. How many people do you see in a three mile trip in a city? Nah, in fifteen minutes, they'd have gone a block at most.


So minor injuries which may eventually kill them wont kill them fast enough to stop them from spreading. Secondly, with the arm example, who the hell is going to be in the area pre swarm to REMOVE the arm of an oncoming sprinter? You wont likely be seeing injuries like that till the army gets there with automatic weapons.

Or, yknow, an axe. Or a shotgun. Whatever, really.

Much more minor injuries than a removed limb can be life threatening, especially if untreated. Blood loss is a big deal. If an artery gets cut, you won't make it three miles. Defensive wounds alone would mean that the average zombie would, even if successful in every fight, kill itself after only a couple of fights. Infections would burn out.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-01, 04:06 PM
You mean like the one we already have?

I didn't find a single example of that actually holds water for even a likely reaction of even one percent of the population. Are they reactions that might happen, yes, are they significant, no. Exemplary of the exact sort of idiot balls zombie movies have to use to even begin to make their premises hold water. Its like saying if there's a flood people won't go to higher ground.

People can barricade themselves with a little warning. And if not in a defensible position they can you know, run. Heck they can go the other response and fight then a fair percentage will win, its not like the human body is built to hunt down prey and bite them. But back to running since that's the better idea

This is an entirely a reasonable option against zeds. Slows ones especially but even 'fast' zombies are going to no more then equal out. Because you think running for your life is not exactly the sort of adrenaline fueled situation to have your body at maximum.

Now I'm sure you are thinking something along the lines of 'well sure when its just one zed' and what about the endless swarms of them. I ask you, what endless swarms? How are these built at the micro level? One zed has to expend considerable effort to nab one human.


Yeah and the cops arent coming en masse. At least not at first. Lets say patient zero wakes up in his house a zombie. Why doesnt matter as it isnt explored in 90% of zombie films either. He bits his family and they all turn. The 3-4 zombies break out of their house and attack the nearest home they can find.

I'd hazard most of them do explore some kind of patient zero scenario at some point. But lets say Dad walks in the house a zed ignoring why he goes there first. Well first off opening a door is already pushing his zed capacity, but lets grant it being unlocked so he get in without a problem. He goes for mom who's not going to be expecting him to be a vicious zed but isn't unaware oh someone came in the door. Meanwhile two kids are alerted.

Now some one looking like a zed lunges at you don't just stand there you react. Have you ever tried to bite someone too, its going to be struggle. The lunge might miss for example. If mom was cooking dinner and has say the frying pan there's a reasonable chance she will fend him off at least temporarily. Feel no pain doesn't mean you can won't be knock around be opposing force.

And at any point in this the zed plan (already encountering more problems then horror movies consider) can be derailed by mom screaming for the kids to get out of the house (and call the police).... and have them do it. Suddenly while wrestling to go from one zed to two you've already lost three and four. Even if say the kids freeze instead of flee (which should not be confused for a majority reaction) and we get four zeds this is literally the only home this can happen in as any sort of emotional argument will only fade. Nevermind zombies have enough popcultural presence at this point that little brightly colored ponies complain about not getting to be one next Nightmare Night... so yeah people are going to figure out "zombie, better not be a horror movie idiot"

And this is about as good as it can get. Any other house zed is definitely going to have to figure out how to break in. Which at the least slows them down while they work up to the force to get through the window and give anyone else the time say, run out the door in the opposite direction. Or barricade themselves effectively. Or grab a gun and put a head shot into zed.

Short version of all this. In the real world zed spreads slow, which means they never get to the sort of swarms that would let them you know outnumber any group of people.

Check out how often predators actually succeed in their hunts, and most hunt smarter and better then zed does.

deuterio12
2012-02-01, 04:22 PM
The biggest problem with this scenario is the initial infections beyond the first family. I can see patient zero easily taking our its own family but after that? Getting into a locked house is difficult enough when we can think straight. A being that can't think straight? After getting in those inside will be able to defend themselves to a degree. I doubt that after the first family they would be able to get any other human who is in good enough condition to simply walk away.

+1 to that. Specially because if we're talking a big city, then there's an awful number of buildings where people can easily barricate themselves.

I just don't see brain-dead zombies suddenly deciding to climb stairs and then managing to take down the right doors.

Now, living people can be quite stupid yes, and we may have trouble trying to kill our loved ones, but avoiding geting hurt is one of our most basic instincts. Zombies can only win if the humans willingly aproach the crazed dudes dressed in rags.

That's why I believe the more dangerous version is zombies backed up by evil-corporation!:smalltongue:

Mainly the Resident Evil series. The zombies may be dumb, but the humans suddenly find themselves inside a locked room/building/city so Umbrella corporation can get some fresh data on their t-virus.:smallbiggrin:

deuterio12
2012-02-01, 04:23 PM
The biggest problem with this scenario is the initial infections beyond the first family. I can see patient zero easily taking our its own family but after that? Getting into a locked house is difficult enough when we can think straight. A being that can't think straight? After getting in those inside will be able to defend themselves to a degree. I doubt that after the first family they would be able to get any other human who is in good enough condition to simply walk away.

+1 to that. Specially because if we're talking a big city, then there's an awful number of buildings where people can easily barricate themselves.

I just don't see brain-dead zombies suddenly deciding to climb stairs and then managing to take down the right doors.

Now, living people can be quite stupid yes, and we may have trouble trying to kill our loved ones, but avoiding geting hurt is one of our most basic instincts. Zombies can only win if the humans willingly aproach the crazed dudes dressed in rags.

That's why I believe the more dangerous version is zombies backed up by evil-corporation!:smalltongue:

Mainly the Resident Evil series. The zombies may be dumb, but the humans suddenly find themselves inside a locked room/building/city so Umbrella corporation can get some fresh data on their t-virus.:smallbiggrin:

deuterio12
2012-02-01, 04:25 PM
double post, forums are laggy

Traab
2012-02-01, 04:25 PM
Oi, fine, nit pick away the chances of a fast zombie outbreak, but all of those arguments are a hundred times more likely to work on a slow zombie outbreak. Shamblers are not worth worrying about short of 100-1 odds in an area you cant escape from. Thats it. They are normally no stronger than a sprinter, and the fact that they are outpaced by my 89 year old grandmother with a walker just means that only through an act of sheer stupidity can anything other than a spontaneous million zombie swarm be any real source of danger. Bottom line, fast zombies are deadlier than slow zombies. I dont even see why this is an issue.

Mewtarthio
2012-02-01, 05:37 PM
The big problem with it is that we wouldn't be able to kill them. Either way.

[...]

*Cited statistics from http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm (although there are several other places out there you can find the same numbers).

There are several places with those numbers. They all take their numbers from the same source: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by Dave Grossman. Grossman, in turn, took his numbers from one SLA Marshall, whose research methodology was notoriously poor (and, in fact, a number of historians suspect he made up the statistics outright).

It's worth noting that the US Army revised its training programs after Marshall published his research. Every war since Vietnam has had much higher firing rates (ie Nearly everyone's shooting) than what Marshall reported. As such, those statistics are at best obsolete and at worst completely fabricated.

Speaking of Grossman, he also claims that violent video games (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3417grossman_reprint.html) are effective tools for breaking down the psychological barriers towards killing, so we should all be perfectly fine nowadays.

Herpestidae
2012-02-01, 05:43 PM
In order to get killed by a Zombie, you have to get caught by a Zombie. Fast Zombies catch things more easily than slow things. Thus, Fast Zombies win by default.

Herpestidae
2012-02-01, 05:44 PM
Fast Zombies win by default. That much should have been obvious, as In order to get killed by a Zombie, you have to get caught by a Zombie.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-01, 06:32 PM
Oi, fine, nit pick away the chances of a fast zombie outbreak, but all of those arguments are a hundred times more likely to work on a slow zombie outbreak. Shamblers are not worth worrying about short of 100-1 odds in an area you cant escape from. Thats it. They are normally no stronger than a sprinter, and the fact that they are outpaced by my 89 year old grandmother with a walker just means that only through an act of sheer stupidity can anything other than a spontaneous million zombie swarm be any real source of danger. Bottom line, fast zombies are deadlier than slow zombies. I dont even see why this is an issue.

Because either way they are no threat to humanity in a large way.

However slow zombies are somewhat more likely to have a magical basis or otherwise be shuffling around with half their guts out. And one can invoke other conditions like the original and still only remotely plausible zedopocalypse.

Pokonic
2012-02-01, 06:35 PM
Even worse, a slow zombie infestation is more likely to have a main cause other than a bite from a infectie: usualy waterborn. Hence, most large swarms could be explained by a communites water getting tainted with the stuff, hence small armies of the zeds popping up.

Traab
2012-02-01, 07:04 PM
Even worse, a slow zombie infestation is more likely to have a main cause other than a bite from a infectie: usualy waterborn. Hence, most large swarms could be explained by a communites water getting tainted with the stuff, hence small armies of the zeds popping up.

But even then thats not a threat. Aside from the initial infection, the zombies themselves are pathetic sacks of nothing on the threat meter. Slow zombies are dangerous only to the infirm. Fast zombies are actually capable of killing people.

paddyfool
2012-02-01, 07:06 PM
Another way of making zombies more dangerous is to up the infectivity.

Say a cold goes around. Roughly half the population get sick from it. A few days later, those people who got sick turn, over a day or two. And once they turn, they become uber-infectious, so that they can infect even those who didn't initially get sick with a bite, blood-splash or similar.

Then we're going down, maybe (EDIT: if they're fast zombies, anyway). But against regular zombies - not so much.

Pokonic
2012-02-01, 09:29 PM
Another way of making zombies more dangerous is to up the infectivity.

Say a cold goes around. Roughly half the population get sick from it. A few days later, those people who got sick turn, over a day or two. And once they turn, they become uber-infectious, so that they can infect even those who didn't initially get sick with a bite, blood-splash or similar.

Then we're going down, maybe (EDIT: if they're fast zombies, anyway). But against regular zombies - not so much.

Even better, if a single one falls into, say, a river, the whole thing might be unsafe to drink from without risk.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 09:46 PM
Oi, fine, nit pick away the chances of a fast zombie outbreak, but all of those arguments are a hundred times more likely to work on a slow zombie outbreak. Shamblers are not worth worrying about short of 100-1 odds in an area you cant escape from. Thats it. They are normally no stronger than a sprinter, and the fact that they are outpaced by my 89 year old grandmother with a walker just means that only through an act of sheer stupidity can anything other than a spontaneous million zombie swarm be any real source of danger. Bottom line, fast zombies are deadlier than slow zombies. I dont even see why this is an issue.

Oh I agree that fast zombies are generally more dangerous then slow zombies. They make for a better story to. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they aren't actually a threat at all on anything higher then a micro level.

Traab
2012-02-01, 09:51 PM
Oh I agree that fast zombies are generally more dangerous then slow zombies. They make for a better story to. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they aren't actually a threat at all on anything higher then a micro level.

I wouldnt go that far. Yes zombies in general arent a global threat, the runners are still highly dangerous on a local level. While im sure if there was a runner outbreak in new york city it would be contained and eradicated, that wouldnt be much of a comfort for the potentially hundreds or even thousands of dead left in their wake. Shamblers in the same scenario? They might take down one civilian, depends on how long they think its some goofy guys cosplaying as zombies or something. :smallbiggrin:

TheThan
2012-02-01, 09:55 PM
Singing Zombies.

I agree, but only if they sing A cappella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s617_HpFGbo&feature=related).

Forum Explorer
2012-02-01, 10:23 PM
You know what? Lets change up the debate a little. How well would ghouls do?

Traab
2012-02-01, 10:25 PM
You know what? Lets change up the debate a little. How well would ghouls do?

Give us an official skill list so we know what we are working with. Ive seen a few varieties of ghoul described.

Weezer
2012-02-01, 10:56 PM
I don't know, I think you could get a pretty good swarm going in a major city before the military had time to respond. They would eventually get mowed down, but the swarm could get pretty extensive before then, especially in a 28 Days Later Fast Zombies + high virulence scenario, or if someone successfully infected the water supply with a virus.

I'm ignoring mystical zombies here since you can raise those in arbitrary numbers.

I don't even think that it would require military intervention anymore for at least small scale armored vehicles to be deployed. More and more (at least in the US) police departments have been given access to full on military hardware, which would rip through zombies.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-02-01, 11:13 PM
Yeah, but police SWAT teams aren't really designed or trained to deal with highly aggressive crowds. They're more for entrenched hostage situations or small groups of gunmen with automatic weapons.

Now, this may change in the future, but hopefully it won't.

Traab
2012-02-01, 11:28 PM
One thing about the runners that i think would be a factor. With the shamblers you are pretty safe just by locking your doors and blocking your windows. They arent very strong and it would take a LOT of them working together to force their way in. Runners though, they can put out a lot of force with a full speed charge into your doorway. Most doors in my neck of the woods arent even solid wood. They are hollowed out and barely above the level of particle board. That combined with a general lack of multiple redundant locks to help spread the force of the impact, and I bet they could bust down a standard door or window fairly easily. Especially if there are several attacking at once.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-02, 12:14 AM
Give us an official skill list so we know what we are working with. Ive seen a few varieties of ghoul described.

Ok here goes

Rudimentary intelligence
Undead (so no pain slightly more durable)
Eats human flesh
Humans that it kills become ghouls
poisonous fingers/claws (paralytic)?
Fast and stealthy
Hunts in packs, prefers the dark
strong as a human if not a bit more so
Super sharp teeth

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-02, 01:21 AM
But even then thats not a threat. Aside from the initial infection, the zombies themselves are pathetic sacks of nothing on the threat meter. Slow zombies are dangerous only to the infirm. Fast zombies are actually capable of killing people.

Fast zombies generally imply still alive. Because let's face it no way the human body runs without some sort of brain activity that's going to need sugars, oxygen, bloodflow, etc.

Shamblers have more precedent for being you know the walking dead. There's only a single plausible scenario presented in my knowledge and its Romero's the dead getting back up everywhere.

Neither is a threat but slow zombies have more options.


Another way of making zombies more dangerous is to up the infectivity.

Say a cold goes around. Roughly half the population get sick from it. A few days later, those people who got sick turn, over a day or two. And once they turn, they become uber-infectious, so that they can infect even those who didn't initially get sick with a bite, blood-splash or similar.

Then we're going down, maybe (EDIT: if they're fast zombies, anyway). But against regular zombies - not so much.

That's not upping that setting arbitrary rules to try and weasel this into working. So what they'd just have the common cold for a few days then a switch turns and they zed out? That's messing with the basic model of infection here.

Now you can go slow infection with an incubation, but for it to be an infection there would be more serious symtoms which the proscribed medicine would be quickly be a bullet to the head in a police state to be sure that exceptions to the cure are rare.

And even highly infectous diseases do not simply spread, they have specific methods. Even airborne doesn't mean a guy walking through an airport terminal gets everyone in the terminal sick. Ultimately you'd have outbreaks in certain areas while other are unaffected. The military will put on their hazmat masks and begin vehicle operations. You can up the death toll to millions with a highly infectious plague, but there are still limits.

Unless you want it to be purely arbritrary like 3.5 billion people evenly distributed across the globe spontaneously become zeds. Obviously major depopulation but I'd still be on humanity surviving until the zeds all starve/rot. Though heck at that point why not shoot for the gold standard of total biosphere destruction, universal infection down to bugs and smaller. Only there well your letting the plague do the work not the zombies. But hey you get total biosphere destruction

Even Romero's dead getting back up human inablity to deal with the zombies was social commentary about working together.


Yeah, but police SWAT teams aren't really designed or trained to deal with highly aggressive crowds. They're more for entrenched hostage situations or small groups of gunmen with automatic weapons.

Now, this may change in the future, but hopefully it won't.

Taking down opponents who don't take cover isn't particularly hard. The question is how much of the police can they give automatic rifles and riot gear too. Not like humans can bite very hard.

Killer Angel
2012-02-02, 05:07 AM
Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.


Done.
It's a nice reading, but the only credible part is the psycological one, about the civilian fugitives.
I can even buy the total failure of Yonkers (there are real life example of dumb commanders applying obsolete tactics in a wrong way), but certainly not the collapse of the military structure after a single losed big combat.
And for the phisical effects of weapons on zombies, as depicted by the books... well, they're unrealistic.
We can take them for good (zombies infection is something supernatural, basically is almost the same as "a wizard did it"), but clearly it's a matter of fluff, a fictional characteristic, not a supposedly realistic feature.

Selrahc
2012-02-02, 07:03 AM
Fast zombies generally imply still alive. Because let's face it no way the human body runs without some sort of brain activity that's going to need sugars, oxygen, bloodflow, etc.

Is there some way that the human body walks without those things?
It seems a little crazy to me to say "A zombie that runs can *only* be the product of a living virus infected human".



Shamblers have more precedent for being you know the walking dead. There's only a single plausible scenario presented in my knowledge and its Romero's the dead getting back up everywhere.

3 more scenarios for the zombie apocalypse.
1. A volcano erupts, sprinkling the entire earth with its dust. Everybody breathes it in. It ends up turning all but a tiny minority into zombies. ~Widespread natural distribution

2. An evil corporation, or an unaware one that doesn't know what it has, markets a new product. Immediate effects are universally positive and it becomes an essential. The product then turns people into zombies. Only those who didn't use the product are immune. ~Unintentional/Covert human distribution

3. In a future war, a country has a weapon that turns foes into zombies en masse. Perhaps a broadcast signal pulse, a chemical or biological weapon or good old fashioned magic. Both sides use the weapon to such an extent that the entirety of society is broken down. Possibly wiping each other out in the process. ~Deliberate/Overt human distribution

Forum Explorer
2012-02-02, 07:16 AM
Is there some way that the human body walks without those things?
It seems a little crazy to me to say "A zombie that runs can *only* be the product of a living virus infected human".



3 more scenarios for the zombie apocalypse.
1. A volcano erupts, sprinkling the entire earth with its dust. Everybody breathes it in. It ends up turning all but a tiny minority into zombies. ~Widespread natural distribution

2. An evil corporation, or an unaware one that doesn't know what it has, markets a new product. Immediate effects are universally positive and it becomes an essential. The product then turns people into zombies. Only those who didn't use the product are immune. ~Unintentional/Covert human distribution

3. In a future war, a country has a weapon that turns foes into zombies en masse. Perhaps a broadcast signal pulse, a chemical or biological weapon or good old fashioned magic. Both sides use the weapon to such an extent that the entirety of society is broken down. Possibly wiping each other out in the process. ~Deliberate/Overt human distribution

I actually really like the third option. Afterall as a weapon goes the zombies are only a little more effective then just killing them but it would very effective as a weapon of terror. The military wouldn't be able to respond because they are too busy already fighting a war and conventional bombs are disrupting infanstructure as well. Even if you can put down an outbreak the next day you get hit again with the zombie bombs and now even more of you are zombies.

Traab
2012-02-02, 08:31 AM
Shamblers have more precedent for being you know the walking dead. There's only a single plausible scenario presented in my knowledge and its Romero's the dead getting back up everywhere.

I just fail to see why this makes any difference at all. Shamblers are shamblers. They are no threat to anything darwin isnt already trying its hardest to take care of. Maybe if they spontaneously sprout inside every rest home and icu in the world they could rack up a fairly impressive death toll, but other than that they cant do much damage. In any scenario you can think of, a runner is always going to be more dangerous than a shambler.

Dragonus45
2012-02-02, 10:03 AM
I just fail to see why this makes any difference at all. Shamblers are shamblers. They are no threat to anything darwin isnt already trying its hardest to take care of. Maybe if they spontaneously sprout inside every rest home and icu in the world they could rack up a fairly impressive death toll, but other than that they cant do much damage. In any scenario you can think of, a runner is always going to be more dangerous than a shambler.

the thing about shamblers is that they actual udead. As opposed to mad human disease sufferers. Honestly both arent very likely to manage anything outside of the neighborhood they spring up in without some kind of wider distribution such as an airborne virus or a tainted water supply.

But once en mass the Shamblers have the advantage of not being alive, not tiring out, are just about always depicted as being much much stronger than should be possible, not needing to eat, being able to walk over and along any kind of terrain that they come across such as dessers and oceans, and not worrying about anything that doesn't destroy the brainpan.

Well yes A runner is more dangerous than A shamber (and i don't see either as all that dangerous in the first place) If either was able to reach a point where they were considered to be en-mass then shamblers have the advantage. That advantage is that the usual tactics the military would use wouldnt be all that effective. But living virus zombies die when you drop bombs on them, when you pelt them with artillery and lead them across minefields or do any of the other things people have been doing to each other since we first picked up a rock and smashed another guys head with it.

That said i have an airforce buddy who has agreed to let me in when the zompocalypse starts since his base has a rather solid plan.

Traab
2012-02-02, 10:34 AM
Just because a shot to the belly wouldnt kill a shambler doesnt mean standard tactics wouldnt be mostly effective against them. Landmines? Boom, shamblers are now crippled and cant walk. Easy prey to finish off. Machine gun nests? Boom, shattered bones, severed limbs, they cant walk, or grab you, easy prey to finish off. Bombs? Same thing. And they are so damn slow, omaha beach would have required 90 million shamblers to have a hope of them making it to the bunkers. And even then it would only work due to lack of ammo. At which point they would skull bash with a rifle butt every crippled zombie dragging its carcass up the slope with whatever limbs it has left. Also, I dont recall watching many zombie flicks where they are exceptionally strong. They may be harder to kill, but you get about 10x as much time to kill them as you do a sprinter.

Herpestidae
2012-02-02, 10:48 AM
Also, I dont recall watching many zombie flicks where they are exceptionally strong.

That's actually something that happens by default, when you think about it. Humans subconsciously pull their punches, only consciously using about 10-20% of the power their muscles provide (outside of extenuating circumstances, where a guy end up flipping a car or holding up a 2-ton wall). Without a proper brain to regulate that, the zombies would be 5-10 times stronger than they were as humans. However, using 100% of our muscles all the time would stress our bones rather quickly. I'm talking snapping your own femur if you kick too many times. So that problem kind of solves itself.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-02, 10:55 AM
I can even buy the total failure of Yonkers (there are real life example of dumb commanders applying obsolete tactics in a wrong way), but certainly not the collapse of the military structure after a single losed big combat.


Yeah no here's the thing, what the US military means by "shock and awe" means LOTS OF BLOWING UP OF THE ENEMY with high amounts of force. And there's no such thing as a weapon not effective against infantry because they are the most fragile things on the battlefield.

Modern forces simply cannot loose to an army of untrained, undisciplined, unarmed and unprotected infantry. You'd have to micro manage your troops to the level of an RTS video game with the idea to make them loose.

