Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews
Published Plan Reviews
The table below contains my reviews of all the barricade plans that have come to my attention. Every plan reviewed below should be represented on the Barricade Plan Map. These reviews aim to be as objective as possible, ignoring local groups and conditions and looking solely at the plan for UBP compliance. Plans will be re-reviewed roughly every six months to keep this as current as possible.
- Buildings is the total # of buildings in the suburb. For buildings that occupy more than one block (like Malls), each block of the building counts as a separate building.
- VSB and EHB are the #'s of buildings designated at each level. Open locations and RPs on buildings are not counted as VSB locations, even though they still function as entryways.
- 'non-UBP' indicates that the plan has designated a number of essential buildings at barricade levels that are not in compliance with UBP guidelines strictly by building type. Under normal circumstances it is expected there would be a couple such buildings even in a fully compliant plan, such as when two Police Departments are only a couple of blocks apart and one is designated EHB.
- Compliant indicates whether or not it is a UBP style plan.
- Comments indicate things that affected my final decision and any changes I would recommend for that barricade plan. Where a plan was non-compliant I indicate what would be needed to change it to a UBP plan, if the maintainers so desired.
Suburb | Buildings | VSB | EHB | non-UBP | Compliant |
Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barrville | 57 | 18 | 39 | 8 | NO | A great plan for VSB placement, not UBP compliant. Too many UBP essential buildings are EHB. But a SOLID barricade plan all the same. |
Brooke Hills | 49 | 21 | 26 | 3 | YES | Plenty of VSB locations spread throughout with essential buildings accessible. |
Brooksville | 59 | 20 | 31 | 3 | NO | Too many VSB to be UBP compliant. Good plan though. |
Buttonville | 55 | 16 | 39 | 5 | YES | A couple spots that can be easily made better by having junkyards at VSB. Great plan already though. |
Chancelwood | 51 | 21 | 30 | 4 | YES | Considering the unique building layout and local FR lanes, this plan is remarkably efficient. Borders on too many VSB buildings, but works just fine as is. |
Chudleyton | 53 | 16 | 37 | 8 | YES | While more UBP essential buildings at VSB would be nice, hard to do here without compromising FR lanes. Could really use one of the NTs at VSB though. |
Crooketon | 52 | 22 | 30 | 2 | NO | Too many VSBs. |
Crowbank | 55 | 22 | 33 | 2 | NO | Too many VSBs. Good Optimal Defense Diagram though. |
Dakerstown | 57 | 11 | 46 | 7 | NO | Too many buildings are EHB. Many resource buildings are inaccessible to low-level survivors. Even the non-essential buildings (schools & fire stations) are EHB. This plan needs some work. |
Danversbank | 49 | 16 | 33 | 3 | YES | The only thing keeping this from being perfect is the EHB PD in the southern half of the suburb. Fantastic. |
Dartside | 52 | 15 | 37 | 7 | YES | Amazingly, all the non-compliant buildings fall into exceptions. Just need one of the NTs VSB to be spot-on. |
Darvall Heights | 61 | 14 | 56 | 2 | NO | Too many buildings are EHB, and neither of the NTs is VSB. Set one of the NTs (the non-mast one) at VSB and add a couple more VSBs to the east and NE and this plan would be great. |
Dentonside | 51 | 10 | 41 | 2 | NO | Needs a few more VSBs. |
Dulston | 58 | 26 | 32 | 2 | NO | With the exception of one small 3x3 area on the west side of the suburb that lacks an entry, Dulston is actually has too many VSB buildings. Add a VSB to the glaring 3x3 area on the west side and perhaps add some EHBs to the NE and this plan is fully compliant. |
Dunell Hills | 47 | 15 | 28 | 4 | YES | Some areas that could use another VSB, but otherwise this plan is good considering the building layout. |
