-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 4119)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/zom/ - Zombies

Welcome back.

Standard rules apply, stay on-topic, and keep posting.

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, SWF, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 8192 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1061 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Shambler 12/12/15(Sat)09:06 No. 4119 ID: c4b012

File 135555877995.png - (501.29KB , 987x573 , Who wins.png )

Let's hear your arguments.

98 posts omitted. Last 50 shown.
Shambler 13/10/24(Thu)06:19 No. 4861 ID: 015f10

Actually, swords and axes were largely ineffective against helmets because they would glance off if the angle of the strike wasn't at just right; the helmet was also generally made of thicker steel than other pieces of armor, so you need that much more force to break it than if you went for the torso or limbs.

That being said, the beaks on the weapons you listed were indeed intended to pierce plate armor, but not helmets (for the reasons above). What you usually see in medieval combat manuals is the blunt end being used to concuss someone in a helmet, followed up by the sharp end being used to piece the thinner cuirass. That isn't to say it isn't possible, but it would be a lot more tiring than standard techniques, which could be fatal in a long, drawn-out battle.

Shambler 13/10/24(Thu)15:58 No. 4862 ID: ca12bb

I had a relative that died because of blunt force trauma leading to enough brain damage that didn't show up in terms a large imprint on the head, which is unsettling but goes to show it does work that way

thing is with a zombie, all that tiring dodging and parrying is a non-issue and you can just line everything up nice and perfect with LOG

and just let the little bastards gnaw on it, or roll it down the stairs, because LOG

ugh, blunt force trauma to the head... I've had that a few times myself but I would never want to be hit in the head by a seriously swung blunt weapon, even with a helmet, I know better than to think that will not destroy my brain through the resulting whiplash even if it doesn't snap my neck

Shambler 13/10/24(Thu)20:48 No. 4863 ID: 772ee9

It's big, it's heavy, it's wood,
It's better than bad, it's good...

Shambler 13/10/24(Thu)21:08 No. 4864 ID: 547d49

Its important to remember stealth is an element. Full armor suits are loud as hell. Also, these knights would all need squires to change and clean their armor- the armor was not designed for one person to put on or take off on their own. Also, because it took a long time to change, knights were expected to just shit and piss into their armor and have someone else clean it after battle.

Shambler 13/10/25(Fri)14:40 No. 4865 ID: 015f10

To reiterate:
>If you're talking about damage caused purely by force being transferred by a blunt object through a helmet, then you're limiting the damage to what can be caused by internal bleeding and swelling; the more force you transfer is just going to make the brain bounce faster and harder around in the skull, but given how soft and spongy the brain is you'll crush the skull long before you impart enough force to obliterate the brain from bouncing alone. I'm also assuming reanimated corpses kind of zombies here, so I'm considering internal bleeding/swelling as non-issues for them.

In a living person:
1) Head trauma causes bleeding in the brain.
2) The bleeding causes swelling of the brain.
3) The swelling causes a number of brain cells (but not all) to die as they're crushed against each other/the skull/cut off from blood flow.
4) Death of brain cells cause complications, death of the patient being one of them.

In a zombie:
1) Head trauma can't cause bleeding in the brain because zombies don't have blood flow.
2) No bleeding means no swelling.
3) No swelling means nothing is being crushed and there's no blood to cut off either.
4) Every cell in a zombie's brain is already dead and rotting anyway, arguably a much worse state than #4 in a living person.

If you expect a zombie to die from the same kind of head trauma as a living person, then you're not dealing with a reanimated corpse/walking dead/supernatural undead zombie; you're dealing with a "Runner" from 28 Days Later or an actual I'm-not-dead-just-stoned-off-my-ass-because-voodoo zombie.

