Mr. Jollypants
Mr. f**king Jollypants
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Too many windows, a big security risk. Also, alot of trees and surroundings. Too much of a security hazard.
Zombie Survival Plan... Best place to go
- Thread starter Mr. Jollypants
- Start date
Take another look at the surrounding area. The windows are unreachable. The trees are amazingly huge. The castle is build into the side of a mountain. The rocks are all jagged. Unless the zombies somehow are amazing climbers with top notch climbing skills then there would be no way to scale Neuschwanstein castle. The windows are actually a plus with them being at great placement for snipers to snipe zombies. The local forest area would not only provide food through wildlife but ammo through pieces of trees. I.e. arrows, or wodden maces but it would never come to that because nothing zombie related could break through Neuschwanstein castle.
not quite, greg's got something going. if you lay out the area with defenses that would minimize the security risk of a zombie ambus if you had to flee the area. hes right thought, with only one main road to defend its alil easier than having a 360 degree. however going to the water supply seems to be the only way downfall with this since you have to leave the castle to get water. but i supose you could always make a pipe line or something going to the castle after a few visits and construting.
Mr. Jollypants
Mr. f**king Jollypants
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Surrounding area means nothing. Tree's cause viewing problems. You wouldn't be able to see who or what is coming until it's too late. Some windows are only like 8 feet off the ground.Take another look at the surrounding area. The windows are unreachable. The trees are amazingly huge. The castle is build into the side of a mountain. The rocks are all jagged. Unless the zombies somehow are amazing climbers with top notch climbing skills then there would be no way to scale Neuschwanstein castle. The windows are actually a plus with them being at great placement for snipers to snipe zombies. The local forest area would not only provide food through wildlife but ammo through pieces of trees. I.e. arrows, or wodden maces but it would never come to that because nothing zombie related could break through Neuschwanstein castle.
The surrounding area means a lot acually. It means that zombies would not be able to travel up the side of the mountain to attack the castle. The forrested area to the side of he castle drops off into a jagged area that has a stream of fresh water that flows through it. The sides and back of the caste are un attackable for zombies. that leaves the front. It is quite a journey to get up to Neuschwanstein. You have to climb a huge steep hill and then you can think about attacking the castle from the front. the windows at groung level have bars in front of the actual windows. he would keep the zombies from coming through for awhile. The reason Neuschwanstein was chosen though is because of the difficulty to get to the castle on foot. With the long road snipers with a simple bow and arrow could keep zombies from coming up the hill. If it came time for zombies to attack the castle other preperations could be made for safety. The weak spot are the windows in the lower portion of the castle but they could be easily bricked in in a few hours. If there were a millions zombie and somhow they got into the castle there is a backup plan. you could transverse the secret passage to get to the lake and cross he lake to the fores where you could enter you anti zombie Rhino Armored Bus. You wuold take your bus to Piz Bernina. You could check Poschiavo for supplies and head into the mountains.
Mr. Jollypants
Mr. f**king Jollypants
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
The problem with the fresh water is if a zombie or group of them contaminate the water, you're f**ked. Other than that, does sound like a good location.
This is truth. Having access to a lake or a river seems like a good idea, but as soon as bodies start contaminating that water, it's poison, whether it kills a drinker or makes him a zombie. Bad news there.
As for a vehicle, besides obviously a Civic, the right answer is probably something like a moped. If it's possible, multiple vehicles would be ideal, but to think of something like a cruise ship or an Apache or an A-10 Warthog is fairly ridiculous. (Show of hands: who here knows how to pilot an Apache? Who here knows how many people it takes to pilot a cruise ship?)
My thinking is, there are some qualifications that the ideal location will have ... and that location will be what one's choice of vehicle depends upon.
