Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
 
(160 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Published 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 [[Uniform_Barricading_Policy#Known_Barricade_Plans|Barricade Plan Map]]. This is obviously my subjective review, based on my intent for the [[UBP]].
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 [[Uniform_Barricading_Policy#Known_Barricade_Plans|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.
*'''Buildings''' is the total # of buildings in the suburb. For buildings that occupy more than one block (like [[Mall|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.
* '''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 the number of essential buildings that are designated at a barricade level that is 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 EH.
* ''''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.
*'''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.
*'''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.


Any reviews that are not dated were made before October 2006.
{| class="sortable wikitable"
 
Updated --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 
{| border="1"
! Suburb !! Buildings !! VSB !! EHB !! non-UBP !! Compliant !!
! Suburb !! Buildings !! VSB !! EHB !! non-UBP !! Compliant !!
Comments
Comments
|-
|-
 
| [[Barrville Barricade Plan | 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 || 50 || 22 || 28 || 2 || No ||
|-
Not enough EH buildings for UBP. Would require at least 4 more buildings be designated EH.
| [[Brooke Hills Barricade Plan | Brooke Hills]] || 49 || 21 || 26 || 3 || YES || Plenty of VSB locations spread throughout with essential buildings accessible.
|-
| [[Brooksville Barricade Plan | Brooksville]] || 59 || 20 || 31 || 3 || NO || Too many VSB to be UBP compliant. Good plan though.
|-
| [[Buttonville Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Crooketon]] || 52 || 22 || 30 || 2 || NO || Too many VSBs.
|-
| [[Crowbank Barricade Plan | Crowbank]] || 55 || 22 || 33 || 2 || NO || Too many VSBs. Good [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]] though.
|-
| [[Dakerstown Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Dentonside]] || 51 || 10 || 41 || 2 || NO || Needs a few more VSBs.
|-
| [[Dulston Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Earletown]] || 58 || 15 || 43 || 3 || NO || None of the hospitals are accessible, and the VSB buildings really should be spread out more.
|-
| [[East Becktown Barricade Plan | East Becktown]] || 55 || 16 || 39 || 1 || NO || Poor distribution of VSBs, especially in the SW of the suburb.
|-
| [[East Boundwood Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Eastonwood]] || 60 || 17 || 41 || 3 || YES || Good plan.
|-
| [[Edgecombe Barricade 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Fryerbank]] || 58 || 6 || 52 || 6 || NO || Too many EHB.
|-
| [[Galbraith Hills Barricade Plan | Galbraith Hills]] || 52 || 17 || 35 || 3 || YES || You could take away some of the VSBs and this plan would still be good.
|-
| [[Gatcombeton Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Greentown]] || 47 || 20 || 27 || 3 || NO || Too many VSBs, some in the northern half compromsing FR lanes. Good [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]] though.
|-
| [[Grigg Heights Barricade Plan | Grigg Heights]] || 54 || 22 || 32 || 3 || NO || Actually a few too many VSBs.
|-
| [[Gulsonside Barricade Plan | Gulsonside]] || 56 || 16 || 40 || 2 || YES || Good as is, but would be better if [[Welsford Towers|this]] or [[Junkyard 73,78|this]] where VSB.
|-
| [[Havercroft Barricade Plan | Havercroft]] || 56 || 19 || 37 || 3 || NO || So very close. Really just need to switch some VSBs to EHB and this is great.
|-
| [[Heytown Barricade Plan | Heytown]] || 49 || 15 || 33 || 2 || YES || Great plan for the building layout.
|-
| [[Hollomstown Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Houldenbank]] || 54 || 16 || 37 || 2 || YES || Can't find any reason this isn't compliant.
|-
| [[Huntley Heights Barricade Plan | Huntley Heights]] || 61 || 16 || 43 || 1 || YES || I would move a couple of the non-essential VSBs around, but the plan is good.
|-
| [[Jensentown Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Judgewood]] || 48 || 16 || 32 || 8 || YES || Really an ugly building layout no matter how you slice it. Pretty damn good, considering.
|-
| [[Kempsterbank Barricade Plan | Kempsterbank]] || 50 || 21 || 29 || 6 || NO || Good [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]], but for UBP we need more EHB as well as the PD put to VSB.
|-
| [[Ketchelbank Barricade Plan | Ketchelbank]] || 46 || 11 || 32 || 2 || NO || Need to add two VSBs to the NE corner.  Otherwise pretty good.
|-
| [[Kinch Heights Barricade Plan | Kinch Heights]] || 51 || 18 || 33 || 6 || NO || A few too many VSBs. Great [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]] though.
|-
| [[Lamport Hills Barricade Plan | 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 Barricade Plan | Lerwill Heights]] || 53 || 21 || 32 || 3 || NO || Too many VSBs, some threatening FR lanes.
| Brooksville || 59 || 20 || 39 || 5 || No ||
None of the schools or auto repairs are VSB. Additionally at least one of the NT buildings, since there are more than one, should be VSB. Make one each of the NT, AR & S buildings VSB and change the designation of 4 other non-resource buildings nearby from VS to EH. With 4 FS & 3 PD, changing up to one of each to EH to make the 4 alterations is feasible, if that makes balancing layout easier.
|-
|-
 