Dunningwood | 50 | 20 | 30 | 4 | NO | Another example of a suburb that has too many VSB buildings. Change some of the VSB to EHB and shuffle around as necessary... this plan needs an update. |
Earletown | 58 | 15 | 43 | 3 | NO | None of the hospitals are accessible, and the VSB buildings really should be spread out more. |
East Becktown | 55 | 16 | 39 | 1 | NO | Poor distribution of VSBs, especially in the SW of the suburb. |
East Boundwood | 59 | 14 | 45 | 1 | NO | There are also two notable areas (between the schools and the fire stations; between the PDs and the hospitals in the SW) where there are blocks of just EHB. Remember that a good distance rule for plans is in any 3x3 block, there should be at least one VSB. |
East Grayside | 49 | 30 | 19 | 6 | NO | A very strange plan; not UBP-compliant. Way too many VSBs, all of the hospitals should be VSB, and at least one of the three PDs in the southern half should be VSB. |
Eastonwood | 60 | 17 | 41 | 3 | YES | Good plan. |
Edgecombe | 65 | 23 | 42 | 2 | NO | One of the NTs should be VSB. Some of the VSBs could be spread out more as well, or even made EHB since there are almost too many. |
Foulkes Village | 55 | 12 | 43 | 4 | NO | Both PDs and both hospitals should be VSB, and there should really be another VSB on the east side. |
Fryerbank | 58 | 6 | 52 | 6 | NO | Too many EHB. |
Galbraith Hills | 52 | 17 | 35 | 3 | YES | You could take away some of the VSBs and this plan would still be good. |
Gatcombeton | 43 | 9 | 34 | 0 | NO | One of the two buildings on the western edge of the suburb needs to be VSB, and the warehouse in the east should be EHB--switching one of the nearby buildings to VSB. |
Gibsonton | 60 | 17 | 43 | 7 | NO | One of the NTs should be accessible. A couple 3x3 areas that are missing a VSB, but that is less of an issue than one of the NTs. |
Greentown | 47 | 20 | 27 | 3 | NO | Too many VSBs, some in the northern half compromsing FR lanes. Good Optimal Defense Diagram though. |
Grigg Heights | 54 | 22 | 32 | 3 | NO | Actually a few too many VSBs. |
Gulsonside | 56 | 16 | 40 | 2 | YES | Good as is, but would be better if this or this where VSB. |
Havercroft | 56 | 19 | 37 | 3 | NO | So very close. Really just need to switch some VSBs to EHB and this is great. |
Heytown | 49 | 15 | 33 | 2 | YES | Great plan for the building layout. |
Hollomstown | 65 | 17 | 48 | 4 | NO | Poor VSB distribution. Remember that a good rule-of-thumb is 1 VSB in any 3x3 section of the suburb. |
Houldenbank | 54 | 16 | 37 | 2 | YES | Can't find any reason this isn't compliant. |
Huntley Heights | 61 | 16 | 43 | 1 | YES | I would move a couple of the non-essential VSBs around, but the plan is good. |
Jensentown | 57 | 23 | 33 | 1 | YES | BP is good, but might want updating. With the dark building update, locals might prefer to keep dark buildings VSB/ruined since they take more work to restore once ruined. |
Judgewood | 48 | 16 | 32 | 8 | YES | Really an ugly building layout no matter how you slice it. Pretty damn good, considering. |
Kempsterbank | 50 | 21 | 29 | 6 | NO | Good Optimal Defense Diagram, but for UBP we need more EHB as well as the PD put to VSB. |
Ketchelbank | 46 | 11 | 32 | 2 | NO | Need to add two VSBs to the NE corner. Otherwise pretty good. |
Kinch Heights | 51 | 18 | 33 | 6 | NO | A few too many VSBs. Great Optimal Defense Diagram though. |
Lamport Hills | 54 | 14 | 40 | 5 | NO | FR issues in the northern half (both of which can be remedied by making junkyards VSB) & blocking issue in the SE -- otherwise this is solid. |
Lerwill Heights | 53 | 21 | 32 | 3 | NO | Too many VSBs, some threatening FR lanes. |
Lockettside | 55 | 18 | 37 | 8 | NO | Decent spread of VSBs around the suburb, but too many UBP essential building not accessible. |
Lukinswood | 46 | 14 | 32 | 4 | YES | For the building layout, pretty darn good. |