First of all, the location needs to be someplace relatively cold. Doesn't have to be Siberia, but warmer climes (therefore more humid) are bad for a couple reasons: for a creature without an active circulatory system, range and speed of motion will be directly proportional to the warmth of the body, and also, we can only assume that some sort of sense of smell has something to do with what attracts zombies to their human prey; warm, humid air carries scents, whereas cold air tends to cover them.
Second, the location needs to be remote. Without knowing what portion of the rest of mankind's population is now undead, being in an urban area, or even close to one, may be like inviting hundreds of thousands of zombies to just TRY and knock down a wall to get you. Even if you could sit on top of Wal Mart and pick off tens of thousands of zombies with what .22LR they had sitting around the sporting goods section... how long do you think you'd be able to stand the smell of ten thousand undead as they pile up around your AO? And let them get motivated enough to pile through the doors...
This cool, remote location needs to be either (A) at the top of something tall (e.g. a mountain), or (B), in the case that you wind up banding up with a group of survivors, surrounded by tall things (e.g. a valley or gulch). The goal here is to be able to see, and have tactical advantage over, anything that decides to encroach on your location, known or unknown. Being able to see approaching survivors long before you can see them means that you can decide for yourself whether they're raiders or worthy party members ... and if you need to pick one, two, or all of them off before they get close enough to return fire, you can do it.
Natural resources are going to be crucial. That means wood for fuel and for building material, and it means water ... but water's a tough one, like No Regrets mentions. The solution is to be as upstream as anybody is going to get. Another natural resource here is going to be wildlife, since you're going to have to eat, and you're going to have to learn what's edible too, by watching other animals survive in your environment.
That makes the Rocky range along the continental divide prime real estate.
(continued...)
A pickup truck would be a good thing to have. Something simple with four-wheel drive would be perfect. Fuel it up once, raid for all the supplies you'd need to get started, and get started toward the top of the mountain. Get as far as you can, then work the rest either on foot or by two-wheel. (Bike, moped...) These supplies will primarily be things like hand tools and nails, maybe scrap metals and whatever can be found for fuels and ignition sources (matches? batteries? gas grill starter would be a life-saver...). You can stuff quite a bit of s**t into the back of a truck. Also, ammunition will be incredibly important. (Of course if you're serious about this zombie s**t, you've already got your stockpile growing.)
Speaking of ammunition ... obviously, the more versatile you can be with your arsenal, the better. I will say that some of the more common ideas for anti-zombie weapons are terrible:
-Swords are a bad idea. Even an extremely sharp blade will give you trouble trying to cut through the bone of a skull or vertebrae. And blades don't stay sharp forever, either. Since it's more or less agreed upon that to kill a zombie you need to either destroy the brain stem or separate it from the body, those are our goals, and while decapitation LOOKS easy if you watch the Highlander ... that's quite a bit of bone to shear through. Don't count on getting it in one swing, and don't count on getting a whole lot of swings when you're already no more than five or six feet from this monster. Keep in mind that a sword does not generate any kind of transfer of energy or momentum, so while you're busy slicing away, this thing is coming toward you.
-Shotguns are a bad idea, for the most part. The reason for this is that you can only hold five, maybe six rounds in a loaded weapon... unless you're prepared to use a long barrel with an extended magazine tube, in which case you're still probably talking about 8 shells at outside maximum. Unless you get your hands on some good combat (or turkey) ammunition, the spread outside of maybe thirty or forty feet will make this weapon totally ineffective.
-.22LR is worthless. One need not be a ballistics expert to discount this round right off the bat. Especially at distance, getting this round to penetrate the skull means getting one in the T-zone (which for the uninitiated is the T-shaped series of weak spots where the nasal and ocular cavities can be found). That requires a face-on shot, and EVEN THEN you're not guaranteed that the round will have its desired effect... it's just not a powerful enough round.
