City sized safe havens and safe haven networks....

[Oberoth]

Got to thinking about large organizations of humans that were somehow spared the brunt of the wave. This would mean entire government organizations within the city remain intact and functioning to a certain degree. Military, Police, Hospitals. But what would happen in these cities post wave? How would they survive long enough to become a Safe haven?

Going by Josh's Rifter version, Winnipeg survived the initial FAST wave. That is to say, there was no warning whatsoever. In the first few days there would likely be some news of the wave but in a very short time all communications with the outside world would stop. Internet might last a bit longer. But that's not all. Deliveries of all kinds would stop, including food shipments. This is about the time when riots and looting would begin. Perhaps if they were lucky they could set up a complete military quarantine and enforce martial law with curfews and the like.

There would be a mass exodus of people looking for family, food or safety. Now Winnipeg has a projected population of 1,268,500 people in 2012. Lets take 5% as zombies. Culled early on because of sheer lack of numbers, 5% for deaths related to the zombie culling and 30% for exodus. What remains(70% 887950p), is still a huge number of people to feed and look after. So how do you feed 800k people or more without shipments from the outside?

Yes. Seems to me the big problem would be food. This is where safe haven networks evolve. I have assumed that a full 70% of the city survived. It's not a stretch to assume the same thing for surrounding towns and farms. These small havens would become part of a small network around the largest haven, with everyone supplying each other. But would there be enough land to feed the entire network of city and towns?

I know there are more questions than answers here. But I just wanted to get a discussion going.
What about electricity and water for such a big population after the wave?


Thoughts?....

[krispy]

a city of that size would ba a huge cornerstone of a game, either as a starting point for a group or a destination to reach (I am legend, Mad Max 3 etc) ....the series Jericho also comes to mind

maintaining infrastructure could be a huge part for game plots, as you said-
* finding fuel for generators and vehicles
* clean water
* waste Disposal
* securing and patroling the area

[azazel1024]

As you mentioned a big part of the problem would be food followed by water. Depending on the source of water for the city, you might lose it entirely. A lot of cities' water comes from aquafers, reseviors and rivers. In the case of the former two most of the time the water is delivered by high powered pumps that are likely to be co-located with the water resource. Which means when the stuff hits the fan, they are likely to lose power at some point, meaning you lose running water. For a city supplied by river resources, a lot of them are gravity feed to the city water works which then pumps it (that occurs with some resevoir and aquafer supplies).

Also you have the issue of power generation. Not many cities have power plants within the city limits, or at least not all of their power generation within city limits. This means that power use will have to be dramatically curtailed.

For food, it takes a lot of area to supply the food for a whole city. On average you need between .5-5 acres depending on the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables and meat and the fertility of the soil. Figure around 1 acre per person on average. That is a boat load of land 640 acres per square mile means for a city of 640,000 you need about 1,000 square miles of productive land. Or an area of about 33x33 miles to farm and raise livestock on. Not an inconsequential amount.

For a river based city you could fish from the river to reduce the farm land needed and more so for a lake or better yet ocean based city, but you'd still need to supplement catches with farming and livestock, especially for a city of lake that might only provide maybe in the range of 5-25% of the food supply for a city over a couple of hundred thousand people.

[Oberoth]

There are three things Winnipeg would have going for it in this situation. First, they are near ALOT of water with a river running strait through the city. Also there is Lake Winnipeg less than two hours North.

Second, There are several hydroelectric dams within two hours drive. And the Province boasts one of the largest power networks in North America. It includes Wind, Gas, Coal, Diesel, and is called the Nelson River Bipole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_River_Bipole They would probably need "volunteers" at some point to go scout/capture key areas(Hence a new Safe Haven). Perhaps if they were to act quickly they could ensure their power supply.

Third, there are truckloads of farmland surrounding the city. Judging by Azazel's math, there would be ample land to grow food and such. But farming takes time; I imagine the population would slowly shrink to a sustainable/controllable level.

So that 70% figure from earlier would be whittled down by "Natural" deaths. Deaths from starvation, accidents, lack of medicine, violence. These would all play a factor in shrinking the population to sustainable limits.

[Severus Snape]

Question on this whole thing. And this stems from one of the worst zombie movies I've ever seen (sorry, George, but it sucked) combined with my limited knowledge of Dead Reign.

In Land of the Dead (I told you it was bad), the humans have created a safe haven in a city, with walls on 3 sides and the river on the fourth. The original thought was that zombies don't swim, so using the river as a natural barrier would save resources and allow them to focus on fortifying the other 3 sides. Unfortunately, one of the zombies figures out that they can walk across the bottom of the river and get into the city to get to the food supply.

Are DR zombies able to function in this way? From what I'm seeing in the above posts, people are concerned with water, and mention has been made of the waterways going through/in/near Winnipeg. Can DR zombies walk on the bottom of the lakes/rivers and get into Winnipeg?

[azazel1024]

The most recent DR book talks about this. Yes Zombies can and will walk along the bottom of a body of water. There are also floaters that can swim along the surface, basically just crawlers (zombies that have lost their legs or more) that can slowly swim across the surface.

Now with a river they might not be able to accomplish this. They aren't really bouyant any more with no air in their lungs, but since they are mostly water, they aren't going to weigh much under water, combined with a fairly high surface area. So any body of moving water is going to sweep them away, even attempting to walk along the bottom. That is unless it is a very slow moving body of water.

Frankly though, I'd want to put underwater and surface fences along any body of water just to be sure. I'd leave fairly large gaps for things like fish, but small enough that there is no way a zombie could get through.

[azazel1024]

Those are also in the latest and greatest DR book. I forgot their name now. Their are decomped ones that will pop, ones that are covered in swarms of infectous insects, crawlers that can swim and a couple of other types. I'll have to take a peak when I get home as I don't remember all of the new ones.

I really hope that KS can get another DR book out by Halloween this year. Hopefully something a bit more than the standard 64 pages, maybe a whooping 96! .

