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.

How do!

Meant to do this a few days back after posting in the Guns thread. And it’s intended as a general purpose thread for my favourite supernatural horror, the humble Zombie.

Fast Zombies, Slow Zombies, Good Zombies, Crap Zombies. I love ‘em. Especially the really really really bad movies. Like Zombie Flesh Eaters 3. Where as soon as a given Zombie debuts on screen, it’s like a Ninja. Jumping out of trees, leaping out of cupboards. But then rank among the slowest of the slow.

Yet the one thing I’ve never witnessed (which makes Fear The Walking Dead even worse than it already is) is exactly how, in a traditional Zombie setting, society collapses quite so rapidly and totally. The closest we’ve come would be Dawn of the Dead (arguably the greatest movie in its genre). There the opening scenes show a tenement block being cleared by Police and Military. Whilst our Serving Men are ultimately pretty competent, their efforts are hampered by the civvies. Either though panic, shock or stupidity make silly choices, leading to further casualties.

Now I’m not a military person, nor from a military or law enforcement background. But I still get annoyed when the emergency services and military are shown as bumbling, incompetent boobs. But that’s much a given if a movie is to cover the aftermath of a Zombie Apocalypse. Otherwise they’d all end like Shaun of the Dead, where after a pretty short period of formulating and enacting a response, order is pretty quickly restored.

After all, even in good movies and media, Zombies are crappy combatants. Only really dangerous in large numbers, but with some advantage in that they don’t tire or panic. But get a trained and equipped military and you can, at the very least, create decent, defensible safe zones. And of course, if you get mobilised swiftly and effectively enough, you can keep it relatively contained.

Mind you, we’ve all just lived through a global pandemic, which has given me a new appreciation for just how stupid people can be. So perhaps we are underestimating how idiotic the average persons response to a Zombie Apocalypse might be, and how that might complicate and hinder sensible, robust responses.

Anyways that’s enough waffling. What I’m interested to hear is how you reckon it might work out. You decide the exact type of Zombie for your scenario, because whilst I prefer my Romero style, no style of Zombie is invalid.

As I see it you don't see a satisfying collapse because the point of a zombie movie (or other media setting) is to provide a functional environment for the survivors to actually live in, with enough struggle that their numbers dwindle but not so much that their continued survival is openly ruled out by insurmountable circumstances. That puts a limit on how effective the zombie apocalypse can be. Consider these two classic examples:

Night of the Living Dead gives zombies an esoteric origin that may or may not have implications beyond the movie. But within the constraints of the movie, you have zombie bites pass an infection that slowly kills the bitten person. Zombies have some strength, but move very slowly, to the point where you could even outwalk them and the things that keep people trapped in the farmhouse are fear and uncertainty how to find their way in the darkness of night. Once dawn breaks, the zombie threat is effectively over. It doesn't take more than a drunk hillbilly posse to pick off zombies between beers and burn the corpses for good measure.

What you get is a scenario that simply cannot lead to an apocalypse. The zombies are an adequate threat to a few surprised individuals in a rural setting where they cannot draw on infrastructure, arms and manpower to fight back effectively. And even then, once the sheriff's posse gets involved things turn around quickly. Original Romero zombies don't have the necessary characteristics to become a threat, which no doubt inspired the evolution of zombies to become more threatening individually and as a contagion.

The Return of the Living Dead is a fairly early take on this that ramps up the zombie threat to such a degree that you'd have a hard time believing that the scenario allows for a post-apocalyptic setting. There is no way to fight the contagion. Zombies themselves are fast, strong, intelligent and creative. They can't be killed for good except through complete destruction of the body. But that sets free the trioxin in their bodies and contaminates the surroundings, or as shown in the movie, the air. Exposure leads to sickness, death and reanimation. The implication is that even nuclear fire doesn't prevent that.

This is a pretty specific way of getting a zombie apocalypse. There's no viral infection but a chemical agent, so the spread is contained by the amount of material that is available to contaminate any given area. Once it's diluted to enough of a degree, the zombie outbreak stops because it can't propagate further. Until then, you have super dangerous zombies that can't be stopped. But it's not something that can spread and bring down the entire world.

Modern scenarios tend to rely on a zombie virus because as long as there's a host, the virus can keep going. Usually zombies are able to run so as to be a credible threat as predators and ambushers, and gain enough traction to outnumber the living before the latter can wrap their heads around the situation. That's usually as far as explanations go, and it's usually as far as you can take it if you want a functional post-apocalyptic or even just apocalyptic setting. The intended theme is survival, and depending on the capabilities of the zombies, more against other survivors than the zombies. The exact balance there depends a lot on how good the zombies are as predators.