Millen Hills | 52 | 16 | 36 | 1 | YES | Some of the NTs could be EHB and this would still be a good plan. |
Miltown | 53 | 14 | 28 | 6 | NO | The other PD and one of the other hospitals should be VSB. VSB distribution could be better. |
Mockridge Heights | 49 | 14 | 35 | 2 | YES | Really no good way to make this plan any better than it is, due to the building layout. |
Molebank | 61 | 18 | 43 | 3 | YES | A great plan. |
Mornington | 55 | 19 | 36 | 5 | NO | VSBs are well-spread throughout the suburb, but actually too many, some interfering with FR lanes. |
New Arkham | 54 | 24 | 30 | 6 | NO | Neither of the hospitals is VSB, and too many VSBs for UBP. One of the NTs should be VSB too. Decent Optimal Defense Diagram though. |
Nixbank | 47 | 14 | 32 | 3 | YES | Probably about as good a plan as you can hope for, considering building layout. |
North Blythville | 60 | 18 | 42 | 6 | YES | Make one place VSB and this plan is about as perfect as can be. |
Old Arkham | 57 | 12 | 45 | 8 | NO | Not enough VSBs, including essential TRPs like PDs and hospitals. |
Osmondville | 52 | 17 | 35 | 3 | YES | Good plan, could even take away some of the VSBs if the locals so desired. |
Owsleybank | 50 | 24 | 25 | 7 | NO | WAY TOO MANY VSB, and none of the TRPs are VSB. |
Pashenton | 56 | 15 | 41 | 2 | YES | Could use some minor tweaking, but overall a good plan. |
Paynterton | 54 | 20 | 34 | 0 | YES | Strictly compliant with UBP. |
Peddlesden Village | 47 | 16 | 30 | 5 | YES | Looks good. I would recommend putting the church at VSB and putting the RP at the carpark (and thus the factory at EHB), but that's just my own personal preference. |
Pegton | 59 | 18 | 41 | 2 | YES | Kind of borderline compliant, but the building layout makes this area difficult. |
Pennville | 62 | 20 | 42 | 7 | NO | Almost there. The hospital and PD near Fort Perryn should really be VSB, and there is a FR issue a couple blocks north of that. Otherwise great. |
Penny Heights | 63 | 16 | 47 | 8 | YES | The only real improvement would be to get one of the two NTs at VSB. |
Peppardville | 59 | 13 | 46 | 3 | NO | Too many EHB buildings. |
Pescodside | 58 | 17 | 41 | 2 | YES | Could really use another VSB on the east side of the suburb, but otherwise a good plan. |
Pimbank | 53 | 19 | 33 | 3 | YES | Some minor blocking issues in the south, but otherwise a good plan. |
Pitneybank | 47 | 15 | 32 | 4 | YES | Given the layout of the suburb and the location of the NTs relative to Giddings Mall and Fort Creedy, this is probably the best you could hope for. |
Quarlesbank | 62 | 19 | 43 | 3 | YES | There are some errors in the plan, namely some street locations with barricade levels listed. Otherwise, this is a great plan with VSB scattered across the entire suburb. |
Raines Hills | 62 | 16 | 45 | 4 | YES | Would suggest also making St. Mary's Church a VSB location. |
Randallbank | 58 | 15 | 43 | 2 | YES | I can't find anything wrong with this plan. |
Reganbank | 48 | 14 | 34 | 0 | YES | About as good as it's going to get. |
Rhodenbank | 58 | 22 | 36 | 2 | YES | BP is good, with VSBs peppered throughout the suburb. Plan can be difficult to read as there are no block names or rollover text, but the plan is sound. |
Richmond Hills | 45 | 16 | 29 | 3 | NO | One of the two NTs needs to be VSB along with the other hospital, and this plan is pretty much all set. |
Ridleybank | 66 | 23 | 43 | 8 | NO | Great distribution of VSBs around the suburb, but too many of the UBP essential buildings are EHB. |
Roachtown | 60 | 13 | 47 | 8 | YES | I would like to see another VSB or two, but it's a decent plan as is. |
Roftwood | 56 | 17 | 38 | 4 | YES | Plan is now in compliance |
Rolt Heights | 54 | 15 | 39 | 1 | YES | Could use another VSB location in the north, but otherwise a good plan. |