Something dealing with cities, safe havens, maybe just a tiny bit of real story/setting ideas. I know DR is kind of an open sandbox, but just a little "hard setting" could go a really long way. Maybe detail out a "real" safe haven community in the DR world, how they are adapting, etc. The setting presented in the books is about 6 months after, so it could easily detail how the community somehow managed to pull through, how they are adapting, etc. Maybe even a couple of examples (rural small town that made it and maybe a bigger town or small city that somehow lucked out, but now is basically surviving on its own).

[Oberoth]

And to the rest of this thread another way (and it would be a temporary one at that) is to have the truckers go out with some "escorts" (people with guns) and pick up the trailers on the highway most of those things have a good chance of being something edible.

I see this as being one of the first steps they would need to take. Eventually leading to full scale convoys to neighboring population center's. "City Mining" As Doc put it earlier.(Sorry that was actually Rhomphaia that said that.) Temporary at best, lasting maybe a couple of years until crop yields can sustain them. I mean, how long can you eat from the rotting plate of a dead civilization?

[azazel1024]

Other options are convert to diesel and run on biodiesel or veggie oil or just use the diesel vehicles. Afterall, those are going to tend to be your trucks, buses, large pickups and SUVs as well as military vehicles anyway.

Food, if it is a large city, I'd expect there to be no more than 4-6 weeks of food within the city unless the population is radically diminished and frankly with the complete collapse of civilization they would need to organize rapidly to salvage/raid surrounding areas to get more food (which might not be sufficient to sustain them long). After this 4-6 week period expect people to start starving and another 4-6 weeks after this people are going to start dying from starvation. With a reduction in population of 20-40%, combined with agressive salvage, rationing and quickly starting vegetable gardens, urban farming, if they are lucky enough to be near a river, lake or ocean fishing, the city could probably stretch for 6-12 months before needing wide spread agriculture to support it.

A city of call it 500,000 is unlikely to find the resources in the immediate neighborhood to support that kind of a population through salvage alone. They'd need to turn to agriculture almost right away to work the surrounding farms.

Now if the population is radically reduced, say from 500,000 to 20,000, the surviving population could probably survive for 6-12 months on canned and preserved food left in the city once the perishables spoiled/were used up. If you look in the average pantry you'll probably find at least 2-3 days worth of food for a person that is non-perishable (I said average). So if you go from 500k to 20k, you are likely to have 2-3 days * 25 (1/25th of the former population), so you have about 2-3 months, plus what was fresh(ish) that might last 1-3 weeks at the start before all the fresh stuff spoils and with some rationing and vegetable gardens in the city (on roofs, in public parks, etc) 6-12 months should be completely feasible. Oh, I forgot to mention the grocery stores in the city are likely to have at least 3-5 days worth of non-perishable foods for every person in the city, which times 25 again means you've got 5-7 months of non-perishables per person, plus the fresh stuff at the start, plus ecking out vegetable gardens, etc (which is going to be hard without getting large supplies of seed/young plants).

[krispy]

one possible way for a smaller population to survive would be to start Entomophagy: the eating of insects. Combined with also being able to identify edible wild plants... basically learn local Bush Tucker

[Illendaver]

Ever sit down at McDonalds during the lunch rush and try to count how many burgers they make? Try it some time, the numbers will astound you. Assume that you get enough meat from 1 cow to make around 150 McBurgers (Haven't checked with my local butcher but I can almost guarantee that there isn't that much ground beef after you take out all of the steaks and roasts.) The typical answer is [approximately 1 butt-ton of beef per day] Now factor how many McDonalds there actually are out there (nearly 100 in Manhattan alone) Add in Wendys, Burgerking, Jack-in-the-box, Pizza hut, Tacobell, and all the other places out there that use beef (everyplace except the hindus) Millions of cattle slaughtered per day.... where are they at before that? (Yeah, sure, there 100% all beef patties, no soy or other junk in them. Right, now i'm going to go wash that down with a big cup of denial...) Then try to figure how many potatoes goes into fries. Chicken sandwiches are popular too.

[Oberoth]

No. There won't be McDonalds any more but that is a good example of the amount of food it is going to take to feed 500K people or more every day. This is going to be a serious problem for survivors. Imagine over 100k people or more starving to death within the first three months. Death will be everywhere. The reserves/National guard left in the city will have been called upon early. Entire communities would empty out. All utilities to these areas would be severed intentionally to prevent fires and the like. Barricades would be built. Will the Government be able to save the population? For a while perhaps....

What kind of "Government" Would come of all this? Using Winnipeg as an example, would they still continue under the banner of the Canadian Government? How long would Democracy last? Really, after long enough they would realize that they are on there own. The Government doesn't exist anymore. If it does, they are the last of it. Grim times indeed....

[azazel1024]

For the diesel/biodiesel I mention it not because of a long shelf life, but do the ease of processing. A diesel engine can be converted to run on just about any kind of liquid oil easily and requires almost no modifications. Basically good inline filters and if in colder climates, a pre-heater to warm it up. Also veggie oils have extremely long shelf lifes, on the order of several years, though I'd imagine you would have gone through all of your liquid oils very quickly. You also have all of the fats left over from meat processing that can be turned in to biodiesel for on-demand fuel needs.

Most cities import food at a prodigous rate. Just like a gas station gets a fuel deliver anywhere from about once a month for an out of the way rural station to about once a day for a busy urban station, grocery stores and restaunts take variable food delivers, but generally a restaraunt is going to go through all of its food at most once a week (probably faster) and a grocery store is going to effectively go through its entire stock at most once a month (typically get a large semi-truck load of food from 2-5 times a week).

[glitterboy2098]

In the original iteration Winnipeg had a Savy Deputy Mayor that took control when the city Government collapsed. He was able to make the hard decision to move a lot of the surplus urban population to fortified hamlets to work the surrounding farmland before food reserves and easily salvageable supplies were exhausted.