It seems to me that there are three categories of weapon that would absolutely need to be addressed, as a survival primary. You'd want a close-quarters stealth weapon, a close-quarters OH s**t weapon, and a long-distance weapon. Some thoughts:
-Go blunt. A good bat may not crush a skull in one swing, but you're going to get your monster turned around for just a moment, you'll have him stagger, lose his momentum, which means that you have time to reel it back in and take another swing. (Aim for the same spot!) Tentatively I'd suggest that a good axe or maul may be about ideal, if one has the strength to wield such a thing. Surely it'd get heavy carrying around a big thing like that, but it gets you one hell of a transfer of energy... and near as I can tell, a blunt, wedged object like this will be your best bet for caving through a skull or neck in one good, angry swing. Of course the only problem then is retrieving your axehead out of this mush without slinging zombified grey matter all over the place.
-Go high-cap, go mobile, go RELIABLE. In other words, I guess, go Glock. And go 9mm. There are reasons for both... google up some of Glock's stress tests to see what they put those things through. They're common, so parts (and by "parts" I mean primarily "magazines" as a G17 should eat 100,000 rounds minimum before you need a new ejector spring) are going to be common. 9mm is a worthy combat round. Anyone who says otherwise is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's also usually subsonic, which means if you can come up with a silencer, you'll have even more of an advantage... anyone can be a competent shot with 9mm, which may not be true with something larger or snappier. 9mm is extremely common not only in sporting goods stores but also on law enforcement and military personnel ... it's a NATO round. With one in the pipe, Glock's full-size 9mm pistol can hold 18 rounds at a time (which is between three and four times what your basic Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 can handle). And it only takes one hand to operate! This pistol is also just as accurate, and therefore as useful, as its shooter is competent. In other words, it's your own ability that will determine this gun's range... not the gun. With some practice, a consistent head-sized shot group should be cake at 50 yards. That's "some practice," not military/police training. But really beyond probably 20 or 30 yards, you should have your pistol holstered and your rifle out!
-Rifle choice is where you really have some luxury. Since we're not talking about being under quite the same duress as pistol range (or bat range) suggests, there's more freedom of choice. Personally, I'd break it down along these lines:
Out to about 100 yards, I'd rely on an "assault rifle" with a good reflex-style scope system. For the uneducated, that's a targeting mechanism that gives you a scope and a reticule or a chevron for acquiring subjects, but allows you to keep both eyes open. This allows you to maintain at least half of your peripheral vision, but because generally these things don't magnify, you may not have the pinpoint accuracy that a traditional scope provides. The easy answer is AR-15, but the problem with an AR is that they require quite a bit of maintenance. The Glock (see above) may or may not ever need oiled, and you can clean it with a scrap of t-shirt and a pencil. The AR is more high-tech, and they tend to be very accurate for rifles in their category. But the required diligence may be enough trouble to offset that, and direct one toward something more along the lines of an AK.
Beyond that kind of yardage, a good, high-powered, scoped rifle is the only real option. A huge round is not necessary. If one were to use an AR in closer-range situations, and therefore have stockpiled lots of .223, it'd make sense to use a rifle that chambers .223 (though it may not be considered "high-powered" as such). Because range and the secondary duty of hunting may require it, I'd go with something larger, even if it meant having an extra pile of ammunition. One thing that comes to mind here, and it's great on a budget, would be something like a sporterized Mosin Nagant 91/30. Complete with a turned down bolt and a mounted scope, these rifles can be had for less than $500 -- less than $200 if you're okay with iron sights. But the great thing is that the ammunition (7.62x54mm) can be had by the hundreds of rounds for VERY cheap. Like... $60 for 300 rounds or some such. That's A LOT of deer, zombies, raiders... the only problems are that the barrels aren't particularly beefy, which means that if you shoot more than a few dozen rounds consecutively without letting it cool down some, you'll lose some consistency in accuracy, and that some of the ammunition uses corrosive primers which means it needs cleaned occasionally.
