Fun Stuff > CHATTER

plans for the inevitable undead uprising

<< < (104/184) > >>

OnewingedAngel:
Actually, i do have my pilots license. So that is theoretically possible. I have not taken into account the location of the original breakout, so if it happened here first, I might get to philly in time. If it happened say, there, my plan would be up a creek without a paddle. I think I may just go to my office and destroy the stairs. (yes I've already figured out how). After raiding the ralphs across the street of course.

Alex C:
I've become pretty convinced that if your plan is going to involve a lot of ground travel you're best off doing it by yourself with a light truck with some modest offroading ability while offering enough storage for supplies and extra fuel or a small car or stationwagon with great fuel efficiency--the big thing to remember though is you're going for effective range, not necessarily raw fuel efficiency, since your goal is to be able to carry enough fuel to avoid getting stranded in the event of a setback, not save pennies. It's pretty important not to be afraid of cars with small engines either, since the most common complaint about such vehicles is that they're nimble but have "sluggish engines and passing." Which, of course doesn't mean shit because you'll be driving conservatively for maximum fuel effiency and safety. The world's fastest sprinters can't hit 30 mph for even brief periods, so it's not like you need a bad ass road machine to outrun a freakin' zombie. I think it really needs to be sressed though that the traveling plan is pretty damn terrible if you don't know what you're doing, and even then there's some obvious risks. Basically, if you've never changed a tire and you'd never heard about fuel stabilizers until reading this sentence, the post-zompocalypse nomad plan definitely isn't for you.

Johnny C:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 07 Feb 2008, 23:38 ---Guys, fucking seriously. Have you ever seen a guy being beaten with a baseball bat? I have.

--- End quote ---

1) Aluminum or wood?

2) Also, whoever you saw being beaten with the bat wasn't a decomposing creature from beyond the grave.

A bat is better than no weapon. At the very least you can knock them away and make an escape route for yourself. That's what's important.

SonofZ3:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 07 Feb 2008, 23:38 ---Guys, fucking seriously. Have you ever seen a guy being beaten with a baseball bat? I have. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KILL THE ZOMBIES FAST ENOUGH. Hell, just a sturdy stick will serve you better than a baseball bat.

--- End quote ---

They actually tested this very thing on that discovery channel show "Smash Lab" not too long ago. They were trying to find out whether a hockey stick or a baseball bat did more damage when hitting a human face. The sturdy stick did 250 times less damage than the bat. Like I an others have already mentioned, we like bats because we already have them. Not everyone has bladed pole arms or axes laying around their apartment/house.

0bsessions:
The aluminum versus wooden thing is a big part of it.

As someone who routinely plays baseball and softball when I get the chance, I would much rather be hit with an aluminum bat than a wooden bat. There's a reason the MLB uses wooden bats: they're heavier and have a stronger impact. Sure, they're more likely to crack, but a wooden bat, while staying lightweight, will do more damage. A wooden bat may splinter, but an aluminum bat is likely to just simply cave after as much use.

When using a bat as a weapon, you wouldn't want to do a full follow through for two reasons:

1. It's going to make it more likely to splinter or break.
2. You're going to throw yourself off balance, possibly tripping or losing control of the bat.

It really should be thought of in terms of playing baseball, which is what the bat is for in the first place. The guys you see breaking bats are the big power hitters and guys who rake home runs. That's because they're putting all their force behind it and the impact is a strain on the bat. Meanwhile, contact hitters don't often get a crack unless they catch a really fast pitch. It's still enough force to send the ball flying a good 150+ feet into the outfield. While a zombie's head is a lot heavier and more durable than a baseball, it's also not traveling at you at 75-95 MPH when you impact. I myself tend to be a contact hitter as I only weigh a little under 160 pounds. I used the same wooden bat for about six years before it splintered and even then, it merely cracked after I tried to get under a 70 MPH or so curve ball that I took on the inside part of the bat. From that, I ended up finally outright breaking it a few weeks later when I tested the durability against a pine tree (Took close to a dozen cuts before it broke).

Using only enough force to knock down and temporarily immobilize a zombie, that bat isn't going to break any time soon. The force of impact, though, is going to clear a path for you, at least. You're not trying to knock their head off, just hit them hard enough to knock them away from you. That won't be sufficient force to break the bat.

Also, the big reason the bat outlasted the hockey stick is because a bat is much thicker and more stout. The impact area is a lot thicker where there's no real specific damaging spot on a hockey stick. If someone hits you in the knee with one, it'll do major damage, but a hockey stick's liable to crack in half over someone's back, where a wooden bat would not.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page