A lot of surviving Canadian Military units eventually converged on the city.

won't last. a cambodia plan like that is mainly just a good way to kill off your surplus urban population. few of the people in the city will have the skills needed to farm that land effectively..especially without access to industrial farming techniques. most of them are going to starve before agriculture generates any decent amount of food.

[azazel1024]

Not entirely. If a large number of farmers did survive, I don't know a bottom number, maybe 300-400 they might be able to organize and teach all the unwashed masses how to actually farm. I think one of the keys mentioned though is industrial farming. With a lack of diesel, fertilizers, etc a lot of the farming is going to be by hand until biodiesel or veggie oil production can ramp up to feed farm equipment and most fertilzation is going to be the o'natural way, or just very reduced yields. Watering is probably going to be up to mother nature as well in large part. A vastly different way of farming than most modern farmers do it.

I don't think it is insurmountable necessarily, but it is going to prove to be really hard, and at first probably not able to support everyone still.

[glitterboy2098]

there aren't usually all that many actual farmers found in cities though. they tend to be located in much more rural areas. maybe some survived and formed the core of these defended hemlets, but i wouldn't bet much on it.

in a city you tend to have more 'weekend farmers' who grow small gardens or just read alot about how to do so. useful to a limited extent, but lacking the experiance of how to manage a large farm, farming equipment, and so on.
and you have alot of people with no farming or gardening experiance at all..

[Illendaver]

In all honesty, considering how loud a tractor or combine motor is... your really just going to want a big garden rather than a field full of corn or wheat. And when I say big I mean about the size of a city block. A large garden will have much more variety of food to get you through a year than trying to eat a ton of corn and getting malnurished from lack of proper sustenance. Also, It will be easier to wall off/defend a city block sized garden then a whole field of crops.

[glitterboy2098]

won't work. you need 1.2 acres of land to support just one person. with industrial farming methods (IE: fertilizers, pesticides, genemod crops, irrigation systems, etc)
without all those advantages your looking at much lower effective yeilds. between 3-10x more, depending on the crops and climate. so call it 5 acres or so a person for one years worth of food.
kinda poissible with just a few people. not when you have a population of 633,000! thats 3,165,000 acres required. or 4945 square miles. thats a square of land 70 miles on a side.


interesting bit. looking up the population of winnipeg on wikipedia found some other interesting info.
like the military airbase there with squadrons of transport planes and tanker variant C-130's..
as well as the base for a number of reserve military units: two infantry regiments, one communications unit, a service battalion, an armored reconnaissance regiment, and a naval reserve division.

it also has a national microbiology lab rated for level 4 isolation, part of canada's defense against dangerous infectious agents.

[glitterboy2098]

Should have been more clear.

Winnipeg lost more than half it's population in the chaotic exodus at the beginning. There were a lot of changes made to the story between the Rifter 40 piece and the original book manuscript. The population of the city itself was nearer 50,000 by the time of second phase of game play six months after the Wave. With about 200,000 shuffled to the towns and farms within a hundred mile radius.

The "Organized Massive Population Reduction" is a common trope that is used by a lot of authors in Post Apocalyptic fiction. It makes things easier to manage, if you want to pick it apart for your game that's cool but the idea was to move the background along and get to the meat of the game.

But I am more than OVER JOYED that this is being debated.

so 250,000 pop? ok. revised numbers:
1,250,000 acres requ,9ired.
1,953 square miles
a square 44.1 miles on a side.
still alot. and that doesn't factor in potential population growth, reserve food stocks for bad harvet times, or any other modifier. it's just the bare minimum you'd need to survive, with zero margin.

[glitterboy2098]

just offering a glimmer of reality for those who want it.

i can live with tropes. but i like to use verismilitude to expand on them. survivor-warlord-governor wants to relocate city people to the countryside to grow food? great. that way the elite in the city don't have to see the forced labor starving in massive, weed choked feilds of grain and veggies.

edit: to avoid misunderstanding.. it's "great' in the sense such a approach encourages the elite vs labor dichotomy, which opens up more interesting story options. such a system is horrific and should be avoided in real life.

[azazel1024]

I was imagining that some of the farmers from surrounding communities and farms would have made it. I figure at least a few would flee toward the city (relatives, seems safer, one last visit to the red light district before shambling off to the long night, who knows), some would just outright survive in place long enough, some small farming communities might survive long enough to link up with the Winnie survivors, and some might flee to military bases that might pull through. I would assume there are thousands if not tens of thousands of "farmers" within maybe 100 miles of the city, I'd like to think that at least a couple of hundred or more of them would have pulled through.

Considering the concentration of people and what it takes for farming, you absolutely will be running combines, tractors, etc. Its not like they can be heard 500 miles away. The area is going to have to be safe enough that even some distance from the city sounds that'll carry for a few miles aren't going to attact any zombies. For that matter, to make farming safe there probably isn't going to be any "family farms" any more.

Most likely you are going to see clusters of agriculture buildings for grain and food storage, livestock, etc and then the living quarters all clustered together sorrounded by some kind of fence or wall all tightnit and that sort of thing. Then the farm itself is going to sorround it. You'd probably have maybe 4-100 actual "farmer hands" depending on size and type of farm with anywhere from 1/4-2x as many guards. Farm takes the combine out to start harvesting the wheat, probably a guard rides on top of the cab and another is in the saddle roam around nearby keeping an eye out for zeds. Everyone can rally back to the compound as quickly as they can if zeds are spotted and the local community defense force can be quickly deployed if there are too many. If that doesn't work and it is a major shambler invasion, Winnie can dispatch a major force to deal with it. Failing that they can attempt to extract everyone they can and abandon the farm/community until they are able to reduce the zombie threat.