The guy thinks Napoleonic battle formations would be better then you know... tanks. That should be all the evidence you need to disregard everything said by him.

Like everything else with zombie you've got to do less serious scholarship then Dan Brown to believe they are credible threats, ever.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 11:08 AM
Leaving aside slow vs fast for a moment, the only credible Zombie threat to my mind is the magical and/or b-movie-scifi style where the dead, en mass, simply stop being or staying dead. No infection, no get out clause. It dies, it rises. Anything that still has bones or at least some rudimentary flesh gets up and hunts the living.
No get-out-of-jail shoot-the-brain insta-kill option ideally, depending on how magical you can tolerate your zombies.
You blow it's head off? It stumbles on regardless, (though possibly blind and more stupid even than before). You cut off a limb? The limb crawls across the floor after you. You die of old age? You start shamblin'.

Virus zombies and anything that can be traced back to a patient zero are just too unlikely to spread and even when they have a good vector to start the infection, too easy to controll.

That said, the Volcano option mentioned above is a pretty good idea. The downside to that is that clouds of volcanic ash WILL cover a large part of the globe if the eruption is big enough and goes on long enough, but it's incredibly far from instant. If the time between exposure and transformation isn't improbably long then you will have a controllable catastrophe to some degree, as the clouds effects will soon be confirmed and measures taken. Of course, it has the possibility of having much better coverage than most other vectors, so it'd be the basis for a good zombie story.

There's also the simple fact that if the ash cloud is capable of covering enough of the world to have a genuinely global scale, it'll likely cause so many non-zombie problems that the zombie element could well be the least damaging to Humanity.

Selrahc
2012-02-02, 11:14 AM
Like everything else with zombie you've got to do less serious scholarship then Dan Brown to believe they are credible threats, ever.

So you've got a problem with my possible zombie apocalypse causes?

I agree that the, for some reason standard, assumption that a single small outbreak spreads across the entire world doesn't make sense. But a widespread rapid conversion of 99+% of humanity into zombies seems like a credible threat to me. Whether they are shamblers or runners, walking dead or virus ridden.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 11:29 AM
So you've got a problem with my possible zombie apocalypse causes?

I agree that the, for some reason standard, assumption that a single small outbreak spreads across the entire world doesn't make sense. But a widespread rapid conversion of 99+% of humanity into zombies seems like a credible threat to me. Whether they are shamblers or runners, walking dead or virus ridden.

The only problem I really see with widespread rapid conversion of 99% of humanity (ignoring the specific examples, just the core concept) is that once you are a zombie it's over. So if everyone is converted that quickly, the threat is the infection itself, not the zombies.

Traab
2012-02-02, 11:37 AM
The only problem I really see with widespread rapid conversion of 99% of humanity (ignoring the specific examples, just the core concept) is that once you are a zombie it's over. So if everyone is converted that quickly, the threat is the infection itself, not the zombies.

That was exactly what i was thinking. Its not the zombies that are dangerous, its how you can become one yourself that is. In those cases it doesnt matter, fast slow or flying, the zombies still arent the threat, the threat is the infection that turns people into one.

Scarlet Knight
2012-02-02, 11:45 AM
I agree, but only if they sing A cappella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s617_HpFGbo&feature=related).

Not always:

"It's a dead man's party,
who could ask for more?
Everybodies coming,
leave your body at the door!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbGtjnluyY

Selrahc
2012-02-02, 11:48 AM
The only problem I really see with widespread rapid conversion of 99% of humanity (ignoring the specific examples, just the core concept) is that once you are a zombie it's over. So if everyone is converted that quickly, the threat is the infection itself, not the zombies.

"Zombie apocalypse" is kind of a setting, where the zombies are a major hazard. I think there are plausible story conceits that could be used to create that setting, without it necessarily straying out into the realms of "A wizard did it".

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-02, 12:50 PM
So you've got a problem with my possible zombie apocalypse causes?

I agree that the, for some reason standard, assumption that a single small outbreak spreads across the entire world doesn't make sense. But a widespread rapid conversion of 99+% of humanity into zombies seems like a credible threat to me. Whether they are shamblers or runners, walking dead or virus ridden.

Yep. A volcano that could actually achieve that would be a global extinction event from the amount of mass it would need. Also seriously volcanic dust as a medium for zombification? What kind of agent is going to survive a volcanic eruption of this scale. And causing massive human extinction with a side effect of zombification is rather missing the point of the zombies being a threat, since they actually don't do a thing.

Evil product? Well one obviously it would never catch on with the turning people into zombies thing. And it takes years to build a commercial product quite aside from all the testing that would go into things in advance.

A weapon that makes zombies. So a war serious enough to consider WMD use wouldn't immediately see the use of the more effective nuclear weapons that can pan fry the surface of the entire planet because....?

Forum Explorer
2012-02-02, 01:09 PM
A weapon that makes zombies. So a war serious enough to consider WMD use wouldn't immediately see the use of the more effective nuclear weapons that can pan fry the surface of the entire planet because....?

Because Zombies aren't that big of a threat. The idea is you bomb a city with this bio-weapon which transforms a bunch of people to infectious zombies. Now before people can get back to work they have to clean out the zombies, perhaps even being forced to pull troops and resources from the frontline to deal with them. Also after a few weeks to a month the zombies wipe themselves out causing no long term environmental damage. Plus they can't get too far. While nuclear weapons have extremely long lasting and wide spread damage.

Traab
2012-02-02, 01:19 PM
The best way to make a dangerous zombie is to combine types. Sprinters with the undead strength of head shot only. THAT would be an incredibly deadly zombie outbreak if it isnt contained quickly. With the shamblers, the strength of head shots only is offset by their lack of speed. A shambler 10 feet away from you could give you 3-4 aimed shots before they reach grab range. A sprinter would be attaching itself to you before you could finish bringing your weapon up. Id imagine making head shots on a swarm of sprinting zombies would be hard as hell.

Selrahc
2012-02-02, 01:30 PM
A weapon that makes zombies. So a war serious enough to consider WMD use wouldn't immediately see the use of the more effective nuclear weapons that can pan fry the surface of the entire planet because....?

It might surprise you, but we currently only have one planet. If you vaporize it, there isn't really much point in fighting the war at all.

If however, you merely kill the population leaving the planet and even structures mostly intact? Much more to gain. Turning large masses of civilians into (ineffective) combatants also provide difficulties in containing the situation compared to a more conventional biological or chemical attack.

Basically, what I'm envisioning is a biological/chemical weapon, except instead of just killing people it turns them into the walking dead.

Are you honestly saying that has no viable uses in warfare?



Evil product? Well one obviously it would never catch on with the turning people into zombies thing. And it takes years to build a commercial product quite aside from all the testing that would go into things in advance.

Testing for a medical product takes about 10-15, testing for a commercial product takes less time than that. So imagine its a slow acting process that will eventually reveal itself.


Zombie-O's, the magical, easily reproduceable foodstuff that sustains the majority of humanities vast and growing population in the year 2053 has been eaten for the last 20 years. Periodically, a new staple flavour is introduced for what is cheap edible matter. This time though.. things have been going horribly wrong.

The early testers for the flavour are developing symptoms. Symptoms of undeath. There seems to be no known cure, but almost everybody on the planet has been eating zombie-o's. In three months, almost everybody on the planet will become a zombie.

Testing period for software updates?


Brainputers are the best thing in the world. Music player, vast library, advanced calculator, universal translator, recording device and much much more. All stored right there your head and activated with a thought. But something has gone horribly wrong!

The latest update for Brainputer seemed benign enough. But 48 hours after its release, a hidden killswitch was pressed in the offices of Brainitech. For a long time, Brainitech had kept its code hidden from outside scrutiny. Now everybody who had installed the latest update was a zombie. In one fell swoop, Monseiur DeVillain had killed the world.

LordVader
2012-02-02, 01:39 PM
Slow Zombies by far.

And if you don't think they're a credible threat read Max Brooks World War Z.

In function the Living Dead Zombie (ie: Slow) is the only version that is truly a credible threat in cinema. The Living Virus Zombie (ie: Fast) is still held hostage by the human machine, whereas the Living Dead Zombie is not.

Example:

Living Dead Zombie: Blow a hole in it's chest = It keeps coming, Blow off an Arm = It keeps coming, Blow off both legs = It crawls.

World War Z is not exactly what you want to hold up as a credible example of realism.

I don't care how far a general has his head stuffed up his rear; having troops take position inside buildings in urban combat is quite literally remedial-level military tactics. I know to do that, and my knowledge of military tactics comes from reading WWII history books and playing RTSs.

Hell, even within the stated context of "putting on a show" for the press, it makes more sense to have troops everywhere on rooftops and sniper teams in every window, because that's, y'know, putting on a show for the press.

World War Z is a great read, but the Battle of Yonkers doesn't make any sense, even assuming a complete incompetent is in charge.

There's also the fact that the US military's idea of "a good show for the press" would be something more to the tune of this (www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGLgZ8htLI4&t=1m37s).

People postulating that it would be possible for an entire first-world city to be overrun without an effective response also need to consider the power of modern social media. You have anything resembling even a moderate zombie outbreak, and there would be video documentation everywhere within hours.

This isn't the 1990s and we aren't talking about Raccoon City; Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Reddit exist, and they are very widely used.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-02, 01:41 PM
Oi, fine, nit pick away the chances of a fast zombie outbreak, but all of those arguments are a hundred times more likely to work on a slow zombie outbreak. Shamblers are not worth worrying about short of 100-1 odds in an area you cant escape from. Thats it. They are normally no stronger than a sprinter, and the fact that they are outpaced by my 89 year old grandmother with a walker just means that only through an act of sheer stupidity can anything other than a spontaneous million zombie swarm be any real source of danger. Bottom line, fast zombies are deadlier than slow zombies. I dont even see why this is an issue.

Here's the issue. It's the Patient Zero scenario. If it's one random dude, and he has to rely on biting, it just doesn't spread fast enough. The speed at which he runs is...only a small part of the problem. It's mostly irrelevant.

You need a mass event to bootstrap the zombie invasion. See, the dead outnumber the living what, a hundred to one? If they all rise tomorrow(or even just the ones at least somewhat intact), suddenly we're outnumbered vastly. Now sure, we probably still crush them, but it's at least a fight, and it's messy, and it's classically zombie hoard in style. Resources actually matter, teamwork is essential.

That said, fast zombies are a lot more fragile inherently. Zombies inherently turn you by biting you. This means EVERY zombie turned is already wounded, and has lost at least some capabilities compared to intact humans. Running around wounded without treatment is a good way to die rapidly.

FE's ghoul list is somewhat more problematic. The rudimentary intelligence is the biggie, with claws being another biggie. Humans grab/hit things much easier than we bite them. In fact, we almost never bite things without first grabbing them.

Dragonus45
2012-02-02, 01:42 PM
Just because a shot to the belly wouldnt kill a shambler doesnt mean standard tactics wouldnt be mostly effective against them. Landmines? Boom, shamblers are now crippled and cant walk. Easy prey to finish off. Machine gun nests? Boom, shattered bones, severed limbs, they cant walk, or grab you, easy prey to finish off. Bombs? Same thing. And they are so damn slow, omaha beach would have required 90 million shamblers to have a hope of them making it to the bunkers. And even then it would only work due to lack of ammo. At which point they would skull bash with a rifle butt every crippled zombie dragging its carcass up the slope with whatever limbs it has left. Also, I dont recall watching many zombie flicks where they are exceptionally strong. They may be harder to kill, but you get about 10x as much time to kill them as you do a sprinter.

We may be thinking about things at different scales. Also i think your overestimating the amount of damage that would be dealt by a lot of those.



The best way to make a dangerous zombie is to combine types. Sprinters with the undead strength of head shot only. THAT would be an incredibly deadly zombie outbreak if it isnt contained quickly. With the shamblers, the strength of head shots only is offset by their lack of speed. A shambler 10 feet away from you could give you 3-4 aimed shots before they reach grab range. A sprinter would be attaching itself to you before you could finish bringing your weapon up. Id imagine making head shots on a swarm of sprinting zombies would be hard as hell.

The thing is yes, you could get three or four shots off, but they would have to be direct head shots. You would be surprised how often a bullet can glance or careen off at an odd angle, debilitating to a man, not so much for a monster. That said i would be more worried about what else heard the shots than i would be of whatever i was shooting at. Noise tends to attract hungry undead.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-02, 01:48 PM
My zombie plan, btw(everyone I know of has one), basically is this. Drive the two miles home from work, if I'm there. Grab the AR. Walk out on the balcony.

I've got a third story apartment and a few thousand rounds of ammo because it's cheaper to buy ammo in bulk. There doesn't have to be many people like me to utterly stop a zombie invasion in it's tracks.

Other people always tell me "that's a waste of ammo". Nope. The sole purpose of ammo in a zombie apocalypse is to kill zombies with. Doing this asap from a safe location means less people become zombies. Easy day. Even if we somehow accept that zombies can bootstrap to swarm level, large swarms of zombies simply go away if they run into one person who has even a vaguely good position.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 02:07 PM
It might surprise you, but we currently only have one planet. If you vaporize it, there isn't really much point in fighting the war at all.

If however, you merely kill the population leaving the planet and even structures mostly intact? Much more to gain. Turning large masses of civilians into (ineffective) combatants also provide difficulties in containing the situation compared to a more conventional biological or chemical attack.

Basically, what I'm envisioning is a biological/chemical weapon, except instead of just killing people it turns them into the walking dead.

Are you honestly saying that has no viable uses in warfare?




Testing for a medical product takes about 10-15, testing for a commercial product takes less time than that. So imagine its a slow acting process that will eventually reveal itself.


Zombie-O's, the magical, easily reproduceable foodstuff that sustains the majority of humanities vast and growing population in the year 2053 has been eaten for the last 20 years. Periodically, a new staple flavour is introduced for what is cheap edible matter. This time though.. things have been going horribly wrong.

The early testers for the flavour are developing symptoms. Symptoms of undeath. There seems to be no known cure, but almost everybody on the planet has been eating zombie-o's. In three months, almost everybody on the planet will become a zombie.

Testing period for software updates?


Brainputers are the best thing in the world. Music player, vast library, advanced calculator, universal translator, recording device and much much more. All stored right there your head and activated with a thought. But something has gone horribly wrong!

The latest update for Brainputer seemed benign enough. But 48 hours after its release, a hidden killswitch was pressed in the offices of Brainitech. For a long time, Brainitech had kept its code hidden from outside scrutiny. Now everybody who had installed the latest update was a zombie. In one fell swoop, Monseiur DeVillain had killed the world.


Some thoughts; Firstly, killing everybody in a location without destroying the infrastructure is the whole point of things like chemical and biological weapons. There are already such horrors existing that would out-perform any zombie based equivalent, because afterwards you do not have to deal with zombies. If you're suggesting that the zombies are actually easier to deal with than unarmed and untrained civilians, I suppose that's another discussion altogether really.

Though, I do like Forum Explorer's idea of Bioweapon Zombies being used effectively as a nuisance-attack.

As for Zombie-O's, the idea of undead cereal being an extinction event is pretty unconvincing to me. From the amount of people who don't eat breakfast at all, to the sheer number of alternatives the number of people who would be exposed is really, really small. Though, an incubation time of several months or even a year or two does at least give it a decent chance of coming to fruition.

I've really no response to the Brainputer scenario because it's not a setting I am familiar with, as it apparently deals with a utopian society where everyone can afford implanted brain-computers and where everyone does. Also there is a monopoly, with all such implants being provided by a single company. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but it's pretty theoretical.

Traab
2012-02-02, 02:35 PM
We may be thinking about things at different scales. Also i think your overestimating the amount of damage that would be dealt by a lot of those.




The thing is yes, you could get three or four shots off, but they would have to be direct head shots. You would be surprised how often a bullet can glance or careen off at an odd angle, debilitating to a man, not so much for a monster. That said i would be more worried about what else heard the shots than i would be of whatever i was shooting at. Noise tends to attract hungry undead.


I agree, there is no guarantee that you will head shot the shambler zombie either, but you have a hell of alot better odds getting a headshot on one of them than on a sprinter right? You could have a full clip of ammos worth of aimed shots at a shambler from a decent distance away, good odds that one of them will penetrate the skull. A sprinter on the other hand is fast. You have way less time to aim, way fewer chances to miss, and you cant just dodge by taking a quick two steps to the side. A sprinter zombie swarm that has the only head shots count bonus would be an incredibly dangerous swarm. Far worse than either type would be separately.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-02, 02:46 PM
I agree, there is no guarantee that you will head shot the shambler zombie either, but you have a hell of alot better odds getting a headshot on one of them than on a sprinter right? You could have a full clip of ammos worth of aimed shots at a shambler from a decent distance away, good odds that one of them will penetrate the skull. A sprinter on the other hand is fast. You have way less time to aim, way fewer chances to miss, and you cant just dodge by taking a quick two steps to the side. A sprinter zombie swarm that has the only head shots count bonus would be an incredibly dangerous swarm. Far worse than either type would be separately.

Er, dodging a fast moving person by a couple steps to the side is much more viable than dodging a slow moving person. The time issue is valid, but a slow moving zombie really isn't going to overshoot you just because you sidestepped.

All of these are made irrelevant by anyone with the ability to get off the ground and use a gun. Deck? You win. Roof? You win. Tree? You win. Sprinter, shambler, no difference then.

Traab
2012-02-02, 03:09 PM
Er, dodging a fast moving person by a couple steps to the side is much more viable than dodging a slow moving person. The time issue is valid, but a slow moving zombie really isn't going to overshoot you just because you sidestepped.

All of these are made irrelevant by anyone with the ability to get off the ground and use a gun. Deck? You win. Roof? You win. Tree? You win. Sprinter, shambler, no difference then.

Great, so if you have advance warning, time to prepare, and an excellent position to shoot from, zombies are no threat. At least if you happen to own a gun, have enough ammo to deal with the horde, and be a good enough shot to hit the brain of a moving target regularly. Everyone else is in deep trouble, and will likely only last till the door or window gets broken through. Once again, without some fairly decent head start time to prepare, it isnt easy to properly barricade your house. I mean yeah, I HAVE plywood and other things I can use to board up windows. But I cant just magic them into place when I see a swarm heading for my front door.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-02, 03:16 PM
Great, so if you have advance warning, time to prepare, and an excellent position to shoot from, zombies are no threat. At least if you happen to own a gun, have enough ammo to deal with the horde, and be a good enough shot to hit the brain of a moving target regularly. Everyone else is in deep trouble, and will likely only last till the door or window gets broken through. Once again, without some fairly decent head start time to prepare, it isnt easy to properly barricade your house. I mean yeah, I HAVE plywood and other things I can use to board up windows. But I cant just magic them into place when I see a swarm heading for my front door.

An excellent spot? Seriously. Walk outside, look around, see if you can see any areas that cannot simply be shambled up to. They should be all around you. In case of zombie, go there. If you lack a gun, you will still not be eaten, which is always a plus.

Happen to own a gun at home...that's about 40% of america. If you have a gun, you almost certainly have ammo for it. This is not even an issue.

Warning? Look, a scream carries a bit. People are everywhere. They aren't gonna get eaten quietly, are they? All I need is enough time to go "oh crap" and close and lock the door. That's...not much time. Plus, the front door is generally closed anyway, because that's what front doors are for.

Good enough shot to hit the head? Look, this isn't some skilled hunt or massive battle. They don't shoot back. They don't take cover. They don't even bother to dodge, but instead, come closer. Zombies invariably lose gunfights.

Traab
2012-02-02, 03:37 PM
An excellent spot? Seriously. Walk outside, look around, see if you can see any areas that cannot simply be shambled up to. They should be all around you. In case of zombie, go there. If you lack a gun, you will still not be eaten, which is always a plus.

Happen to own a gun at home...that's about 40% of america. If you have a gun, you almost certainly have ammo for it. This is not even an issue.

Warning? Look, a scream carries a bit. People are everywhere. They aren't gonna get eaten quietly, are they? All I need is enough time to go "oh crap" and close and lock the door. That's...not much time. Plus, the front door is generally closed anyway, because that's what front doors are for.

Good enough shot to hit the head? Look, this isn't some skilled hunt or massive battle. They don't shoot back. They don't take cover. They don't even bother to dodge, but instead, come closer. Zombies invariably lose gunfights.

My stepfather owns a rifle. He also has all of 3 boxes of ammo. Thats not going to last me very long. I have a bow and arrow and yeah the broad heads can penetrate a skull at 20-30 yards, but I only have about 6 of them. And zombies also dont often STAND STILL. They are too busy slamming against whatever obstacle is keeping them from reaching you, or running down the street after someone who didnt get the memo that today is armegeddon via zombies day.

A nice spot to shoot from? I live in a residential neighborhood. The only trees nearby are 15 year old pines that couldnt hold my weight if I hacked off both my legs first, and the addition roof of my house. Now you may say, "Well there yah go!" Yeah, but how do I keep the zombies from breaking into my house and making their way to me, when I have two doors to enter my house, and one gun? Especially since I can only effectively cover one door from that spot as it is and am blind to about 180 degrees of whats going on around me due to the steeply slanted roof next to me. The rest of my neighborhood is in a similar position, only they dont even have the flat roof to work with!

You may be lucky enough to have a fortified zombie proof bunker with sniper nests every 20 feet, not everyone does. As for 40% of america is armed, yeah, but they dont say with what. Handguns are near useless except at fairly short ranges, and just because you have a gun doesnt mean you have enough spare ammo lying around to do more than put a small dent in the numbers before you run out. My neighborhood would be quickly overrun or under siege and we would be stuck praying that we get rescued before the zombies manage to bust down the doors and turn us all.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 03:39 PM
Zombies invariably lose gunfights.

This is a good quote. I must find excuses to use it.

Um, aside from that; As far as high, remote locations go they aren't a universal protection. One of the archetypal sprinter-zombie movies, the remade dawn of the dead did show them to have some climbing ability. Sprinters are significantly more likely to overcome barricades or other such obstacles, though there's no guarentee they'll be capable.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-02, 04:04 PM
Because Zombies aren't that big of a threat. The idea is you bomb a city with this bio-weapon which transforms a bunch of people to infectious zombies. Now before people can get back to work they have to clean out the zombies, perhaps even being forced to pull troops and resources from the frontline to deal with them. Also after a few weeks to a month the zombies wipe themselves out causing no long term environmental damage. Plus they can't get too far. While nuclear weapons have extremely long lasting and wide spread damage.

Yes but what kind of response does that draw from the opposition?