Shambler 13/10/26(Sat)21:55 No. 4869 ID: f8b641

Knights did experience an fear posttraumatic stress

Shambler 13/10/31(Thu)15:11 No. 4873 ID: ca12bb


for these reasons, I am able to wind up a really great homerun on their head, crumpling the helmet into the brain with super smashes

okay cool I'm glad we had this conversation

don't forget "dead" means dead, therefore not moving at all

therefore it's not gonna bite, it's not gonna move etc ;)

unless we're talking about necromantic spellzombies that have a special magical rule that as long as their head is connected to their heart they can still gnaw chomp and so on

otherwise they'll just be night of the living dead zombies rawrrr! which means bullets won't affect them, in which case everyone more or less just dies as soon as it rains because lol groundwater contamination

etc etc :3

necromancy zombies are awesome though, cause then you get loot for killing them, and then it's a matter of dodge/parry/thac0

but if we're going into that category I'll just cast a purple spell protection from sadness 50 foot radius

Shambler 13/11/09(Sat)12:45 No. 4882 ID: 85f868

5. As you go back in time, the human immune system is more and more robust... etc. etc.

^^^ BS, please cite some evidence. Immunity is more reliant on diet and fitness level. There's a reason that 35 was a ripe old age in the peasant class.

Verily, thank you for this.

Shambler 13/11/10(Sun)13:05 No. 4883 ID: f6ad3a

>a big stick could destroy a brain inside a helmet quite easily

>for these reasons, I am able to wind up a really great homerun on their head, crumpling the helmet into the brain with super smashes

not sure if position has changed or doesn't get it...

Shambler 13/11/11(Mon)22:15 No. 4884 ID: ca12bb


oh I get it, and the position hasn't changed

a big swing is quite easy to do, it's a big swing on a dodging highly mobile target that's difficult

one of the reasons why in baseball, kids can hit quite hard when a ball is on the Tee, but pros have difficult times hitting well in live-pitch

you should get out more, play some sports, hit some heads or something

Shambler 13/11/12(Tue)13:26 No. 4887 ID: f6ad3a

nope, clearly didn't get it.

protip: you're gonna need to lift more than your keyboard to break skulls.

don't hurt yourself trying though.

Shambler 13/11/12(Tue)20:40 No. 4888 ID: ca12bb


don't be ridiculous, skulls are quite easy to break with the proper tools

Shambler 13/11/13(Wed)02:37 No. 4889 ID: f6ad3a

lol, time to stop playing so many video games

tell you what, you said it, you prove it. wrap a coconut in something padded, put a round iron pot no thicker than .15 inches over it, and try to smash that in one blow.

please hurt yourself trying, lol

Shambler 13/11/13(Wed)07:16 No. 4890 ID: f6ad3a

and before you try to go "durr hurr, you test first"

war hammer vs. spangem helm 1
war hammer vs. kettle helm 1
war hammer vs. kettle helm 2
german dude vs. zombies in modern steel helmet

only the spike does real damage, flat end just makes dents and those are fucking HAMMERS. now run along and do the test to prove how you can crush a helmet and skull with your ripped gaming arms, lol.

Shambler 13/11/15(Fri)08:57 No. 4891 ID: ca12bb


nice, he even hit it with the side of the warhammer and it crunched the thing :D

Shambler 13/11/15(Fri)09:15 No. 4892 ID: f6ad3a

still not hearing you fail to smash helmets and skulls with a single blow

Shambler 13/11/17(Sun)11:05 No. 4893 ID: ca12bb



U.S. Marines Jack 13/12/05(Thu)02:23 No. 4928 ID: 1c3b58

I've been in the Military for over nine years now. And I can saw without a doubt, no contest that the Marines would fair way better. Not only do they have the necessary Intel required to survive including modern day technology regardless of it's continued operation, many years of weaponry, war and tactics beyond that of any Crusader. But I know we are trained to survive and be combat effective with or without modern tech. Though the ones that would fair best out of all of us are the Spetsnaz... because they are all of them insane... to scary levels. Yeah they probably would suffer the most losses but they would win... if winning could occur... they practice jumping over cars and people while doing a front flip and throwing an axe or knife into a skull... why... because fuck you thats why.

Shambler 13/12/05(Thu)18:18 No. 4930 ID: 9ee338


Not dissing our disagreeing with your general position, but there are a just a couple of points.

