The end of the world as we know it.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CptJake**

Votes don't work in combat.

**MrDwhitey**

CptJake wrote:Votes don't work in combat.

And no-one advocated doing that.

**Corpsesarefun**

During combat itself those with experience would obviously take charge and those under them would take orders, I'm talking about government.

**Jihadin**

Okay...we crushed the warlords and criminals gangs....round up the imates that survived...give each set of 5 one cans of beans and a one 3rd rate weapon with 5 rounds. Tell them to keep moving south. Also since we still need to train a blacksmith..some sort of anklet to identify the criminals/warlord men.

We keep the ones who have technical job skills

As we move down south I'm sure we find the remains of infighting. Hows that

**Corpsesarefun**

How about we offer those we invade the option to join us or die, those that are willing to join us are watched carefully as they integrate but otherwise are fully functional members of society.

Those that refuse or show hostility, die.

**AustonT**

Forced labor certainly isn't a new concept. In fact the abolition of slavery is in the grand scheme of things a new concept. Slavery, de facto or de jure, has existed in one form or another throughout humanities existence. It's not such an alien concept, although it may be an affront to your contemporary mores, to envision a return to such a system post-societal breakdown.

**Corpsesarefun**

If slavery is allowed then those with impractical 21st century sensibilities will attempt to free the slaves and the slaves will likely rebel causing all sorts of bloodshed.

It's easier to not have slaves.

**AustonT**

corpsesarefun wrote:
It's easier to not have slaves.

literally thousands of years of history seem to imply that something about slavery makes it an enduring concept. Having never keep slaves myself I don't know how much "easier" it is.

**Jihadin**

Guess they need to be getting a stepping on down south. Why take while we can entice other groups to join us. Waste of ammo I say to go take over a rival unless of existence is threaten

**FITZZ**

corpsesarefun wrote:If slavery is allowed then those with impractical 21st century sensibilities will attempt to free the slaves and the slaves will likely rebel causing all sorts of bloodshed.

It's easier to not have slaves.

Exactly, Slaves rebel, slave require constant supervision and " overseers"....better to be comprised of free men who all have a stake in the game then in some " over lord and serf" situation.

**Jihadin**

dang..accidently exalted my reply

**Corpsesarefun**

Having no slaves is easier as slaves have a tendency to rebel and acquire sympathisers (especially when said sympathisers come from a world where slavery is illegal), for a fledgling society a large-scale slave rebellion is a pretty big deal and would cause quite a lot of bloodshed for both sides.

By the same token if we invade and allow survivors to go free without joining us they are likely to come back and raid us later for supplies or revenge.

If we allow them to join us and keep a close eye on them we can kill those that cause trouble and keep those that are useful.

**Jihadin**

I have to take that on a case by case situation. Say those we intergrate in after 6 month probation period we can handle. Those to extreme either move along or summary execution. As for raiders/looters well thats easy. If they're not killed in the initial engagement and are captured. I say release them with...nothing...at all....

**FITZZ**

corpsesarefun wrote:Having no slaves is easier as slaves have a tendency to rebel and acquire sympathisers (especially when said sympathisers come from a world where slavery is illegal), for a fledgling society a large-scale slave rebellion is a pretty big deal and would cause quite a lot of bloodshed for both sides.

By the same token if we invade and allow survivors to go free without joining us they are likely to come back and raid us later for supplies or revenge.

If we allow them to join us and keep a close eye on them we can kill those that cause trouble and keep those that are useful.

Or...we can always opt to parlay and attempt to strike treaties with groups who have established their own encampments and for what ever reason don't wish to be absorbed by our group, but do not represent a threat to us.
...It's risky, granted, but do we really want to implement a " join us or die" policy....seems that would almost assure future problems.

**CptJake**

Why are we invading anyone? Scavaging/foraging is good. Invading/starting a war is probably not so good when it can be avoided. Defending what is yours is good, taking from others by force is bad...

**Corpsesarefun**

I'm presuming we have already invaded an area after diplomacy has failed, I agree diplomacy striking treaties should be the priority.