If you have a total war scenario where civilian population centers are politically valid targets then this is WWIII. And if you play the WMD card in a WWIII scenario then that opens certain options for your opponents and suddenly makes the phrase:

TACTICAL NUKE INCOMING!

A reality on the battlefront to wipe out your armed forces immediately. While the delayed action logistical damage of taking out some cities will take time. And that's if they don't decide to wipe out your cities by reducing them to rubble.

The realities of combat on this scale are why there was a Cold War and all.


The best way to make a dangerous zombie is to combine types. Sprinters with the undead strength of head shot only. THAT would be an incredibly deadly zombie outbreak if it isnt contained quickly. With the shamblers, the strength of head shots only is offset by their lack of speed. A shambler 10 feet away from you could give you 3-4 aimed shots before they reach grab range. A sprinter would be attaching itself to you before you could finish bringing your weapon up. Id imagine making head shots on a swarm of sprinting zombies would be hard as hell.

Here's the thing, if charging human bodies could close to melee range effectively there would still be a melee element to modern combat.

Any soldier can in will bring up their rifle and shoot in a second. Even a strictly body shot will put a lot of force into a zombie to break its stride opening it for further killing shots. That's why reasonable caliber's are used for stopping power, not feeling pain doesn't just ignore shock from impact as there's still energy to deal with.

Yeah 10 feet is probably close enough for casualties on the human end too, but that's across a room. Its not a realistic distance to have zeds get too unobserved. It will happen some sure, but I'm not suggesting this is an something that will be wrapped up without human side casualties.


It might surprise you, but we currently only have one planet. If you vaporize it, there isn't really much point in fighting the war at all.

If you got the z-bomb and I've got the a/h-bomb, you use the z-bomb and I use the a/h-bomb on just you. You are dead while I just have weak zeds to confine or terminate. I WIN.

Cancer rates go up yes but end of the world, no. The sheer capacity to cover the planet was always about redundancy not about actually spreading shots around to actually do it.

At any rate a more effective strategy for you would be to abandon the z-bomb and pursue the a/h-bomb. Afterall the z-bomb can't be scale up effective after all as it has to creatively spread an agent, much simpler to enduce entropy with increased energy.


Are you honestly saying that has no viable uses in warfare?

Pretty much check out what actual countries pursue and actively maintain for use.


Zombie-O's, the magical, easily reproduceable foodstuff that sustains the majority of humanities vast and growing population in the year 2053 has been eaten for the last 20 years. Periodically, a new staple flavour is introduced for what is cheap edible matter. This time though.. things have been going horribly wrong.

Yeah magical is a key word here, not even rice is sufficiently ubiquitous on the global scale. There are reasons why "food pill" type ideas are still essentially niche products despite existing in forms like protein bars for many years. And you know single source supplier and producer monopoly is well, economically unlikely. Their process would have been long replicated by a competitors using the same underlying science and the market split between multiple companies with varying flavor.

If Coke suddenly went evil there would still be Pepsi and every other cola product, plus those that don't even drink soda.

And you'd still need quite the incubation period to escape notice while distributing and cycling through existing stock. Years actually.



The latest update for Brainputer seemed benign enough. But 48 hours after its release, a hidden killswitch was pressed in the offices of Brainitech. For a long time, Brainitech had kept its code hidden from outside scrutiny. Now everybody who had installed the latest update was a zombie. In one fell swoop, Monseiur DeVillain had killed the world.

The Internet Hive Mind would have long since demonstrated the functional hardware vulnerability that enables this with viruses and hack jobs that say make you see a cheap pop culture icon instead of a face or believe you read some non-existant life changing text that drove you to terrorist activities and gave you a messiah complex. So the dangers of cyberbrains would be well known and there would exist various security measures by a variety of corporations who's products exist stop scripts like this from executing. Who would be no more open with their code then the OS producer, though of course the OS would long since have been cracked anyways.

Never mind potential government regulation to prevent this at the hardware level for public safety and a public resistance to expensive technology that opens them to such vulnerabilities. When you can do most of what you want easily with the iPad 9 anyways.

(And the way tech is heading a thought control system probably won't need implants so would not have the hardware capability to actually ghosthack you anyways)

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 04:11 PM
The Internet Hive Mind would have long since demonstrated the functional hardware vulnerability that enables this with viruses and hack jobs that say make you see a cheap pop culture icon instead of a face or believe you read some non-existant life changing text that drove you to terrorist activities and gave you a messiah complex. So the dangers of cyberbrains would be well known and there would exist various security measures by a variety of corporations who's products exist stop scripts like this from executing. Who would be no more open with their code then the OS producer, though of course the OS would long since have been cracked anyways.

Never mind potential government regulation to prevent this at the hardware level for public safety and a public resistance to expensive technology that opens them to such vulnerabilities. When you can do most of what you want easily with the iPad 9 anyways.

(And the way tech is head a thought control system probably won't need implants so would not have the hardware capability to actually ghosthack you anyways)

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Laughing_man_logo.jpg/225px-Laughing_man_logo.jpg

Traab
2012-02-02, 04:18 PM
Here's the thing, if charging human bodies could close to melee range effectively there would still be a melee element to modern combat.

Any soldier can in will bring up their rifle and shoot in a second. Even a strictly body shot will put a lot of force into a zombie to break its stride opening it for further killing shots. That's why reasonable caliber's are used for stopping power, not feeling pain doesn't just ignore shock from impact as there's still energy to deal with.

Yeah 10 feet is probably close enough for casualties on the human end too, but that's across a room. Its not a realistic distance to have zeds get too unobserved. It will happen some sure, but I'm not suggesting this is an something that will be wrapped up without human side casualties.

And if humans could only be killed by a shot to the brain, there just might be room for melee elements in a modern army. There is a big difference from ME charging an enemy line, and a version of me that feels no pain and cant be killed except by turning my brain into paste.

Yes, that soldier might get off a shot or even two before the zombie can grab him, but they arent AIMED shots. That was my point. Shamblers are only tricky due to them being virtually unstoppable without killing the brain. But they move so slow that you generally have plenty of time to pick your targets. A sprinter doesnt give you even a quarter of that time to work with. I honestly cant say what real effect the "stopping power" would have on say, a torso shot to a sprinter, I really cant. But I do know that a sprinter who can only be killed by a head shot is far more dangerous to everything but a sniper in a tower.

As for the 10 foot mark, I know it was an unlikely range, but it was just a number I could work with to give reasonable numbers to compare relative danger levels of fast versus slow zombies. Here is an interesting question to think about. Take the omaha beach battle. Replace the allies with these fast brain shot only zombies. Same number of zombies as original troops, but no boats, they basically just come up out of the water and start charging. Considering the inaccuracy of machine gun fire, do you think the zombies would have reached the bunkers in the end? Thats a LOT of hard to kill zombies all charging at once in a wave. You cant just spray and pray like you could do against normal humans, as anything but a crippling or brain shot is nearly useless.

Worira
2012-02-02, 05:11 PM
Bullets do pretty much exactly the same thing to a zombie animated by anything other than outright magic as they do to any other human being. Soldiers don't stop fighting because they get ouchy boo-boos, they stop fighting because they are physically incapable of continuing.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-02, 05:22 PM
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes."

I love an informed audience.


And if humans could only be killed by a shot to the brain, there just might be room for melee elements in a modern army. There is a big difference from ME charging an enemy line, and a version of me that feels no pain and cant be killed except by turning my brain into paste.

You are running full out and a brick hits you in the chest with considerable force. Now this isn't going to kill you but what happens? An unstable bi-ped running requires substantial management and control. Right now we can't really simulate it. However a zombie capable of running is alive enough being shot to matter physiologically. And putting aside killed can body maintain its stride in such a condition. Which is the point, if you break a charge then you follow it up with a better killing shot.

Mind yes scientists aren't sure on all that goes into stopping power either since obvious people don't go around running at guns anymore. There are still plenty of accounts of agencies looking for the right balance of calibers to achieve stopping power because the lower scale weapons didn't get the job done.



Yes, that soldier might get off a shot or even two before the zombie can grab him, but they arent AIMED shots. That was my point. Shamblers are only tricky due to them being virtually unstoppable without killing the brain. But they move so slow that you generally have plenty of time to pick your targets. A sprinter doesnt give you even a quarter of that time to work with. I honestly cant say what real effect the "stopping power" would have on say, a torso shot to a sprinter, I really cant. But I do know that a sprinter who can only be killed by a head shot is far more dangerous to everything but a sniper in a tower.

That's the point they are aimed shots. You don't fire without aiming because it doesn't do any good. So you can either do so, or you aren't going to be out there without a weapon


As for the 10 foot mark, I know it was an unlikely range, but it was just a number I could work with to give reasonable numbers to compare relative danger levels of fast versus slow zombies. Here is an interesting question to think about. Take the omaha beach battle. Replace the allies with these fast brain shot only zombies. Same number of zombies as original troops, but no boats, they basically just come up out of the water and start charging. Considering the inaccuracy of machine gun fire, do you think the zombies would have reached the bunkers in the end? Thats a LOT of hard to kill zombies all charging at once in a wave. You cant just spray and pray like you could do against normal humans, as anything but a crippling or brain shot is nearly useless.

I've heard many ratios for assaulting a defending position over the years but they all favor the defenders. You need far more personnel to wage an assault to defend against one. This ratio will only rise when you remove the offenses weapons and tactics.

The zeds won't reach the bunkers because they wouldn't head for even relative cover or run anyway but straight ahead. Furthermore they would have no way to stop the bunkers pouring heavy weapons fire into them. While we can debate about a man portable weapon stopping a zed, a .50 cal machine gun will. There's good reason why the basic machine gun hasn't changed since before WWII, because they work.

And spray and pray is a myth. Especially with a mount absorbing the recoil you aim that sucker. Sure its not a precise shot every time, but when you are talking about a weapon that can kill engines made of metal any hit to flesh will do massive damage. Not punching wholes, but shredding flesh.

Gnoman
2012-02-02, 08:47 PM
You may be lucky enough to have a fortified zombie proof bunker with sniper nests every 20 feet, not everyone does. As for 40% of america is armed, yeah, but they dont say with what. Handguns are near useless except at fairly short ranges, and just because you have a gun doesnt mean you have enough spare ammo lying around to do more than put a small dent in the numbers before you run out. My neighborhood would be quickly overrun or under siege and we would be stuck praying that we get rescued before the zombies manage to bust down the doors and turn us all.

Handguns have much better range than most media portrayals give them, and the reason that professionals disdain them is that, at longer ranges, targets tend to move around a lot, and closer in they close too fast. Zombies don't tend to move evasively, and the slow ones, at least, don't close that fast. A handgun would work quite well on a zombie. As for ammunition, even if you don't have significant supplies on hand, it's not like it's hard to get to an adequate supply. Lots of stores sell ammunition, and once you get to your car, getting to such a store becomes a lot easier.

That said, zombies could easily spread rather quickly, as long as the initial one wasn't staggering down the street in broad daylight. Congested areas like malls, theatres, or dance clubs would provide an easy spreading zone.

turkishproverb
2012-02-02, 09:17 PM
Here's the thing, if charging human bodies could close to melee range effectively there would still be a melee element to modern combat.

There is a melee element to modern combat. It's small, but it exists, particularly in in-building warfare. It's the reason that many modern military rifles are strong enough to butt someone in the head with.

hobbitkniver
2012-02-02, 09:20 PM
Slow. I like how The Walking Dead does Zombies even if it's degenerated into a ridiculous social drama complete with ambiguous pregnancies.

Traab
2012-02-02, 09:28 PM
Handguns have much better range than most media portrayals give them, and the reason that professionals disdain them is that, at longer ranges, targets tend to move around a lot, and closer in they close too fast. Zombies don't tend to move evasively, and the slow ones, at least, don't close that fast. A handgun would work quite well on a zombie. As for ammunition, even if you don't have significant supplies on hand, it's not like it's hard to get to an adequate supply. Lots of stores sell ammunition, and once you get to your car, getting to such a store becomes a lot easier.

That said, zombies could easily spread rather quickly, as long as the initial one wasn't staggering down the street in broad daylight. Congested areas like malls, theatres, or dance clubs would provide an easy spreading zone.

Ok, first off, I was talking about my hypothetical, "the only zombie type that would be an actual danger" which was the combo of the sprinters speed, and the shamblers brain shot only resilience. So we have sprinting zombies that can only be truly stopped with a bullet in the brain. Secondly, if there is a swarm roaming your home town, I dont think you are going to get much of a chance to hop in your car, drive to the ammo shop, and restock. Third, why would you go BACK to the warzone if you managed to get away? That just makes no sense. Unless you have someone there you feel the need to rescue, leave it to the military. This isnt a movie, and you arent Ash, from Army of Darkness.

Gnoman
2012-02-02, 09:30 PM
Better to find a defensible position to hole up rather than try to escape, especially if there is a likelihood of military rescue. Obviously, if the outbreak is localized, escape is better.

Traab
2012-02-02, 09:40 PM
Better to find a defensible position to hole up rather than try to escape, especially if there is a likelihood of military rescue. Obviously, if the outbreak is localized, escape is better.

Unless you do have a safe spot of course. It may be better to sit tight and wait for rescue than to try and make a break for it. I mean, you have to worry about getting snagged by a random zombie, getting into a car accident because of panicked people and earlier accidents causing road blockages, then there is the issue of, if its local and its known, the town may be sealed off. You might make it to the next town line just to find a heavily armed blockade telling you to turn around or face death by firing squad because they cant risk an infected person escaping.

If you can safely secure an area to wait it out for a couple days, it might be best to try and report the location this batch of zombies are in, grab some supplies, and wait. Feel free to kill some passing zombies if you can or want. It will make the clean up easier. And also help signify to any passing military squads that yes, there is a living person nearby, going by the pile of head shot carcasses all over the place. :smallbiggrin:

Killer Angel
2012-02-03, 05:15 AM
Yep. A volcano that could actually achieve that would be a global extinction event from the amount of mass it would need.

An event krakatoa-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate) would suffice for a worldwide scale.


Also seriously volcanic dust as a medium for zombification? What kind of agent is going to survive a volcanic eruption of this scale.

The archaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Habitats). Unlike the better known bacteria and eukaryotes (plants and animals), many of the archaea can thrive in extreme environments like volcanic vents and acidic hot springs.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-03, 11:03 AM
My stepfather owns a rifle. He also has all of 3 boxes of ammo. Thats not going to last me very long. I have a bow and arrow and yeah the broad heads can penetrate a skull at 20-30 yards, but I only have about 6 of them. And zombies also dont often STAND STILL. They are too busy slamming against whatever obstacle is keeping them from reaching you, or running down the street after someone who didnt get the memo that today is armegeddon via zombies day.

Three boxes of ammo and a few arrows? Awesome. That's enough to kill DOZENS of zombies. You don't have to kill the entire swarm yourself. You just need to kill a few of them and not get eaten for a while. If even a few people manage to do that, swarms simply can't propagate.


A nice spot to shoot from? I live in a residential neighborhood. The only trees nearby are 15 year old pines that couldnt hold my weight if I hacked off both my legs first, and the addition roof of my house. Now you may say, "Well there yah go!" Yeah, but how do I keep the zombies from breaking into my house and making their way to me, when I have two doors to enter my house, and one gun? Especially since I can only effectively cover one door from that spot as it is and am blind to about 180 degrees of whats going on around me due to the steeply slanted roof next to me. The rest of my neighborhood is in a similar position, only they dont even have the flat roof to work with!

Zombies need to figure out how to break into the house, how to find their way upstairs, and then how to find their way to you. They are not good at any of these tasks, and tend to manage them only through numbers, time, and blind luck. You've got a while.


You may be lucky enough to have a fortified zombie proof bunker with sniper nests every 20 feet, not everyone does. As for 40% of america is armed, yeah, but they dont say with what. Handguns are near useless except at fairly short ranges, and just because you have a gun doesnt mean you have enough spare ammo lying around to do more than put a small dent in the numbers before you run out. My neighborhood would be quickly overrun or under siege and we would be stuck praying that we get rescued before the zombies manage to bust down the doors and turn us all.

Not even close. I just live on a third floor apartment. I also have windows and a balcony. None of this is unusual.

If we're relying on people biting each other to spread the zombie plague, even a few people taking pot shots out the window means the zombies are simply going to have too high of a death/conversions rate to spread.


Shamblers are only tricky due to them being virtually unstoppable without killing the brain. But they move so slow that you generally have plenty of time to pick your targets. A sprinter doesnt give you even a quarter of that time to work with. I honestly cant say what real effect the "stopping power" would have on say, a torso shot to a sprinter, I really cant. But I do know that a sprinter who can only be killed by a head shot is far more dangerous to everything but a sniper in a tower.

Sprinters typically die to everything, though.

And stopping power is a matter of straight physics. Live or dead, a bullet hitting you in the chest is still going to dampen your momentum a bit. In zombie lore, gun physics still work basically the same way. Shoot off a limb, they can't use it. Break the back/neck, and you've got a crippled zed. Basically any hit is likely to result in a combatant with reduced capabilities.

And remember, since they get turned by biting, every one of them starts out injured to begin with.

Also, the more they mob up, the more damage even badly aimed shots do. Sure, you might have only nicked the zed near you, but that bullets gonna keep going till it's gone through a fair bit of stuff. If you spray wildly into a crowd...you will probably die, sure, but the swarm has it's power reduced rather a lot, considering they only gained one new member. And that's basically best case scenario for the zombies, where the human has the idiot ball.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-03, 12:10 PM
An event krakatoa-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate) would suffice for a worldwide scale.

Yes but I'm making a distinction between "global effect" and "sufficient to sufficient amounts of ash at ground level"


The archaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Habitats). Unlike the better known bacteria and eukaryotes (plants and animals), many of the archaea can thrive in extreme environments like volcanic vents and acidic hot springs.

I think the temperature difference between an eruption of molten rock and a hotspring which is a bowl of rock filled with near boiling water a sufficient contrast.

A pyroclastic flow contains for example superheated gas of 1000°C, science has found that stuff like DNA will start to break down at 150°C so they would be cooked out of existence in an eruption. Also thermophiles love heat which means you know they need it. If they could live in normal conditions they would be found in normal conditions.

Traab
2012-02-03, 12:21 PM
Not even close. I just live on a third floor apartment. I also have windows and a balcony. None of this is unusual.

That basically is a zombie proof bunker. Third floor apartment means you have multiple flights of stairs that you can blockade to make yourself all but untouchable by zombies. I live in a neighborhood of single family houses. Which is also not unusual. Oh sure I have an upstairs area, but no door to block it off, so aside from tossing piles of debris to create an obstacle course, there really isnt much keeping them from striding up to my room and finding the exit to the addition roof.


Sprinters typically die to everything, though.

And stopping power is a matter of straight physics. Live or dead, a bullet hitting you in the chest is still going to dampen your momentum a bit. In zombie lore, gun physics still work basically the same way. Shoot off a limb, they can't use it. Break the back/neck, and you've got a crippled zed. Basically any hit is likely to result in a combatant with reduced capabilities.

And remember, since they get turned by biting, every one of them starts out injured to begin with.

Also, the more they mob up, the more damage even badly aimed shots do. Sure, you might have only nicked the zed near you, but that bullets gonna keep going till it's gone through a fair bit of stuff. If you spray wildly into a crowd...you will probably die, sure, but the swarm has it's power reduced rather a lot, considering they only gained one new member. And that's basically best case scenario for the zombies, where the human has the idiot ball.

But im not talking about pure sprinters. Im talking about sprinters combined with the head shot only abilities of the shamblers. So it doesnt matter if you spray a dozen bullets into the crowd. Only pure luck will let it hit anything that will even reduce their capacity to kill you, let alone kill one of them. And aiming from the roof means even with a pass through, only the first guy hit is likely to take a lethal shot as the bullet goes lower and lower along whatever angle I fired at. Even packed together like sardines in a can the first shot will MAYBE hit a skull, the next will be torso level, third, waist or lower. Thats assuming my rifle can actually pass through 2-3 bodies before losing all its energy.

Also, assuming I do take out several zombies before running out of ammo or getting turned. Thats great for me, but not everyone has a gun, or will have the chance to use it, or be able to use it effectively in this scenario. Sure if EVERYONE is killing 2-3 zombies before they die the zombies will run out fast. But if only 1 out of every 5 manages to kill 2+ zombies before dying themselves it gets a lot more murky on who is winning. And even if humanity DOES win, its still a huge catastrophe in the end with many many dead people. Its like trying to say a battleship given an hour to fire on our coastline isnt a threat because most of america isnt on the coast. Sure most of us will survive that, but try telling all the hundreds or more killed by shelling and the untold property destruction that it wasnt a big deal.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-03, 01:58 PM
That basically is a zombie proof bunker. Third floor apartment means you have multiple flights of stairs that you can blockade to make yourself all but untouchable by zombies. I live in a neighborhood of single family houses. Which is also not unusual. Oh sure I have an upstairs area, but no door to block it off, so aside from tossing piles of debris to create an obstacle course, there really isnt much keeping them from striding up to my room and finding the exit to the addition roof.

Exactly. Many normal buildings are effectively zombie proof bunkers. And merely by closing internal doors or blocking off a stairwell with something, you create obstacles that take zombies a notable length of time to overcome. Zombies are not intelligent creatures, either. The usually potrayed reaction to someone up high isn't searching around for a creative way to get up there, it's merely mobbing up underneath, blindly reaching for the unassailable target.

In such a situation, achieving headshots is basically trivial until you run out of ammo or targets.


But im not talking about pure sprinters. Im talking about sprinters combined with the head shot only abilities of the shamblers. So it doesnt matter if you spray a dozen bullets into the crowd. Only pure luck will let it hit anything that will even reduce their capacity to kill you, let alone kill one of them. And aiming from the roof means even with a pass through, only the first guy hit is likely to take a lethal shot as the bullet goes lower and lower along whatever angle I fired at. Even packed together like sardines in a can the first shot will MAYBE hit a skull, the next will be torso level, third, waist or lower. Thats assuming my rifle can actually pass through 2-3 bodies before losing all its energy.

So? Any additional hits are a bonus. Yes, non-headshots don't kill, but that zombie with no working legs is basically not a threat. He is not sprinting anywhere. Sprinters only sprint if they still have the ability to do so.

And yes, basically any old deer rifle is going to penetrate quite a ways. If it hits a skull, it's going in one side and out the other with quite a bit of speed left. A .22 will enter, but probably not exit, and that's the absolute minimum caliber. Anything higher can be assumed to continue on through unless you got hollow point ammo to prevent that.