Medieval knights, like the Samurai in Japan, existed ONLY to fight; war was their only function, and they trained for it daily. While they would have been hampered by a lack of large-unit tactical organization and knowledge, don't discount their individual training and combat skill and experience; as noted above, war was their life, their very reason for existence. This was true not only of the Knight, but also of his 'miles', his men-at-arms, the full-time professional soldiers of the day who formed the great bulk of the Crusader armies; the Knights were simply the officer corps.

Secondly, if any combat unit existing today were forced to rely on their basic combat load for any period of time, their efficiency would rapidly degrade to the point of nonexistence. Without resupply, ammunition would be rapidly expended and you would have a gaggle of guys armed only with a light, flimsy, half-plastic AR carbine (completely inadequate as a club) with a knife stuck on the end of it. And the modern military does not train its forces to fight as a unit with bayonets; trust me, I know. Everything is predicated on the assumption that the soldier WILL have ammunition for his personal weapon when the shit hits the fan. When everybody runs out of ammo, the best trained troops in the world become just another unarmed mob. And that is where the Crusader has his (only) advantage; as I've noted before, swords and maces don't run out of ammo.

Shambler 13/12/11(Wed)04:11 No. 4934 ID: 857cec

I would argue that marines wouldn't necessarily be limited only to what they carry. They would know the location of armories in their field of operation, plus whatever supplies gun stores (highly doubtful those would be looted, unless the store owner was irresponsible and put in cheap locks/didn't bar the windows, of course that means the marines will have difficulty getting in as well) still have.

Shambler 13/12/11(Wed)05:17 No. 4935 ID: 677dfa

Okay, let me clarify my point.

If the Jarheads were operating in the modern world, shit; they wouldn't need any sporting-goods stores. They would have access to armories with enough weapons and ammo to literally fight a war with, and that is including heavy (crew-served) weapons, vehicles, fuel, and all the secondary equipment like medical facilities, shelters, field rations, etc. But the scenario is USMC vs. medieval Crusaders. I would think that you would be looking at some kind of temporal disturbance that took the Marines back in time...thereby separating them from their supply base...or some kind of wormhole/alternate-dimension/Stephen-Fucking-Hawking shit. Either way, they are without support and dependent on the gear and supplies they are humping.

If it works the other way, and the Crusaders arrive in OUR time; well, arrest them all for holding a Ren-Faire without a license; think the closing scene in 'Holy Grail'.

Shambler 13/12/11(Wed)19:02 No. 4936 ID: 857cec

Oh, yes, I should have made that point clear as well. I'm operating on the assumption that both groups are operating on their home territories and era, reason being it would be an unfair comparison otherwise since any group that has been displaced in location and time will have a massive handicap in addition to dealing with zombies. Alternatively the scenario can be both groups are displaced into some zombie-infested world that neither are familiar with, so both can enjoy the same handicap.

Shambler 13/12/11(Wed)21:08 No. 4938 ID: 677dfa


Oh, hell; if that's the case, then there isn't even the beginnings of a contest! Assuming Romero/shambler zombies, the Marines would be infinitely more effective. Measuring Crusaders against Marines is a lot worse than comparing apples and oranges, after all.

Think of it this way; how well would a Crusader amphibious invasion of Guadalcanal have worked during WWII? It's doubtful that the poor bastards would have managed to kill the first Jap before they were entirely wiped out.

Shambler 13/12/12(Thu)12:02 No. 4939 ID: 857cec

Indeed, there's no contest when it comes to sword vs. gun in racking up kill counts, so it's unfair if the metric to "do better" is kill count, but it's also unfair if the metric is long term survival when the contest is rigged from the beginning by displacing one group in an unfamiliar environment.

Another thing to consider is just how many zombies each respective group has to kill. Marines may be able to kill more faster, but say they're trying to secure New York: that's potentially 8 million zombies in one city; conversely 13th century crusaders would need to kill at most something like 100 thousand zombies to secure Venice (most populace European city at the time, iirc). Of course, it would be dumb for either group to assault the most populated cities of their time, but it's just to illustrate the scale of their challenges.

