Dangers of City Living

[Topus]

That was more the fleas on the rats than the rats themselves wasnt it? The rats werent biting people, they were carrying plagued fleas which would jump off in peoples homes, nibble on them, and bam, black death. Zombie rats would truly be terrifying. Especially if they formed swarms.

Yes, it was more of a side comment. They were the vehicle for parasites infested by plague bacterium and being the rats omnipresent around human activities made them a very effective mean of infestation.
Should they be zombified, thus lacking sense of fear, they would represent the ultimate nightmare.

[Jon_Dahl]

Zombie apocalypse is impossible, unless we are talking figuratively. There's nothing to worry about.

[Topus]

Zombie apocalypse is impossible, unless we are talking figuratively.

Of course we are.

[Tyndmyr]

Zombie apocalypse is impossible, unless we are talking figuratively. There's nothing to worry about.

That kind of attitude will have you munchin' brains in no time!

[Jon_Dahl]

Of course we are.

I just don't understand what the "Zombie Apocalypse" stands for. What is the actual subject here?

[Coidzor]

I would be really scared if a sort of cross-species outbreak occured. One reason why:

Zombiephants.

Thankfully I'm not in India or Africa, and thus there are no elephants except for ones that would tear themselves up getting out of their zoo enclosures and even those are far away. Hmm. On the other hand, I don't think human teeth can scratch, let alone penetrate the skin of an elephant, so they might not be able to infect it.

That was more the fleas on the rats than the rats themselves wasnt it? The rats werent biting people, they were carrying plagued fleas which would jump off in peoples homes, nibble on them, and bam, black death. Zombie rats would truly be terrifying. Especially if they formed swarms.

On the other hand, unless they're the kind that stays fast and agile forever, they're going to burn out even faster than human zombies.

Zombie Mosquitos.

That's gonna end badly.

Indeed, a bit too lethal even for the zombie movie scenario of a small party of survivors with everyone else dead or zombies.

[noparlpf]

I would hate living in a city regardless of zombies. But yeah, in case of zombies I'd rather a sub-suburb. (What do you call the thing between a suburb and a rural area? For example, here's my old house. We could see our neighbors, but we're not all packed densely and the houses all have big yards. Even up the hill houses had some space between them.) Easier to move around without running into zombies because there are fewer zombies. I have a supermarket, a Target, a Best Buy, and a Home Depot all in a cluster just two miles away (by road). Depending on the condition of the roads, I could just drive there (and there's a gas station just outside the Target lot, though that might be looted early), or I might have to bike and rig an easily-released wagon to the back of the bike to carry stuff. Then I just hole up for a while with my heavy bludgeoning weapons on hand and homemade land mines outside.

[Topus]

I just don't understand what the "Zombie Apocalypse" stands for. What is the actual subject here?

Speculative talking. You must suspend your disbelief about the outbreak being successful and start speculating "what about?".
I think you can swap zombie apocalypse with post-nuclear apocalypse and have quite the same speculations (in fact i prefer this scenario).

[noparlpf]

Speculative talking. You must suspend your disbelief about the outbreak being successful and start speculating "what about?".
I think you can swap zombie apocalypse with post-nuclear apocalypse and have quite the same speculations (in fact i prefer this scenario).

Post-nuclear? For that, I'd definitely prefer rural, preferably in the far southern hemisphere. Most of the countries likely to nuke each other to smithereens are in the north.

[Topus]

I don't know, should my country be destroyed by atomic explosions I would like to be here (and survive of course), to contemplate the destruction and to search for cultural treasures to save for future generations.

Anyway, assuming you don't get directly caught by nuclear bombing so you can survive, the real problem, more than radioactive fallout, is the social breakdown due to the lack of government.

[Milo v3]

Me and one of my future housemates started a making a zombie plan, because of we'd be in a city and we're weird.
Somehow she convinced me to not kill her if she "starts" to turn.... So I'm probably gonna be dead if a zombie apocalypse happens.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Zombie apocalypse is impossible, unless we are talking figuratively. There's nothing to worry about.

I am so very tired of the zombie obsession...

[Tylorious]

I live on the second floor of an apartment complex, so for me survival will be as simple as destroying some stairs and using a rope ladder off my balcony.

[Traab]

I am so very tired of the zombie obsession...