If you wanted the zombie virus to be able to credibly spread to a majority of the population, you'd have to make it airborne. Once you do that, you add considerable constraints to your movie. You don't necessarily lose tension in that you no longer need the physical threat of zombies as you could still rely on them to tear up protective gear, but with the implication that one breath of fresh air is all it takes to doom a survivor, there is less need for blood and gore. Acting is constrained by protective gear. Visual character design is constrained as well. When it comes to effective survival, both individually and as a society, you'll run into problems of sustainability. Protective gear won't last forever. Range of movement is curtailed. Sustainable food production becomes an issue. If you change the threat of a zombie virus from the macroscopic to the microscopic level to enable the actual apocalypse to happen, you inevitably turn the post-apocalypse into a drama about resource management that happens to have zombies in it instead of a fun flick about blood and boobs and badass zombie slaying. Which you can do, of course. There are zombie movies out there that focus on the drama more than the physical conflict. But it's not something that lends itself to zombie apocalypse scenarios in general. Just a subset.

That’s something I think Walking Dead could’ve done well. Because everyone has been infected through unknown means.

So whenever someone dies? Unless it was by major head trauma, sooner or later It’s Bitin’ Time. And whilst of course there are so many take on Zombies I can’t be sure, I don’t think I’ve seen or read others where there’s that case.

As noted Fear The Walking Dead was meant to fill in the blanks of how that went hideously wrong. But then didn’t. I appreciate such a fall is difficult to make into interesting TV. But to avoid it and then churn out a singularly uninteresting spinoff anyway was unforgivable.

Dawn of the Dead shows the impact Romero’s can have on a densely populated area. Hillbillies might be ready, willing and suitably equipped to go just…deal with it (and we see them having a great time doing so!). But in urban concentrations? Less so.

Yet by the time of Land of the Dead, we see survivors with a fairly decent plan, including Dead Reckoning’s Firework cannon being used to distract the dead, making supply runs somewhat safer.

I’d really love a competent bit of media which tracks outbreak, containment and aftermath of Zombies myself.

I can't say about the Walking Dead specifically since I haven't seen it yet, but blanket infection or equivalent risk of dead dudes ceasing to be dead without direct zombie contact sounds familiar enough that I'm inclined to say that it's come up elsewhere. Which isn't to say that Walking Dead didn't do it first and just inspired others, of course. I couldn't say. And at this point zombies are so prevalent that it all blends together a little.

Blanket infection is something you can play with. I'm not sure it adds much because usually survivors who have to deal with dead bodies tend to go by "better safe than zombie" and don't take chances on the dead. There's a limited time early on when you can have the dead handled in whatever way the local death cult dictates, and get some extra family members zombified in the process. But I doubt religious practice would persist long, whether that's because survival instinct is stronger than the need to put granny six feet under or because the religious people all get eaten eventually and while the pragmatists survive. It's probably something you'd want to explore as part of the full picture if you imagine the collapse of a society, but I'm not sure it's a terribly impactful component by itself

The thing with Romero zombies taking over an urban environment is that they'd need to reach a tipping point where there's just so many more of them that they cannot be handled effectively anymore. It just seems like a lot would have to go wrong for shamblers to take over from only a limited numbers initially. They're slow and don't have much fight in them. They don't propagate terribly quickly either. Even if police and military somehow fail spectacularly, people can band together and initially do the zombie thing and overwhelm the zombies with numbers. And on top of that, develop and use tactics that zombies just don't have. I can buy initial losses to ignorance, but people will catch on quickly to how zombies reproduce and adapt accordingly.

Something to consider is also where you set your zombie outbreak. Classically that's America for Romero movies. You'd expect a lot of similarities in industrial nations. Juan of the Dead offers an interesting take in that it combines political indoctrination and a lack of education to get the zombies to overrun Cuba. You could do something with that, but once you remove the center of the outbreak from areas that should by all rights be able to contain a zombie outbreak, you get into trouble over how zombies would even be able to break through bottlenecks and cordons to invade from the outside.

Of course the thing with Romero is that there's a strong component of social criticism. You have to allow for the worst case scenario to be portrayed as likely because of the need to show the system fail. Without the requisite cynicism to get your disbelief suspended, you have to do a lot of work to make a zombie apocalypse look plausible.

I’ve met an unfortunate number of people who couldn’t wait for a zombie apocalypse. I mean people gleeful at the prospect. Considering how many self-deluded misanthropes love to cosplay zombie apocalypse, I think the most realistic “zombie apocalypse” scenario is one where a group of very-online ‘survivors’ one day decide to put on badges declaring themselves alive and and everyone else as zombies, then start acting on their impulses.