Also, assuming I do take out several zombies before running out of ammo or getting turned. Thats great for me, but not everyone has a gun, or will have the chance to use it, or be able to use it effectively in this scenario. Sure if EVERYONE is killing 2-3 zombies before they die the zombies will run out fast. But if only 1 out of every 5 manages to kill 2+ zombies before dying themselves it gets a lot more murky on who is winning. And even if humanity DOES win, its still a huge catastrophe in the end with many many dead people. Its like trying to say a battleship given an hour to fire on our coastline isnt a threat because most of america isnt on the coast. Sure most of us will survive that, but try telling all the hundreds or more killed by shelling and the untold property destruction that it wasnt a big deal.

About 40% of american homes have guns. Of the houses with guns, they average four guns apiece. This guarantees that a fairly large chunk of human/zombie encounters will result in the human being armed. This is especially the case if there is any warning whatsoever. You don't have to know it's a zombie instead of a crazed gang to go for a gun.

Look, if even 20% of the people are getting multiple kills before dying...it means the infection speed drops like a rock. Swarms never tend to get large, and notification further outpaces the infection. It'll never make it outside of a tiny local area.

On the flip side, most of the american population IS on the coast. So...that example doesn't really hold water.

Traab
2012-02-03, 03:05 PM
And you keep working under the assumption that the first zombie sighting will happen, and suddenly all over the place everyone is going to go lock and load and start slaughtering zombies, when the reality is probably somewhat closer to what you see in the remake of dawn of the dead. Total chaos. People running all over the place, cars running people over, accidents left and right, and everywhere you have zombies biting people. The 60% of the populace without guns are screwed, and even those who own guns might not even be close enough to grab it and use it. Those who do grab their guns and try to lose them will likely waste shots on other things than head shots, as it is a natural tendency to aim for the torso. Or they will suck at shooting under pressure and get swarmed and turned themselves. People will be caught outside, asleep, in their cars stuck in the traffic jams, all over the place in locations where they dont have their guns handy.

Some people will hole up, others will be trying to escape. Those that try to hole up will only last as long as their barricades do. A locked door cant hold a normal person out for long, let alone a crowd of zombies. Barricades will only last so long before they shift and fall. Those who make a break for it are in constant danger of being surrounded. I dont care if you are rambo reborn, you can only fire in so many directions and so many times at once before you get swarmed and killed.

I have no doubts that in time the outbreak would be contained and eliminated. But in the mean time the death toll will likely be really ugly. It all depends on how big the initial outbreak is, and how long it takes for those in power to respond properly.

SoC175
2012-02-03, 06:11 PM
You are running full out and a brick hits you in the chest with considerable force. Now this isn't going to kill you but what happens? An unstable bi-ped running requires substantial management and control. Right now we can't really simulate it. However a zombie capable of running is alive enough being shot to matter physiologically. And putting aside killed can body maintain its stride in such a condition. Which is the point, if you break a charge then you follow it up with a better killing shot.
And stopping power is a matter of straight physics. Live or dead, a bullet hitting you in the chest is still going to dampen your momentum a bit.However being shoot with a bullet is more like having a pebble thrown at you rather than a rock, that is the force of an impacting bullet is negligible as far as breaking your run is concerned.

There is no physical knock-back effect involved. When such an effect is occurring in real life, it's due to how a thinking, feeling human (unconsciously) reacts to the sensation of being hit (aka "rolling with the blow"),.

To quote Wikipedia:

Knockback

The idea of "knockback" is a subset or simplification of energy transfer theory, and states that a bullet of sufficient caliber at sufficient speed which transfers all its energy to a subject has enough force, by sheer momentum of the bullet, to stop forward momentum of an attacker and knock them backwards or downwards. The idea was first widely expounded in ballistics discussions during American involvement in Philippine insurrections and, simultaneously, in British involvement in the Caribbean, when front-line reports stated that the .38 caliber revolvers carried by U.S. and British soldiers were incapable of bringing down a charging warrior. Thus, in the early 1900s, the U.S. reverted to the .45 Colt in single action revolvers, and later adopted the .45 ACP cartridge in what was to become the M1911A1 pistol and the British adopted the .455 Webley caliber cartridge in the Webley Revolver. The larger cartridges were chosen largely due to the Big Hole Theory (a larger hole does more damage), but the common interpretation was that these were changes from a light, deeply penetrating bullet to a larger, heavier "manstopper" bullet.

Though popularized in television and movies, and commonly referred to as "true stopping power" by novice or uneducated proponents of large powerful calibers such as .44 Magnum, the effect of knockback from a handgun and indeed most personal weapons is largely a myth. The momentum of the so-called "manstopper" .45 ACP bullet is approximately that of a 1 pound (0.45 kg) mass dropped from a height of 11.4 feet (3.5 m).[10][note 1] Such a force is simply incapable of arresting a running target's forward momentum. In addition, bullets are designed to penetrate instead of strike a blunt force blow, because, in penetrating, more severe tissue damage is done. A bullet with sufficient energy to knock down an assailant, such as a high-speed rifle bullet, would be more likely to instead pass straight through, while not transferring the full energy (in fact only a very small percentage of the full energy) of the bullet to the victim.

The "knockback" effect is however commonly "seen" in real-life shootings, and can be explained by physiological and psychological means. Humans encountering a physical hit, be it a punch or a bullet, are conditioned to absorb the blow by moving in the same direction as the force. The physical effect against a non-penetrating weapon is to reduce the force felt by the blow, and in addition, retreating from an attack increases the distance such an attack must cover, which in the case of non-projectile weapons such as fists or a knife, places the target out of range of further attack. In addition, there is a theoretical sociological explanation, that in modern civilization, with far greater separation by most individuals from violence, hunting, and combat, normal individuals may simply recoil, buckle, or fall backward when hit by a bullet, even when in pure physiological terms they are perfectly capable of continuing to charge.

Thus a zombie incapable of feeling pain would just continue his stride despite being hit by a bullet.

Worira
2012-02-03, 06:41 PM
So that's about, what, a 60 mph baseball pitch? That wouldn't knock me down in a stable stance, but it would certainly disrupt my balance enough for me to fall if I was sprinting, and forward momentum doesn't do a zombie much good if it's being used to slam their face into the ground.

Traab
2012-02-03, 07:36 PM
So that's about, what, a 60 mph baseball pitch? That wouldn't knock me down in a stable stance, but it would certainly disrupt my balance enough for me to fall if I was sprinting, and forward momentum doesn't do a zombie much good if it's being used to slam their face into the ground.

On mythbusters they hung a pig on a hook, barely balanced on it, and fired weapons at it from close range. Handguns, rifles, even shotguns. I think it was finally the deer slug that transferred enough energy to barely knock it off its precarious balance. Im inclined to believe that sprinting zombies would ignore any bullets that didnt kill it or destroy a limb and not even waver on their sprint for your succulent flesh.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-03, 07:58 PM
This is confusing knocking a person back like in the movies and stopping them. When someone is stopped by a bullet they drop in place. Two very different things.

"Knockback" is a simple problem of momentum, and a bullet generating enough would have propelled the person that fired it by an equal amount. Not useful. The full range of reactions (physiological to psychological) to being shot though can't currently be tested very well for obvious reasons.

And if running zed has to still be largely alive to be able to run at all I still contend that while they will fare better (its not like every shot stops every person in the first place) they are still not going to be able to mount effective charge tactics in the face of repeating firearms.

Edit: Found Mythbusters revisiting of this this. Shooting Buster they obviously don't knock him back movie style but they do inpart force to knock him off his rig. So comparison to stopping a animated charge is minimal

Traab
2012-02-03, 10:09 PM
This is confusing knocking a person back like in the movies and stopping them. When someone is stopped by a bullet they drop in place. Two very different things.

"Knockback" is a simple problem of momentum, and a bullet generating enough would have propelled the person that fired it by an equal amount. Not useful. The full range of reactions (physiological to psychological) to being shot though can't currently be tested very well for obvious reasons.

And if running zed has to still be largely alive to be able to run at all I still contend that while they will fare better (its not like every shot stops every person in the first place) they are still not going to be able to mount effective charge tactics in the face of repeating firearms. That dummy was on a hair trigger. A good breeze would have knocked it off its mount.

Edit: Found Mythbusters revisiting of this this. Shooting Buster they obviously don't knock him back movie style but they do inpart force to knock him off his rig. So comparison to stopping a animated charge is minimal

Knockback is a myth that is clearly shown by the lack of equal and opposite reactions. If a bullet had enough kinetic force to knock a person over, or even force them to stumble, the guy firing the gun would be knocked over with every shot he took.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-03, 10:37 PM
You seem to have inserted a comment into your quoting of my post there.

And yeah we're agreement guns do not throw people back like in the movies. Problem is that was never in question.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-02-03, 11:10 PM
I always assumed that "knockback" wasn't from the shot itself, but from involuntary muscle contractions in response to sudden and acute pain, the same reason why you lose your balance when you're kicked in the nuts.

Traab
2012-02-03, 11:24 PM
You seem to have inserted a comment into your quoting of my post there.

And yeah we're agreement guns do not throw people back like in the movies. Problem is that was never in question.

Yeah, I know that, but what IS in question is, will a guy shooting a head shot only zombie in the torso even be able to make it stumble as its charging towards you? I say no. It has no involuntary reaction to getting shot, the kinetic force of the bullet/s are negligible, and unless you manage to connect with its spine, it wont even register that it has been hit in any meaningful way. It wont even weaken the zombie for the next guy he goes after. And yeah, sorry, I thought I cleared away my accidental insertion into your quotes. i had a different point originally, but changed my mind.

Triscuitable
2012-02-04, 12:09 AM
Funky undead is best undead.

You forget the long-haired rattlehead zombies.

'Cause we hunt you down without mercy
Hunt you down all nightmare long
Feel us breath upon your face
Feel us shift, every move we trace
Luck, runs, out
You can crawl back in
But your luck runs ou-TAH*
*Required Hetfield accentuations.
I'm honestly with the fast zombies in low-population areas. As mentioned before, Death Valley does them great. Start out strong, weaken as they go. Like vampires in Twilight! ... Where do I go to hand in my man-license?

Yeah, I know that, but what IS in question is, will a guy shooting a head shot only zombie in the torso even be able to make it stumble as its charging towards you? I say no. It has no involuntary reaction to getting shot, the kinetic force of the bullet/s are negligible, and unless you manage to connect with its spine, it wont even register that it has been hit in any meaningful way. It wont even weaken the zombie for the next guy he goes after. And yeah, sorry, I thought I cleared away my accidental insertion into your quotes. i had a different point originally, but changed my mind.

A rather shocking scene in the Walking Dead proves this, while it also proves it's original intended idea. Shane shoots a zombie repeatedly in the torso, then two more shots, one to the chest, one to the jaw. He then shoots it in the head, and it slumps over.
Technically, a zombie shouldn't be able to see, hear, or smell. The motor functions of the brain don't monitor those functions.

Worira
2012-02-04, 12:16 AM
Knockback is a myth that is clearly shown by the lack of equal and opposite reactions. If a bullet had enough kinetic force to knock a person over, or even force them to stumble, the guy firing the gun would be knocked over with every shot he took.

Conveniently enough, rifles and large-calibre handguns DO have enough kinetic force to cause people to stumble from the recoil. That's why they're held in stable grips that allow the wielder to absorb the force of the impact, rather than random locations on the body while running at full tilt.

As for shots to the torso not killing or even weakening, again, what cause incapacitation in humans in a combat scenario are CNS failure, blood loss, and structural damage, all of which will have exactly the same effect on any zombie not animated by magic.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-04, 01:51 AM
I always assumed that "knockback" wasn't from the shot itself, but from involuntary muscle contractions in response to sudden and acute pain, the same reason why you lose your balance when you're kicked in the nuts.

There are a lot of potential ideas including ideas pressure waves causing remote neurological reactions/damage. This has been shown in animals, but how much it actually goes on is in question. Because from a strict standard well, no body is volunteering to get shot. There's plenty of annecdotal combat reports that made enough squeaking wheels to result in broadly larger calibers for things like pistols with police forces. But what exactly causes people to stop when shot is up for debate.

However running zombie can only really argue for psychological ones (if then) as physiological ones would still apply to the type was established as mostly still alive. Your body reacts to sudden trauma (like sudden drop in blood pressure) in ways that are beyond simply feeling no pain.

This has all still kinda just forgetting the implications of heavy damage certain weapons can do like shattering bones.


Yeah, I know that, but what IS in question is, will a guy shooting a head shot only zombie in the torso even be able to make it stumble as its charging towards you? I say no. It has no involuntary reaction to getting shot, the kinetic force of the bullet/s are negligible, and unless you manage to connect with its spine, it wont even register that it has been hit in any meaningful way. It wont even weaken the zombie for the next guy he goes after. And yeah, sorry, I thought I cleared away my accidental insertion into your quotes. i had a different point originally, but changed my mind.

Head shot only isn't going to be running. And given the straight charge lining up a headshot is much less difficult then for a human intelligent enough to take cover and have his buddies lay down suppressive fire to keep you from lining up decent shots.

Now something with no use for a heart and its guts, for hits there negligible is somewhat relative. There's no point where it can just soak up damage to no effect. In the upperchest and you will be degrading arm function with muscle damage and broken bones. Anywhere below the chest there are various muscles that support the torso. And organs increasingly dessicated from bloodloss I imagine would be less effective at providing the water balloon of support for the spine.

Really there is no point on the human body that can simply ignore bullet damage without some kind of impaired mechanical function. Especially the with semi-auto and auto firing rate. Why I always say get a weapon and aim low, turn even the running zombies into shamblers quick. For certain values of dead you could probably find a range that a zombie could pull off against light infantry.

Then again its unnecessarily risky to use light infantry anyways. I'd tell them never be beyond the cover of the nearest heavy machine gun. And clear out rooms with grenades.

Killer Angel
2012-02-04, 04:58 AM
Yes but I'm making a distinction between "global effect" and "sufficient to sufficient amounts of ash at ground level"

(snip)

I think the temperature difference between an eruption of molten rock and a hotspring which is a bowl of rock filled with near boiling water a sufficient contrast.


You're right on both, but at least it's a scientific base to develope a fictional scenario, you've got only to force the things a little.
I'm not trying to demonstrate a "real" possibility, I was only supporting the idea of the volcanic spread, for a not "out of nowhere" story. :smallwink:

Forum Explorer
2012-02-04, 06:58 AM
Head shot only isn't going to be running.

.

why not? :smallconfused:

Traab
2012-02-04, 09:34 AM
why not? :smallconfused:

Because they keep ignoring the fact that ive been trying to show how a variation of zombie with the best of both worlds might be a true threat and they keep sticking with 28 days later sprinters. For the last page or two I have been trying to prove that an outbreak of sprinters that have the same setup as shamblers, ie, only head shots count, otherwise all damage but broken limbs is ignored, would be an actual threat. If not globally, then certainly locally. Just because the military would be able to rein them and and wipe them out in the end doesnt make the devastated cities any less destroyed, or the death toll any less horrible.


Conveniently enough, rifles and large-calibre handguns DO have enough kinetic force to cause people to stumble from the recoil. That's why they're held in stable grips that allow the wielder to absorb the force of the impact, rather than random locations on the body while running at full tilt

True, but I think we all know that im not talking about .50 cal sniper rifles and other such ludicrous guns that arent general issue. And also, you as the shooter are dealing with the absolute max in energy as you are feeling the full force of the explosion that launches the bullet. Said energy does drop rapidly upon leaving the gun barrel. The actual physical force imparted by a standard round is not very high and would most likely not cause a stumble or a lurch, or any other real detrimental effect to a zombie closing with you at a dead run that ignores anything but a head shot for all intents and purposes.

Also, those bringing out how every muscle is basically connected, so every shot that does some muscle damage would help, biologically, you are right, but as you know, its a very rare zombie flick that pays more than a glancing nod to anatomy and physiology, so what you see are zombies that drop to a brain shot only, and would only lose full function of their arms or legs if you broke that limb.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-04, 10:03 AM
Someone did post this before me, right? Right? (http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html)

Seriously, anything without bodyheat that has to obey even rudimentary laws of mecanics and biology will just fall apart here. I live in the middle of an open field covered in snow. It's -30 degrees celsius out there. Any zombie that isn't moved by supernatural forces won't be fast or slow, it will be immobile, frozen stiff.

A zombie outbreak could be a problem in population centers, but would hardly ever spread to loosely-populated areas if spread only by animal carriers. A zombie pathogen would need to be airborne, highly infective and transmissive among all of animal kingdom, resistant to hot and cold, and have a really long incubation time, or else it just wouldn't reach enough people to be a serious threat.

Triscuitable
2012-02-04, 06:41 PM
Someone did post this before me, right? Right? (http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html)


No, but I've read it previously.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-04, 10:29 PM
Because they keep ignoring the fact that ive been trying to show how a variation of zombie with the best of both worlds might be a true threat and they keep sticking with 28 days later sprinters. For the last page or two I have been trying to prove that an outbreak of sprinters that have the same setup as shamblers, ie, only head shots count, otherwise all damage but broken limbs is ignored, would be an actual threat. If not globally, then certainly locally. Just because the military would be able to rein them and and wipe them out in the end doesnt make the devastated cities any less destroyed, or the death toll any less horrible.

Because if you just get into picking an choosing you miss the point. I mean we could go with the Dresdenverse zombie, where one newly created ran down the 'speeding' Blue Beetle and tore pieces off. Only then instead of being created by a Necromancer with a bass beat they can create themselves by biting more humans.
Subversion! Nope maybe not even then given that its widely agreed the supernatural world can't win. You'd need the airstrikes, tanks to shoot not just squash, and there's always nukes but mortals can still win. Harry as a brawny wizard can muster enough power to take those zeds down, and Harry can just barely block a .50 cal in canon


True, but I think we all know that im not talking about .50 cal sniper rifles and other such ludicrous guns that arent general issue. And also, you as the shooter are dealing with the absolute max in energy as you are feeling the full force of the explosion that launches the bullet. Said energy does drop rapidly upon leaving the gun barrel. The actual physical force imparted by a standard round is not very high and would most likely not cause a stumble or a lurch, or any other real detrimental effect to a zombie closing with you at a dead run that ignores anything but a head shot for all intents and purposes.

M2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning) has been in production for almost 80 years, its quite common in military circles. And well its probably more then most people want to spend but it took me fifteen seconds to find a .50 cal rifle you can take home (http://www.midwesthuntersoutlet.com/item/147_Armalite_Rifles_Shotguns_Armalite_50A1B_AR-50_Rifl.aspx?&w=pq%2bjdyolrqe%3d) which without pursuing in depth seems to be legal in the States except CA.

However nobody fires a .50 cal from a standing position, or at least no one with a brain. Plenty of other guns give you a good kick if you don't use the proper positions, thats why they are the proper positions.

But you know what a video is worth a thousand words. Check out shotgun slugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Kt7pOpXsg). I particularly like them shooting things filled with fluids since the human body is pretty much a water jug. There's definitely common rounds that are going to deliver plenty of punch.


EDIT: Since I went crawling gun videos I think I should point out that whatever part of America this Russian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLFYvG6MsZU&feature=endscreen&NR=1) emigrated to will be zombie proof for at least a five mile radius.

Killer Angel
2012-02-05, 05:27 AM
Someone did post this before me, right? Right? (http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html)


You called for it! (http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Tech&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended) :smalltongue:

TheThan
2012-02-05, 04:59 PM
seems to be legal in the States except CA.


Go figure. Anyway onto the ramblings of a paranoid geek

The idea of large “man stopper” calibers is not to actually drive someone back (despite what the media says), the physics don’t support it. The idea is that a larger caliber bullet will penetrate deeply and cause much more damage as it drives into it’s target and lodging in it. Simply put, the bigger and heavier the bullet, the bigger the hole. This is the entire point behind Hollow point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_points) bullets. They expand more and make a nastier wound. It’s useful for dealing with enemies pumped up on drugs. The bullets penetrate and lodge into the body causing tremendous damage as it does, instead of over penetrating and blowing through the body, which can cause damage things (and people) behind the target. Softer lead bullets actually do the same thing, but hollow points are designed to do it. Either one will kill, but “man stoppers” are specifically designed to kill things (animals and humans), they are not target loads.

Now the problem with any “Z day” scenario is that a survivor is going to have to deal with more than just zombies. There will be panic in the streets, riots, religious nuts “every man for himself” types, basically all hell will break lose. People will not keep their heads and react in a calm, orderly manner. No the police will quickly be overrun trying to contain the problems and the National Guard (or equivalent) will be called up.

So this can allow the zombie outbreak to spread, as people react badly to the situation. The hospitals can’t contain the outbreak as they are flooded with wounded and dying people from the general social unrest. Pretty soon the hospitals will become a breeding ground (they’re likely to be the first “infected” areas anyway), for the infestation. Good luck gathering supplies of any sort, grocery stores, sports outlets pharmacies etc are going to be the first thing hit by rioters and survivors looking for supplies. So trying to hold out in a self made bunker isn’t feasible for more than probably a week, unless you already have a long lasting supply ready (there are people who horde storable food).

So Running is a good idea, but where are you going to run to? Running to an evacuation point has problems, one, government have a track record of sucking at actually providing help for people in need, two everywhere you go where there is a lot of people is going to be rife for potential infection, and a natural zombie attractant to boot. Plus you have to deal with the same people that just finished tearing up your town. Do you really want to have to interact with them?

So running to an evacuation point is unsafe. What about into the wilderness. Well assuming you get there (I’m not even taking into account transpiration here) can you survive in the wilderness? did you pack the right sort of gear, do you even have survival skill? What of the people you meet on the way, how are you going to handle them? there is a good chance that many people will head out of a city and head into the wilderness. Like the evacuation zone, there is a good chance of encountering zombies or other “infected” people.

Ultimately the best thing to do is to prepare for it before it happens.
Make a plan, and stick to it (allowing room for adaption to the situation obviously). It doesn't hurt to research and learn survival techniques of various sorts either.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-05, 05:36 PM
Go figure. Anyway onto the ramblings of a paranoid geek

The idea of large “man stopper” calibers is not to actually drive someone back (despite what the media says), the physics don’t support it. The idea is that a larger caliber bullet will penetrate deeply and cause much more damage as it drives into it’s target and lodging in it. Simply put, the bigger and heavier the bullet, the bigger the hole. This is the entire point behind Hollow point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_points) bullets. They expand more and make a nastier wound. It’s useful for dealing with enemies pumped up on drugs. The bullets penetrate and lodge into the body causing tremendous damage as it does, instead of over penetrating and blowing through the body, which can cause damage things (and people) behind the target. Softer lead bullets actually do the same thing, but hollow points are designed to do it. Either one will kill, but “man stoppers” are specifically designed to kill things (animals and humans), they are not target loads.