| [[Lockettside Barricade Plan | Lockettside]] || 55 || 18 || 37 || 8 || NO || Decent spread of VSBs around the suburb, but too many UBP essential building not accessible.
| Buttonville || 55 || 14 || 41 || 5 || Yes ||
None of the schools are VSB and I can't see why at least one couldn't be. Otherwise it is a well laid out UBP compliant plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[Lukinswood Barricade Plan | Lukinswood]] || 46 || 14 || 32 || 4 || YES || For the building layout, pretty darn good.
| Danversbank || 49 || 29 || 20 || 1 || No ||
Far too few EH buildings to be UBP compliant.
|-
|-
 
| [[Millen Hills Barricade Plan | Millen Hills]] || 52 || 16 || 36 || 1 || YES || Some of the NTs could be EHB and this would still be a good plan.  
| Dulston || 58 || 27 || 31 || 0 || No ||
Not enough EH buildings for UBP. Would require at least 8 more buildings be designated EH.
|-
|-
 
| [[Miltown Barricade Plan | Miltown]] || 53 || 14 || 28 || 6 || NO || The other PD and one of the other hospitals should be VSB. VSB distribution could be better.
| Earletown || 58 || 42 || 16 || ? || No ||
Way too many VS barricade buildings to be compliant. The lone nechrotech building is desgnated as EH.  Feel free to change the comments here, just be sure to actually look at the map first.
|-
|-
 
| [[Mockridge Heights Barricade Plan | 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.
| East Becktown || 55 || 16 || 39 || 5 || Yes ||
While technically in compliance other than Auto Repairs, this plan could use other updating as well. At least a couple of the NT buildings could be made EH as well as 2-3 of the 6 hospitals. This would allow some non-resource buildings to be designated VS and improve the distribution as well.
|-
|-
 
| [[Molebank Barricade Plan | Molebank]] || 61 || 18 || 43 || 3 || YES || A great plan.
| <s>East Boundwood</s> || 60 || 14 || 46 || 3 || <s>Yes</s> ||
<s>While this plan is compliant, it really needs another 2-3 VSB locations. While it is hard to evaluate the layout with the image used, I'd suggest at least the Scarman Building (46,2) as VSB.</s>  Plan removed and another one substituted since this review. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 18:58, 7 August 2007 (BST)
|-
|-
 
| [[Mornington Barricade Plan | Mornington]] || 55 || 19 || 36 || 5 || NO || VSBs are well-spread throughout the suburb, but actually too many, some interfering with FR lanes.
| East Grayside || 49 || 16 || 33 || 5 || Yes ||
Not sure about the layout - particularly having the H & PD next to each other both EH. Generally good though with tough terrain.
|-
|-
 
