What's the ideal size of YOUR zombie survival crew? Why?

[HorrorHiro]

I heard some people discussing the "ideal size" of their zombie survival group; most if not all of them agreed that their group would have to be kept small (no more than 6 people).

Me personally, i'm going for as large as possible. Hopefully, the groups population would get a bit of a boost (*wink*) once we all stopped surviving, and started thriving. My reasons for wanting a large group ar:

1) Thinking in the long-term (A small group might be easier to stabilize and keep up, but it's also generally speaking very short term. Once that little group grows old and ides off, they might create one or two new lives, but your not going to really have any long-term continuation. A large group on the other hand could potentially be humanities hope for repopulating).

2) More than simply "power in numbers" (For obvious reasons any group of any size needs a fighting force. The larger the group, the more potential fighters. The more fighters, the more of advantage you have not only against the Zombies, but against enemy humans).

3) Divide And Conquer (Perhaps, for whatever reason, a war needs to be fought (against humans or zombies, your choice. It would be far more practical to dispatch an army and still have people defending the main body as oppose to the option of risking everyone and everything when a conflict arises).

4) Generations (to bring this back to my original point, A lage group can be the 1st of many generations to come. Which, for obvious reason, is a very good thing).

I could keep going, but i wouldn't want this post to start getting boring...

What are your thoughts on my preference and my reasons? What are your oppositions to having a large group? And What's the ideal size of YOUR zombie survival group? Why?

[turbo]

This is a tough question. You obviously want to be prepared for the future but also live in the moment to survive. If I had a tower like in the story, I wouldn't keep others out. If I had a huge group show up, I couldn't turn them away. Never know, karma could be a big deal! Especially with saving lives. I think a plan would have to adapt to the moment. If one day you're safe in a tower, and the next you see hundreds or thousands of walkers outside the building, you will have to adapt. I like the divide and conquer idea, set up several safe zones and travel in groups to each.

[Osiris]

Dammit. This is going to take some serious thought.

[7oddisdead]

this one is simple for me, assuming parents are not in the equation.

4

myself and the three brothers...we trust no one else. this has already been established.

that's something to take into consideration when bringing a group together on a life or death situation. do you trust your life to a group of thirty or so people? there's far too many variables in that for my taste. far to many clashing personalities, far too many egos...no, I could not be a part of that. if lone wolf is not an option, give me blood...mien blood

the whole repopulating angle is not even a concern to me. if we have fucked up bad enough that we manage to destroy what has taken thousands of years for the human race to create...far as im concerned we don't deserve to be here much longer.

[HorrorHiro]

4

myself and the three brothers...we trust no one else. this has already been established.

that's something to take into consideration when bringing a group together on a life or death situation. do you trust your life to a group of thirty or so people? there's far too many variables in that for my taste. far to many clashing personalities, far too many egos...no, I could not be a part of that. if lone wolf is not an option, give me blood...mien blood

the whole repopulating angle is not even a concern to me. if we have fucked up bad enough that we manage to destroy what has taken thousands of years for the human race to create...far as im concerned we don't deserve to be here much longer.

This is a very interesting angle. Especially that last part.

[HorrorHiro]

Dammit. This is going to take some serious thought.

Can't wait to see the results!

[Hoff4D]

I think this depends on a lot of factors....mainly location. There's just a difference in populace opinion in different areas. Out in the sticks I think there'd be less of a problem sharing the land for the greater good, while in the city there'd be more inner-turmoil (relative to the city) I think. I could be 100% off, but that's just the impression I get from living in either situation. Those in a well populated area are moreso going to fear the over-taking of their space/land/supplies, while out on 40 acres a family might be more willing to share with their neighbor who also has 40 acres, they can better secure the land they already have. And as such, would be more willing to take in survivors (i think), they would just need to prove their worth.


I think there'd be literally hundreds of groups of 4-8 people in the inner city, fighting for the same things, while in the country there'd be more larger groups, maintaining community.


I guess that didn't answer what I would want, just kind of gave an overview of what most people would want in certain situations. But I think I'm more in line with 7odd, I wouldn't be able to trust many people outside of who I knew/trusted before a pandemic. My group would be larger than my direct family, but not outside my closest friends, so maybe 10-20 people. I think I would still take in more survivors, but would never allow the number of "Unknown before pandemic" to exceed the number of "Known before Pandemic". That way I always had the man power to maintain the group as originally intended. As time went on, there might develop a gray area of "Unknown before pandemic, but saved my or my loved ones lives, so they can be trusted", thus putting them in the circle of trusted people....just not sure how to quantify it, it'd have to be situational.

[Merlin1274]

If your in the City. Groups of 6 or so would be able to survive better. But out in the hills or country, you could set up a community and have enough people to build and maintain a decent perimeter. More the better. But larger groups attract more attention. Noise, cook fires, lighting, etc.. If you to have a large group you better have trust worthy people leading and be prepared to defend against those who would rather take then do it themselves i.e. The Mallers..

[runs4theheckofit]

I'd want it small, most probably just me being rogue. I'd have my trusty dog as my companion. Then as time goes on I'll pull a Dog Star (good book and I'm not about to give it away here, you have to read it), and add a person or two accidentally then that's it. I envision too much drama and anarchy with large groups. You have more mouths to feed, more people to slow you down. I'm not one to be concerned with repopulating because there was already too many of us to begin with before a zombie outbreak.