[azazel1024]

You know what, I might well just end up completely falling through on this one...but Kevin, et al seem to really be pleading for more Rifter submissions. The next issue is the Haloween issue...and I think in that spirit I am going to do some DR content. Considering all of the tables in DR, I think I am going to take a crack at writting up a safe haven creation guide in the same vein as the Mercenary/carnival creation guides. I may also take a crack at a new zombie or two and some wilderness survival rules.

I fully expect this plan is going to fall to my short attention span, but its something I've really been wanting to see for awhile.

[Illendaver]

won't work. you need 1.2 acres of land to support just one person. with industrial farming methods (IE: fertilizers, pesticides, genemod crops, irrigation systems, etc)
without all those advantages your looking at much lower effective yeilds. between 3-10x more, depending on the crops and climate. so call it 5 acres or so a person for one years worth of food.
kinda poissible with just a few people. not when you have a population of 633,000! thats 3,165,000 acres required. or 4945 square miles. thats a square of land 70 miles on a side.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I ment 1 large city block sized garden per family. Chiefly because I firmly believe that 633,000 people stand absolutely no chance when grouped together. All it takes is one (1) idiot to thoroughly screw everybody else, and somebody is going to be that idiot on purpose or by accident, doesn't matter in the end. Therefore, I intend to round up my family, some guns, plenty of ammo/food/seed, and a shelf of "how-to" books and head out to my family farm. I would have to triple layer some barbed wire fence around the house, garden, and corral. Got my windmill pump for water (and if I have to I can use the manual pump) got some cattle (I would only keep about 10, trade the rest to whoever can afford them, butcher a few as soon as I get there, make a TON of jerky...) I have a years supply of candles, and hope for the best (but know that we are screwed anyways). Hopefully I don't get eaten on the way there.

[Oberoth]

Come to think of it Manitoba produces a fair amount of oil as well. There is a full scale refinery in Cromer http://prykea.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/ ... -manitoba/ not four hours away. Also a used oil refinery close by that can recycle old oil into diesel. http://www.hdpetroleum.com/articles/Article-1.html The military is going to be all over such places.

Mass media. Winnipeg will have a good chance of saving several radio/television stations to help with the survival effort. The military will have their own networks as well considering CFB Winnipeg is the home of NORAD in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... RAD_Region They will be able to help coordinate people into refuge camps and such. And the more they broadcast the more chances they have of sparking a rumor about a great safe haven to the north.

[glitterboy2098]

won't work. you need 1.2 acres of land to support just one person. with industrial farming methods (IE: fertilizers, pesticides, genemod crops, irrigation systems, etc)
without all those advantages your looking at much lower effective yeilds. between 3-10x more, depending on the crops and climate. so call it 5 acres or so a person for one years worth of food.
kinda poissible with just a few people. not when you have a population of 633,000! thats 3,165,000 acres required. or 4945 square miles. thats a square of land 70 miles on a side.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I ment 1 large city block sized garden per family. Chiefly because I firmly believe that 633,000 people stand absolutely no chance when grouped together.

we're discussing mass survival here though, so such individualistic approaches don't really work for this discussion.

in general though, the more people you have together the greater the chance of a group being able to survive from a skills standpoint. if you can solve the initial supplies issue, your more likely to find people with useful skills..and you have a surplus of people to fill in for those that are incapable of meeting the challenges being presented.

the big downside is that you also tends to have more factionalism, and "politics" between these factions.

[Oberoth]

we're discussing mass survival here though, so such individualistic approaches don't really work for this discussion.

I agree. Sure you can do the math and calculate how much land per person, but in the end it is only an estimate of what the population is going to need. The population not being fixed, is growing or shrinking over time and would change these static calculations. In the end an accurate picture is not possible. Yes there are going to be rooftop gardens in the most densely populated areas of the city. But people will have moved out of the city as well. So a portion of the 500000 plus people people will be out in the country side but still very near the city. This is where you get Colony style(as in the TV show) havens in the outer areas of the city. Places where the utilities have been shut down. 21st century settlers living off the land and surviving as best they can.

in general though, the more people you have together the greater the chance of a group being able to survive from a skills standpoint. if you can solve the initial supplies issue, your more likely to find people with useful skills..and you have a surplus of people to fill in for those that are incapable of meeting the challenges being presented.

Indeed. Everyone will get a new job. Weather it be working a field, making ammunition, Army or Militia, or the grocer/trader down the block. there will be plenty of things to do now that the world has ended. A good portion of these survivors will have valuable skills as well. These are the people who will be working in factories, running the hydro dams, servicing oil rigs and the like. All done for no pay. You would be working for food, shelter, protection and the greater good of the people. Anything you can trade or barter above that would be yours.

the big downside is that you also tends to have more factionalism, and "politics" between these factions.

God forbid a Socialist/Marxist revolution....

[kevinslkt]

Got to thinking about large organizations of humans that were somehow spared the brunt of the wave. This would mean entire government organizations within the city remain intact and functioning to a certain degree. Military, Police, Hospitals. But what would happen in these cities post wave? How would they survive long enough to become a Safe haven?

Going by Josh's Rifter version, Winnipeg survived the initial FAST wave. That is to say, there was no warning whatsoever. In the first few days there would likely be some news of the wave but in a very short time all communications with the outside world would stop. Internet might last a bit longer. But that's not all. Deliveries of all kinds would stop, including food shipments. This is about the time when riots and looting would begin. Perhaps if they were lucky they could set up a complete military quarantine and enforce martial law with curfews and the like.

I like the idea but I don't think Winnipeg would be a massive safe haven, seeing as its a major transportation hub city, and besides I live here.

However, It does have a couple of interesting places that could be made into safe havens. Prime locations for safe havens in Winnipeg would be the WPG Health Sciences Center, with its massive underground walkway system connnecting a multitude of buidings, Also, Winnipeg downtown would be great since we have a skywalk system connnecting most of the skyscrappers which are linked to the library, the concert hall, and three malls.