Shambler 13/12/12(Thu)21:07 No. 4940 ID: 677dfa


That's where correlation of forces comes in. Obviously, you can't send a single company of Marines in to secure NYC. Or a single Brigade, or a single Division. Any modern military organization facing a zombie outbreak would face far greater numbers of zeds than their feudal Crusader predecessors. Of course, the Crusaders in the Holy Lands never numbered more than a few thousand; in the first Crusade they didn't even have sufficient numbers to completely invest the city of Jerusalem. So, they too would be facing vastly overwhelming odds.

I think at the end of the day this topic, while interesting and provoking considerable discussion on an undead board that can certainly stand the activity, is very much a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Shambler 13/12/17(Tue)19:35 No. 4950 ID: 1c2d8f

File 138730533197.jpg - (13.64KB , 320x247 , ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.jpg )

>apples and oranges
That's exactly what it is, it still sparks discussion.
They are going to have completely different advantages and disadvantages. There are too many "what if" scenarios and exceptions though, the discussion could really go back and fourth forever.

McW 13/12/17(Tue)21:28 No. 4952 ID: 677dfa

Assuming that the two groups share the same time and location, if I were the noble in charge of the Crusaders or the officer in charge of the Jarheads, my first thought would be "Why are we competing with these guys? We gotta team-the-fuck-up!" Seriously, even given language and cultural difficulties, wouldn't the living warriors make common cause against the walking dead? The Crusaders as cavalry scouts (assuming the Jarheads are leg-infantry without Humvees or IFVs) and close combat specialists, the Marines for general engagement of the enemy, especially removal of single targets or taking out large swarms.

Of course the noble and the OIC would have to fight a duel to decide who was Boss...which the noble would lose when the Marine officer shoota him right through the center of the forehead with his sidearm.

Didn't Mark Twain write something like that?

Shambler 13/12/17(Tue)22:45 No. 4953 ID: b550a5

>Of course the noble and the OIC would have to fight a duel to decide who was Boss...which the noble would lose when the Marine officer shoota him right through the center of the forehead with his sidearm.

I disagree, the Crusader would win. For starters, duals are fought up close. The CO wouldn't be trained to handle an armour clad crusader at close range and would likely panic whereas the crusader would be relatively oblivious to the risk of the gun and charge head-first at the CO eliminating him in a swing or two. If the CO did manage to win, unless he got into an up close struggle with the Crusader and miraculously came out on top then the other Crusaders would be disgruntled with the win and see him as a cowardly cheat. Sure, they'd play nice for a while (likely until they learnt to use the new tech.) but they'd certainly throw a coup taking out the marines out when they least expect it.

Then you'd have 49 fully equipped crusaders with 20th century tech. which would undoubtedly make them the best during a zombie apocalypse.

Shambler 13/12/18(Wed)03:57 No. 4954 ID: 857cec

Why the hell would there be dueling? The fact that an officer would never bet their command or that a noble would never duel a commoner aside, it's entirely possible for two military groups to cooperate without having the respective leaders try to kill each other.

In fact, they would want to cooperate and not absorb each other, because the roles of the two group differ so greatly that there's no way a single leader could effectively control the two even if they knew how to utilize the soldiers; any decent tactician would recognize this and the most they would do is appoint liaisons to facilitate communication and coordination.

And even if they were to duel, for whatever reason that might force them into such a situation, a marine's training is adequate in fending off people with swords (they do get into that situation quite a bit in the middle east and there hasn't been a single reported case of death by swording), the only difference is the armor (which is useless against grappling techniques, which is taught in CQC training, because it doesn't make joints any harder to bend), which is useless against a bullet. It doesn't matter how close they start, by the time a knight draws his sword a soldier would have his pistol out and discharged. It's not even a goddamn contest.

Shambler 13/12/18(Wed)04:33 No. 4955 ID: 5309df

Marines for sure, sorry to break it but I wouldn't trust 50 men that don't know how to operate most of what exists today to go on and fight a few thousand foes.

Military nowadays know how to walk for hours without much trouble, they know how to take care of and use their guns, are in top physical shape etc etc

Though I haven't met a US Marine so I can't judge, but their training seems good.