[7oddisdead]

If your in the City. Groups of 6 or so would be able to survive better. But out in the hills or country, you could set up a community and have enough people to build and maintain a decent perimeter. More the better. But larger groups attract more attention. Noise, cook fires, lighting, etc.. If you to have a large group you better have trust worthy people leading and be prepared to defend against those who would rather take then do it themselves i.e. The Mallers..

all of this is 99% true, really good points. The only thing I'll add to it is certain pre-apocalypse factors could make those options swing the other way...examples could be an elderly care apartment building where you have say 20 senior indivuals and their children/loved ones come to look out for them. I could see something like that thriving in a city with a group of 40 or more. The human factor plays a large part in that. Whereas, a small country group (using my own as an example) could thrive in sub double digit numbers because of prep work done pre-apocalypse. As many have said already, its almost entirely situational. There are no "right" answers here, only interesting ones.

[HorrorHiro]

There are no "right" answers here, only interesting ones.

Truer words.

[Shaggers]

1) Thinking in the long-term (A small group might be easier to stabilize and keep up, but it's also generally speaking very short term. Once that little group grows old and ides off, they might create one or two new lives, but your not going to really have any long-term continuation. A large group on the other hand could potentially be humanities hope for repopulating).

This is a good point, honestly when people talk about their zombie survival strategies I don't think they really consider the long term. Like...the long long term. What if this whole zombie thing isn't resolved in a few months? A year? 50 years? I mean...I know I haven't ever really considered past more than a few years. Mostly because I would like to think we humans would be able to find a solution faster than a few years, but who can say?

I think, however, the reason a lot of people prefer small groups is because they are thinking the zombies will be dealt with before we have to worry about repopulating. So if all you have to do is ride it out until everything is resolved a small group would be the way to go. If its going to be a while, you might want to consider finding a larger group.

Turbo hit the nail on the head though, the key is adaptability. Because who can say how things will go down and who you'll be with when it happens or even where you'll be? You have to be able to adapt to your situation to survive.

[Litmaster]

I don't think the size of the group matters nearly as much as the location... for me, I'm on the East Coast (eastern MA), so the first thing I'd be doing is hitting the water, perhaps heading up to Maine (where there are thousands of little islands just off the coast). If that was the scenario, we could start with a small group and gradually grow as we occupied more islands, all in close proximity to landmass to do foraging, etc.

[Lifeboard2]

This is a good point, honestly when people talk about their zombie survival strategies I don't think they really consider the long term. Like...the long long term. What if this whole zombie thing isn't resolved in a few months? A year? 50 years? I mean...I know I haven't ever really considered past more than a few years. Mostly because I would like to think we humans would be able to find a solution faster than a few years, but who can say?

I think, however, the reason a lot of people prefer small groups is because they are thinking the zombies will be dealt with before we have to worry about repopulating. So if all you have to do is ride it out until everything is resolved a small group would be the way to go. If its going to be a while, you might want to consider finding a larger group.

Turbo hit the nail on the head though, the key is adaptability. Because who can say how things will go down and who you'll be with when it happens or even where you'll be? You have to be able to adapt to your situation to survive.

I have to say that would be good to prepare for the long term I think it was Michael who said "its better to prepare for the long term and to be rescued tomorrow".

[Da-Demon-Monkey]

6 simply put because that is the perfect size for a group that can be short-term to long-term survival because of the trust put into each other to survive. THERE WILL BE NO LEADER OF THE GROUP we will treat each other equally and only as such because what if one of us gets a superiority complex and will kill to keep that power. but if any survivors would come our way we would not be hesitant to help out and give them aid because the more lives you save the less zombies you have to deal with. another problem is the attachment to one another, say if one of us died or turned it could be almost impossible for us to recover mentally.
- risk = small numbers can be over run and the death of one of us could be harmful to the others mentally

but a colony has a flip-side to the great numbers. it's a double edged sword because if someone gets infected then hides it the whole colony would be jeopardized and also what if someone wants to take over the colony. what if not all of us are fighting off the zombies all the time so what if someone has lost their killer instinct and will to fight because one thing goes wrong and they go crazy like in the beginning. but it serves as a better long term interest but it would require a leader and a council to keep everyone in check. then you have the great numbers to fend off other people and hordes of the undead. but then again food will be a problem if a crop goes bad or one doesn't grow in enough time people could starve and die.
- risk = Larger numbers can be infected from the inside, more defense, only good for mid to long term and a supiriority complex could turn form a colony into a dictatorship and needs lots of food

[alexcadtek]

Wow, good question, I think the more the better and to have sub groups, All my people would be in the same building house or main camp ETC.. but there would be groups and one leader for the whole group and everyone brings evrything to the table when it comes to decideing things. buy havings sub groups you could have leaders within those groups and have them all decide and bring it to the main person, then he or her would bring it to the all the rest of the top leaders at main camp. As soon as you get bigger you can even make cells in short distances from main camp but you can keep growing and growing, each cell could have there scavengers, soldiers and cooks or whatever they need. But this is all speculation, because this would work if everybody got along, but if there is problems you can send people to diffrent groups just to maintain peace. but in all I think all camps, cell etc.. would bring all goods to main camp, I also think it would be good to have diffrent groups ready to fill in for other groups that are tired and need to come back to main camp, its basically like moving soldiers in and out discovering what is out there well trying to self sustain. And last note, having cells in short distance you can have them as towers to watch out for any intruders or Z PEOPLE, and make them in a distance where it serves as a perimeter and defense, you can fight from there or retreat to main camp without the intruders knowing where that is. The more people you have you can extent out more, and cover more area so hopefully you can claim some of the city back. but this would only be possible with lots of people. if you only have a small amount of people I would say your best bet is to keep moving every week or so.
It seems dificult to feed alought of people but you can do alot of things faster and safer then just a small amount of people.
But what do I know! LOL