Also, we would probably have a small river armada, and waterboat safe havens because the rivers here have superstrong water currents.

[azazel1024]

Honestly if you are going to look at best safe havens, I'd consider cities more like Morgantown WV, Telluride CO, etc. A lot of the mountaneous cities are pretty well naturally isolated. Sure they aren't sealed off, but with a relatively minimum of work they could be made effectively inaccessible to zombies, combined with good natural resources (in both cases access to rivers of some size, lots of spring water, nearby mining resources no nearby major population centers, etc).

Just some thoughts on the matter.

[Oberoth]

Going by Rifter canon, Winnipeg was spared the initial brunt of the wave by sheer luck.(They didn't receive their Altrucure shipment due to an aircraft accident if I remember correctly) Most other population center's had 70-80% of the population turned in one day. But Winnipeg was the complete opposite. Natural geographic barriers and resources aside, this is the sole reason why they would have had good chances to become a successful safe haven. Also I see the lower portion of the Province as more of a Safe Zone, made of many smaller Havens working toward a common goal/s. Not just one big Haven fending for itself.

[Oberoth]

Every point in one nutshell.

Although I have to say Unisane NOT Altrucure ... I realize it's a small thing but it irritates the crap out of me.

Ahh, memory and supposition are tricky things.....Unisane it is.

[batlchip]

I think that both Gliterboy and Illendaver are right.You are gonna get those few people who are not gonna play nice with others.Let's face it.Every time you get a bunch of people together.Your gonna get sects of people or different groups.Who have their own idea on how to survive.soon you will have these different tribes of people raiding and trying to take other tribe's resources.Wouldn't be much of a safe haven.If your an outsider coming in and you walk in the middle of a warzone. Only to get blown away by a tribe of people who don't what to share their resources.

[azazel1024]

Depends on the culture and the size. Unless it is pretty tiny and unique (cult compound) you are going to find those differing views. However in a small geographic area, and more importantly in lower population areas combined with a charismatic leader and a life altering event, it is likely that a large enough majority will fall strongly behind the leader riding ruff shood over the views of the small minority and even that minority, or a majority of the minority, is likely to go along with it, even if they don't like it.

This without resorting to despot dictator methods (though not necessarily democratic means, though if you look at history and demography, democracy has been the style of government for fewer people for less time than republican gov't, oligarchies and dictatorships and I don't mean combined).

I think most safe havens are going to function pretty harmoniously, at least for the first few years. Doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Roman sense and it doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Hitler/Stalin sense nor does it mean they aren't going to be democracies like the Athenians or us Americans or like the Romans or like any number of "Republican" banana republics. Its just more likely that if it seems to be working, than the vast majority are going to go with it and not try to rock the boat much. Once things become settled and really feel "safe" is when things might start coming apart at the seems (after a few years).

[Zer0 Kay]

Depends on the culture and the size. Unless it is pretty tiny and unique (cult compound) you are going to find those differing views. However in a small geographic area, and more importantly in lower population areas combined with a charismatic leader and a life altering event, it is likely that a large enough majority will fall strongly behind the leader riding ruff shood over the views of the small minority and even that minority, or a majority of the minority, is likely to go along with it, even if they don't like it.

This without resorting to despot dictator methods (though not necessarily democratic means, though if you look at history and demography, democracy has been the style of government for fewer people for less time than republican gov't, oligarchies and dictatorships and I don't mean combined).

I think most safe havens are going to function pretty harmoniously, at least for the first few years. Doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Roman sense and it doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Hitler/Stalin sense nor does it mean they aren't going to be democracies like the Athenians or us Americans or like the Romans or like any number of "Republican" banana republics. Its just more likely that if it seems to be working, than the vast majority are going to go with it and not try to rock the boat much. Once things become settled and really feel "safe" is when things might start coming apart at the seems (after a few years).

You do realize we are a democratic republic so we'd still could be classified as a republican government as was Athens and Rome? I'm not sure where a true democracy has ever existed. I do know that with our technology we could concevably have a true democracy now... but the powers that be believe that the masses are too stupid to lead.

[Zer0 Kay]

Would need at least to walled off ala a medieval city or the central portion of the city would have to be secured somehow (natural barrier - lake, river?). More easy to defend that way and may have sacrifice outlaying area like the suburbs. City could trade finished goods & protection to outlaying agricultural areas. Getting very fuedal now. Besides the above listed concerns. Need for goodies left behind by the dead and raw materials would be wants & needs to leave the relative safety of the city. Check out Rifts Australia for similar issues.

On a similar note to this, I made a city for Rifts where survivors rebuilt their city and even got a military going. The problem was that the region they were in was poor on hard metal resources, so they began "city-mining" taking every scrap of metal they could find, down to the nut and bolt, and recycled it. Similar could apply to this situation, and not just with metals.

Was the city rebuilt on Rock and Roll?

[Zer0 Kay]

Also you have the issue of power generation. Not many cities have power plants within the city limits, or at least not all of their power generation within city limits. This means that power use will have to be dramatically curtailed.

Power would have to be rationed and prioritized. In a number of mid-size (50,000+) to large cities hospitals, factories and large government buildings have gas compression engines hooked up to generator sets. These run off of natural gas but can easily be modified to run landfill gas or methane (Barter Town?). The downside is the high ammount of sulfur in these gasses (worse for landfill) which mixes with small amount of water (coolant leak) creates sulfuric acid eating away at your engine. So your mini power plant (engine & gen) now has a shorter life span (5 years continuous running with bi-monthly shutdowns for oil changes & preventative maintenance max) or requires much more maintenance & repair work.

Why do bi-montly complete shutdown if you can stagger their PMIs?

[Nightmask]

Depends on the culture and the size. Unless it is pretty tiny and unique (cult compound) you are going to find those differing views. However in a small geographic area, and more importantly in lower population areas combined with a charismatic leader and a life altering event, it is likely that a large enough majority will fall strongly behind the leader riding ruff shood over the views of the small minority and even that minority, or a majority of the minority, is likely to go along with it, even if they don't like it.

