›

Rural or Urban areas?

TheNNerdGamerTheNNerdGamer
edited November 2012 in The Walking Dead
for zombie survival
what place could you most possibly survive..... or both?
(by both I mean: live in rural and make runs to urban or live in urban and make runs to rural)

Comments

  • HiggsBoson2142HiggsBoson2142
    edited November 2012
    I'd live in a rural area, and make runs to an urban area for supplies.
  • KingOfTheDeadKingOfTheDead
    edited November 2012
    Rural area less people=less zombies
  • MalphaxisMalphaxis
    edited November 2012
    Rural.by far.
    Im a former New York City resident..Staten Island to be exact.
    The population density would.be the death of millions.
    People on the mainland may have a better chance at making it out, but those on Staten Island,Manhattan & Long Island.. well.lets just leave it at horrific.
    Now I live in the foothills of N.C. a vastly lower pop. den. and depending on mortality rate it would still be a challange to survive the first days of a simultaneous occurance, world wide outbreak.
    But after that urban areas would be a last resourte except where perhaps advanced medical supplies or equipment was needed by survivors.
    The farmland, livestock and fresh water supplies would make going to urban areas a risk really not worth taking.
  • DreadMagusDreadMagus
    edited November 2012
    lol.... for some reason, I read this poll as "which is better? Shooting yourself in the face, or not."
  • EvinshirEvinshir
    edited November 2012
    I said both. Mostly because it depends on the city or rural locale. If you're dealing with a herd, some rural locations would be bad to live in because they are too exposed and there would be few places to hide while the herd passed.

    Some cities have better resources and their streets could be blocked off to provide natural channels for the Zombies to be directed through while the survivors lived on rooftops and made forays into the relative safety of the suburban outskirts for food growing.

    Some rural locations would be difficult to survive in over winter and could be too far from urban centres to make city runs viable.

    Ultimately it comes down to the specific locations.
  • CyreenCyreen
    edited November 2012
    Initially, both. Ideally, rural, but that would require time to become self-sufficient.
  • Willzy123Willzy123
    edited November 2012
    Urban; more zombiatches to kill!!!
  • JuicymarmaladeJuicymarmalade
    edited November 2012
    Rural could be safer as long as you have a safe and quiet home that isn't inhabited by cannibals or has a barn full of zombies, but one would have to travel for supplies.

    Urban would have a shit ton of more zombies but also would have more survivors and groups to join up in but in that case the people would be a threat as well.

    I'd go with urban though since it could have some pretty safe and isolated houses, like the one Lee and the group from the game found.
  • PelletPellet
    edited November 2012
    i'm completely fu**ed in a zombie apocalypse.
    I live in Houston. Then again we are one of the fattest cities, so all i gotta do is out run the fattys, make it to the port and go to Americas toilet the Gulf of Mexico. come to think of it im actualy very close to the water and have tons of mexican friends with boats. and a pretty secure wearhouse. i could make it, i just dont know how i would handle actualy having to kill a zombie, who would.
    Didnt mean to type that much lol
  • PelletPellet
    edited November 2012
    oh yeah and if that dont work i could always take back my old house in the country. 11 acres, 2 ponds (except in the summer), a well, and close to a decent sized lake
    ZA is fun to think about
  • eblocksonianeblocksonian
    edited November 2012
    Neither. Rural areas are too far from supplies, while Urban areas will be infested with zombies.

    Suburban areas are the way to go. Not so much people where you have to worry about that many more zombies, while being fairly close to supplies.
  • QuarterPounderVladQuarterPounderVlad
    edited November 2012
    Rural, Obviously.. Not so much zombies as In urban areas and.. Well, There should be atleast some supplies left for a few months. Otherwise turn on your tractor and scavenge.
  • dustpuffsdustpuffs
    edited November 2012
    It all depends on your particular area. For instance, I live in a rural area. Everyone has guns, and I know almost no people that don't hunt and fish. In this area, being prepared for disaster is a huge thing, and I know a ton of people that have a years worth of supplies stocked up. We have a river about 4 miles away with plenty of great fishing. Lots of small game, and a herd of deer that live a couple miles away. Not many people here, so I think it would be a good place to be. However, other rural areas could be a nightmare. It would depend on the resources available, and the type of people.
  • QuarterPounderVladQuarterPounderVlad
    edited November 2012
    dustpuffs wrote: »
    It all depends on your particular area. For instance, I live in a rural area. Everyone has guns, and I know almost no people that don't hunt and fish. In this area, being prepared for disaster is a huge thing, and I know a ton of people that have a years worth of supplies stocked up. We have a river about 4 miles away with plenty of great fishing. Lots of small game, and a herd of deer that live a couple miles away. Not many people here, so I think it would be a good place to be. However, other rural areas could be a nightmare. It would depend on the resources available, and the type of people.

    ..Wow, That sounds like a heavenly Rural Area. What's it called?
  • Sir FruitcakesSir Fruitcakes
    edited November 2012
    Rural=less people+more crops

    So that.
  • dustpuffsdustpuffs
    edited November 2012
    QuarterPounderVlad wrote: »
    ..Wow, That sounds like a heavenly Rural Area. What's it called?

    It's a western U.S. state with a lot of Mormons (the prepared people). Not heaven if you don't like close to 6 months of winter.
  • YamiRazielYamiRaziel
    edited November 2012
    It depends on the city. Some cities might be very hard to scavenge because of their construction. However, you don't have to worry about people in those cities, because every sane person would avoid them.
    Rural areas are less crowded with zombies but the human factor will be much stronger. Rival gangs, bandits and what-not would be challenging everything you have and hope to accomplish.
    Very small and mobile group - cities
    Hoping to form a big sort of community - urban areas.

    Still, people are much more dangerous than zombies.
  • Viner16Viner16
    edited November 2012
    Too much people would be in Urban areas, people=walkers.
  • RMJ1984RMJ1984
    edited November 2012
    Its pretty logical, you want the biggest chance of surviving in a world full of zombies, well then since each time you come in contact with them, you have a chance to be dead, you want to be where there is fewest zombies :)

    So by continuing that logic, the best place would be to go find a boat, and find a smaller island, where there isnt living a lot of people maybe the plague wouldn even have gotten there, so again higher chance of survival.

    So ill pick the option c "Island" :)
  • YamiRazielYamiRaziel
    edited November 2012
    Kirkman showed that in this world people are a bigger threat than zombies. In urban areas, the walkers will protect you from people trying to contest your territory.
    Walkers are a manageable danger, people are not.
This discussion has been closed.