Bah, zombies are fun, even if they could never actually work. The best part about them is that unless you have sprinters, they are the kind of "apocalypse" that anyone could feel capable of fighting in. I would be TERRIBLE at dealing with a robot uprising, or an incoming meteor. But zombies? Yeah, I could fight that.

[noparlpf]

Bah, zombies are fun, even if they could never actually work. The best part about them is that unless you have sprinters, they are the kind of "apocalypse" that anyone could feel capable of fighting in. I would be TERRIBLE at dealing with a robot uprising, or an incoming meteor. But zombies? Yeah, I could fight that.

Your classic rotting q23wo
yu78\]2iimuhjyyyyyyyyjuuuuuukzxsdd``````[/cat] shamblers shouldn't be a huge problem. Sprinters and whatnot would be. Robots would be. Cyborg zombies would be.

Robots would be most likely, I think. Which is why I keep saying my mum should let me build some EMP devices.

[Traab]

Your classic rotting q23wo
yu78\]2iimuhjyyyyyyyyjuuuuuukzxsdd``````[/cat] shamblers shouldn't be a huge problem. Sprinters and whatnot would be. Robots would be. Cyborg zombies would be.

Robots would be most likely, I think. Which is why I keep saying my mum should let me build some EMP devices.

Sprinters would be an initial problem. If you can survive the surge and get to a safe location, the danger starts to drop in a genre savvy world like ours.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Bah, zombies are fun, even if they could never actually work. The best part about them is that unless you have sprinters, they are the kind of "apocalypse" that anyone could feel capable of fighting in. I would be TERRIBLE at dealing with a robot uprising, or an incoming meteor. But zombies? Yeah, I could fight that.

This is actually (and you might find this surprising) entirely incorrect.

I'm not saying this to be mean or a jerk, and I have reasoning, so I'll explain where I'm coming from.

TL:DR - Helped an international professor of arms hold a combat course on zombie self-defense, and everyone failed.

So here we are, at a geek event in New Jersey. The schedule has on it a presentation on zombie self-defense by a particular professor of arms, and he approaches my friends and I to help him, since we've worked with him in the past and get along pretty well with his crew.

So he give a 45-minute presentation on how to fight zombies, using various hand weapons. Axe, machete, bat, and crowbar were among the weapons covered. Emphasis was on the idea that a zombie shambling towards you with arms extended has one aim, that being to grab you and pull you in for eating. To fight properly and avoid death or biting, you have to evade that threat zone while counter-attacking. For those of us with some semblance of martial training (which doesn't just mean having done some martial arts, I have a different personal standard when it comes to martial training, but that's another story), this is second nature, because when fighting with knife, saber, bayonet, whatever, you ensure the threat is neutralized either before or as you make your own attack.

The problem is that without that training, you resort to the direct line of attack. "I'm different" you might think, but at a geek event full of people who are undoubtedly genre-savvy, nobody was different. Not even the black-belt karate instructor (who I personally 'bit' by making contact with the painted rubber teeth wired to my fencing mask as he lay under another dead zombie). So what would happen is people would approach the zombies directly and aggressively, make a 12 o' clock headshot that -MIGHT- damage or destroy the brain, but the human skull is very hard for a reason. We gave them the benefit and assumed that a headshot was a kill, but now you have deadweight zombie falling towards you with arms outstretched, and you are in his threat zone. Everyone, and I mean everyone, approached the zombies like they had the hammer in Smash Brothers and went down under corpses until a shambler finished them off.

And that was with us only sending two zombies in at a time.

So no, I don't personally think that 'everyone' or even 'almost everyone' could handle a purely theoretical zombie apocalypse without unlimited ammunition.

[Jay R]

A zombie cow would be absolutely horrifying...

The second or third Howard the Duck comic book story involved a vampire cow.

--------------

A zombie apocalypse is not a big problem. Just stockpile a good supply of brains, and make sure you pick the winning side.

[noparlpf]

This is actually (and you might find this surprising) entirely incorrect.

I'm not saying this to be mean or a jerk, and I have reasoning, so I'll explain where I'm coming from.

TL:DR - Helped an international professor of arms hold a combat course on zombie self-defense, and everyone failed.

So here we are, at a geek event in New Jersey. The schedule has on it a presentation on zombie self-defense by a particular professor of arms, and he approaches my friends and I to help him, since we've worked with him in the past and get along pretty well with his crew.