This without resorting to despot dictator methods (though not necessarily democratic means, though if you look at history and demography, democracy has been the style of government for fewer people for less time than republican gov't, oligarchies and dictatorships and I don't mean combined).

I think most safe havens are going to function pretty harmoniously, at least for the first few years. Doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Roman sense and it doesn't mean some aren't going to be tyranies in the Hitler/Stalin sense nor does it mean they aren't going to be democracies like the Athenians or us Americans or like the Romans or like any number of "Republican" banana republics. Its just more likely that if it seems to be working, than the vast majority are going to go with it and not try to rock the boat much. Once things become settled and really feel "safe" is when things might start coming apart at the seems (after a few years).

You do realize we are a democratic republic so we'd still could be classified as a republican government as was Athens and Rome? I'm not sure where a true democracy has ever existed. I do know that with our technology we could concevably have a true democracy now... but the powers that be believe that the masses are too stupid to lead.

When you consider the high percentage of people who DON'T go in and vote even for a representative how much worse do you think the turnout would be if you made it that all laws were voted on by the hundreds of millions of people throughout the US? Without forced education on all laws up for vote/review, force simplification of laws, and forced voting from everyone of voting age you'd never get real democratic activity. Plus as we know the public in general (courtesy of education and the like) aren't the best to trust with things anyway. Women would have never gotten the vote if it was a simple majority of the male voting public deciding, same goes with voting rights for blacks. Like any other government Democracy is only as good as the people who make it up and we aren't enlightened enough yet for a true Democracy to be good for anyone.

[Zer0 Kay]

Other options are convert to diesel and run on biodiesel or veggie oil or just use the diesel vehicles. Afterall, those are going to tend to be your trucks, buses, large pickups and SUVs as well as military vehicles anyway.

Food, if it is a large city, I'd expect there to be no more than 4-6 weeks of food within the city unless the population is radically diminished and frankly with the complete collapse of civilization they would need to organize rapidly to salvage/raid surrounding areas to get more food (which might not be sufficient to sustain them long). After this 4-6 week period expect people to start starving and another 4-6 weeks after this people are going to start dying from starvation. With a reduction in population of 20-40%, combined with agressive salvage, rationing and quickly starting vegetable gardens, urban farming, if they are lucky enough to be near a river, lake or ocean fishing, the city could probably stretch for 6-12 months before needing wide spread agriculture to support it.

A city of call it 500,000 is unlikely to find the resources in the immediate neighborhood to support that kind of a population through salvage alone. They'd need to turn to agriculture almost right away to work the surrounding farms.

Now if the population is radically reduced, say from 500,000 to 20,000, the surviving population could probably survive for 6-12 months on canned and preserved food left in the city once the perishables spoiled/were used up. If you look in the average pantry you'll probably find at least 2-3 days worth of food for a person that is non-perishable (I said average). So if you go from 500k to 20k, you are likely to have 2-3 days * 25 (1/25th of the former population), so you have about 2-3 months, plus what was fresh(ish) that might last 1-3 weeks at the start before all the fresh stuff spoils and with some rationing and vegetable gardens in the city (on roofs, in public parks, etc) 6-12 months should be completely feasible. Oh, I forgot to mention the grocery stores in the city are likely to have at least 3-5 days worth of non-perishable foods for every person in the city, which times 25 again means you've got 5-7 months of non-perishables per person, plus the fresh stuff at the start, plus ecking out vegetable gardens, etc (which is going to be hard without getting large supplies of seed/young plants).

M1 Abrams runs on jet fuel (JP-8) apparently many of the tactical vehicles are supposed to run on it. From what I've been told though it is basically kerosine. Why is it that everyone expects to be able to take a city but don't think a military base which are already fortified not work? In most cases you have a complete city, limited entry points, heavy weapons an abundance of small arms a trained combat force that in most cases would allow uninfected in. Remember that the military is made up out of citizen soldiers that volunteered to be there and are likely fighting to defend something not just because they like to. In other words they'd likely welcom the uninfected rather than leave them to fend for themselves because they hope that military bases near their family are doing the same. You wouldn't end up with a we're the super secret organization's security force scenario. Oh yeah in most cases with bases you also have a rail line going into it which could easily be reestablished to supply the base.

[Zer0 Kay]

In all honesty, considering how loud a tractor or combine motor is... your really just going to want a big garden rather than a field full of corn or wheat. And when I say big I mean about the size of a city block. A large garden will have much more variety of food to get you through a year than trying to eat a ton of corn and getting malnurished from lack of proper sustenance. Also, It will be easier to wall off/defend a city block sized garden then a whole field of crops.

Horses and plows. But if your inside the defense area... what's it matter?

[azazel1024]

I haven't personally operated an M-1 or M-1A1, but reading up on them, the gas turbine engine claims to be "flex fuel" in that it can use diesel, kerosine, gasoline in addition to the standard JP-8. If you read up on JP-8, it isn't simply Kerosine. As for other fuels, there could be some downsides such as lower power output and fuel economy, or increased engine temperatures, wear and tear, additional maintenance needed, limited operating time because of increased turbine temperatures, etc. No idea, just that it says it can run on other fuels, but that JP-8 is the standard.

As for our form of government, sure it is Republican. I didn't list it out well, but I was refering us and the Romans as Republics as well as in name only a lot of south and central American countries (now and in the past). Athens was technically a universal democracy for a few years in there (couple of centuries?), though of course "universal sufferage" was no where near universal as it was male land holder (I think there was a certain minimum holding size as well, like 40 acres or something) over the age of I think it was 16 only (maybe 18?) and slaves and I think former slaves need not apply either. Though among the eligible voters, everyone could vote, was expected to vote, and they didn't vote representatives, they voted directly on laws and measures of the community as well as elected a chief executive (not sure of the title without looking it up) for something like a 6-12 month term of office.