Now the problem with any “Z day” scenario is that a survivor is going to have to deal with more than just zombies. There will be panic in the streets, riots, religious nuts “every man for himself” types, basically all hell will break lose. People will not keep their heads and react in a calm, orderly manner. No the police will quickly be overrun trying to contain the problems and the National Guard (or equivalent) will be called up.

So this can allow the zombie outbreak to spread, as people react badly to the situation. The hospitals can’t contain the outbreak as they are flooded with wounded and dying people from the general social unrest. Pretty soon the hospitals will become a breeding ground (they’re likely to be the first “infected” areas anyway), for the infestation. Good luck gathering supplies of any sort, grocery stores, sports outlets pharmacies etc are going to be the first thing hit by rioters and survivors looking for supplies. So trying to hold out in a self made bunker isn’t feasible for more than probably a week, unless you already have a long lasting supply ready (there are people who horde storable food).

So Running is a good idea, but where are you going to run to? Running to an evacuation point has problems, one, government have a track record of sucking at actually providing help for people in need, two everywhere you go where there is a lot of people is going to be rife for potential infection, and a natural zombie attractant to boot. Plus you have to deal with the same people that just finished tearing up your town. Do you really want to have to interact with them?

So running to an evacuation point is unsafe. What about into the wilderness. Well assuming you get there (I’m not even taking into account transpiration here) can you survive in the wilderness? did you pack the right sort of gear, do you even have survival skill? What of the people you meet on the way, how are you going to handle them? there is a good chance that many people will head out of a city and head into the wilderness. Like the evacuation zone, there is a good chance of encountering zombies or other “infected” people.

Ultimately the best thing to do is to prepare for it before it happens.
Make a plan, and stick to it (allowing room for adaption to the situation obviously). It doesn't hurt to research and learn survival techniques of various sorts either.

All of this is true but has the big problem that we've been talking about it shooting it down. Zombies are really really bad at making other zombies. So it becomes unbelivable that the zombies will manage to infect enough people to cause a massive breakdown in society. Though perhaps just the idea would be enough to spark riots, but the zombies would die first then people would keep panicking and start killing each other (He looked like a zombie! He was bit, that had to be why he was limping. and other such nonsense). Basically the Zombies would actually do very little damage and plans to protect yourself from rioters and looters would likely be the best bet.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-05, 05:59 PM
Yeah. What you describe is has little to do with either zombies, or apocalypse. It's a mass hysteria event, and while troublesome, such uprisings are pretty normal and have a poor track record for ending the world. For such event to cause real threat of epidemic, would require the zombie-pathogen to spread in more ways and much more effectively than with biting.

TheThan
2012-02-05, 09:08 PM
It depends a lot on the size of the outbreak. A single zombie probably isn’t going to cause a lot of trouble before “they” manage to subdue it enough so that it is not a threat. A larger outbreak, 100, 1000 or more people in a given city is naturally going to cause a much bigger problem.

We have to consider how people will initially respond to the “outbreak”. Take Shaun of the Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365748/), as a somewhat accurate example (yeah I know it’s a comedy), it took them quite a while to realize that people were turning into zombies, and how to deal with them. After they realized what was happening, the characters finally took action. By that time zombies were already beginning to form mobs. And these guys were supposedly gamers, people who kill zombies on the TV all the time.

Personnel in the medical field are trained to save lives, so if they stumble across a zombie, their first action isn’t going to be “oh crud a zombie, better stay away”, it’s going to be “that guy needs serious medical attention, I have to help him". This puts the medical person in a position of potentially getting “turned” himself, as he tries to help the zombie; the zombie simply catches him by surprise and bites him. Now he’s infected, but he doesn’t know it. This is actually the scenario where a single zombie can infect multiple people at once. It could very well increase at an exponential rate, but it will depend on how fast people realize what’s actually happening. I imagine many people mistaking it for some sort of plague, which leads to the mass hysteria event I was talking about earlier.

In a hospital the infected is probably going to be restrained quickly enough that I doubt the zombie can bite more than one person. But then, that person will turn, and bite another one before anyone realizes what happens. Soon the building is crawling with zombies and people are running for their lives.

There is also denial “This can’t be happening”, “your bullsh**ing me!”, reaction. Word of mouth will spread fast (smart phones allow us to text, email and call our friends and relatives with ease, anywhere). Most people won’t necessarily realize the danger until it’s too late. I mean seriously, if I got a text from say my brother saying “dude, there’s a zombie outbreak over here, stay away!” or something of the sort. I wouldn’t believe him at all, I’d be like “Yeah, suuuure, whatever dude.”

I think people are completely underestimating “shamblers” in that regard. Sure a single one that you’re aware of isn’t a threat, but a single one you don’t know about is. Remember all it takes is a single bite. Anyway I’ve gone on long enough, so I’m going to end this post here.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-06, 01:24 AM
Yeah but where do you get a starting size of 1000 or even 100 zombies? You are going to have immense trouble getting up to that size. If zed number one goes down a busy street he doesn't get a hundred people... he gets around one. And thats if he doesn't stay to you know chow down on said victim. Because while zed is wrestling with the first human target (and it will be a struggle bites are hard) the rest of the street has plenty of time to get the heck outta dodge and go call the authorities.

But lets say you do get 1000 because of ridiculous one-dimensional villainy. Still doesn't matter.

All it takes is for word to get out, the time and the time that takes will be inversely proportional to the size of the problem. A city isn't a human buffet line, its a collection of zombie resistant to completely zombie proof fortresses. While non-urban areas offer far more ways to evacuate the area and much sparser hunting for a creature with a very very slow speed not to mention poor predatory senses.

To actually have a chance of getting a zedopocalypse going it needs to be widely distributed (read: everywhere at once) with an initial population in the millions. Romero's original is the closest, even all the dead rising actually only gives you zeds in the millions. Namely only those people that have died in the past few days and haven't been buried, cremated, or decayed yet.

Of course humans can still win because all the zombies you care for aren't going to stop a single tank from squishing as many come nearby before heading back to base to refuel. Then there y'know, the rest of military hardware on the planet. You'd have a long term systemic problem but if we can hunt actually dangerous species to extinction as cavemen then humanity should recover. Though in the interim there are certain places in the world not nessecarily up to dealing with a Romero scenario problem, so we could have something like the conditions of the movies on limited scale.

turkishproverb
2012-02-06, 03:26 AM
You're assuming there is a zombie 1. It could be that a number of zombies are created simultaneously or nearly so. Thus, instead of zombie 1 you have..let's say generation 1 zombies. The mere fact that one can become a zombie due to bite doesn't mean that's how it started.

Heck, Night of the Living Dead and it's friend's are good examples of that. None of those show the origin of the zombies, and the worldwide nature of the outbreak could easily suggest a non-centralized origin.

I am legend, while about Vampires and not Zombies, flirted with a number of other possible ways of starting the disease/spreading it.

Dragonus45
2012-02-06, 07:38 AM
On the subject of charging against someone with a gun i heard an interesting statistic from a couple of officers helping to run a track at dragon con. Studies have shown that the distance a person can full sprint into a guy with a gun (assuming its loosened in the holster but not "drawn") without getting shot is about the distance of a mediumish conference room. Thats taking into consideration the training that an officer receives and is expected to practice in order to keep his job.


My zombie plan, btw(everyone I know of has one), basically is this. Drive the two miles home from work, if I'm there. Grab the AR. Walk out on the balcony.

I've got a third story apartment and a few thousand rounds of ammo because it's cheaper to buy ammo in bulk. There doesn't have to be many people like me to utterly stop a zombie invasion in it's tracks.

Other people always tell me "that's a waste of ammo". Nope. The sole purpose of ammo in a zombie apocalypse is to kill zombies with. Doing this asap from a safe location means less people become zombies. Easy day. Even if we somehow accept that zombies can bootstrap to swarm level, large swarms of zombies simply go away if they run into one person who has even a vaguely good position.

I cant help but feel that this assumes a certain level of skill that the average person just wont have, and depending on the level of infestation the shooting could draw down immense numbers of either kind of zombie, and the runners can usually climb rather well as well.

Traab
2012-02-06, 08:46 AM
The other down side is getting home. If he gets word soon enough, before the craziness begins he might make it, but the roads are going to be packed and congested by people fleeing in all directions. Driving two miles might be closer to trying to drive 200. And walking may be a death sentence. After all, you dont have a gun yet and you are out in the open. Get a bike and get good at pedaling it. Bicycles are probably the best general transport machine you can use in a zombie outbreak. They are faster than a person can run, dont require roads, dont require fuel, and are quiet to operate. Maybe a motorcycle or dirt bike would be acceptable. The noise and fuel needs are back, but its even faster, doesnt tire you to drive it, and can carry more supplies. If you know how to activate the gas pumps yourself it might be worth it.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-06, 10:59 AM
And you keep working under the assumption that the first zombie sighting will happen, and suddenly all over the place everyone is going to go lock and load and start slaughtering zombies, when the reality is probably somewhat closer to what you see in the remake of dawn of the dead. Total chaos. People running all over the place, cars running people over, accidents left and right, and everywhere you have zombies biting people. The 60% of the populace without guns are screwed,

Not entirely. They run the hell away or hide. Either of those reactions are perfectly normal, natural, and will help you not turn into a zombie.


and even those who own guns might not even be close enough to grab it and use it.

Quite possible. For instance, carrying a gun to work would be inappropriate for me, and thus, I only am near one when at home. That said, I sleep there, so that's still >50% of the time, and I imagine that in cases of widespread violence, I'd likely be sent home anyway.


Those who do grab their guns and try to lose them will likely waste shots on other things than head shots, as it is a natural tendency to aim for the torso.

Nah, it's a trained tendency. Head shots are something people instinctively try for, but the torso is trained because it's easier to hit. A torso hit still isn't a complete waste, though. It still results in degraded capabilities.


Or they will suck at shooting under pressure and get swarmed and turned themselves. People will be caught outside, asleep, in their cars stuck in the traffic jams, all over the place in locations where they dont have their guns handy.

If it's a true swarm, you don't have to be good to do a fair bit of damage. If it's a big mob, you could just spray in a magazine and still take out quite a few. It's likely to end badly for you, true, but this means that swarms tend to be self limiting in size. The bigger they get, the more damage any encounter with an armed individual does to them.


Some people will hole up, others will be trying to escape. Those that try to hole up will only last as long as their barricades do. A locked door cant hold a normal person out for long, let alone a crowd of zombies. Barricades will only last so long before they shift and fall. Those who make a break for it are in constant danger of being surrounded. I dont care if you are rambo reborn, you can only fire in so many directions and so many times at once before you get swarmed and killed.

A locked exterior door can actually hold up to quite a bit, usually. Zombies are not generally intelligent enough to use tools or target weaknesses like hinges, so they are a lot less good at getting through doors than people are. That's a notable delay time...and while there's a few zombies clawing at your door, they're not turning anyone else. This is a slow infection rate, and one that is extremely vulnerable to armed intervention, ie, you calling the cops.


However being shoot with a bullet is more like having a pebble thrown at you rather than a rock, that is the force of an impacting bullet is negligible as far as breaking your run is concerned.

There is no physical knock-back effect involved. When such an effect is occurring in real life, it's due to how a thinking, feeling human (unconsciously) reacts to the sensation of being hit (aka "rolling with the blow"),.

To quote Wikipedia:

Thus a zombie incapable of feeling pain would just continue his stride despite being hit by a bullet.

Running is only dynamically stable. Depending on where you get hit(and yes, there is notable energy in a bullet. Recoil of a rifle or shotgun(even some handguns) is not trivial...ever step on something that shifts while running, and suddenly end up sprawled on the ground? That can happen, even on an otherwise poor shot like a lower leg hit, giving you time to fire additional rounds. It isn't a guarantee, but even a fairly unskilled person should be able to beat a zombie in a gunfight.

I agree that you that a shot won't hurl the target backward movie-style, but that's not necessary to break up a run.


Yeah, I know that, but what IS in question is, will a guy shooting a head shot only zombie in the torso even be able to make it stumble as its charging towards you? I say no. It has no involuntary reaction to getting shot, the kinetic force of the bullet/s are negligible, and unless you manage to connect with its spine, it wont even register that it has been hit in any meaningful way. It wont even weaken the zombie for the next guy he goes after. And yeah, sorry, I thought I cleared away my accidental insertion into your quotes. i had a different point originally, but changed my mind.

Depends entirely how it hits, and where it's at in the stride. Any hit to spine or hip is pretty much guaranteed to drop it. Hits to the shoulder will incap that arm. Any other hit has a decent chance of making it stumble, since running at full tilt gives you less room for correction than slower speeds.

And everything on the human body does something. Any hit lowers functional capacity. So even if you muck it up really badly, and only manage to wound a bunch, attract their attention, and die horribly while spraying at say, foot level....the entire mob is much weaker than they were before encountering you, no stronger. Such a mob is unlikely to grow much further as they are now much easier to outrun or outfight. Thus, with any significant incidence of them meeting armed individuals, zombie mobs would die out quickly.


Because they keep ignoring the fact that ive been trying to show how a variation of zombie with the best of both worlds might be a true threat and they keep sticking with 28 days later sprinters. For the last page or two I have been trying to prove that an outbreak of sprinters that have the same setup as shamblers, ie, only head shots count, otherwise all damage but broken limbs is ignored, would be an actual threat. If not globally, then certainly locally. Just because the military would be able to rein them and and wipe them out in the end doesnt make the devastated cities any less destroyed, or the death toll any less horrible.

Traditionally, even on shamblers, damage elsewhere isn't ignored...it merely does not kill them. Blow an arm away, and they keep ticking, but they still lack the arm.

This would still not be a threat.


True, but I think we all know that im not talking about .50 cal sniper rifles and other such ludicrous guns that arent general issue. And also, you as the shooter are dealing with the absolute max in energy as you are feeling the full force of the explosion that launches the bullet. Said energy does drop rapidly upon leaving the gun barrel. The actual physical force imparted by a standard round is not very high and would most likely not cause a stumble or a lurch, or any other real detrimental effect to a zombie closing with you at a dead run that ignores anything but a head shot for all intents and purposes.

You'll note that he said "rifles and some handguns". Not ludicrous guns. That's a bit of a strawman there. Let's consider the 30-06, a popular hunting rifle such as a farmer may have around. With hunting loads, not anything designed for self defense or the like, you're looking at something like 3,000 foot/pounds of energy on impact. That's pretty notable, especially when concentrated on a small point.

It does not drop significantly over the range you will be engaging zombies at. For instance, the previously mentioned 30-06 can send a bullet miles away. The fifty yards is a trivial fraction of the energy contained in that, and it's literally not worth doing the math on.


It depends a lot on the size of the outbreak. A single zombie probably isn’t going to cause a lot of trouble before “they” manage to subdue it enough so that it is not a threat. A larger outbreak, 100, 1000 or more people in a given city is naturally going to cause a much bigger problem.

Yeah, but how do you get there? How do a dozen zombies turn into a hundred with nobody noticing? And even if there are a hundred, that's not that hard for police to contain, or at least mostly eliminate. Zombies are not particularly subtle. How do you ever get to a thousand?


Personnel in the medical field are trained to save lives, so if they stumble across a zombie, their first action isn’t going to be “oh crud a zombie, better stay away”, it’s going to be “that guy needs serious medical attention, I have to help him". This puts the medical person in a position of potentially getting “turned” himself, as he tries to help the zombie; the zombie simply catches him by surprise and bites him. Now he’s infected, but he doesn’t know it. This is actually the scenario where a single zombie can infect multiple people at once.

Medical personnel deal with dangerous people all the time. It might suck to be the first guy on the scene with no idea what's happening, but after that, precautions will be taken.


In a hospital the infected is probably going to be restrained quickly enough that I doubt the zombie can bite more than one person. But then, that person will turn, and bite another one before anyone realizes what happens. Soon the building is crawling with zombies and people are running for their lives.

See, here's the thing. You jump from "bite another one", to "crawling with zombies". That's still only three zombies, one of which is restrained. The next logical step is more likely "restrain all three".



I cant help but feel that this assumes a certain level of skill that the average person just wont have, and depending on the level of infestation the shooting could draw down immense numbers of either kind of zombie, and the runners can usually climb rather well as well.

*shrug* It's a twenty foot+ climb up the side of a building. I couldn't do it. It's just normal plastic siding, but that stuff isn't exactly climbable even for someone like me who actually goes climbing. I don't live in a tree house.

If the shooting draws more...why would I care? They can't actually get to me, they are merely additional targets. I don't need to rush shots, and them mobbing up just results in more collateral damage/easier shots. The level of skill involved in shooting a rifle from a rest, with all the time in the world, at a giant mob that has no interest in dodging is...minimal. I happen to be rather more proficient than that...but I wouldn't have to be.

So, one person like me, who happens to own a gun, and lives on a second or third floor, can basically kill hundreds or thousands of zombies. This is not a particularly unlikely scenario. It's bound to happen purely by accident frequently before anyone even knows what's going on. Then, it'll happen all the time, intentionally. End result, zombies get nowhere.

You need the mass initial rising to get beyond minor local infection levels.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-06, 11:02 AM
And you keep working under the assumption that the first zombie sighting will happen, and suddenly all over the place everyone is going to go lock and load and start slaughtering zombies, when the reality is probably somewhat closer to what you see in the remake of dawn of the dead. Total chaos. People running all over the place, cars running people over, accidents left and right, and everywhere you have zombies biting people. The 60% of the populace without guns are screwed,

Not entirely. They run the hell away or hide. Either of those reactions are perfectly normal, natural, and will help you not turn into a zombie.


and even those who own guns might not even be close enough to grab it and use it.

Quite possible. For instance, carrying a gun to work would be inappropriate for me, and thus, I only am near one when at home. That said, I sleep there, so that's still >50% of the time, and I imagine that in cases of widespread violence, I'd likely be sent home anyway.


Those who do grab their guns and try to lose them will likely waste shots on other things than head shots, as it is a natural tendency to aim for the torso.

Nah, it's a trained tendency. Head shots are something people instinctively try for, but the torso is trained because it's easier to hit. A torso hit still isn't a complete waste, though. It still results in degraded capabilities.


Or they will suck at shooting under pressure and get swarmed and turned themselves. People will be caught outside, asleep, in their cars stuck in the traffic jams, all over the place in locations where they dont have their guns handy.

If it's a true swarm, you don't have to be good to do a fair bit of damage. If it's a big mob, you could just spray in a magazine and still take out quite a few. It's likely to end badly for you, true, but this means that swarms tend to be self limiting in size. The bigger they get, the more damage any encounter with an armed individual does to them.


Some people will hole up, others will be trying to escape. Those that try to hole up will only last as long as their barricades do. A locked door cant hold a normal person out for long, let alone a crowd of zombies. Barricades will only last so long before they shift and fall. Those who make a break for it are in constant danger of being surrounded. I dont care if you are rambo reborn, you can only fire in so many directions and so many times at once before you get swarmed and killed.

A locked exterior door can actually hold up to quite a bit, usually. Zombies are not generally intelligent enough to use tools or target weaknesses like hinges, so they are a lot less good at getting through doors than people are. That's a notable delay time...and while there's a few zombies clawing at your door, they're not turning anyone else. This is a slow infection rate, and one that is extremely vulnerable to armed intervention, ie, you calling the cops.


However being shoot with a bullet is more like having a pebble thrown at you rather than a rock, that is the force of an impacting bullet is negligible as far as breaking your run is concerned.

There is no physical knock-back effect involved. When such an effect is occurring in real life, it's due to how a thinking, feeling human (unconsciously) reacts to the sensation of being hit (aka "rolling with the blow"),.

To quote Wikipedia:

Thus a zombie incapable of feeling pain would just continue his stride despite being hit by a bullet.

Running is only dynamically stable. Depending on where you get hit(and yes, there is notable energy in a bullet. Recoil of a rifle or shotgun(even some handguns) is not trivial...ever step on something that shifts while running, and suddenly end up sprawled on the ground? That can happen, even on an otherwise poor shot like a lower leg hit, giving you time to fire additional rounds. It isn't a guarantee, but even a fairly unskilled person should be able to beat a zombie in a gunfight.

I agree that you that a shot won't hurl the target backward movie-style, but that's not necessary to break up a run.


Yeah, I know that, but what IS in question is, will a guy shooting a head shot only zombie in the torso even be able to make it stumble as its charging towards you? I say no. It has no involuntary reaction to getting shot, the kinetic force of the bullet/s are negligible, and unless you manage to connect with its spine, it wont even register that it has been hit in any meaningful way. It wont even weaken the zombie for the next guy he goes after. And yeah, sorry, I thought I cleared away my accidental insertion into your quotes. i had a different point originally, but changed my mind.

Depends entirely how it hits, and where it's at in the stride. Any hit to spine or hip is pretty much guaranteed to drop it. Hits to the shoulder will incap that arm. Any other hit has a decent chance of making it stumble, since running at full tilt gives you less room for correction than slower speeds.

And everything on the human body does something. Any hit lowers functional capacity. So even if you muck it up really badly, and only manage to wound a bunch, attract their attention, and die horribly while spraying at say, foot level....the entire mob is much weaker than they were before encountering you, no stronger. Such a mob is unlikely to grow much further as they are now much easier to outrun or outfight. Thus, with any significant incidence of them meeting armed individuals, zombie mobs would die out quickly.


Because they keep ignoring the fact that ive been trying to show how a variation of zombie with the best of both worlds might be a true threat and they keep sticking with 28 days later sprinters. For the last page or two I have been trying to prove that an outbreak of sprinters that have the same setup as shamblers, ie, only head shots count, otherwise all damage but broken limbs is ignored, would be an actual threat. If not globally, then certainly locally. Just because the military would be able to rein them and and wipe them out in the end doesnt make the devastated cities any less destroyed, or the death toll any less horrible.

Traditionally, even on shamblers, damage elsewhere isn't ignored...it merely does not kill them. Blow an arm away, and they keep ticking, but they still lack the arm.

This would still not be a threat.


True, but I think we all know that im not talking about .50 cal sniper rifles and other such ludicrous guns that arent general issue. And also, you as the shooter are dealing with the absolute max in energy as you are feeling the full force of the explosion that launches the bullet. Said energy does drop rapidly upon leaving the gun barrel. The actual physical force imparted by a standard round is not very high and would most likely not cause a stumble or a lurch, or any other real detrimental effect to a zombie closing with you at a dead run that ignores anything but a head shot for all intents and purposes.

You'll note that he said "rifles and some handguns". Not ludicrous guns. That's a bit of a strawman there. Let's consider the 30-06, a popular hunting rifle such as a farmer may have around. With hunting loads, not anything designed for self defense or the like, you're looking at something like 3,000 foot/pounds of energy on impact. That's pretty notable, especially when concentrated on a small point.