IBtldr
Speaking of ammunition ... obviously, the more versatile you can be with your arsenal, the better. I will say that some of the more common ideas for anti-zombie weapons are terrible:
-Swords are a bad idea. Even an extremely sharp blade will give you trouble trying to cut through the bone of a skull or vertebrae. And blades don't stay sharp forever, either. Since it's more or less agreed upon that to kill a zombie you need to either destroy the brain stem or separate it from the body, those are our goals, and while decapitation LOOKS easy if you watch the Highlander ... that's quite a bit of bone to shear through. Don't count on getting it in one swing, and don't count on getting a whole lot of swings when you're already no more than five or six feet from this monster. Keep in mind that a sword does not generate any kind of transfer of energy or momentum, so while you're busy slicing away, this thing is coming toward you.
-Shotguns are a bad idea, for the most part. The reason for this is that you can only hold five, maybe six rounds in a loaded weapon... unless you're prepared to use a long barrel with an extended magazine tube, in which case you're still probably talking about 8 shells at outside maximum. Unless you get your hands on some good combat (or turkey) ammunition, the spread outside of maybe thirty or forty feet will make this weapon totally ineffective.
-.22LR is worthless. One need not be a ballistics expert to discount this round right off the bat. Especially at distance, getting this round to penetrate the skull means getting one in the T-zone (which for the uninitiated is the T-shaped series of weak spots where the nasal and ocular cavities can be found). That requires a face-on shot, and EVEN THEN you're not guaranteed that the round will have its desired effect... it's just not a powerful enough round.
It seems to me that there are three categories of weapon that would absolutely need to be addressed, as a survival primary. You'd want a close-quarters stealth weapon, a close-quarters OH s**t weapon, and a long-distance weapon. Some thoughts:
-Go blunt. A good bat may not crush a skull in one swing, but you're going to get your monster turned around for just a moment, you'll have him stagger, lose his momentum, which means that you have time to reel it back in and take another swing. (Aim for the same spot!) Tentatively I'd suggest that a good axe or maul may be about ideal, if one has the strength to wield such a thing. Surely it'd get heavy carrying around a big thing like that, but it gets you one hell of a transfer of energy... and near as I can tell, a blunt, wedged object like this will be your best bet for caving through a skull or neck in one good, angry swing. Of course the only problem then is retrieving your axehead out of this mush without slinging zombified grey matter all over the place.
-Go high-cap, go mobile, go RELIABLE. In other words, I guess, go Glock. And go 9mm. There are reasons for both... google up some of Glock's stress tests to see what they put those things through. They're common, so parts (and by "parts" I mean primarily "magazines" as a G17 should eat 100,000 rounds minimum before you need a new ejector spring) are going to be common. 9mm is a worthy combat round. Anyone who says otherwise is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's also usually subsonic, which means if you can come up with a silencer, you'll have even more of an advantage... anyone can be a competent shot with 9mm, which may not be true with something larger or snappier. 9mm is extremely common not only in sporting goods stores but also on law enforcement and military personnel ... it's a NATO round. With one in the pipe, Glock's full-size 9mm pistol can hold 18 rounds at a time (which is between three and four times what your basic Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 can handle). And it only takes one hand to operate! This pistol is also just as accurate, and therefore as useful, as its shooter is competent. In other words, it's your own ability that will determine this gun's range... not the gun. With some practice, a consistent head-sized shot group should be cake at 50 yards. That's "some practice," not military/police training. But really beyond probably 20 or 30 yards, you should have your pistol holstered and your rifle out!
-Rifle choice is where you really have some luxury. Since we're not talking about being under quite the same duress as pistol range (or bat range) suggests, there's more freedom of choice. Personally, I'd break it down along these lines:
Out to about 100 yards, I'd rely on an "assault rifle" with a good reflex-style scope system. For the uneducated, that's a targeting mechanism that gives you a scope and a reticule or a chevron for acquiring subjects, but allows you to keep both eyes open. This allows you to maintain at least half of your peripheral vision, but because generally these things don't magnify, you may not have the pinpoint accuracy that a traditional scope provides. The easy answer is AR-15, but the problem with an AR is that they require quite a bit of maintenance. The Glock (see above) may or may not ever need oiled, and you can clean it with a scrap of t-shirt and a pencil. The AR is more high-tech, and they tend to be very accurate for rifles in their category. But the required diligence may be enough trouble to offset that, and direct one toward something more along the lines of an AK.