[Zer0 Kay]

I haven't personally operated an M-1 or M-1A1, but reading up on them, the gas turbine engine claims to be "flex fuel" in that it can use diesel, kerosine, gasoline in addition to the standard JP-8. If you read up on JP-8, it isn't simply Kerosine. As for other fuels, there could be some downsides such as lower power output and fuel economy, or increased engine temperatures, wear and tear, additional maintenance needed, limited operating time because of increased turbine temperatures, etc. No idea, just that it says it can run on other fuels, but that JP-8 is the standard.

As for our form of government, sure it is Republican. I didn't list it out well, but I was refering us and the Romans as Republics as well as in name only a lot of south and central American countries (now and in the past). Athens was technically a universal democracy for a few years in there (couple of centuries?), though of course "universal sufferage" was no where near universal as it was male land holder (I think there was a certain minimum holding size as well, like 40 acres or something) over the age of I think it was 16 only (maybe 18?) and slaves and I think former slaves need not apply either. Though among the eligible voters, everyone could vote, was expected to vote, and they didn't vote representatives, they voted directly on laws and measures of the community as well as elected a chief executive (not sure of the title without looking it up) for something like a 6-12 month term of office.

I didn't say simply, I said basically. All the equipment that they run off of it can run on straight kerosene.

Oh, I kind of thought so but wasn't sure on your mention of republics. Athens still primarily operated with representatives though which is one of the defining pieces of being a republic... You sure? I could have sworn they were represented?... hmm.

[azazel1024]

To the best of my knowledge Athens developed a "universal" Democracy sometime vaguely in the 400BC period and it changed in to a representative gov't as it grew larger and individual voters "banded together" to appoint a representative to cast their stone for them (as stones were used to mark a person's vote), so at some point I think you are right, that the Athenian gov't was representative. Of course either system I don't think lasted more than 200 years as Athens went from a dictatorship to a democracy back to a dictatorship. This is largely based on my memories and might be fault. I know a lot of Greek history, but I haven't studied the specifics of Athenian gov't...pretty much just memory from what I read maybe 10 years ago and too lazy to look it up, though I am getting motivated by the discussion because I am curious if my memory jives with reality, or if I am purely inventing what I think is convenient. I do know democracy was universal at some point in Athens and the whole "democracy" think (universal or republican) did only last something like 100-250 years.

Democracy in the world seems by and large transient, though who knows, with modern technology and all that it is possible it is here to stay.

[Zer0 Kay]

To the best of my knowledge Athens developed a "universal" Democracy sometime vaguely in the 400BC period and it changed in to a representative gov't as it grew larger and individual voters "banded together" to appoint a representative to cast their stone for them (as stones were used to mark a person's vote), so at some point I think you are right, that the Athenian gov't was representative. Of course either system I don't think lasted more than 200 years as Athens went from a dictatorship to a democracy back to a dictatorship. This is largely based on my memories and might be fault. I know a lot of Greek history, but I haven't studied the specifics of Athenian gov't...pretty much just memory from what I read maybe 10 years ago and too lazy to look it up, though I am getting motivated by the discussion because I am curious if my memory jives with reality, or if I am purely inventing what I think is convenient. I do know democracy was universal at some point in Athens and the whole "democracy" think (universal or republican) did only last something like 100-250 years.

Democracy in the world seems by and large transient, though who knows, with modern technology and all that it is possible it is here to stay.

Oh Democracy of any sort is totally transient the issue is that the nation needs enough active participants in it to keep it democratic and enough citizens that would band against any governmental attempt to remove the democracy. I always find our democratic and republican parties funny because according to our government the republicans have already won with our republic government and the democrats don't really want to further democracy because it would take power away from them. If I had my way I'd expel all current representative and senate seats giving each a retirement equal to an O-5 in the military, which is generous since they have done less and cost us more. The Senate and House can not vote on their own pay that is upto their constituants, pay must be reduced to total 50K a year combined with thier own income plus Per Diem, if their income is greater than they only get Per Diem. Congress needs to be brought back to their roots when they weren't career politicians and traveled to Washington to serve the public. They weren't paid so much that they'd want to extend sessions unless it was absolutely necessary because their "real life" would suffer. To further democracy each rep and senator is required to take poll of their constituants on any national policy and vote for the majority. If they have issues with their constituants views they may attempt to convince them otherwise and take another poll but they must abide by this second poll, no others may be taken. No elected official in a federal branch of the U.S. Government can serve for more than 2 terms. Presidential campaign funds must be limited to allow even the common man with ideas to run for presidency with support. The military for 4 years needs to be restationed in or as near to their home towns as possible, so the following doesn't create a us or them mindset, they are there to protect the citizens and root out organized crime. Of course some may have to be moved in order to ballance manpower but the need to be close. Martial Law will be called with enforced curfew and the military will aid the police in cleaning up crime within the city. The goal to make drugs, human trafficing, and gang warfare a thing of the past. After the 4 years all DOD personnel will be reorganized to defend our boarders and we return to a isolationist nation. We ask other nations if they want to join the union and we only provide military support IF we're paid or compensated to those outside of the union.

[glitterboy2098]

To the best of my knowledge Athens developed a "universal" Democracy sometime vaguely in the 400BC period and it changed in to a representative gov't as it grew larger and individual voters "banded together" to appoint a representative to cast their stone for them (as stones were used to mark a person's vote), so at some point I think you are right, that the Athenian gov't was representative. Of course either system I don't think lasted more than 200 years as Athens went from a dictatorship to a democracy back to a dictatorship. This is largely based on my memories and might be fault. I know a lot of Greek history, but I haven't studied the specifics of Athenian gov't...pretty much just memory from what I read maybe 10 years ago and too lazy to look it up, though I am getting motivated by the discussion because I am curious if my memory jives with reality, or if I am purely inventing what I think is convenient. I do know democracy was universal at some point in Athens and the whole "democracy" think (universal or republican) did only last something like 100-250 years.