I can kind of see the appeal. The chance to smash up some moving human shaped things in an entirely ethical situation.

Whilst some want that with an unseemly relish, I think a decent slice of the populace might find some genuine catharsis from such a happening.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I can kind of see the appeal. The chance to smash up some moving human shaped things in an entirely ethical situation.

Whilst some want that with an unseemly relish, I think a decent slice of the populace might find some genuine catharsis from such a happening.

This is effectively why they became the defacto video game villains as people caught on to the fact that foreigners are in fact people too.

I wouldn't mind if the zombie apocalypse happened. I already spend a portion of my morning as a zombie. I could see myself doing it full time.

 Geifer wrote:
I wouldn't mind if the zombie apocalypse happened. I already spend a portion of my morning as a zombie. I could see myself doing it full time.

You should check out the first episode of Zom 100.

Have you watched the rarther wonderful I Zombie ?

In paricular the later seasons.....

I think The Last of Us nailed it. If the outbreak began as a widespread food contaminant, coupled with a long initial incubation period, you could have nearly simultaneous outbreaks across at least a country. I kind of doubt it would truly be worldwide, but technically possible. Anyways, if you got a high enough percentage of the population turning simultaneously, across a widespread area, say about 20%, and secondary incubation period was low, it would likely overwhelm local response capability. If such an outbreak popped up throughout a region, you'd likely see a disruption more on the level of a civil war than a true apocalypse, but certainly a credible threat from zombies.

It wouldn't take a very high percentage at all to overwhelm local authorities- as an example, Tampa has a population of 387,000. To control them, the Tampa Police have just under a 1,000 officers. Even a 10% initial infection rate would put 38 zombies against each officer, assuming that zombie did not encounter and infect any civilians prior to contact with an armed officer.

At that point, you need to mobilize the National Guard. Florida's presently at about 12,000 of them. So the soldiers, once they muster, would ideally go in at 1 to 3 odds, assuming instantaneous response. That's very doable. But.... if Orlando (309,000) and Miami (439,000)suffered similar levels of infection, the numbers look far, far worse, not to mention you now have to divide your forces over 3 areas, or concentrate on setting up a quarantine at the border so the infection doesn't hit Atlanta (496,000, plus all that Delta hub air travel).

So something that popped up, even in relatively low percentages across a broad area would be very overwhelming. It's really a question of the initial outbreak size, and infection rate required to overpower local response capability.

Honestly whilst its a truly grim comparison, I think Covid gave us a real world display of how modern times a disease could spread world wide in a very short span of time.

For Zombies I think the key is, as noted above, you basically need a long incubation period and likely a mild initial phase of infection so that it spreads into the population enough that its established in a large portion already.

Thus giving room for the outbreak to then take hold in vast numbers of people and at random across society as a whole. Thus allowing for the very rapid collapse of society as a whole.


We also have to factor in that Zombie outbreaks mean that friends, family, coworks and loved ones are those who will turn and that in itself brings huge implications for mental trauma that could easily see any response heavily curtailed. Even if you've got active militaries those soldiers have friends and family too plus there's the issue of having to fight your own population who, initially, might be trying to save loved ones who show signs of infection. A trope we've seen used time and again in zombie files (often to explain how a zombie got into whatever compound the people are hiding in).



The real issue is finding a long term threat from zombies. 24 Days Later proposed that after a period of time the Zombies would run out food and simply break down. Meanwhile many other films often focus on the very early days after a rapid outbreak where, again, zombies are still fairly healthy.
Then you've the likes of Racoon City where the outbreak is controlled by shadow groups and its more than just mindless zombies (indeed they are probably the safe bits!).





Personally I'd like to see a fantasy zombie outbreak. Fantasy settings don't have guns and arrows have a very different impact on the body than bullets. So you have a LOT more close combat elements which allows for classic bite/blood infections. Furthermore you can use magic to help sustain zombies medium to long term to make them a long lasting threat.

Indeed you can even get to a point where zombies are threat without having to be "let into the compound/castle" which is often a trope of zombie films - ergo that the zombies are not the threat its the bonkers survivor with you who does the stupid and lets them in.

The book version of World War Z gives some definite insights into how society broke down, as well as how it recovered.

In a lot of cases, we the audience are aware of the general "rules" of a zombie (don't get bitten; shoot 'em in the head), but within the universe of the story we're seeing, the characters generally aren't (unless we're talking later of the Dead films, where such things have been discovered).