Roywood | 63 | 25 | 38 | 5 | NO | Too many VSB. In fact, just in the interest of preserving FR lanes I would make one of the two hospitals in south-central Roywood EHB as well as Gazzard Avenue School. Frauley NT could also be EHB without posing an issue. |
Ruddlebank | 57 | 21 | 36 | 5 | NO | Decent Optimal Defense Diagram, but too many VSBs for UBP--many of them compromising FR lanes. One of the NTs needs to be VSB, and the PD and hospital in the center should be as well. |
Santlerville | 51 | 9 | 39 | 5 | YES | While 1-3 more VSBs would be nice, on re-review I couldn't tell you where to put them. |
Scarletwood | 62 | 22 | 39 | 8 | NO | Great Optimal Defense Diagram, but not UBP-compliant. |
Shackleville | 56 | 13 | 43 | 8 | NO | Really needs one more VSB for the middle of the suburb. My personal choice would be this one. Great plan otherwise. |
Shearbank | 58 | 15 | 42 | 6 | YES | Personally I would like to see another VSB in the south and in the NE, but it's a good plan. |
Shore Hills | 49 | 20 | 29 | 2 | NO | Too many VSBs for UBP, but looks great as an Optimal Defense Diagram. |
South Blythville | 52 | 13 | 38 | 1 | YES | Could use another VSB in the NW quad, but it's good as-is too. |
Shuttlebank | 58 | 22 | 36 | 6 | YES | It would be nice if one of the NTs was VSB, but otherwise a decent plan. |
Spicer Hills | 63 | 20 | 43 | 3 | YES | A few spots that might pose FR issues, but overall a good plan. |
Spracklingbank | 50 | 15 | 35 | 2 | YES | Plan is good. |
Stanbury Village | 57 | 17 | 39 | 5 | YES | Personally I would move some VSBs around, but it's a great plan. |
Starlingtown | 47 | 10 | 37 | 4 | NO | Needs a couple more VSBs, and ideally one of the NTs could be VSB. |
Tapton | 52 | 18 | 34 | 3 | NO | Too many VSBs, particularly in the west where FR lanes are fragile. |
Tollyton | 52 | 17 | 35 | 5 | NO | Needs another VSB in the NE; my suggestion would be to make Tavener EHB and Godwin School VSB. |
Vinetown | 55 | 18 | 37 | 4 | YES | Solid barricade plan. |
West Becktown | 49 | 16 | 33 | 0 | NO | Distribution of VSBs throughout the suburb is very poor. New plan needs to be designed. |
West Boundwood | 55 | 13 | 42 | 3 | YES | Could use another VSB on the east side, but not bad. |
West Grayside | 57 | 16 | 41 | 2 | YES | Good plan, although one of the NTs could be at VSB. |
Whittenside | 58 | 14 | 44 | 5 | NO | Poor VSB distribution. All PDs and hospitals should be VSB, as well as one of the NTs. |
Williamsville | 58 | 14 | 44 | 5 | NO | A few too many EHBs. Add a couple more VSB where they will be most useful and this plan is great. |
Wray Heights | 62 | 21 | 41 | 7 | NO | Pretty good VSB placement, but too many essential buildings are EHB and one of the NTs should be VSB. |
Wyke Hills | 55 | 17 | 38 | 3 | NO | Screech Lane PD should be VSB and there are some FR issues. |
Wykewood | 48 | 16 | 32 | 4 | YES | It's compliant, but I would recommend changing some of the VSBs to EHB to safeguard FR lanes. |
Yagoton | 62 | 14 | 46 | 8 | NO | There is a lack of VSB buildings in the center of the suburb, both essential buildings and otherwise. |
Plans awaiting review
If you have a plan that has not yet been reviewed above, or was updated since its last review, please provide a link to the plan here, including the date added to the list. Please sign your posts so that we know who to contact when the review is completed.
Any comments about a plan previously reviewed or awaiting review should be made on the talk page.
Plans requiring re-review
- Roywood Barricade Plan - updated to address comments. Chief Seagull squawk 15:08, 17 June 2010 (BST)
- Dakerstown Barricade Plan - updated to address comments. Chief Seagull squawk 15:33, 17 June 2010 (BST)
- Dulston Barricade Plan - Modified to fix problems pointed out in comments. --Jerran1 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments and Feedback
If you have comments about a review above, please make them on the talk page.
Old review comments can be found in the archives.