Shambler 13/12/18(Wed)04:38 No. 4956 ID: 5309df

>Guns run out of ammo
>Implying ammo is actually a problem ( it's not, assuming the Marines shoot properly they'll spend as much ammo to clear out a whole town as they usually do to kill a hidden sniper )
>Implying swords don't need to be maintained ( that goes double for european medieval swords made of shitty iron )

Though for that kind of situation, the best would be 50 british soldiers ( the ones in colonies )


Shambler 13/12/21(Sat)19:41 No. 4964 ID: 987fdd

Benefits only one group has:


+brute strength
+extreme toughness (by modern standards)

It depends on whether they're in a developed region or not. I'd take the Marines to compensate for foreign disease and (my) lack of extended survivability. If I were in a developed area, I'd take the Crusaders because of their huge not-pussies edge on almost everyone else.

Shambler 13/12/27(Fri)13:47 No. 4974 ID: d47a56

File 138814846096.jpg - (61.66KB , 600x800 , FOLDED OVER 1000 BILLION TIMES.jpg )

>european medieval swords made of shitty iron


Shambler 14/01/06(Mon)20:20 No. 4977 ID: dfc137

They'd probably know how to repair their swords.

Shambler 14/01/07(Tue)02:36 No. 4979 ID: 8cb8ad


If the Crusader had access to his smith then he would also have his sutlers and other camp followers and the baggage-train that supplied his needs and luxuries. That would mean that the Marines would also have their logistical support system, and therefore every jarhead will have his ammo-resupply. Advantage, USMC.

On the other hand, while swords get all the press, attention, and adulation, even at this early date it had already been pushed into a subsidiary role; the Crusader knight and man-at-arms first primary weapon would be a lance/heavy spear, followed (given the heavily armored nature of his Saracen enemy) by mace or battle-ax, both of which would provide very good service indeed against zombies. Also, don't forget the archer/crossbowman corps to provide fire support and flank security.

Shambler 14/04/16(Wed)13:57 No. 5063 ID: 27464e

50 random civilians with a six month training and a lot of state of the art tech gadget will do a great job. Until they run out of ammo.

50 warriors trained to melee fight since they are 6 year old will do a great job.


Shambler 14/05/09(Fri)04:39 No. 5096 ID: c0365a

Context please?

Are you talking:
- zerg-rush, a la WorldWarZ, (marines would last 5 minutes longer)
- 28 weeks later(city) (marines would last half a day longer)
- lower intensity zombie rush a la (28 days later countryside (knights would have to learn to hunt) but would prevail
- long haul, a la TheRoad/WalkingDead (ditto)

Shambler 14/05/18(Sun)06:50 No. 5100 ID: 31b4a8

File 140038860289.jpg - (10.21KB , 250x225 , MCMAP.jpg )

>random civilians with a six month training
What do you mean? Marines are not just trained for 6 months and then done forever. Even the national guard you have to go to debriefings and PT every other weekend.

Also, U.S. Marines do not get very high tech gadgets. Some stuff like radios, but that's useless if no one else is there to talk to. Otherwise it's just a rifle and some other gear.

Shambler 14/05/18(Sun)19:13 No. 5101 ID: 8326de

Yeah; the Corps sucks hind tit when it comes to gear, which is why they have traditionally been masters at getting the most out of what they did have. For example, after the Army got the Apache attack helicopter the Marines were left with the old Vietnam-era Cobras...which they retrofitted with upgrades to make it as good a combat platform as any in the world. They say that you can't make bread without flour, but the USMC have been doing so, and doing it WELL, for a couple hundred years now.

Shambler 14/05/19(Mon)09:53 No. 5102 ID: 31b4a8

Mhmm... It's mainly the Navy and Airforce who have all the technology. Army gets some good stuff, and the USMC basically gets shit and has to make do.

That Guy 15/05/28(Thu)18:39 No. 5393 ID: 25fc56

I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.

Team vs Team: The U.S. Marines got this.

Cooperative: The Crusaders have the background to see them through.

Teams Isolated from One Another: The Crusaders definitely have the more appropriate skill set.

In two out of three scenario, the Crusaders are better positioned to survive, so I'm throwing in my vote with them.

Shambler 15/10/15(Thu)11:37 No. 5432 ID: 1d9efc

I vote very confidently for the Marines, and this is due to just two words: Battlefield Medicine.