Oh, a fantasy zombie outbreak would be fantastic, Overread. You take away all the advantages of modern communications and travel, and to a large extent the necessary supension of disbelief that the population doesn't know about zombies. Plus, brutal melee combat, and the potential for armored zombies.

I think they've got a videogame upcoming of zombies in medieval Europe. And I want to say that there's an ancient Chinese show on Netflix about it.

A Fantasy version I think I’d want them to go semi-historical.

For a start, you have wildly different population density. Isolated hamlets and villages, cities which were more Small Towns by the modern standard.

You’d also have nearly every human familiar with some kind of offensive implement, even if it’s just a Hoe, Scythe, Spade etc.

So if it is Just Zombies, and not a Necromancer raising Skellingtons as well? It could work as the defence of a walled settlement against waves of the Undead. Just need to hold out long enough for the local Lord to raise troops and ride out.

Though there’d also be religious concerns and even hysteria.

Thing is when the local lord rides out and charges into battle and the blood is being splattered everywhere suddenly those noble knights and armoured yeomen are now your new fresh zombies!

Even worse if it takes a while to kick in as now that saviour army is encamped and likely dispersed within the settlement that they just came to save - BOOM zombies everywhere all over the city/town/castle.



Plus archery isn't as effective as guns because arrows don't explode massive holes in you when struck and as zombies will keep going even when their bodies are insanely crippled they will keep marching on.



Now after time you'd suspect they'd learn that the effective counter is basically vast groups of archers raining down death.

Of course that might be easy if the zombies rank up into a neat nice army; but what if they just scatter all over the countryside? Small groups clumped up might be easy to take out; but small and solo zombies might be a huge threat for generations as they drift here and there.

Given the prevalence of hunting, and Zombies being slow moving? Bow headshots are far from out of the running, if you need to engage them at range in the first place.

A good Gambeson and bracers make you a tougher snack after all. To the point even a modern leather jacket is going to foil most Zombie attempts at biting, at least for a while.

True but if its in the blood you don't have to bite, you just have to splatter your guts all over the knight and hope some spit/blood/sweat gets through the visor.

Or through the front of an open helm because the serfs/peasantry/yeomen/lower fighters only have a helmet and not a face shield.




Certainly the medieval periods can eventually defend themselves. The main issues are things like communications. Even if one settlement leans how to fight them, that news has to spread to others to make it effective.

Depending on the period in history or fantasy you might have very inaccurate maps; poor communication networks; limited political peace between provinces etc....


There are certainly periods in history where organisation and such would be rife - the Roman era would likely do better than others meanwhlie the romanticised idea of the grim-dark "Darkages" would be the most likely to be plucked for such a setting and the cinema creation that is the "Dark Ages" would likely be ripe for Zombies to cause all kinds of chaos.

Ah, but with the heart not beating, no blood pressure, reducing spurtage.

Biffing one in the face with a blunt object would create an issue, but it would need to be a real corker of a shot.

One issue would be exhaustion. Sure, one can happily deliver controlled spear thrusts for a few hours. But the dead don’t tire, adding a further pressure.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’d really love a competent bit of media which tracks outbreak, containment and aftermath of Zombies myself.

It's the book called World War Z by Max Brooks, but you all ready knew that.

I hear the audiobook is particularly well-done.

 Easy E wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’d really love a competent bit of media which tracks outbreak, containment and aftermath of Zombies myself.

It's the book called World War Z by Max Brooks, but you all ready knew that.

I hear the audiobook is particularly well-done.

World War Z is great at the outbreak part, but it kinda stumbles with the rest. For all the damage the zombie menace causes, they're never that big of a threat over all, and are pretty easily dealt with once humanity stops being so incompetent.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is when the local lord rides out and charges into battle and the blood is being splattered everywhere suddenly those noble knights and armoured yeomen are now your new fresh zombies!

Even worse if it takes a while to kick in as now that saviour army is encamped and likely dispersed within the settlement that they just came to save - BOOM zombies everywhere all over the city/town/castle.



Plus archery isn't as effective as guns because arrows don't explode massive holes in you when struck and as zombies will keep going even when their bodies are insanely crippled they will keep marching on.



Now after time you'd suspect they'd learn that the effective counter is basically vast groups of archers raining down death.

Of course that might be easy if the zombies rank up into a neat nice army; but what if they just scatter all over the countryside? Small groups clumped up might be easy to take out; but small and solo zombies might be a huge threat for generations as they drift here and there.