| [[New Arkham Barricade Plan | 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 [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]] though.
| Eastonwood || 61 || 11 || 50 || 5 || Yes ||
Not enough VSB designated locations for starters; the plan needs at least 4 more VSB designated locations. I'm not counting any buildings designated as revive points, as no one sane would consider a building with zombies standing around a safe house, nor could you count the open building used by [[Fight Club]]. Those are still etnryways though, so 3 well placed additional VSB locations could do it. Also, at least one NT building needs to be VSB under the USB, and Eastonwood has enough of them it could certainly spare one for the newbs. ;)
|-
|-
 
| [[Nixbank Barricade Plan | Nixbank]] || 47 || 14 || 32 || 3 || YES || Probably about as good a plan as you can hope for, considering building layout.
| Galbraith Hills || 52 || 18 || 34 || 2 || Yes ||
Yes - an easy decision! ;)
|-
|-
 
| [[North Blythville Barricade Plan | North Blythville]] || 60 || 18 || 42 || 6 || YES || Make [[Junkyard 24,67|one place]] VSB and this plan is about as perfect as can be.
| Gibsonton || 60 || 22 || 38 || 3 || Yes ||
Technically this plan should drop 2 VS locations and switch a couple others from non-resource locations to Auto Repairs to be 100%.
|-
|-
 
| [[Old Arkham Barricade Plan | Old Arkham]] || 57 || 12 || 45 || 8 || NO || Not enough VSBs, including essential TRPs like PDs and hospitals.
| Gulsonside || 56 || 15 || 41 || 2 || Yes ||
Could really be tweaked a bit by adding a couple more VSB designated buildings to improve distribution, particularly in the western 2 quads.
|-
|-
 
| [[Osmondville Barricade Plan | Osmondville]] || 52 || 17 || 35 || 3 || YES || Good plan, could even take away some of the VSBs if the locals so desired.
| Houldenbank || 54 || 15 || 39 || 3 || Yes ||
Very well laid out plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[Owsleybank Barricade Plan | Owsleybank]] || 50 || 24 || 25 || 7 || NO || WAY TOO MANY VSB, and none of the TRPs are VSB.
| Huntley Heights || 61 || 32 || 29 || 1 || No ||
The use of separate colors for HB and EHB is a bit confusing, particularly as green is used in so many plans for VSB. This is a good example of an 'Optimal Defense Plan' and would need to drop 10-14 VSB locations to be UBP compliant.
|-
|-
 
| [[Pashenton Barricade Plan | Pashenton]] || 56 || 15 || 41 || 2 || YES || Could use some minor tweaking, but overall a good plan.
| [[Jensentown Barricade Plan|Jensentown]] || 57 || 22 || 34 || 1 || 2 || ? ||
|-
|-
 
| [[Paynterton Barricade Plan | Paynterton]] || 54 || 20 || 34 || 0 || YES || Strictly compliant with UBP.
| Judgewood || 48 || 19 || 29 || 1 || No ||
This plan would need to convert 3 currently VSB locations to EHB to be compliant. However the plan states that its intent is to be VSB heavy and newbie-friendly, and is fairly well laid out. Just as an aside, the high # of RPs seems unnecessarily confusing, and none seem to be registered on the [[List of Revivification Points]] page. --18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Peddlesden Village Barricade Plan | 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.  
| Kempsterbank || 50 || 36 || 14 || 0 || No ||
Far too few locations designated EH to be UBP compliant. 1of the NT buildings could be EH, as could 4-5 or the central resource buildings (1-2 Fire Stations and 3-4 hospitals) for starters. But at least 10-12 other buildings would need to be designated EH to be a UP plan.  
|-
|-
 
| [[Pegton Barricade Plan | Pegton]] || 59 || 18 || 41 || 2 || YES || Kind of borderline compliant, but the building layout makes this area difficult.
| Kinch Heights || 51 || 17 || 34 || 8 || Yes ||
Plan was updated with more VSB locations. While there are still some recomendations I'd make, the plan now meets UBP standards well enough.
|-
|-
 
