Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

DelayedReaction · 07-29-2003, 08:02 PM

Okay, the first thing you need to consider is what kind of zombie we are talking about. Given the recent lack of faith in the dark arts, I suspect we're covering the virus-induced-mindless-undead-hordes that are so popular in movies such as 28 Days.

Now, what are the defining characteristics of these creatures?

A) A near immunity to pain.
B) A mindless desire for flesh.
C) A severe threat for infection.

Now, this presents us with several problems. The most notable is that your standard bullet will not cause sufficient tissue damage to stop a zombie. Direct annihilation of motor control facilities, fatal wounds to major organs, and severe blood loss are the only way to guarantee the zombie will be stopped. Fire, while brutally effective (and particularly cleansing of potential infection), is slow-to-act on creatures that are incapable of feeling pain. Fire also carries severe personal risk, and is not recommended for untrained civilian use.

The ideal weapon, therefore, is a shotgun. Shotguns are ideally designed for maximum tissue damage, and are simple enough that even a child can reliably operate one. This is preferred over automatic weaponry, or other less-portable forms of weaponry. Furthermore shotguns are very efficient in terms of ammunition expenditure; far fewer shots are required to kill a zombie with a shotgun relative to automatic weapons. The only major issue shotguns have is ammunition capacity; most shotguns carry few rounds relative to automatic weapons.

Now, what about a secondary weapon? Most would suggest a chainsaw, but a chainsaw has a fatal flaw; it requires gas and oil. A standard melee weapon is far more effective in the long run. Ideally you want something that requires little training to use, such as a mace. Swords require extensive maintanence and practice; maces or hammers let you smash something until it dies. Blunt objects also reduce the chance of blood-borne pathogens from spreading via splatter.

Now, the final consideration is one of location. Some would argue that constant mobility is required, in essence a nomadic form of life. I would suggest the alternative; a static lifestyle in a remote location far from major population centers. Living off the land is not too difficult, particularly in the wilderness, and you'll never lose a battle if you don't have to fight any. If you must remain mobile, an army-style HUMVEE (the original, not the prissy-ass "HUMMER 2") is ideal. The combination of ruggedness, offroad capability, and diesel engine makes survival far easier.

07-29-2003, 08:02 PM	#43 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	Okay, the first thing you need to consider is what kind of zombie we are talking about. Given the recent lack of faith in the dark arts, I suspect we're covering the virus-induced-mindless-undead-hordes that are so popular in movies such as 28 Days. Now, what are the defining characteristics of these creatures? A) A near immunity to pain. B) A mindless desire for flesh. C) A severe threat for infection. Now, this presents us with several problems. The most notable is that your standard bullet will not cause sufficient tissue damage to stop a zombie. Direct annihilation of motor control facilities, fatal wounds to major organs, and severe blood loss are the only way to guarantee the zombie will be stopped. Fire, while brutally effective (and particularly cleansing of potential infection), is slow-to-act on creatures that are incapable of feeling pain. Fire also carries severe personal risk, and is not recommended for untrained civilian use. The ideal weapon, therefore, is a shotgun. Shotguns are ideally designed for maximum tissue damage, and are simple enough that even a child can reliably operate one. This is preferred over automatic weaponry, or other less-portable forms of weaponry. Furthermore shotguns are very efficient in terms of ammunition expenditure; far fewer shots are required to kill a zombie with a shotgun relative to automatic weapons. The only major issue shotguns have is ammunition capacity; most shotguns carry few rounds relative to automatic weapons. Now, what about a secondary weapon? Most would suggest a chainsaw, but a chainsaw has a fatal flaw; it requires gas and oil. A standard melee weapon is far more effective in the long run. Ideally you want something that requires little training to use, such as a mace. Swords require extensive maintanence and practice; maces or hammers let you smash something until it dies. Blunt objects also reduce the chance of blood-borne pathogens from spreading via splatter. Now, the final consideration is one of location. Some would argue that constant mobility is required, in essence a nomadic form of life. I would suggest the alternative; a static lifestyle in a remote location far from major population centers. Living off the land is not too difficult, particularly in the wilderness, and you'll never lose a battle if you don't have to fight any. If you must remain mobile, an army-style HUMVEE (the original, not the prissy-ass "HUMMER 2") is ideal. The combination of ruggedness, offroad capability, and diesel engine makes survival far easier. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.