**Jihadin**

Its the dictator idea that doesn't appeal to me. Of course I could be devious in thinking when we release criminals/warlord troops we're passing on another burden to another group thats on down the road...in a way...influencing the join us for protection mentality. The more "settlements" we um...acquire is more of a bumper from our main living area....safety by using others as a tripwire

**FITZZ**

Jihadin wrote:I have to take that on a case by case situation. Say those we intergrate in after 6 month probation period we can handle. Those to extreme either move along or summary execution. As for raiders/looters well thats easy. If they're not killed in the initial engagement and are captured. I say release them with...nothing...at all....

Now see...Raiders/ those who come at us for the purpose of attempting to take what we've worked for...I say no mercy there...those not killed in the initial engagement get executed.
...Of course that's just my vote.

**Jihadin**

Think underhanded on releasing criminal/raiders/looters/warlordsie. Its not a drain on us. Make sure we have a stamp set for the ankle braclets that indicate if their crime and release them...in a way they become a burden of other like groups of us.

**Corpsesarefun**

They could remove ankle bracelets though.

If those we invade are still hostile to us we should kill them, if they aren't they can continue to live as they were.

**Jihadin**

Corpse...you kinda mention you want to try your hands at blacksmithing? I'm sure you overkill on "ability to remove anklet bracelet" or we just do the old fashion midevil thing and brand their crime on the forehead

**DIDM**

Jihadin wrote: So...we've the US in a debt crises. The military about to be gutted since the Super 12 can't get it together. Congress can't/won't/clueless on working together. Big O inadvertently started a class warfare. Drug cartel is getting way out of hand on our southern border. California is being....california also a cali university rioting because of tuition hike. Justin Bieber is not some kid father so the teeny bopper rage is back on for him. Rick Perry has brain farts on the podium, OWS getting off the chain, 41 cent of the dollar is debt or something, and coffee prices might go up again. 2012 people.

So....I've 20 acres in northern WI, well, septic, nice size log cabin (900sqft) generator, food (MRE's/can goods/flour/hunting damn good up there), servicable weapons with enough ammo to sustain 4 major firefights, 4 sets of body army, workshop with tools that a man collects after so many years (snap on/craftsman) SO yes..I say I can sustain my family for quite awhile up there.

Land is easy to defend. Tall pine tree's and thick under growth. Running stream through it so fishing is good. A skid steer loader (mini bulldozer) to improve positions and expand bunkers.

(Just having fun)

If the world goes to Hell in a hand basket. What can you offer me for safety and security. What can you contribute to Fortress Dakka

well at least in the north woods of WI you won't have anyone there to correct all your spelling/grammar mistakes

good thing you don't need to pass a writing test to join the army

**Corpsesarefun**

If we brand them I'm pretty sure their level of hostility towards us would go up slightly

**FITZZ**

CptJake wrote:Why are we invading anyone? Scavaging/foraging is good. Invading/starting a war is probably not so good when it can be avoided. Defending what is yours is good, taking from others by force is bad...

...

...Yeah, I see very little to be gained in "invading" another group, we have our own issues to contend with...
If other camps are encountered...attempts at truces/treaties if possiable ...perhaps establish trade, what have you..if the prove to be hostile...well...then we do what we have to do.

**Corpsesarefun**

I agree invasion and large scale combat in general should be a last resort.

**FITZZ**

corpsesarefun wrote:If we brand them I'm pretty sure their level of hostility towards us would go up slightly

If we shoot them in the head then we don't have to worry about any further hostility from them at all...

**Corpsesarefun**

Exactly my point, if they are hostile we should kill them.

If not they can continue to live as they were (in lands that are now ours) or join our society if their land has been destroyed.

**Samus_aran115**

corpsesarefun wrote:I prefer not to eat meat off the bone but I will if I'm hungry.

I fething love salad greens and spinach and I adore crab.

PS. as much as I love you samus, you are going to die fast.

I mean, I'll cut it off the bone and be perfectly happy but I'll probably leave a lot of "good meat" on it (that's really just little pieces of worthless crud).

I know. If I had to shoot and then eat a deer, I would probably pass out from hemorraphobia. I love fish though. Fishing and then baking a fish would be fun.

Seems like my tendencies are leaning towards life on the water

**Corpsesarefun**

You know you have to kill and gut a fish to eat it right? Plenty of blood involved there.

**Jihadin**

DIDM I retire in 9 months at age 41. Can you say the same?

My grammar is not part of the topic here