| [[Pennville Barricade Plan | 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.
| Lamport Hills || 54 || 14 || 40 || 4 || Yes ||
This plan could use 1-2 more VSB locations as it is near the upper edge of the VS/EH ratio, but the layout is pretty good in general. 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Penny Heights Barricade Plan | Penny Heights]] || 63 || 16 || 47 || 8 || YES || The only real improvement would be to get one of the two NTs at VSB.
| Lockettside || 55 || 16 || 39 || 6 || Yes ||
I'd like to see the NT building be maintained at VSB if possible, now that the suburb is resettled, and the only Auto Repair is EHB. But those are relatively small details on a well thought out plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[Peppardville Barricade Plan | Peppardville]] || 59 || 13 || 46 || 3 || NO || Too many EHB buildings.  
| Lukinswood || 46 || 17 || 29 || 3 || Yes ||
Shortman building should be EH as both the mast and one of two NT buildings in very close proximity. And swap a couple Auto Repairs with pups perhaps.
|-
|-
 
| [[Pescodside Barricade Plan | Pescodside]] || 58 || 17 || 41 || 2 || YES || Could really use another VSB on the east side of the suburb, but otherwise a good plan.
| Millen Hills || 52 || 14 || 38 || 2 || Yes ||
I would recommend changing 2-3 NT buildings and 1-2 PD's (though 4 total at most) to EHB in exchange for a like number of non-resource buildings being designated VSB + designate one or both schools VSB.
|-
|-
 
| [[Pimbank Barricade Plan | Pimbank]] || 53 || 19 || 33 || 3 || YES || Some minor blocking issues in the south, but otherwise a good plan.
| Miltown || 53 || 11 || 38 || 5 || No ||
Needs 2-3 more VSB designated buildings to be compliant which should include a hospital and maybe an auto repair shop. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Pitneybank Barricade 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.
| Mockridge Heights || 49 || 14 || 35 || 1 || Yes ||
Solid.
|-
|-
 
| [[Quarlesbank Barricade Plan | 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.
| New Arkham || 54 || 19 || 35 || 6 || Yes ||
The plan is a bit hard to read. One of the Auto Repairs should probably be made VS, perhaps exchanging Lawrence for the junkyard.
|-
|-
 
| [[Raines Hills Barricade Plan | Raines Hills]] || 62 || 16 || 45 || 4 || YES || Would suggest also making St. Mary's Church a VSB location.
| Nixbank || 47 || 12 || 35 || 1 || No ||
Updated plan using the template (thanks!). It could use maybe one more VSB location, but with the layout and so few buildings, it is a tight call on where to best put one. Regardless, the new plan is definitely UBP compliant.
|-
|-
 
| [[Randallbank Barricade Plan | Randallbank]] || 58 || 15 || 43 || 2 || YES || I can't find anything wrong with this plan.
| North Blythville || 60 || 17 || 43 || 3 || Yes ||
I have some reservations on this plan. While it certainly has enough locations, the center of town has no entryways. One of the goals of the UBP is to have at least one entryway for any 9 block section. That isn't always possible when balancing all considerations, but in this case I think it certainly is. Unless there is some specific reason for the Travers Building (26, 63) to be VSB, I would recommend simply redesignating that location to EH and setting one of the buildings in the center as an entryway.
|-
|-
 
| [[Reganbank Barricade Plan | Reganbank]] || 48 || 14 || 34 || 0 || YES || About as good as it's going to get.
| Pashenton || 56 || 13 || 43 || 0 || No ||
To few VSB designated locations to be USB compliant. 3-4 well placed VSB locations would be sufficient to make this a UBP plan. Also note though that the UBP would allow one NT to be designated EHB, which might be useful - just replace it with a different VSB location. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Rhodenbank Barricade Plan | 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.
| Pegton || 59 || 10 || 49 || 12 || No ||
Another plan that is extremely unfriendly to low level survivors, with too few VSB entryways in general  and most resource buildings over-barricaded.
|-
|-
 
| [[Richmond Hills Barricade Plan | 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.
| Pennville || 59 || 8 || 51 || 7 || No ||
|-
Pennville is a deathtrap for newbies, with half of the resource buildings designated EH and only 8 VSB entryways in the entire suburb.
| [[Ridleybank Barricade Plan | Ridleybank]] || 66 || 23 || 43 || 8 || NO || Great distribution of VSBs around the suburb, but too many of the UBP essential buildings are EHB.
|-
|-
 