It does not drop significantly over the range you will be engaging zombies at. For instance, the previously mentioned 30-06 can send a bullet miles away. The fifty yards is a trivial fraction of the energy contained in that, and it's literally not worth doing the math on.


It depends a lot on the size of the outbreak. A single zombie probably isn’t going to cause a lot of trouble before “they” manage to subdue it enough so that it is not a threat. A larger outbreak, 100, 1000 or more people in a given city is naturally going to cause a much bigger problem.

Yeah, but how do you get there? How do a dozen zombies turn into a hundred with nobody noticing? And even if there are a hundred, that's not that hard for police to contain, or at least mostly eliminate. Zombies are not particularly subtle. How do you ever get to a thousand?


Personnel in the medical field are trained to save lives, so if they stumble across a zombie, their first action isn’t going to be “oh crud a zombie, better stay away”, it’s going to be “that guy needs serious medical attention, I have to help him". This puts the medical person in a position of potentially getting “turned” himself, as he tries to help the zombie; the zombie simply catches him by surprise and bites him. Now he’s infected, but he doesn’t know it. This is actually the scenario where a single zombie can infect multiple people at once.

Medical personnel deal with dangerous people all the time. It might suck to be the first guy on the scene with no idea what's happening, but after that, precautions will be taken.


In a hospital the infected is probably going to be restrained quickly enough that I doubt the zombie can bite more than one person. But then, that person will turn, and bite another one before anyone realizes what happens. Soon the building is crawling with zombies and people are running for their lives.

See, here's the thing. You jump from "bite another one", to "crawling with zombies". That's still only three zombies, one of which is restrained. The next logical step is more likely "restrain all three".



I cant help but feel that this assumes a certain level of skill that the average person just wont have, and depending on the level of infestation the shooting could draw down immense numbers of either kind of zombie, and the runners can usually climb rather well as well.

*shrug* It's a twenty foot+ climb up the side of a building. I couldn't do it. It's just normal plastic siding, but that stuff isn't exactly climbable even for someone like me who actually goes climbing. I don't live in a tree house.

If the shooting draws more...why would I care? They can't actually get to me, they are merely additional targets. I don't need to rush shots, and them mobbing up just results in more collateral damage/easier shots. The level of skill involved in shooting a rifle from a rest, with all the time in the world, at a giant mob that has no interest in dodging is...minimal. I happen to be rather more proficient than that...but I wouldn't have to be.

So, one person like me, who happens to own a gun, and lives on a second or third floor, can basically kill hundreds or thousands of zombies. This is not a particularly unlikely scenario. It's bound to happen purely by accident frequently before anyone even knows what's going on. Then, it'll happen all the time, intentionally. End result, zombies get nowhere.

You need the mass initial rising to get beyond minor local infection levels.

TheThan
2012-02-06, 07:28 PM
Mecial personnel may not immediately restrain the people bitten, they may clean and bandage the wound, give them a shot and send them on their merry. Then later, they become a zombie and bite another person. This could keep happening until somebody realizes that’s how the “infection” is spreading and starts taking precautions. In that time they have no way of knowing how many people have been infected. This is particularly bad when people start bringing zombies to the hospital, searching for aid.
Many people here are assuming that people are going to realize the threat early and act accordingly. If you don’t know there is a threat, how are you going to act on it?

Traab
2012-02-06, 08:11 PM
A locked exterior door can actually hold up to quite a bit, usually. Zombies are not generally intelligent enough to use tools or target weaknesses like hinges, so they are a lot less good at getting through doors than people are. That's a notable delay time...and while there's a few zombies clawing at your door, they're not turning anyone else. This is a slow infection rate, and one that is extremely vulnerable to armed intervention, ie, you calling the cops.

I just wanted to point something out. I have personally broken down a front door with the shoulder charge method, (Door locked with keys and an unattended baby inside) I am not what most would call in great shape. Unless you count a keg as a great shape. Your standard front door is not, in fact, going to hold up under any kind of sustained assault from zombies pounding on it. There is no need to specifically target hinges or whatever, hit it with enough force and the latch snaps, hit it again and the locks start breaking or coming loose. Piling up debris will help, but unless the barricade is itself secured to the floor, it will shift with every hit it takes, until it loses effectiveness. Sure it will take time, just dont expect a front door to stay shut for days on end by piling your furniture in front of it. If the cops are on their way it might hold to shove your couch in front of the door till they get there, but for anything a day or longer, I wouldnt expect it to hold. That was more my point than anything else. That locking yourself in your house is at best a short term solution, as once the zombies start trying to get at you, its only a matter of time before they get in.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-07, 11:23 AM
That's only because you have poor front doors there. :smalltongue: Ours here? three inches of solid wood, kept in place by two metal bolts. A grown man kicking it for five minutes barely scratches the paint, you aren't getting through it with rotting legs.

And it doesn't matter how many zombies there are. There's room for one to kick at the door at once on our porch. What are the other going to do, lean on him?

Forum Explorer
2012-02-07, 11:36 AM
Mecial personnel may not immediately restrain the people bitten, they may clean and bandage the wound, give them a shot and send them on their merry. Then later, they become a zombie and bite another person. This could keep happening until somebody realizes that’s how the “infection” is spreading and starts taking precautions. In that time they have no way of knowing how many people have been infected. This is particularly bad when people start bringing zombies to the hospital, searching for aid.
Many people here are assuming that people are going to realize the threat early and act accordingly. If you don’t know there is a threat, how are you going to act on it?

Except that nearly everyone knows what a zombie is. You get attacked by a zombie you'll know about it and make the connection to zombie. So would you bring your zombie friends to the hospital or hide them away in hopes for a cure?

Mewtarthio
2012-02-07, 11:38 AM
And how many zombies would even be able to use the shoulder charge method? Shamblers can't do much more than flail against the door, and even sprinters rarely demonstrate combat tactics more advanced than flinging themselves at obstacles. Even kicking is beyond them. I'd expect the zombies to give way before the door does.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-07, 12:40 PM
I just wanted to point something out. I have personally broken down a front door with the shoulder charge method, (Door locked with keys and an unattended baby inside) I am not what most would call in great shape. Unless you count a keg as a great shape.

That's actually a pretty good shape for slamming weight into a door. Big guys put a lot more force into something when hitting it than little guys do.

Also, I rather agree on the zombie tactics. They don't generally seem capable of intelligently identifying tactics for overcoming obstacles efficiently. Persistently walking into/clawing at the door? Certainly. Repeated slams to break it? Not normally a zombie thing.

And my door's got a latch, some solid hinges, and a chain as a backup. Pretty standard. I'm sure it would break down eventually, even with a couch or whatever behind it, but if people see violence, closing and locking the door is normal. If there's violence AND violent people are trying to get in, barricading the door is normal, as is calling the cops.

This just doesn't lead to a big zombie swarm...it leads to a few unfortunate people getting bitten by patient zero because they have basically no warning, then the response basically ending the threat. Sure, you may have one or two unfortunate responders who get bitten and die, but after the first biting, any other zombies are likely just going to be shot, and the poor bastard who got bitten isn't going to be able to start a swarm by himself.

You've got to have the dead rising or mass infection, or some other cause that starts with swarms out of the gate to get swarms at all.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-07, 03:04 PM
By they, this raises an interesting question: even if zombies were smart enough to systematically break down doors, how'd they ever realize there were living people behind one? Sense of smell is the only thing that comes to mind, since it's directly linked to most primitive parts of the brain, which I reckon would take longest to rot away. The parts that deal with sight and hearing would rot away sooner, never mind that eyes, eardrums and skin are first to go.

Really, for any actually dead (or undead) zombie, I can't think of plausible, natural means for detecting prey. Of course, living zombies could utilize all normal senses. But for the deader kind, only supernatural sense would, heh, make sense.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-07, 03:38 PM
Zombies being able to smell the living? As a species, we're having a good day if we can small dinner cooking in the next room. Dying, losing large amounts of your brain function and having a large amount of your face rot off doesn't really make for efficient scenting capabilities.
Unless we're talking Zombie Dogs, ala Resident Evil. Good luck hiding from those puppies.

Though admittedly, they'll have an even worse time with doors.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-07, 03:47 PM
... you, sir, must have awful sense of smell. My mom can smell a piece of toasting bread from upstairs, through 5 closed rooms and a flight of stairs. I can smell strong perfume from almost a mile away if the source is upwind. Car exhausts, broken sewers and cow manure can be smelled from even further away.

I expect that sweat, urine and feces could be smelled rather easily, as long as the zombies are fresh.

Gnoman
2012-02-07, 07:17 PM
Except that nearly everyone knows what a zombie is. You get attacked by a zombie you'll know about it and make the connection to zombie. So would you bring your zombie friends to the hospital or hide them away in hopes for a cure?

No, they won't The immediate assumption that any sane person will make is intoxication withdrawal. As someone who's been bitten by someone under such circumstances, "zombie" was the last thing anyone thought of.

The_Jackal
2012-02-07, 07:23 PM
Fast zombies. People advocating slow zombies are basing their entire argument from an appeal to tradition. By that argument, all vampires should be Balkan-extracted tuxedo-wearers, all aliens should be little green men, and all attorneys and judges should wear those powdered wigs.

Slow zombies just aren't scary anymore. The culture has moved on. The zombies should too.

TheThan
2012-02-07, 07:44 PM
Except that nearly everyone knows what a zombie is. You get attacked by a zombie you'll know about it and make the connection to zombie. So would you bring your zombie friends to the hospital or hide them away in hopes for a cure?

Your forgetting that most sane people don't actually believe that zombies exist. its fiction, fantasy. So people will easily mistake a zombified person for a very ill person.

instead of "oh crud Billie Jo got turned into a zombie", its going to be "Hey what's wrong Billie Jo, you look sick, let me help you... Oooow you bit me!".

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-07, 08:02 PM
Fast zombies. People advocating slow zombies are basing their entire argument from an appeal to tradition. By that argument, all vampires should be Balkan-extracted tuxedo-wearers, all aliens should be little green men, and all attorneys and judges should wear those powdered wigs.

Way to beat some Dead Unicorns there.


Your forgetting that most sane people don't actually believe that zombies exist. its fiction, fantasy. So people will easily mistake a zombified person for a very ill person.

Seeing is a believing. Zombies don't look like humans in that meaningful way, they are straight from the depth of the Uncanny Valley.

Nor do they actually act like a sick person.. They act like particularly aggresive animals and people won't hang around those, they will get to a secure location and contract authorities. Or just keep running.

And for that matter while they aren't precisely malicious about it people don't generally rush to help someone with obvious problems. A bum walks down the street with a dazed look... people get out of the way, not stop to ask whats wrong. Altruism dies a pretty quick death most of the time when something is deemed a threat

TheThan
2012-02-07, 09:58 PM
Way to beat some Dead Unicorns there.



Seeing is a believing. Zombies don't look like humans in that meaningful way, they are straight from the depth of the Uncanny Valley.

Nor do they actually act like a sick person.. They act like particularly aggresive animals and people won't hang around those, they will get to a secure location and contract authorities. Or just keep running.

And for that matter while they aren't precisely malicious about it people don't generally rush to help someone with obvious problems. A bum walks down the street with a dazed look... people get out of the way, not stop to ask whats wrong. Altruism dies a pretty quick death most of the time when something is deemed a threat

True, but most people will try to help people they know and care about. Total strangers will be kept away from, while people may try to help the infected. It also really depends on the person, some people are just jerks and won't help. According to Wikipedia, it takes 3-6 hours for Rigor Mortis to set it. which means, for about that time, the potential for a zombie to "get" someone is fairly high, after that, things begin going down hill and it becomes harder and harder to catch people off guard.

Mewtarthio
2012-02-07, 10:40 PM
Let me try to work through the scenario you're presenting:

There are two friends; we'll call them Zeke and Vivian. Vivian notices that Zeke is acting strangely and offers to help. Zeke responds by pouncing on Vivian and attempting to devour her flesh. Vivian successfully fends Zeke off and takes his violent moaning and spontaneous cannibalism as a polite refusal of her offer. She patches up her wounds with simple first aid, then returns home, later dying and repeating the cycle. Net result: +1 zombies.

That seems a little far-fetched to me.

TheThan
2012-02-07, 11:30 PM
Let me try to work through the scenario you're presenting:

There are two friends; we'll call them Zeke and Vivian. Vivian notices that Zeke is acting strangely and offers to help. Zeke responds by pouncing on Vivian and attempting to devour her flesh. Vivian successfully fends Zeke off and takes his violent moaning and spontaneous cannibalism as a polite refusal of her offer. She patches up her wounds with simple first aid, then returns home, later dying and repeating the cycle. Net result: +1 zombies.

That seems a little far-fetched to me.

Basically yeah.
If Vivian survives Zeke’s attack, she may patch herself up and become a zombie, or head to the nearest hospital and become a zombie there. It may be far-fetched, but a zombie apocalypse is a fairly far-fetched idea anyway.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-07, 11:46 PM
Basically yeah.
If Vivian survives Zeke’s attack, she may patch herself up and become a zombie, or head to the nearest hospital and become a zombie there. It may be far-fetched, but a zombie apocalypse is a fairly far-fetched idea anyway.

Well, most likely scenario is that either Vivian is entirely eaten by Zeke or Vivian destroys zombie-Zeke. Secondly to that, most likely scenario involves one or both of them in medical confinement having gone to the hospital ASAP because zeke clearly has some kind of super-rabies.

Somewhere after that, the other possibility is that Vivian leaves. Zeke is locked in Zeke's house. Vivian goes home, treats wounds, and becomes a zombie locked in Vivians house.

TheThan
2012-02-08, 12:16 AM
Alot of this depends on exactly how fast the "incubation" period between initial infection (when your still human), and zombification actually takes. a few minutes? hours? these matter. if it takes more than a few hours for an infected to turn, then zombies won't pose that huge of a threat. aside from the idiots that try to tough it out or don't go to the hospital.

TheSummoner
2012-02-08, 01:58 AM
By that argument, all vampires should be Balkan-extracted tuxedo-wearers, all aliens should be little green men, and all attorneys and judges should wear those powdered wigs.

... I FULLY support this suggestion!

Killer Angel
2012-02-08, 03:18 AM
Slow zombies just aren't scary anymore. The culture has moved on. The zombies should too.

They slowly crawl toward the future? :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2012-02-08, 10:24 AM
Your forgetting that most sane people don't actually believe that zombies exist. its fiction, fantasy. So people will easily mistake a zombified person for a very ill person.

instead of "oh crud Billie Jo got turned into a zombie", its going to be "Hey what's wrong Billie Jo, you look sick, let me help you... Oooow you bit me!".

Correct, however, after the biting is observed, it's pretty clear that the infected need to be restrained. We may not yet realize the whole "they're already dead" portion of it and what not...but nobody really wants to get bit.

So yeah, patient zero can almost certainly bite one other person. Patient zero gets restrained after that. As soon as people realize the bitten have started to bite others, everyone bitten is getting restrained.


Well, most likely scenario is that either Vivian is entirely eaten by Zeke or Vivian destroys zombie-Zeke. Secondly to that, most likely scenario involves one or both of them in medical confinement having gone to the hospital ASAP because zeke clearly has some kind of super-rabies.

Somewhere after that, the other possibility is that Vivian leaves. Zeke is locked in Zeke's house. Vivian goes home, treats wounds, and becomes a zombie locked in Vivians house.

Yeah, the whole reproduction means == food source is definitely a problem. It means that the optimal scenario is +1 zombie...but that the new zombie has sustained at least some damage. The non-instant turning we typically see of zombies means that the fight tends to go on for a bit, and one or both of them is going to end up entirely dead or at least terribly maimed. Combat is messy. Even if turning only takes a few minutes...that's a long time in a fight.

I don't see any likely outcome that actually leads to additional free, capable zombies in total.


Fast zombies. People advocating slow zombies are basing their entire argument from an appeal to tradition. By that argument, all vampires should be Balkan-extracted tuxedo-wearers...

You're telling me, that by that argument, there would be no twilight? I'm sold.

Dark Elf Bard
2012-02-08, 10:33 AM
Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat. :tongue:

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-08, 11:11 AM
True, but most people will try to help people they know and care about. Total strangers will be kept away from, while people may try to help the infected. It also really depends on the person, some people are just jerks and won't help. According to Wikipedia, it takes 3-6 hours for Rigor Mortis to set it. which means, for about that time, the potential for a zombie to "get" someone is fairly high, after that, things begin going down hill and it becomes harder and harder to catch people off guard.

Well as you noted later it depends on the incubation. For a short (seconds to a couple hours) period well ask yourself, how often are you around people you truly care about? If I'm out in a crowded area shopping or whatever there's a decent chance of being alone if its something routine.

While longer incubation raises some level of chaos I still feel it shortens the overall duration of the problem. Guys like the CDC do not frak around with new and strange diseases. And even one case happening in a medical facility is enough. Before word gets out people will seek medical attention for themselves and their zed friends, right into quarantine measures.

After word gets out any sizable group will enforce those measures on anyone that gets bit. You can't build an outbreak on those that somehow discreetly get bit in some place unnoticeable and then hide it once that happens.


Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat. :tongue:

You're welcome.

Selrahc
2012-02-08, 02:50 PM
Alright, so another "Legitimizing the Zombie apocalypse" argument, this time a little less sci-fi than brain computer zombies or zombie bombs.

What if zombieism was an airborne infectious disease, with a more virulent version being passed on through bites or blood? The disease spreads in the manner of a normal pandemic, perhaps causing a few weeks of tiredness during incubation, followed by zombism. If someone is bitten or infected through direct contact, they follow a much more rapid progression of symptoms.

So, if you believe that a pandemic is a legitimate threat to wipe out humanity you can imagine how this zombie virus has become so widespread. Quarantine measures would be effective to contain it, but are much more easily breached if carriers of the airborne disease initially have mild symptoms.

If we cut in at the traditional zombie apocalypse stage then the few survivors may be the lucky ones who were immune to the airborne virus. Or alternately we're in a zombie story where literally everybody wears gasmasks and hazmat suits pretty much all the time, since even being anywhere near a zombie can get you infected.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-08, 02:57 PM
Alright, so another "Legitimizing the Zombie apocalypse" argument, this time a little less sci-fi than brain computer zombies or zombie bombs.

What if zombieism was an airborne infectious disease, with a more virulent version being passed on through bites or blood? The disease spreads in the manner of a normal pandemic, perhaps causing a few weeks of tiredness during incubation, followed by zombism. If someone is bitten or infected through direct contact, they follow a much more rapid progression of symptoms.

So, if you believe that a pandemic is a legitimate threat to wipe out humanity you can imagine how this zombie virus has become so widespread. Quarantine measures would be effective to contain it, but are much more easily breached if carriers of the airborne disease initially have mild symptoms.

If we cut in at the traditional zombie apocalypse stage then the few survivors may be the lucky ones who were immune to the airborne virus. Or alternately we're in a zombie story where literally everybody wears gasmasks and hazmat suits pretty much all the time, since even being anywhere near a zombie can get you infected.

While this can plausibly work, what you have then really isn't a zombie apocalypse, so much as it is a pandemic story. This is fine, if that's the kind of tale you're into, but it's all about the infection, and not being infected by it...not the zombies.

One dude with a tank and some time on his hands can still take care of all those.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-08, 03:35 PM
On airborne infection:
It doesn't really scale with infection to be different depending on method, as far as I'm aware anyways. So while it would create a greater occurrence of disease and bites would have a higher percentage of infection, depending on the virulence it would basically remove the bite as a means of transmission to being dependent on how bad simply being around a zombie is. And would have little effect on the incubation time.

So basically gets into the details of the infection. Despite some popular conceptions a guy walking through an airport terminal coughing is not going to infect everyone in the the terminal. While incubation time is also very important. A disease like Ebola can actually be said to work too fast, it kills everyone around too fast for it to spread broadly and it works on an hours/days timeline.

Barring magical infection conditions like 99% of the population infection and turning to completely dismantle society from the get go.... it only raises the scale of the initial problem. It can get an outbreak going of certain scales. It cannot make an outbreak sustained against a human response.

While the uniforms are out of date now note this is what the US Military thinks when it thinks, deal with a CBRN hazard (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Soldiers_at_MOPP_level_4.jpg). Not what TV likes to think you are reduced too. And its not like the stuff is rare equipment either, I know for example Navy ships have to have provide masks for the entire crew which would suffice for this situation aside from their sealed environments. Which goes for a lot of other heavy military hardware like the B-52 that will carpet bomb any lost areas.

Likewise most of the zombie response methods discusssed would still be completely valid. Just add in the paranoia response so those showing symtoms find themselves chucked out windows or shot and left even if they just have the flu. Even then plenty of hidey-holes would be infection free and stay that way. The level required to overcome all of that isn't really a zombie problem its a magically perfect depopulation bomb to get it everywhere at once in high percentages.

Bottom line makes the problem worse but doesn't result in zedopocalypse.

TheThan
2012-02-08, 03:46 PM
The actual threat of shambler zombies is the conflict between the survivors, not the actual zombies. Take George Romero’s classic Night of the Living Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063350/). The characters spend most of the movie fighting amongst themselves, instead of dealing with the threat outside. As a result most of the survivors get killed in some way.
While with fast zombies, the threat comes mostly from the zombies themselves, as they can chase down fleeing people. There is a big difference in the sort of story being told. One is a conflict between humans; the other is a conflict between humans and an outside force.

Traab
2012-02-08, 03:57 PM
Fast or slow, heavy weaponry mows em all down. And tanks run them all over without firing a shot.

Neither is a threat. :tongue:

While this is most definitely true, and I wont argue otherwise, my main contention is that the runners could be a threat at the local level. Zombies wont ever take over the earth, or even an entire state, but I still think a solid outbreak of zombies in a heavily populated area, could end in a significant death toll. Shamblers could only rack up a noticeable death toll if a dozen just popped into existence in every rest home in the world.

Hmm, thats an interesting thought. What happens to old people who get bit? Are they now able to run like regular zombies? Do we have zombies that need walkers to stay upright and break their hips when they stumble and fall? We really only ever see formerly healthy 18-50 year olds get turned into zombies. Its very rare to see a kid zombie, and equally as rare to see a senior citizen zombie.

Ok, my turn for a potential breakout zombie scenario. We go back to the inexplicable night of the living dead "no real reason, they just rise" excuse. Only this time, the rules are, anyone who dies during the next 24 hours rises seconds later as a zombie. Now this is dying for any reason at all. After 24 hours its only those bitten or coming into contact with the infected fluids. They rise from the dead as head shot only types, but with sprinting speed. (Lets face it, short of spontaneous zombiefication of 90% of the world, neither separate type is a really huge threat) That means morgues, ambulances, people in car wrecks, guys and girls who died in their beds, any military battles taking place, people all over the place, stand up and start attacking anything nearby.

