Talk:Dam Tactics

Oh god...I can see where this is going... --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 05:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to enlighten the, eh, slower, of us here on the wiki? --The Surgeon General^DHPD|P! 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be probably something contrary to River Tactics, that is favored by Sonny. And it will probably be especifically attacking that POV and inciting survivors to be hardcore and resist head on. Neither of these tactics seem reasonable if you ask me. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think River Tactics is retarded enough since it's Barricade Strafing for the Psuedo Intelligent. Dam Tactics is pretty much what all Malls do. It's nothing new. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, are there any other widely received general tactics used by survivors? These are the only two I've heard of. --The Surgeon General^DHPD|P! 17:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bots and zergs seem to be popular. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit pessimistic of you. Not everyone stoops to such low levels to accomplish their goals. But, in your opinion, which side do you think uses these tactics more often: Survivors or Zombies? --The Surgeon General^DHPD|P! 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Survivors. We don't need to barricade like crazy. Besides, with a long time member of the NMC admitting to zerging I can safely say that survivors zerg no matter what. After months of playing and being accused of zerging, some of them can still find the nerve to do it anyway. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can safely say that survivors zerg no matter what. That is a very close-minded opinion. I realize that you may be a bit jaded from past conflicts with others, but not every group zergs. I'm a member of the DHPD, one of the largest groups in the game, and I can safely tell you that we do not zerg, and we have ratified the CFT. Hopefully Kevan will someday implement changes to the game that destroy the threat of zergs, but it may never be solved.What do you think could be done to stop zerging, other than having the moral fortitude not to? --The Surgeon General^DHPD|P! 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Saromu will mantain his view that the survivor population cheats maniatically when zombies just try to have fun and have a fair competition until he dies. Don't be confused: zergers and bots do exist, but I don't think they're a force to be reckoned in mall sieges and general large scale conflicts. Exceptions exist, like Yagoton's Valentin's day Massacre or that Stallone guy, but they're exceptions and not the rule, and antizerg countermeasures have been perfected with time. Anyways, I tought that he was a supporter of River Tactics because it's about any tactics that use avoidance as the main plan, and he has lobbied for "survivor nomadistic lifestyle" for a while. IMO no tactic should be taken as the ultimate one: Variety makes the game rich and fun. I suppose that you can get 100 by requesting 1000 every time, but it's tiring to hear the screams. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

River Tactics goes against being a Nomad. They're supposed to use up as much resources as possible and then move. Barricade strafing is a waste of resources (AP). It would be like the Vandals and Alans making false camps to confuse the Romans. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, barricade strafing plays upon a key difference between survivors and zombies—the need to congregate. Zombies cannot work alone, survivors can. If there are a bunch of unbarricaded buildings in a suburb, and one at EHB, the zombies are going to know where to look for food. If there are a number of well-barricaded buildings in close proximity to each other, it stands to reason that they can't all be full of humans, and even if they are they can't all be sacked by a single mini-horde. It's always struck me as perfectly logical. - Mac Howard 06:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing that isn't mentioned here is what happens when zombies win the siege. They spread out and rip apart the surrounding area. While the surrounding area may be safer while the siege is on-going. It becomes decidedly unsafe very quickly if the siege ends in the zombies favor. After Caiger fell this last time, not only was Darvall Height destroyed, but every adjacent suburb as well. When the dam breaks all hell is let loose. ZombieCrack 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's such an enjoyable way to chastise the hermits! I wear my ribbon with pride. --Father Bigley 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't buy Dam Tactics; I do not believe they work. Zombies have exactly two choices: they can win or get bored. They cannot lose. Dam Tactics seems to be based on the idea that a) zombies can lose, and b) if zombies are busy, other people won't get hurt. Well, zombies cannot lose, and if the zombies are busy, that's because they are hurting people. Sacrificing yourself to keep others from dying is not usually a winning tactic - that's just one more person who needs a revive.