So he give a 45-minute presentation on how to fight zombies, using various hand weapons. Axe, machete, bat, and crowbar were among the weapons covered. Emphasis was on the idea that a zombie shambling towards you with arms extended has one aim, that being to grab you and pull you in for eating. To fight properly and avoid death or biting, you have to evade that threat zone while counter-attacking. For those of us with some semblance of martial training (which doesn't just mean having done some martial arts, I have a different personal standard when it comes to martial training, but that's another story), this is second nature, because when fighting with knife, saber, bayonet, whatever, you ensure the threat is neutralized either before or as you make your own attack.

The problem is that without that training, you resort to the direct line of attack. "I'm different" you might think, but at a geek event full of people who are undoubtedly genre-savvy, nobody was different. Not even the black-belt karate instructor (who I personally 'bit' by making contact with the painted rubber teeth wired to my fencing mask as he lay under another dead zombie). So what would happen is people would approach the zombies directly and aggressively, make a 12 o' clock headshot that -MIGHT- damage or destroy the brain, but the human skull is very hard for a reason. We gave them the benefit and assumed that a headshot was a kill, but now you have deadweight zombie falling towards you with arms outstretched, and you are in his threat zone. Everyone, and I mean everyone, approached the zombies like they had the hammer in Smash Brothers and went down under corpses until a shambler finished them off.

And that was with us only sending two zombies in at a time.

So no, I don't personally think that 'everyone' or even 'almost everyone' could handle a purely theoretical zombie apocalypse without unlimited ammunition.

I think I'd probably go for the arms first just out of the habit of batting away projecting objects coming in my direction. Then a good sideways swing at the head and either moving away or kicking it away.

Maybe next time I get to my old school I'll try to arrange a boffing-zombie game and see how it goes. Like a modified version of zombie tag, with weapons.

[warty goblin]

This is actually (and you might find this surprising) entirely incorrect.

I'm not saying this to be mean or a jerk, and I have reasoning, so I'll explain where I'm coming from.

TL:DR - Helped an international professor of arms hold a combat course on zombie self-defense, and everyone failed.

So here we are, at a geek event in New Jersey. The schedule has on it a presentation on zombie self-defense by a particular professor of arms, and he approaches my friends and I to help him, since we've worked with him in the past and get along pretty well with his crew.

So he give a 45-minute presentation on how to fight zombies, using various hand weapons. Axe, machete, bat, and crowbar were among the weapons covered. Emphasis was on the idea that a zombie shambling towards you with arms extended has one aim, that being to grab you and pull you in for eating. To fight properly and avoid death or biting, you have to evade that threat zone while counter-attacking. For those of us with some semblance of martial training (which doesn't just mean having done some martial arts, I have a different personal standard when it comes to martial training, but that's another story), this is second nature, because when fighting with knife, saber, bayonet, whatever, you ensure the threat is neutralized either before or as you make your own attack.

The problem is that without that training, you resort to the direct line of attack. "I'm different" you might think, but at a geek event full of people who are undoubtedly genre-savvy, nobody was different. Not even the black-belt karate instructor (who I personally 'bit' by making contact with the painted rubber teeth wired to my fencing mask as he lay under another dead zombie). So what would happen is people would approach the zombies directly and aggressively, make a 12 o' clock headshot that -MIGHT- damage or destroy the brain, but the human skull is very hard for a reason. We gave them the benefit and assumed that a headshot was a kill, but now you have deadweight zombie falling towards you with arms outstretched, and you are in his threat zone. Everyone, and I mean everyone, approached the zombies like they had the hammer in Smash Brothers and went down under corpses until a shambler finished them off.

And that was with us only sending two zombies in at a time.

So no, I don't personally think that 'everyone' or even 'almost everyone' could handle a purely theoretical zombie apocalypse without unlimited ammunition.

Interesting. Maybe the better solution is to tag-team the things. One person fixes them in the chest with a pitchfork, the other goes for the kill with a striking weapon from the flank. The human skull is tough, but a nine pound splitting maul hits very hard when swung with a bit of conviction.