There is no central location, no patient zero, so containment is virtually impossible. Many would likely get put down fairly fast, but others wouldnt be stopped so easily. Make it 28 days later style infection type and speed for maximum potential. Meaning, if you come into contact with any infected fluids, you turn in seconds flat. So wading into melee battle is REALLY dumb, since a splash of zombie brains blood or guts hits you in the eye, or your mouth, or an open wound, and you get turned.

It still wouldnt destroy the world, or cause the end of civilization as we know it, but it would probably have a fairly substantial death toll before its all said and done. Its estimated that 146k people die every 24 hours in the world. Thats 146k fast, head shot only zombies spread out in every part of the world just from initial mysterious rising from the dead for reasons other than being bitten.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-08, 04:59 PM
And yet despite stacking the deck with a hodgepodge of features it you admit still doesn't work because the response ability of humanity exceeds the capacity of zombies to endure it.

I give that a so-what?

Killer Angel
2012-02-08, 05:21 PM
And yet despite stacking the deck with a hodgepodge of features it you admit still doesn't work because the response ability of humanity exceeds the capacity of zombies to endure it.


28 days after is about england. A large number of zombies suddenly manifesting can ruin a country.
if a 5% of the population is infected in 24 hour, I doubt a nation can react so quickly to avoid the disaster.

Traab
2012-02-08, 05:44 PM
And yet despite stacking the deck with a hodgepodge of features it you admit still doesn't work because the response ability of humanity exceeds the capacity of zombies to endure it.

I give that a so-what?

So what is im trying to find a way that would be actually dangerous. It may not destroy the world, but that sort of outbreak could decimate less developed countries, and cause all sorts of domino effects world wide. It could be a catastrophe without being a world ender. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that while almost everywhere else the zombies are reined in and destroyed, but mexico gets overrun. Now the population of the entire country is 113,724,226, give or take. Lets take even a quarter of that being turned into zombies, 28,250,000 zombies give or take, are now going who knows where. That is a LOT of zombies that could come pouring across the borders into central america and the US.

You can replace the named countries with whatever you think might be possible but the point remains. Its one thing to squash a relatively small outbreak in each city, its another thing entirely when an entire country falls for whatever reason and you have hundreds of thousands or even millions of zombies crossing over to your recently secured country. The fact that there are small outbreaks starting everywhere, that keep getting restarted every time someone dies that day, just increases the chances it could happen.

eulmanis12
2012-02-08, 06:16 PM
Zombies in the city, probably would spread quickly. Most cities have areas where a standard zombie would not look that much different from the average drunk/homeless person.

Here is the scenario as I see it.. Zombie walks down street, attacks person A. Person A resists, Persons B and C are brave and try to help person A, several people run away from the fight, Police are called. Officer's D and E arrive on the scene. At this point Persons A and C have sustained bites. Zombie gets cuffed, read rights, arrested. Back at the station zombie bites officer E, gets hooded to prevent further bites. Persons A and C receive first aid treatment and appropriate shots at Generic General hospital and then catch the bus home. Officer E's bite is treated at the station. We now have one zombie immobilized, two, in an enclosed space with lots of unsuspecting people, and one in a building where the clothing he is wearing will mean that nobody will become suspicious of his actions untill too late. Thats a lot of potential to spread.

In the countryside its a different story.
Zombie wanders onto person A's farm. Person A, asks zombie what it is doing on his property. Zombie responds by charging forward and screaming/moaning. Person A grabs shotgun, blows off zombie's head, then calls Sherrif. Sherif declares incident to be self defense, zombie's remains are delivered to the county morgue. Zombie is buried in local cemitary. No infection occurs.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-02-08, 06:39 PM
In the countryside its a different story.
Zombie wanders onto person A's farm. Person A, asks zombie what it is doing on his property. Zombie responds by charging forward and screaming/moaning. Person A grabs shotgun, blows off zombie's head, then calls Sherrif. Sherif declares incident to be self defense, zombie's remains are delivered to the county morgue. Zombie is buried in local cemitary. No infection occurs.

Perhaps in America. Doesn't work that most places.

Person A asks what Zombie is doing on his property. Zombie responds by charging forward and screaming/moaning. Person A runs like the dickens, perhaps searching for a hand-to-hand weapon, because the only guy with a gun nearby is Old Farmer B, who has that rifle he goes hunting with occasionally, but Old Farmer B is all the way down the road. Zombie either catches Person A, or doesn't. Net result, +1 Zombie, or no change, depending on whether B can get away or not.

Gnoman
2012-02-08, 07:26 PM
Correct, however, after the biting is observed, it's pretty clear that the infected need to be restrained. We may not yet realize the whole "they're already dead" portion of it and what not...but nobody really wants to get bit.

So yeah, patient zero can almost certainly bite one other person. Patient zero gets restrained after that. As soon as people realize the bitten have started to bite others, everyone bitten is getting restrained.


Much more than one person could easily be bitten by any one zombie. Picture this.

Alice is walking down the street. She sees Bob, who is a zombie, staggering down the road in her direction. Believing Bob to be a drunk, she attempts to sidestep around him and continue on her way. Bob lunges at her and bites her a few times before she breaks free and flees down the street, calling 911 to report the incident. Officers Carol and David respond to the call. At this point, they assume that Bob is simply on some form of intoxicant or is mentally ill. This means that lethal force is not a consideration. David is attacked by Bob when attempting to speak with him, sustaining a bite in the process. Carol attepts to subdue Bob with a taser, but Bob, who is a zombie, shrugs off the attack. The only feasible solution is to wrestle with Bob until he is handcuffed, during which struggle carol is also bitten. At this point, Bob is taken into custody and brought to the hospital, where orderlies Edward Felix and Greg restrain him. Felix is bitten in this process.

This is not an implausible scenario. The result of this scenario is four infectees before any kind of medical analysis is done. Nurses, doctors, and other staff would place themselves at risk by performing general tasks such as tox screens, sedation attempts, bloodwork, etc.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-08, 07:36 PM
28 days after is about england. A large number of zombies suddenly manifesting can ruin a country.
if a 5% of the population is infected in 24 hour, I doubt a nation can react so quickly to avoid the disaster.

Except the infected of that movie should never have gotten that far because they just had hyper rabies nothing supernatural. So twenty days on would all be near death anyways from a lack of food combined with early overexertion. Never mind dehydration. Or have solved the problem themselves by eating each other. (Although their infection ablities were no where near realistic either that can be overlooked)

Also see all the previous comments to the effect of running zeds pretty much have to be alive to have the nessecary motor control too run. So they would probably do worse in a charge then good 'ol dead shamblers.


So what is im trying to find a way that would be actually dangerous. It may not destroy the world, but that sort of outbreak could decimate less developed countries, and cause all sorts of domino effects world wide. It could be a catastrophe without being a world ender.

Yes but when the deck has to be stack so heavily to be a recoverable from but sizable disaster I think it merely underlines the inherent ridiculousness of idea of zombies being a threat. You have to resort outright magical unexplainable means to get it started. Its not insignificant that the original zedopocalypse is still the closest to plausible.


Zombies in the city, probably would spread quickly. Most cities have areas where a standard zombie would not look that much different from the average drunk/homeless person.

The overwhelming majority of a city's population is inside zombie-resistant to completely zombie-proof fortresses known as buildings.

Also zombies don't look human, its the animal look and the the blood on the too casual for outdoors ripped clothes thing.



Zombie wanders onto person A's farm. Person A, asks zombie what it is doing on his property. Zombie responds by charging forward and screaming/moaning. Person A grabs shotgun, blows off zombie's head, then calls Sherrif. Sherif declares incident to be self defense, zombie's remains are delivered to the county morgue. Zombie is buried in local cemitary. No infection occurs.

While there are some cases like that most people responsibly keep their guns locked up. More likely is that while zed is trying to figure out how to get in everyone goes out the back. And in open country running from zed is a very very sensible option. If/when zed ever even gets in it will take 'em longer to figure out that there's now nothing to chomp.

What is this window you speak of, how am I Zed supposed to know I can break it? What is climbing through a small hole? What is this doorknob you speak of and what is a lock?

That said net result is much the same.

Traab
2012-02-08, 08:10 PM
Its not insignificant that the original zedopocalypse is still the closest to plausible.

If by original you mean night of the living dead, then that wasnt even remotely an zedpocalypse. It was more a single night of annoyance. One group of people who got trapped on an isolated farmstead, while across the nation everyone else was shooting, clubbing, and burning anything that shambled. By sunrise the situation was pretty much completely contained. Maybe a handful of people got bitten by the initial surge of dead rising from the grave, though thats just a guess since I dont think death tolls got mentioned at the end of the film. But considering it seemed to be wrapped up in a day, it couldnt have been that extreme. Shamblers arent a danger to anyone with functioning limbs. At least sprinters can actually be dangerous to the average person. You mentioned how running is an option. It would be against a shambler. Walking briskly is a sensible option to escape them. But sprinters would be likely to run you down fairly quickly, as im certain you would get tired before they do. Assuming they arent just plain faster than you. (Im an endurance runner, my top speed kinda stinks) So unless its running back into the house and locking the door, just plain running wouldnt be a useful thing then.

Killer Angel
2012-02-09, 03:02 AM
Also see all the previous comments to the effect of running zeds pretty much have to be alive to have the nessecary motor control too run. So they would probably do worse in a charge then good 'ol dead shamblers.


So, your objection on fast zombies, is that they're scientifically less plausible than slow ones? :smallamused:

My point is that a zombocalypse can be limited to relatively "small" area, with the result of nation(s) wiped away.
Take a single nation... India? a few thousands zombies manifesting in a city like Delhi, could well mean the end for the city. And if the zombies are manifesting in all the country, I doubt the army will be alarmed and succeed in sealing all the infected areas in a matter of a couple of days.

Forum Explorer
2012-02-09, 06:06 AM
Elderly zombies. They are exactly as weak as before because the reason elderly people are weak is because of the damage their bodies have sustained over time and just can't heal anymore. They are in fact what zombies would rapidly become.


Again. I doubt people would be able to mistake a zombie for a drunk hobo. And even if they do they aren't going to get close to it. In your scenario they'd likely cross the road to pass unless they were confidant in their ability to fight or had a weapon. Plus any physical contact and you know they are already dead.



As for 28 days later; they might be able to take some rudimentary care of themselves. We don't see it but its possible. They can't cook but they can eat prepared food and drink water. Even rest or give up obvious lost causes. It just doesn't fit the story at all to explain this.

HandofShadows
2012-02-09, 09:48 AM
Surprised no one has posted a like to the Zombie Outbreak Simulator yet.

http://www.class3outbreak.com/

or the original version where you can change the settings.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/the-truth-behind/zombie-simulator/

:smallwink:

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-09, 10:09 AM
So, your objection on fast zombies, is that they're scientifically less plausible than slow ones? :smallamused:

No the point is that the same thing happens to fast zombie as a normal person when it gets shot.

Hyper-rabies has some loose plausibility as should be noted by the name. Mind you not the whole instant infection thing.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-09, 10:27 AM
While the uniforms are out of date now note this is what the US Military thinks when it thinks, deal with a CBRN hazard (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Soldiers_at_MOPP_level_4.jpg). Not what TV likes to think you are reduced too. And its not like the stuff is rare equipment either, I know for example Navy ships have to have provide masks for the entire crew which would suffice for this situation aside from their sealed environments. Which goes for a lot of other heavy military hardware like the B-52 that will carpet bomb any lost areas.

Incredibly common, actually. When I was mil, I had no such sexy job as flying or driving ships, but I did have a full chem suit that I kept in my car at all times. Everyone in the unit did, and that was remarkably normal.


Hmm, thats an interesting thought. What happens to old people who get bit? Are they now able to run like regular zombies? Do we have zombies that need walkers to stay upright and break their hips when they stumble and fall? We really only ever see formerly healthy 18-50 year olds get turned into zombies. Its very rare to see a kid zombie, and equally as rare to see a senior citizen zombie.

In the instances where I have seen them, they appear to exhibit physical traits as expected of someone of their age. Zombies that are old are just not speedy, and kid zombies are smaller(but probably not that slow).


Ok, my turn for a potential breakout zombie scenario. We go back to the inexplicable night of the living dead "no real reason, they just rise" excuse. Only this time, the rules are, anyone who dies during the next 24 hours rises seconds later as a zombie. Now this is dying for any reason at all. After 24 hours its only those bitten or coming into contact with the infected fluids. They rise from the dead as head shot only types, but with sprinting speed. (Lets face it, short of spontaneous zombiefication of 90% of the world, neither separate type is a really huge threat) That means morgues, ambulances, people in car wrecks, guys and girls who died in their beds, any military battles taking place, people all over the place, stand up and start attacking anything nearby.

Humans still win, of course, but it's a remarkably crazy time. I think this would get you closest to zombie apoc scenarios. The military isn't going to be overrun by this by any means, but there WILL be lots of fighting and chaos.

I mean, even in this scenario, I can basically kill a couple thousand from my balcony. I'd go one step further. Forget the crazy fast infection, and assume that ALL dead turn into zombies now. Forever. For any reason. Walking dead style reason, really.

Think of the possible ramifications of that...not in a "they bite you" way, but in how society changes to deal with it.


Again. I doubt people would be able to mistake a zombie for a drunk hobo. And even if they do they aren't going to get close to it. In your scenario they'd likely cross the road to pass unless they were confidant in their ability to fight or had a weapon. Plus any physical contact and you know they are already dead.

Even if they do think it's just a drunk, violent hobo covered in blood, they're probably not gonna welcome him with open arms. I mean, most people at least avoid such folk.

Traab
2012-02-09, 01:17 PM
Think of the possible ramifications of that...not in a "they bite you" way, but in how society changes to deal with it.

It all depends on how fast they "wake back up" You might find that emergency crews are now required to go out and do their job armed and armored to an extent, as paramedics would be frequently dealing with dead bodies that dont stay that way. Perhaps all emergency crews would be equipped with a spike they can easily plant in the skull of the recently dead to make sure they stay that way. These spikes would become the new pepper spray for people carrying them around just in case the worst should occur and someone die nearby them. The ICU, surgical areas, and rest homes would all be kept sealed and under guard as those are the most likely places for someone to die and zombify.

The level of protection would also vary depending on what type of zombie we are dealing with. As I have said multiple times, the shambling type arent a threat at all. Say there is a car wreck and 5 people die and manage to wander off before emergency crews get there to put them back down. A general alert would go out to the surrounding area to let people know to look out for them, and the police would show up after they get spotted to put them back down.

Sprinters would be a more urgent problem as they can cover more ground, thus a larger area would need to keep an eye open, and being fast they could conceivably catch random people out on the streets. Same general notify the cops rules apply, its just a bit more dangerous due to them being harder to avoid.

TheThan
2012-02-09, 07:35 PM
I imagine a specialized unit would be formed to deal with zombie outbreaks. Zombie hunters if you will. If there's a break out anywhere after the initial Z day scenario. Instead of calling in the police, they'd call in a private company to do that sort of work. if the organization(s) are(is) big enough, then zombie outbreaks could be kept to a minimum.

Killer Angel
2012-02-10, 03:58 AM
No the point is that the same thing happens to fast zombie as a normal person when it gets shot.


Ah, OK.



Humans still win, of course, but it's a remarkably crazy time. I think this would get you closest to zombie apoc scenarios. The military isn't going to be overrun by this by any means, but there WILL be lots of fighting and chaos.


especially 'cause it's very difficult to make a succesful intervention in a city, when a good third of the citizens are infected. At that point, it's simpler to lose the city and set a perimeter all around.

EDIT:
of course, some zombies are worse than others (http://dinozombies.tidalcomics.com/?strip_id=0) :smalltongue:

EDIT 2:
And you can easily tell which one is the most dangerous (http://visual.ly/how-dangerous-zombie)... :smallwink:

Selrahc
2012-02-10, 05:01 AM
It's kind of surprising just how much faith people have in "the military" here. Not particularly in the field of fighting zombies, who are basically unarmed stupid civilians who can be non problematically carpet bombed. But in every other aspect I'm not sure they would be quite the panacea projected. Disease control, dealing with rioting civilians, personal effects from a disease that probably hits civilian friends and family, being super vigilant against getting the disease. The idea that not just the US military but every military in the world is going to be capable of handling this just seems mind boggling to me.

I also still don't get the drive to limit zombies. Particularly when arguing them as an irrelevance. Dead flesh can't walk. If it suddenly can, what is the problem with it running? Being stronger and more perceptive at hunting than a human? Giving zombies a sort of base cunning and instinct immediately makes them much more deadly, such that occasionally one will remember to open a door, or move around the trap that caught a dozen of its friends. Sure, it's not scientifically viable. But zombies themselves don't exist. I think giving them some minor advantages over base humans does not break verisimilitude if you've already accepted walking corpses.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-10, 08:59 AM
It's kind of surprising just how much faith people have in "the military" here. Not particularly in the field of fighting zombies, who are basically unarmed stupid civilians who can be non problematically carpet bombed. But in every other aspect I'm not sure they would be quite the panacea projected. Disease control, dealing with rioting civilians, personal effects from a disease that probably hits civilian friends and family, being super vigilant against getting the disease. The idea that not just the US military but every military in the world is going to be capable of handling this just seems mind boggling to me.

I also still don't get the drive to limit zombies. Particularly when arguing them as an irrelevance. Dead flesh can't walk. If it suddenly can, what is the problem with it running? Being stronger and more perceptive at hunting than a human? Giving zombies a sort of base cunning and instinct immediately makes them much more deadly, such that occasionally one will remember to open a door, or move around the trap that caught a dozen of its friends. Sure, it's not scientifically viable. But zombies themselves don't exist. I think giving them some minor advantages over base humans does not break verisimilitude if you've already accepted walking corpses.

Sure, it's no more verisimilitudally difficult than Zombies.
But neither does it feel like any kind of standard zombie skillset, really.

HandofShadows
2012-02-10, 10:28 AM
It's kind of surprising just how much faith people have in "the military" here. Not particularly in the field of fighting zombies, who are basically unarmed stupid civilians who can be non problematically carpet bombed. But in every other aspect I'm not sure they would be quite the panacea projected. Disease control, dealing with rioting civilians, personal effects from a disease that probably hits civilian friends and family, being super vigilant against getting the disease. The idea that not just the US military but every military in the world is going to be capable of handling this just seems mind boggling to me.

The US military has plans for all kinds of stuff (including things you never thought of) trains for a LOT of things. Disease control and rioting are some of those things. Many other militaries probably would not be able to handle it. But the US Military has a good chance of being able.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-10, 02:14 PM
It's kind of surprising just how much faith people have in "the military" here. Not particularly in the field of fighting zombies, who are basically unarmed stupid civilians who can be non problematically carpet bombed. But in every other aspect I'm not sure they would be quite the panacea projected. Disease control, dealing with rioting civilians, personal effects from a disease that probably hits civilian friends and family, being super vigilant against getting the disease. The idea that not just the US military but every military in the world is going to be capable of handling this just seems mind boggling to me.

Being former military myself, all of those are pretty normal things that are drilled for, and that actually happen in emergency situations. Yes, mishaps happen in large scale emergencies, but in general, they're dealt with pretty well.

This is probably less true for less developed countries, but all disasters tend to hit them harder. Meh. Zombies are at least a problem fixable by violence. Of all the terrible problems Africa has, a problem fixable by guns would probably come as almost a welcome relief.


I also still don't get the drive to limit zombies. Particularly when arguing them as an irrelevance. Dead flesh can't walk. If it suddenly can, what is the problem with it running? Being stronger and more perceptive at hunting than a human?

Leaving aside all the biological impossibility bits, a muscle that is damaged or destroyed simply does not function. Zombies inherently cause damage in the making of new zombies.


Giving zombies a sort of base cunning and instinct immediately makes them much more deadly, such that occasionally one will remember to open a door, or move around the trap that caught a dozen of its friends. Sure, it's not scientifically viable. But zombies themselves don't exist. I think giving them some minor advantages over base humans does not break verisimilitude if you've already accepted walking corpses.

That's still not a major thing. Walking dead zombies are about that difficult, but I honestly don't see why the military could have crumbled in Walking Dead.

Traab
2012-02-10, 09:19 PM
I think the main problem Sel, is people like me who are trying to create new versions of zombies that we cant link to a book or movie and say, "see? This is why they should be examined as a threat." Mainly due to the slippery slope. Its not that big of a stretch to go from "sprinters that have the head shot only level of resilience of the shamblers" to adding in extra abilities like, "Ok, how about zombies whose fists are stone, and can safely leap 20 feet in a single bound?" or even more extremely insane zombie setups just to make them be an actual threat.

eulmanis12
2012-02-10, 10:16 PM
I prefer to consider the "semi-plausible" zombie charecteristics.

Has Vision
Has Hearing
Has Sense of Smell
No Pain
Sense of taste is irrelevent

Speed can vary depending on degree of excitement, degree of decay, and physical condition of the host prior to infection.
Typicly speed ranges from immobile to slow jog, exceptions are possible.

Can be put down by a headshot or severing of the neck vertebrae
Immune to poison
Immune to fear
No Cure
Animals will not attack them or go near them unless forced


For the city scenario I mentioned earlier, assume its dark and thus the blood can't be noticed. Or that the zombie in question was infected without being torn to bloody rags. I've lived in some cities. In my experiance the few people deliberately avoid being near the homeless. For the most part they just ignore them unless they do something dangerous, and in the case of a zombie, that would be too late.

In the countryside scenario. Yes, it is pretty much only applicable to the USA. In a country with less widespread access to firearms it may be different. In a third world country The zombie would probably get shot before the farmer asked what it was doing. Living under a constant threat of attack tends to quickly get rid of hospitality.

So the English countryside is screwed
The American Countryside is safe
The Somali countryside is too dangerous, even for zombies.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-12, 01:19 AM
It's kind of surprising just how much faith people have in "the military" here. Not particularly in the field of fighting zombies, who are basically unarmed stupid civilians who can be non problematically carpet bombed. But in every other aspect I'm not sure they would be quite the panacea projected. Disease control, dealing with rioting civilians, personal effects from a disease that probably hits civilian friends and family, being super vigilant against getting the disease. The idea that not just the US military but every military in the world is going to be capable of handling this just seems mind boggling to me.