Beyond that kind of yardage, a good, high-powered, scoped rifle is the only real option. A huge round is not necessary. If one were to use an AR in closer-range situations, and therefore have stockpiled lots of .223, it'd make sense to use a rifle that chambers .223 (though it may not be considered "high-powered" as such). Because range and the secondary duty of hunting may require it, I'd go with something larger, even if it meant having an extra pile of ammunition. One thing that comes to mind here, and it's great on a budget, would be something like a sporterized Mosin Nagant 91/30. Complete with a turned down bolt and a mounted scope, these rifles can be had for less than $500 -- less than $200 if you're okay with iron sights. But the great thing is that the ammunition (7.62x54mm) can be had by the hundreds of rounds for VERY cheap. Like... $60 for 300 rounds or some such. That's A LOT of deer, zombies, raiders... the only problems are that the barrels aren't particularly beefy, which means that if you shoot more than a few dozen rounds consecutively without letting it cool down some, you'll lose some consistency in accuracy, and that some of the ammunition uses corrosive primers which means it needs cleaned occasionally.
IBtldr
The thing about the fresh water supply is that you could horde the water before it becomes contaminated and then collect water from rain fall to keep surviving or even melt snow. It snows a bunch in baveria.
Mr. Jollypants
Mr. f**king Jollypants
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Where would you store the fresh water? How much rain falls each year? How much snow?
pfft I'm building my own.
The weather is wet type of weather about half of the month every month. Here is information from the bbc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003680
sweet i'm in
Tha's pretty much what i've always pictured. Then add some high tech surveilance, The right number of people and a few adjustments here and there and your set for life. As long as you could get there quickly and it wasn't a tourist place, which that one seems to be, we would have LOTS of time to get things in order and ready.My plan im thinking like low
entrance
One road to defend. Too tall for the zombie to get along the edges. Huge fresh water supply behind the castle. Secret passages leading to the outside if that was needed.
EXAMPLE: You and your "crew" or group of people take some vehicle(s) and get there in a few hours. At the pace zombies are moving it will take them days to get to the entrance if they even choose to go that way. And they will not all choose to go the same way so even if zombies do make it, it probably won't be hundreds of them. It will be a lot easier to clean up. then as some of you might know, the best way to eliminate the zombies is by fire, but that method probably would not be used in this situation so disposal would be an annoyance.
So, what happens when the surrounding wildlife becomes infected? I wouldn't hang on the idea of being able to go out and hunt. Food source without risk of carrying infection would be a big priority. i.e. Raising livestock/farming, and making sure it's well protected from the virus/whatever.
Good point.
i think that it's too hard to really make these decisions without a very precise understanding of the "virus" itself...if it even is a virus.
maybe it's something more supernatural, ie: reanimation via voodoo or some similar practice.
I think that the most important asset in a situation like this is the ability to think on your feet. If you can't make observations, think quickly and act on it, you're screwed.
maybe it's something more supernatural, ie: reanimation via voodoo or some similar practice.
I think that the most important asset in a situation like this is the ability to think on your feet. If you can't make observations, think quickly and act on it, you're screwed.
No, animals just die. The Zombie Survival Guide has the answers.
Again, Zombie Survival Guide. Solanum is the "virus" and its explained in the book.
hondagriff
Banned
I'm still sticking to Cheyenne Mountain SAC base. Well underground, fortress like, protected and supplied. I could survive on some MRE's for awhile but it would take alot of us to make it work.