See, the marines are all going to be trained at least in basic first-aid. They know how to clean and dress wounds, how to prevent infection, how to diagnose ailments. They'll all know human anatomy and medical technique well enough to at least perform a successful amputation if necessary. In a squad of that size, there will be several well-trained medics to boot. Once they run out of supplies, they'll still be savvy enough to do things like use alcohol to disinfect wounds.

The crusaders, on the other hand, don't even know what infection IS, much less how to prevent/treat it. In short order, all of them are going to die of relatively small wounds out there in the wastes. You step on a rusty nail, you're dead. You brush your leg against an old barbed-wire fence, you're dead. You get hit in the hand with one of your friend's swords, you're dead.

Shambler 16/09/15(Thu)11:47 No. 5521 ID: abddff

>I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.

Knights were rarely lowborn, most knights are nobles who started their careers as children as pages then squires; the only way a commoner could rise to the status of knight is if they really impressed the shit out of someone during a battle, otherwise all of the traditional ways to become a knight were just way too financially prohibitive to a majority of the population. There were non-noble knights, granted, but those guys were generally mercenaries that were paid by some noble family to take the place of some son that's either too young or worthless to actually participate in the crusades (can't outright ignore the call to the crusade because it's instigated by the church and any God-fearing noble family that outright defies it won't be noble for much longer).

Villagers who were conscripted or lured by the promise of land ownership into crusader armies filled the ranks of pikemen, archers, and every other role that was essentially disposable. They would have been the guys with the knowledge of how to live off the land, not the knights.

Palanis 16/12/02(Fri)12:53 No. 5528 ID: 5b2ace

Actually, The Marines do NOT have their own medical unit nor get trained for such an event. Their medics come from the NAVY in the form of Hospital Corpsmen. So Marines alone wouldn't cut it.

Experience: Former Hospital Corpsman - US Navy

Vote FOR thE Knights and everybody wins. Shambler 16/12/20(Tue)19:20 No. 5529 ID: 9f628d

File 148225803781.png - (1.19MB , 1600x795 , s_e_v_e_n_swordman__s_by_geerdesings-d4lzjfc.png )

I vote for the knights cause they can slash the fucking throat outta of the zombies.

They are knights and will act reasonable while us marines dont possess the capability of fuck off.

US marines are just marines. Smoke some joints, get high and do the poppa poppa pop.

Shambler 17/01/04(Wed)03:30 No. 5530 ID: 38b5a3

>Crusaders whip out the Ark
>Marines' entire country is destroyed

Snake!bmwXlMHAUo 18/08/23(Thu)02:41 No. 5609 ID: 576201

The crusaders would have a hard time not infecting themselves because of the use of swords (lots of fluid contacting the blades) vs. guns (one headshot, no splatter).

Shambler 18/08/24(Fri)19:15 No. 5610 ID: 1690bb

The way I see it. The Marines would do better initially as guns obviously have the range advantage, but as the ammo wears thin they would eventually be fucked even in Hand to hand, the knights would do better long term assuming they use good tactics and don't just run at the zombies like some crazed assholes with a death wish.

Shambler 19/01/27(Sun)03:24 No. 5634 ID: b077d2

Knights usually fought in formation, or at least in command of a formation of lower-ranked troops. Like pretty much all european nobility since at least the bronze age, and perhaps even going as far back as the late neolithic era. There is no such thing as "blindly charging into battle" like some hollywood-fantasy "barbarian".

Shambler 19/03/24(Sun)22:07 No. 5639 ID: 100248

Crusaders because ammo runs out faster than a sword's sharpness. Also because they most likely will have more knowledge and experience about real life. While the Marines are good at offensive, the Crusaders are better at defensive. If the Crusaders fled a crowd of zombies, they would be able to defend themselves against them because they don't rely on guns (which use limited resources). But for the Marines, their supplies would run out easily, and if they take up all of the remaining supplies in the world, eventually they would lose all other remaining supplies altogether and would have to rely on weapons that don't rely on limitation. So they would only last for a short time, being most effective at attacking zombies but not so for defending themselves.

imo. crusaders have the upper hand.


Delete post []
Report post