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.