[noparlpf]

Interesting. Maybe the better solution is to tag-team the things. One person fixes them in the chest with a pitchfork, the other goes for the kill with a striking weapon from the flank. The human skull is tough, but a nine pound splitting maul hits very hard when swung with a bit of conviction.

That's once you meet up with other survivors. Loads of us think we'd be fine solo.

[warty goblin]

That's once you meet up with other survivors. Loads of us think we'd be fine solo.

Yeah, that seems unlikely. Surviving solo even in an environment where a significant portion of the biomass isn't trying to eat your face is extraordinarily difficult; I know exactly enough about the subject to know I couldn't do it. Add the zombies and the hordes of genre-savvy nerds just itching to get their survivalist fantasies on and with no clue about actually using weapons or survival gear, and it'll be even harder. Fortunately inside a week most of the second group will have died of dehydration or else been turned into much less dangerous zombies.

So my plan? If I'm at school; fill the bathtub and all other available containers with water, bake bread nonstop until the power goes out, stack the furniture against the door, and hope the army shows up before the supplies give out.

If I'm home in the country, my family and I can probably survive without outside contact for several weeks at least. Between the canned food, garden produce if its summer, generator, solar panels, livestock and the bit where the population density is vastly lower, there's just a lot fewer threats to contend with. Plus we know most of the neighbors, and there's plenty of tools available for improvised weapons to save on ammo.

[Tylorious]

Just one rule guys. Never forget that a crowbar never needs to be reloaded.

[noparlpf]

Just one rule guys. Never forget that a crowbar never needs to be reloaded.

Or that it's a bit awkward to swing. An axe is easier to swing and is designed to break through hard things.

[Tylorious]

Or that it's a bit awkward to swing. An axe is easier to swing and is designed to break through hard things.

Yeah but axes will break after hitting enough things. Crowbars definitely won't.

[noparlpf]

Yeah but axes will break after hitting enough things. Crowbars definitely won't.

An axe will last a really long time. My dad's plastic-handled axe has lasted...probably close to ten years with this handle, and he uses it every fall/winter to chop wood. (He also uses the chainsaw and maul for some things, of course.)
Edit: Of course it does help to maintain the blade, but you don't have to sharpen it super-often.

[Tylorious]

An axe will last a really long time. My dad's plastic-handled axe has lasted...probably close to ten years with this handle, and he uses it every fall/winter to chop wood. (He also uses the chainsaw and maul for some things, of course.)
Edit: Of course it does help to maintain the blade, but you don't have to sharpen it super-often.

hmmm, that's assuming you will always and forever hit everything directly with the head of the axe. Impossible when swinging it horizontally at moving things. It will eventually break, and also can't be used as a tool while not in combat.

[Giggling Ghast]

If insects can transmit the zombie virus, you might as well just lay down and die. Don't worry, it won't last long.

[warty goblin]

Or that it's a bit awkward to swing. An axe is easier to swing and is designed to break through hard things.

Every crowbar I've ever used has been considerably easier to manage than most wood axes. They're also better designed for breaking things; an axe is meant for cutting and that's really it. Your standard crowbar works well for everything from wrenching things apart to smashing 2x4s into kindling through blunt force alone.

Now if you happen to have a tomahawk or other fighting/multipurpose axe, it's a different story. The standard felling axe you can buy in a hardware store would not be my first choice of weapon for soloing zombies. Even if the first swing dropped the first zombie, and the blade didn't become hopelessly mired in the head, the thing does not recover quickly.

[Traab]

Fighting zombies in hand to hand is desperation time anyways. You really really dont want to do it. Ideally, you dont "fight" zombies at all. If you must kill them, do it from range in a place of safety. The window of your second story apartment for example, with a rifle. Yeah its fun to talk about going Conan on the zombie hordes, your authentic replica sword of Anduril flashing in the sun as you cleave zombie heads, picturing yourself at the end standing on top of a pile of decapitated zombies yelling out how you are a sexy shoeless god of war, but its just not a good idea. And for more reasons than your cheap pot metal sword not being able to cut the mustard, let alone the neck or skull of a human without tearing out of the hilt, or snapping in half.

1) Wielding a weapon, ANY weapon capable of breaking a skull or decapitating a head with enough force to do that is tiring. Even if you have the ability to do it without getting bit, you will get tired fast.

2) What Mae said

3) They have no ranged ability, so why would you WANT to get in reach of their only weapon?