Dam tactics is honestly the opposite of what survivors need to be doing: namely, giving the zombies a juicy target. If you paint a giant bullseye on your head, then the zombies get excited - they want to win, and they want to conquer, and eventually - they will. That's why people play zombies: you can't lose. However, if you do the opposite of these tactics - which I guess would be River Tactics - zombies aren't given the satisfaction of winning as often. With fewer victories goes the incentive to fight. With less incentive, fewer people play zombies, the hordes become less organized, and the survivors can live. --evilbob 19:47, 29 August 2007 (BST)

Dam tactics are a misunderstanding of river tactics. It assumes that river tactics involve moving all the time when really its simply moving when its vital for survivial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fernley (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Updates

Updates HAVE nullified this, have made it useless. Until the survivors can win a siege under the new system, we have to call this one debunked. Dam tactics, and the 'cade, dump, heal, kill' protocol were followed to the letter, survivors behaved virtually flawlessly in their defense of Giddings and Morrish- and still lost quickly.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Survivors can still win sieges, they were doing fine after the update at Giddings until the zombies changed their strategies. To claim survivors behaved virtually flawless is just crap though, there were plenty of flaws, for example running instead of reinforcing the corner with the zombies, even though you had 5 times that number of people in one corner. You're playing the "We couldn't possibly win" card and that is in no way true, you just got outfoxed. Also, regardless of that, an article should not be updated in a manner that actively refutes the articles content, if you have nothing to add beyond "don't do this" then don't add anything to the article. The only exception to this for a tactics page is something like Prison Tactics which is based off of an incomplete understanding of the game.--Karek^maps?! 11:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this page.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly, Prison Tactics was based off of the belief that survivors could barricade zombies inside buildings and they wouldn't be able to leave while there were barricades. This page has no such comparison beyond you thinking it's a bad tactic, I think River Tactics are a bad idea, I didn't post on their article saying that it's a useless tactic because you're not actually doing anything.--Karek^maps?! 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

... you think River Tactics are a bad idea? You sir, have insulted me! *slaps with glove* I challenge ye to a duel! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Pretense

"It is impossible to determine when and where the first concentration of survivors camped out in a resource building and kept it constantly barricaded against a ravaging zombie horde,[...]"

Having personally planned, contributed and established the defense of Hinks Crescent Police Department in early november 2005 as well as personally rounding troops and serving as role model example to follow, I can vouch for historical credibility. Better yet, The Abandoned even have an archived log of the event to prove it. Even though we admittedly lost the siege in the end, it pretty much became one of the events which shaped The Abandoned into what it came to be and still is today. --Eagle of Fire 04:52, 11 May 2010 (BST)

When the Levee Breaks

It should be noted that the failure against a horde that is drummed up to fight a survivor strongpoint is extremely *negative* for the surrounding area, even the entire city. When the Elicott Village Train station was abandoned and the ESCAPE attempt along with it, NO ESCAPE continued on its path of destruction to kill a very large population of humans, then afterwards participated in the Big Bash III, which led most of Malton to ruin. Not saying I am going to partake in this silly debate between "River Tactics/Damn Tactics", just pointing out an argument. Chuckiferd 03:12, 26 October 2010 (BST)

I'm struggling to understand just what it is you're pointing out. 03:16, 26 October 2010 (BST)

The problem with the Dam Tactic is not about failing or not... It is that zombies can coordinate easily to attack at the same time and completely destroy any barricaded building in a matter of minutes. If not of seconds. Thus, for the Dam tactic to work, you need an insane amount of survivor at the same spot. Survivors which needs to be ready to get active in a second notice.

Surely you can understand that it is impossible to actually succeed with a dam tactic unless the zombies allow you to win... Which wasn't really the case back in the good old days, when zombies didn't coordinate and attacked at random all day long.

The fact that zombies destroy suburbs is completely irrelevant. They would have done it anyways if they are organized in a structured group. You would never have had so much of a problem in the first place anyways if there were only a small amount of ferals around. -- •Eagle of Fire• 

 •[Talk]•  09:48, 26 October 2010 (BST)

Yes. -- LEMON #1 11:11, 26 October 2010 (BST)