Yeah, you would need the zombie threat to spread (easily) by bodily fluids to be much of a threat in most of the medieval period, as some degree of armour or even just thick clothing resistant to bites was common throughout the period in Europe at least. I highly doubt a non-magical human jaw could bit through a gambeson, and it definitely couldn't bite through mail or plate.

I think hunting arrows would still be effective- proper broad tips cut wide holes that can sever muscles and tendons and generally mess up flesh. Unless the zombies are animated by repairing magic, they are going to be incapacitated fairly well by volleys of broad tip arrows.

Boar spears and shields would also be useful for holding back zombies whilst choppy weapons do the necessary. A lot of medieval fortifications are going to be highly resistant or impervious to zombies.

Magic zombies are a different kettle of fish that play by whatever rules are needed for the narrative/setting...

I think just in terms of lower population density and a high proportion of persons adept with and access to some kind of head pummeling implement, the broad Medieval period would ride out a Zombie plague (Romero style) fairly well.

It’s not going to be a doddle by any stretch, as times were hard enough as they were. But given most if not all villages and hamlets would have some hunter presence, men and potentially women well used to move stealthily in the environment and spotting danger (likes Wolves and Bears and Wolf-Bears), you’ve some kind of defence and expertise on hand, even if s pointed out calling in reinforcement is going to be tricky.

I’d also wager a peasent, used to as they would be long hours of physical toil, could keep fighting longer than your average Westerner today thanks to our more sedentary lifestyles.


There are other dangers of course. If a Zombie gets blatted in your food store? That could be very, very bad. Even a not-squished Zombie getting stuck in a river could spread infection just by having a good soak.

The knock on effect of the lower population density could also spell trouble in the aftermath. Even if 10% of the people end up Zombie Chow, that’s a loss not easily or readily replaced locally. Especially if it’s the child rearing age bracket that suffered the worst.

There’d also be likely some kind of religious impact. Which this being Dakka I feel we should skirt lest it get out of hand.

Pride and prejudice and zombies.

Anyway. I would image an infected knight would be both good and bad. Bad in that the armour doesn't really allow head shots. Good in that it stops biting

Regardless, the British government is being thorough with its preparations for the zombie apocalypse. With the state of dental services soon those who will become zombies will have no way to bite! (World war Z, North Korea I presume.)

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Pride and prejudice and zombies.

Anyway. I would image an infected knight would be both good and bad. Bad in that the armour doesn't really allow head shots. Good in that it stops biting

Regardless, the British government is being thorough with its preparations for the zombie apocalypse. With the state of dental services soon those who will become zombies will have no way to bite! (World war Z, North Korea I presume.)

"The UK Government bans new denture sales amidst zombie outbreak"

A plate armoured Zombie would also be easier to hear coming. Whilst said armour isn’t as restricting as you think, or as encumbering being distributed across the body, it would -provide many handholds for those assailing the Zombie.

Pull it off balance, and it would, due to overall lack of coordination, likely struggle to get up terribly quickly. Which gives you a certain window of opportunity to shove a dagger up under its chin or through the vision slit, or take to your heels as mood and equipment suit.

Of course not all armour takes the same form. One with a mouthguard attached to the breastplate has different issues to a helm with a movable visor etc.

Another issue to consider is the state of the overall country. Consider that Britain as a united country hasn’t really existed all that long. Heck, during the Medieval period England as we know it today wasn’t a thing, instead being comprised of various Kingdoms (Mercia, Wessex et al). So even if the outbreak is local and you put it down, you then need to worry about your neighbours taking advantage. And if it’s more widespread, potentially invasions seeking new lands away from the undead etc.

Another thing to consider is the concept of infection itself. Most people today understand how infection works (even if they want to deny that they could ever get infected or carry a disease...)

Go back to before infection was properly understood and the concept of how the zombie disease spreads in itself could be confused. Bad smells; bad humours; and a range of other things could all be blamed even if the viewing audience understands. Indeed a smart director could even mess with the audience and have a different infection vector present that isn't biting or bodily fluid exchange; but could present every key scene as if it was whilst showing them the real vector openly, but in a subtle manner that most won't grasp until later in the film when the characters discover it too

That’s true. Definitely a tricky thing for a pleb like me to keep in mind, because such knowledge is so common in the UK. Disease in general and how Zombies make new Zombies infection.

Though…in an age where “that’s a nasty nick, best we take the appendage off”, we may see bite infection slowed, as some Zombie media shows a timely amputation can stop someone dying then turning from being bitten.

Of course survival rates wouldn’t be any higher than they were from such surgeries, but it would still be an impact.

England was definitely a thing for much of the medieval period, it had merged by the the time of the Norman conquest.

Am I thinking of the Dark Ages?