Democracy in the world seems by and large transient, though who knows, with modern technology and all that it is possible it is here to stay.

athens never had a universal democracy. theirs was tied to military training, individuals were excluded based on social class, slaves couldn't vote, etc.

what made them groundbreaking was how they allowed all the people who could vote to actually vote on issues. this was pretty much unheard of prior.

[azazel1024]

The spirit behind a universal democracy is the direct democratic vote, instead of voting for a representative. However, by deffinition there have never been any universal democracies in the history of our world unless it was some adult castaways on an island or the occasion dinner table family "vote on what we do on vacation" temporary universal democracy.

All democratic and republican gov'ts have had limits on who was eligible to hold the voting franchise. For all you must be a citizen. In most there are age limits (such as 18 in the US). Those are as universal as they get. As you mentioned many others had military service requirements, land requirements, etc. As far as I know in Athens there wasn't an exclusion based on social class.

I was apparently wrong about the property requirements. Reading up on it, there were property requirements codified in Athenian law, but they were considered antiquated and never enforced. So long as you had completed your military service, were a male, were not a current or ex-slave, were permanant residents (not metics/resident aliens) and were not a child. You could lose voting rights temporarily or permanently for certain crimes or excessive public debts and that loss could be inherited in rare cases.

Now granted that sounds pretty restrictive, but that is most of the adult male population when you compare it to almost any other country in existance before about the late 1800's US and they still directly voted on their laws, which we don't do here.

[Oberoth]

Indeed, surviving the apocalypse will need a shift in our way of doing things for a while. It will be a strain on our political infrastructure. And when money becomes worthless, it will only compound the problem. There will likely be a military dictatorship of some form for a while at least. Democracy is not likely to remain for long IMO.

[Zer0 Kay]

I haven't personally operated an M-1 or M-1A1, but reading up on them, the gas turbine engine claims to be "flex fuel" in that it can use diesel, kerosine, gasoline in addition to the standard JP-8. If you read up on JP-8, it isn't simply Kerosine. As for other fuels, there could be some downsides such as lower power output and fuel economy, or increased engine temperatures, wear and tear, additional maintenance needed, limited operating time because of increased turbine temperatures, etc. No idea, just that it says it can run on other fuels, but that JP-8 is the standard.

The friend I just started my current DR campaign with just got back from the service, and he was a tanker. I asked him about this very thing during our last game session.

The Abrams tanks can indeed run on a variety of fuels. The jet fuel provides the best fuel economy, but even with that, you're looking at about 6-8 hours of operating time before you run out of fuel. The next most preferable fuels are kerosine, diesel, and regular gasoline, in that order. There's also a whole host of other support equipment that follows a tank around. The logistics needed to supply and maintain the tank would make it virtually useless in a zombie apocalypse scenario, except as a semi-fixed artillery emplacement, defending a safe-haven community. Certainly don't plan on any long-distance traveling in your Abrams.

I think it would be much better to get one of the HMMWVs with the fully enclosed electric turret but then I guess they can still be flipped. Hmm wonder what the military has that is well armed and armored that is fuel efficient and can't be flipped... funny thing is just stating that I thought any of their nuclear powered sea vessels, can't be flipped fairly well armored vs. small arms and zombies and a really... really long fuel life. I wonder how long the cooling water lasts or if it too is continuous? Hmm... Okay so then I'll add land based to the long list of qualifiers.

[azazel1024]

Something like a cadillac gage might be your best bet.

For the Abrahms, aren't most of them equipped with diesel run APUs now? Obviously that won't move them, but it should increase operating range significantly by allowing the engine to be off and still be powered for prolonged periods of time when "at rest".

Not that I am saying an Abrams is the ideal post apocalyptic vehicle unless you have awesome logistics.

Something like an M113 isn't all that bad. It manages about 3mpg on road, runs on diesel and can go around 240 miles on an 80 gallon full tank. The M2 Bradley is also pretty good, around 2.5mpg fuel economy on road and has a 197 gallon tank. Tank sizes and fuel economy vary between models a bit, but both have not terrible range though. Throw in an APU to provide power with the main engine shut down and both could probably be operated for a few days before needing to refuel so long as you aren't trying to set any distance records in them.

If you want something with real fuel economy though, you need to go for a wheeled AFV. The LAV-25 gets about 5-6mpg, has a diesel engine and carries 57 gallons of fuel in its tank. That is about on par fuel economy with a semi truck. It can also manage over 60MPH on road and has decent off road (and over zombie) performance, a whicked 25mm main gun, a coaxial 7.62mm gun and thick enough armor to stop any zombie. Its tires are also probably tough enough to keep any zombie from puncturing them.

[glitterboy2098]

the problem with the M113 is that it's being phased out of the US military. there aren't many left. this makes getting one and keeping it supplied is not easy. and they are notoriously difficult to maintain.
getting a styker or LAV would be somewhat easier. getting humvees and duece and a half's is fairly easy.

[azazel1024]

For whatever childhood reason I've always personally wanted a duece and a half. I think it is from watching the original War of the Worlds when I was a kid combined with all of the green plastic armymen that I used to own.

PS the best thing about having kids, is you get to play with all those fun toys like legos, plastic armymen, trains and micromachines all over again. Well, and people don't look at you a little odd when you do anyway.

[Illendaver]

PS the best thing about having kids, is you get to play with all those fun toys like legos, plastic armymen, trains and micromachines all over again. Well, and people don't look at you a little odd when you do anyway.

Your lucky, I have two girls and no boys. I am pretty sure I am going to have Barbies and my little ponys up to my knees when I walk in their room. I didn't want to play with those when I was 5 and not a lot has changed. Oh well, tea time is a good excuse to bust out the cookies. Maybe I can build them a treehouse. That should help me keep a sense of my manhood....