Here's the thing, WWI invalidates zombies as an actual threat to military forces in my book. I like to cite how tanks can run zeds over with ease, but a machine gun mounted on a truck would still take out far more zeds then it would take to man it.

Now we can't get too specific but yes there are places in the world that simply lack any sort of authority at all to deal with a outbreak type threat. My answer is that in a loose alignment that many of these places are not exactly hospital climates for zeds either, diffuse populations and terrain like deserts or mountains or dense jungle. Depending on the zeds they would simply expire before they could get far. Second that you don't need that much to deal with zeds, you'd lack an organized broad response but local strongmen would still take out these annoying crazed zeds that threaten their territory. Third where nation states are not capable of dealing with the problem, other nation states will do it for them. Fourth and mind you this is only a meta-reason, zed stories are mostly First World settings.

And speaking of First World settings, they can and do prepare for disasters of all sorts. Nor are the sorts of things that work hard to figure out. Heck zeds are generally so extremely pathetic a disease model they don't even need biological threat measures.


I also still don't get the drive to limit zombies. Particularly when arguing them as an irrelevance. Dead flesh can't walk. If it suddenly can, what is the problem with it running? Being stronger and more perceptive at hunting than a human? Giving zombies a sort of base cunning and instinct immediately makes them much more deadly, such that occasionally one will remember to open a door, or move around the trap that caught a dozen of its friends. Sure, it's not scientifically viable. But zombies themselves don't exist. I think giving them some minor advantages over base humans does not break verisimilitude if you've already accepted walking corpses.

The dead can't walk but the human body needs to obey certain laws of physics to walk mechanically. You leg only works because muscles contract in certain specific ways to work with the bones. And bipedal motion is an inherently poor system of motion for our tiny feet, we have considerable trouble replicating it in robots for this reason. So beyond a certain point it becomes rather like apples falling up. You want to fudge biology be my guest, but you don't screw around with the baddest mo-fo in space Sir Issac Newton if you want me to buy your fantasy world for a second.

And when you feel the need to tweak zombies beyond the common models you're admitting they are zero threat pathetic wastes of space not worth taking seriously because who rely on hack writing.

Also barring serious superhuman abilities (like Superman) to actually matter you need zeds to behave with the intelligence of humans, what are zombies when they are smart enough to not zerg rush humanity as their one and only tactic.... they've become vampires not zombies.

Selrahc
2012-02-12, 06:02 AM
And speaking of First World settings, they can and do prepare for disasters of all sorts. Nor are the sorts of things that work hard to figure out. Heck zeds are generally so extremely pathetic a disease model they don't even need biological threat measures.


There are plans. That does not make them certainties. Militaries have enacted plans in an exceedingly poor fashion countless times throughout history and when dealing with a situation as far outside the norm as zombies, the idea that existing plans will account for them fully is kind of silly.

Militarily in a massed battle against a zed horde of course the professional armed soldiery will win. In attempting to control disease, stop civilian rioters, organize large scale disaster relief and deal with infections within its own ranks... I don't think the military will be nearly as infallible as they would need to be. The way its being talked about here a virulent and incurable airborne pandemic is of no threat to humanity whatsoever because "Military has a plan". And the very idea that in a fictional story this plan for virus control might fail is in itself enough to break immersion.




And when you feel the need to tweak zombies beyond the common models you're admitting they are zero threat pathetic wastes of space not worth taking seriously because who rely on hack writing.

All of the things I listed are relatively common within zombie fiction. Unnaturally strong, able to sense the living and with a certain animal cunning are all classics. Running is a more modern innovation, but certainly well established. I'm not sure I've seen them all stacked together before, but it's hardly breaking the premise of zombiedom.

I think your take, that zombies will inevitably decay to uselessness within a few days, is *far* more of an aberration from zombie fiction. The "pathetic zombie", that walks slowly, has no intelligent action, can't sense its prey, rots to uselessness within days or hours, gets rendered incapable by a few shots anywhere... well it may all be more "realistic" but it's certainly more boring.

Maybe the disconnect here, is that I'm talking about a story. I'm not talking about reality. People who have a serious "Zombie Survival Plan" are a little odd. But talking about "actual zombies" and how they would act is equally ludicrous. There are no actual zombies, so when creating a fictional antagonist we are allowed to stack the deck. So they can do things like break down a door, take bullets, and catch up with someone who is trying to escape. Pseudoscientific justifications for story constructs are easy.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-12, 04:04 PM
There are plans. That does not make them certainties. Militaries have enacted plans in an exceedingly poor fashion countless times throughout history and when dealing with a situation as far outside the norm as zombies, the idea that existing plans will account for them fully is kind of silly.

Militarily in a massed battle against a zed horde of course the professional armed soldiery will win. In attempting to control disease, stop civilian rioters, organize large scale disaster relief and deal with infections within its own ranks... I don't think the military will be nearly as infallible as they would need to be. The way its being talked about here a virulent and incurable airborne pandemic is of no threat to humanity whatsoever because "Military has a plan". And the very idea that in a fictional story this plan for virus control might fail is in itself enough to break immersion.

Because you bring up possibly individual failures, what you need is repeated massively stupid failures not simply in the plural but in the majority of cases. And the consequence of say failing to hold a neighborhood is you just have to flatten the area with heavier firepower.

And really I could go on and on how many objections you raise are not nearly as big a problem as you seem to imagine. Like riots. What riots? Why the heck in a zed outbreak would people gather in groups larger then families of common residence. If the authorities are doing sufficiently badly to create anger sufficient for a riot, then why the heck would people be gathered?

Also we were only talking about an airborne pathogen as one additional possibllity. Its not the norm, the norm is via biting or something else fluid related. There are still many problems with airborne, that if put aside or overclocked around become more about the pathogen then the threat of zeds running you down.



All of the things I listed are relatively common within zombie fiction. Unnaturally strong, able to sense the living and with a certain animal cunning are all classics. Running is a more modern innovation, but certainly well established. I'm not sure I've seen them all stacked together before, but it's hardly breaking the premise of zombiedom.

I'm not aware of them having strength much beyond humans except under the basic idea of they feel no pain so they don't hold back. And certainly they are allowed sensory ability, but since when is this some superpowered locate humans radar superior to normal human senses. And "animal cunning" is all well and good but animals don't do things like invade homes for food. Sure it happens, but not often in comparison to their populations.

And more importantly it doesn't matter. You have to get blatantly superhuman to matter. Like tearing steel and having bones of the same. No more then that.. You don't have to be tougher then a human you have to be tougher then a truck to pull things like charging an M2 machine gun with any real percentage of success.


Maybe the disconnect here, is that I'm talking about a story. I'm not talking about reality. People who have a serious "Zombie Survival Plan" are a little odd. But talking about "actual zombies" and how they would act is equally ludicrous. There are no actual zombies, so when creating a fictional antagonist we are allowed to stack the deck. So they can do things like break down a door, take bullets, and catch up with someone who is trying to escape. Pseudoscientific justifications for story constructs are easy.

Lets be clear, I don't really have a problem with zombies as monsters. Disposable mooks around a Necromancer, great idea in my book.

I have a problem with the idea that they are actual threats of any scale. Its one thing to close my eyes and say have a dead body get back up. Its another thing to think that somehow that dead body can suddenly do what every other creature on the planet has failed to do (pose a threat to humanity) while displaying inferior abilities and tactics.

Selrahc
2012-02-12, 07:49 PM
And the consequence of say failing to hold a neighborhood is you just have to flatten the area with heavier firepower.


No. The consequence of failing to set up an effective quarantine is that the virus spreads, infecting new people and becoming even harder to maintain a hold on. The consequences of failing to properly ensure personal infection, is getting infected personnel onto the base who can spread the disease. Remember, you're rebuffing the idea of even an initially symptomless airborne disease as the initial vector. One soldier who fails to properly mask up can introduce the virus to his whole unit, then across his base.



Like riots. What riots? Why the heck in a zed outbreak would people gather in groups larger then families of common residence.

To escape the quarantine.

Imagine a large city gets hit by the virus, the initially symptomless but eventually zombie inducing virus. No way to tell who is infected. No cure. But if you cordon off the city, you are essentially condemning hundreds of thousands to certain death. That would certainly cause unrest in the city that has been written off, and I would bet it would cause consternation across the entire populace. Imagine if New York or London or Paris was just written off. How much social unrest would that cause? How much upheaval and strife? But if you don't cordon off the city, then the virus spreads even further. What's the one right solution to this again? Because even with a quarantine, it's incredibly easy to imagine a break forming and the disease passing on. Unless the opening response to a virus outbreak is to firebomb the area, there is always the possibility of people who escape.

Now.. how much manpower would be required to enact a quarantine of the worlds largest cities? What if it's not just one city, but outbreaks in most large urban areas across the world. What does the military do then? They don't know who is or isn't a zombie. The manpower required to enact effective blockades is far beyond them, and the political ramifications of what they need to do are mind boggling. Society is breaking down. Fast.

A lot more happens than just "Military fights zombie. Military better fight than zombie. Military win."

Morale amongst the troops is also a concern. Likely they've lost family and friends to this virus. Probably as a group in the frontline of fighting it, they know colleagues who were infected. Just the experience of keeping perfectly normal people who happen to be infected locked away, and watching them turn into zombies... that would be harrowing.

A pandemic is a scary thing, and I do not share your hope that "Military plans and training" have got us totally covered in the event of a deadly disease. To the point where even fiction about one striking is ludicrous. I'm sure the US Army has been well trained in disease control, but I definitely don;t think they've been so well trained and briefed that diseases are no longer a threat to humanity.

All zombieism is, is a disease. If we take a virulent disease as the main threat, and tie zombieism as part of the aftermath I really do think that makes a plausible backstory for a zombie apocalypse. The zombies themselves are almost ancillary to whether humanity would be wiped out. But if you're writing a story about the 0.0001% of humans who were immune to the disease, and who are travelling around the ruins of the world, the zombies sure do matter then. Because the entire "How the zombie apocalypse happens" is entirely ancillary to zombie fiction. The point of zombie stories is to wander around the ruins of civilization with a ragtag group of unlikely heroes pursued by a faceless horde. Possibly telling some manner of deeper social story as well, using zombies as a metaphorical undercurrent. The question then is "How do we get to a world full of zombies?" not "Is a zombie a threat to civilization?".

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-12, 09:52 PM
No. The consequence of failing to set up an effective quarantine is that the virus spreads, infecting new people and becoming even harder to maintain a hold on. The consequences of failing to properly ensure personal infection, is getting infected personnel onto the base who can spread the disease.

Hah hah hah, no.

Containment and quarantine are processes and the final step in the process is like this:

Lt: Command we've had a a containment breach we are withdrawing the area.
Gen:Roger that son, the boys up will go in behind you
*Air Force levels the area*
Gen: Okay sweep for survivors, new line is to be established at XYZ coordinates right where you were

Noting of course that its not like you are going to have masses of people right outside the area, so zeds miraculously getting past one line will be wiped out faster then they can move on foot to anywhere they can actually achieve greater numbers.

Nevermind how impossible it is for zeds to actually push past in the first place


Remember, you're rebuffing the idea of even an initially symptomless airborne disease as the initial vector. One soldier who fails to properly mask up can introduce the virus to his whole unit, then across his base.

Who said symptomless I certainly didn't and that's certainly not how pathogens work. Diseases don't flip a switch like that. There will be symtoms and for an event like this "just a cold" isn't going to fly, anyone sick will be restrained and shot if they start to turn.

For that matter its a very low chance that wearing a mask improperly will actually result in an infection, any more then a guy sick sitting in a terminal means everyone else there gets sick. And if he does you need further low probablity events to cause damage that is not itself containable.


To escape the quarantine.

If its actually a quarantine where they can't evacuate in an orderly manner then its the kind of qurantine where there are simple orders being given: stay away or you will be shot.

And that's exactly what happens.


Imagine a large city gets hit by the virus, the initially symptomless but eventually zombie inducing virus. No way to tell who is infected. No cure.

See above statement about symtoms. If you want a pathogen model you need to follow a pathogen model. Symtoms, progressing to cause of death and/or increasing zed-like aggression. Even bit models that aren't quick generally show some sign so it can be dramatically ignored by casts with the idiot ball shoved up their bums.


Now.. how much manpower would be required to enact a quarantine of the worlds largest cities? What if it's not just one city, but outbreaks in most large urban areas across the world. What does the military do then? They don't know who is or isn't a zombie. The manpower required to enact effective blockades is far beyond them, and the political ramifications of what they need to do are mind boggling. Society is breaking down. Fast.

If an area is actually lost and out of control answer is simple: Boom.

However that won't be nessecary since simply say that you can have containment failures is not the same as that being a majority case. Given that you don't need a long term solution to zeds, history suggests that when it comes to a military retaining basic levels of control over a population they are capable. Insurgencies take time to come to a boil and time works against zeds so you will see a vanishing rationale.

Reminder of course when it an airborne disease doing all the heavy lifting this once again points out the critical flaws in the zombie model. Which is why its only one under option under discussion. And of course, when you need some addition to biting and zeds fighting to actually cause a large scale problem it once again underlines the meaningless threat levels of actual zombies themselves.


Morale amongst the troops is also a concern. Likely they've lost family and friends to this virus. Probably as a group in the frontline of fighting it, they know colleagues who were infected. Just the experience of keeping perfectly normal people who happen to be infected locked away, and watching them turn into zombies... that would be harrowing.

Not all that likely actually given how anyone in the military is as likely far from home as anywhere near it. Even say within a state. So for every person with real reason to worry that their people might be effected there will be 9 that are motivated by the need to stop this here before it actually threatens their people.

And zombies are Uncanny Valley, they don't inspire empathy because they look too close but utterly wrong. Now there's a bit of fear sure, which is a great reason to be trigger happy which is an entirely appropriate response to a zed. And who hasn't seen at least a few zombies to back that up, modern society is nicely desensitized to the idea of zombies as people.



A pandemic is a scary thing, and I do not share your hope that "Military plans and training" have got us totally covered in the event of a deadly disease. To the point where even fiction about one striking is ludicrous. I'm sure the US Army has been well trained in disease control, but I definitely don;t think they've been so well trained and briefed that diseases are no longer a threat to humanity.

The zed model can't cause a pandemic, the disease they use operates on too poor a model. Namely biting and other fluid transfers followed by fairly quick symtoms onset. You are never going to get a significant portion of a population that way, much less globally. So you never even have the boundless swarms that somehow zerg rush humanity much less the miracle of those swarms accomplishing anything. So you need something other then zeds

Now sure you can create a magical pathogen with a long incubation period high virulence that spreads for months and has an extremely high lethality rate once symptoms begin to show. Its the perfect disease to wipe out vast amounts of a population. Only once you have this, its the disease that does all the work not the zeds. Zombies don't eat humanity, humanity turns into zombies.

The problem is your result will be exactly the same as if it super-germ had just killed people instead.

Ricky S
2012-02-12, 10:06 PM
So they can do things like break down a door, take bullets, and catch up with someone who is trying to escape.

People can do that sort of thing as well. Breaking down doors isnt inherently hard. People just dont know how to apply the force and are usually scared of hurting themselves. Taking bullets isnt hard, drug addicts do it all the time granted they are on drugs but zombies cant feel pain and in wars there are numerous cases of people being shot multiple times but still fighting. Catching up with someone is just a matter of who is a faster runner.

So zombies could just be dead people and still achieve all that is needed in the movies. If you add extra strength on top of that then that is a scary prospect.

Traab
2012-02-13, 01:13 AM
I just felt this was relevant.

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/demotivational-posters-queen-elizabeth.jpg

Worira
2012-02-13, 01:45 AM
Well, she was a trained driver and mechanic in WWII, so that might come in handy.

Killer Angel
2012-02-13, 03:15 AM
If an area is actually lost and out of control answer is simple: Boom.


Well "area" is not "unknown little town that no one really cares for". It can be Paris.
The fact that pushes things to extreme consequences, is the lack of will to take extreme measures, when you still hope to contain the problem and avoid the worst scenario.
Plus, it's not always so easy to secure an area within a certain perimeter. In Europe, cities are connected by a large tissue of small towns, you will rarely find a large city surrounded by open fields.

Selrahc
2012-02-13, 05:37 AM
If an area is actually lost and out of control answer is simple: Boom.

So the military just no longer gives a crap about killing civilians? I'd assume in a quarantine involving possibly millions of people, the instructions would be for people to remain in their homes until the virus has passed. The military can airdrop in supplies to keep people alive. If the zombie virus has a two month natural progression from infection to death, then the best course might be a four month quarantine of the city after which the military moves in to try and rescue survivors if any exist. Certainly more humane than going "Boomy boom".



Noting of course that its not like you are going to have masses of people right outside the area, so zeds miraculously getting past one line will be wiped out faster then they can move on foot to anywhere they can actually achieve greater numbers.


Not zeds getting past. People. Worried people, who have been locked into an area filled with people into zombies, who would swear blind that they aren't sick, and are willing to fight their way out of a quarantine.



And zombies are Uncanny Valley, they don't inspire empathy because they look too close but utterly wrong.

People infected with a virus however, look and sound completely normal. In holding a barricade against them, you are essentially condemning them to death.



Not all that likely actually given how anyone in the military is as likely far from home as anywhere near it. Even say within a state. So for every person with real reason to worry that their people might be effected there will be 9 that are motivated by the need to stop this here before it actually threatens their people.


I would say it's pretty likely that every major city in the world will suffer an outbreak, as planes spread the virus worldwide quickly. If the soldiers are from any major city, they will need to be worrying about their families because odds are their loved ones are locked behind a barricade, ready for death.

Assuming there is a delay between the disease beginning to spread and the disease being discovered and reacted to, it's quite possible a large portion of the armed forces have already been infected. Somebody comes back from leave and their entire base is compromised before they are even aware precautions should be taken. Somebody gets transferred from that base to another and suddenly that's another base down. As the military gets called up to deal with this incredibly widespread civilian killing crisis, it also has to deal with the loss of large chunks of its own personnel.



Who said symptomless I certainly didn't and that's certainly not how pathogens work. Diseases don't flip a switch like that. There will be symtoms and for an event like this "just a cold" isn't going to fly, anyone sick will be restrained and shot if they start to turn.

Not entirely symptomless, but with very mild initial symptoms like occasional sneezing and reduced cognitive awareness that makes it hard to find. Since people occasionally sneeze anyway, and it's hard to work out cognitive awareness without having a baseline test, and without a lengthy examination.


The problem is your result will be exactly the same as if it super-germ had just killed people instead.

Well no. Because it leaves zombies behind, and it leaves a tiny population of immune people. Which is where we pick up the story.


Reminder of course when it an airborne disease doing all the heavy lifting this once again points out the critical flaws in the zombie model.

Who cares? Zombie apocalypse is viable as a place to tell stories. Just not with an infection model based on bites.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-02-13, 11:34 AM
So the military just no longer gives a crap about killing civilians? I'd assume in a quarantine involving possibly millions of people, the instructions would be for people to remain in their homes until the virus has passed. The military can airdrop in supplies to keep people alive. If the zombie virus has a two month natural progression from infection to death, then the best course might be a four month quarantine of the city after which the military moves in to try and rescue survivors if any exist. Certainly more humane than going "Boomy boom".

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Of course the military can and will hold the territory under martial law while evacuating, and isolating civilians in an orderly manner.

However you put forward what happens when they can't and I answered.

If you have a dangerous undetectable symptomless disease in the population and those people are being so disorderly as to not obey valid quarantine measures like stay home then they are no longer the civilians you protect. And if they somehow manage to start an armed revolt sufficient to break quarantine then what option do you the protectors of humanity have left? Authorities don't **** around with disease, try giving blood and answering yes to any of their 40 questions for just a small example. You even been to the wrong countries and they tell you thanks but no thanks, never mind that they still test every donation in case you were lying to them. And it authorities were insensibly concerned about the "civilian" label then we'd not have had wars throughout human history.

Of course however I don't think it will come to that at all, because imposition of quarantine via martial law with soldier prepared for biological agents can and will work.


Not zeds getting past. People. Worried people, who have been locked into an area filled with people into zombies, who would swear blind that they aren't sick, and are willing to fight their way out of a quarantine.

Quarantine means you don't let those under it out until they pass the conditions (which are overly cautious) so someone tries to break it they are stopped by any means nessecary to stop them.


People infected with a virus however, look and sound completely normal. In holding a barricade against them, you are essentially condemning them to death.

Yes and if they were really on the up and up then they would have listen respectfully to the authorities directions in the first place. Which is what most people will be doing so sympathy is minimal and certainly no reason to endanger yourself by failing to fight back.


I would say it's pretty likely that every major city in the world will suffer an outbreak, as planes spread the virus worldwide quickly. If the soldiers are from any major cityl.

Wrong, if every major center is afflicted then every suburban sphere is as well, along with hefty bits of the rural area. A global pandemic like that is not so limited. Either the percentage is high enough to break down social order, or its not. Low enough a percentage and the same thing happens as in every disease, high enough and everywhere breaks down. Hardly matters what the morale is then.

In general I'd say that morale isn't something that matters here. Crises don't break morale because you need time to erode patterns of discipline while the feeling of threat heightens those patterns, sustained bad internal leadership and neglect/abuse break morale.


Not entirely symptomless, but with very mild initial symptoms like occasional sneezing and reduced cognitive awareness that makes it hard to find. Since people occasionally sneeze anyway, and it's hard to work out cognitive awareness without having a baseline test, and without a lengthy examination.

Followed by more serious symtoms as the disease possess of course and mental impairment is easy to detect. At any rate add in paranoia and suddenly everyone with a cold becomes a target or voluntarily isolates themselves to avoid being a target. As most people don't have colds the ratios favor humans with this sort of behavior.


Well no. Because it leaves zombies behind, and it leaves a tiny population of immune people. Which is where we pick up the story.

There's no zombie that's really sustainable in itself, either they progressively tear apart if dead or die if alive from their poor diet choices plus bad behavior. So by the time the disease has run its course through the population most of the zeds will already be gone.

If that doesn't happen then you wouldn't have had the sort of incubation period nessecary.


Who cares? Zombie apocalypse is viable as a place to tell stories. Just not with an infection model based on bites.

Which why they are all made in this mold.

Oh wait none of them are. The biting model is the standard. Probably because you can't have dramatic infection moments with an anyone at anytime model but anyone actually bit isn't going to matter for months.

That's why they all use the within hours model. Its not going to be much of a zed movie when getting bit just means wash out the wound and keep killing zeds. If you lasted this long you are probably immune afterall. Sure you might become one down the road, but you might already be that way so in the mean time better take out a couple hundred zeds to make up for it. Oh wait.... yeah this isn't a zed movie anymore because zeds would have to be low in number from exactly this.