| [[Roachtown Barricade Plan | Roachtown]] || 60 || 13 || 47 || 8 || YES || I would like to see another VSB or two, but it's a decent plan as is.
| Penny Heights || 63 || 15 || 48 || 10 || No ||
There are a number of problems with this map, most critically the junkyards are labeled as open spaces instead of buildings. Over all there are to few locations designated VS, particularly in the middle of the suburb, to meet distribution guidelines. I also don't note any VS entryways adjacent to the Lumber Mall, where there should be at least one. Also both of the suburbs NT buildings are designated EH where one should be VS.
|-
|-
 
| [[Roftwood Barricade Plan | Roftwood]] || 56 || 17 || 38 || 4 || YES || Plan is now in compliance
| Pescodside || 58 || 15 || 43 || 2 || Yes ||
Fairly straight forward plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[Rolt Heights Barricade Plan | Rolt Heights]] || 54 || 15 || 39 || 1 || YES || Could use another VSB location in the north, but otherwise a good plan.
| Quarlesbank || 61 || 19 || 42 || 5 || Yes ||
The fire station and at least 2 Auto Repairs should be changed to VSB, Pitman SW should be EH and probably one more NT building EH (Milnerr)
|-
|-
 
| [[Roywood Barricade 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.  
| Raines Hills || 62 || 14 || 48 || 5 || No ||
Needs 2-5 more VSB designated locations to be considered UBP compliant. The layout also needs a lot of work - in this case the default locations leaves some large sections without any entryways. To be a UBP plan, my recommendations would be to change Skarin Way FS to EHB and add 4 well distributed VSB locations. --18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Ruddlebank Barricade Plan | Ruddlebank]] || 57 || 21 || 36 || 5 || NO || Decent [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|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.
| Randallbank || 58 || 12 || 46 || 8 || No ||
There needs to be at least 3 more buildings designated VS and preferably 6-8 more. Also one of the hospitals and the police station should be designated VS, as well as a few Auto Repair shops of course.
|-
|-
 
| [[Santlerville Barricade Plan | 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.
| Reganbank || 48 || 13 || 35 || 1 || Yes ||
There needs to be at least 3 more buildings designated VS and preferably 6-8 more. Also one of the hospitals and the police station should be designated VS, as well as a few Auto Repair shops of course.
|-
|-
 
| [[Scarletwood Barricade Plan | Scarletwood]] || 62 || 22 || 39 || 8 || NO || Great [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]], but not UBP-compliant.
| Rhodenbank || 58 || 24 || 34 || 3 || No ||
Overall, there is a high amount of VS buildings, all concentarted along one path. 41% of the buildings are VS in an area that is labeled as dangerous. The Lone AutoShop and School are both EH, and the cell tower appears to be VS (hard to tell). There is no non-resource point VS in the NW quadrent, and there are numerous 9-block violations. The VS buildings would need to be reduced and more spread out before the map could be UBP complaint.  
|-
|-
 
| [[Shackleville Barricade Plan | Shackleville]] || 56 || 13 || 43 || 8 || NO || Really needs one more VSB for the middle of the suburb. My personal choice would be [[The Williames Building (Shackleville)|this one]]. Great plan otherwise.
| Richmond Hills || 45 || 16 || 29 || 5 || No ||
While the numbers and distribution are good, none of the few resource buildings in this suburb are designated VS!
|-
|-
 
| [[Shearbank Barricade Plan | 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.
| Roachtown || 59 || 14 || 45 || 5 || Yes ||
Updated plan comes ''much'' closer to UBP, and is now a near miss. One of the NT buildings and one of the schools should be VSB, and in general the suburb could use at least another 1-2 VSB locations anyway. However its proximity to Ridleybank necesitates somewhat higher than usual security, which the UBP allows for, so I'm changing it's clasification to compliant since it is so close anyway.
|-
|-
 
| [[Shore Hills Barricade Plan | Shore Hills]] || 49 || 20 || 29 || 2 || NO || Too many VSBs for UBP, but looks great as an [[Barricade Plan#Optimal Defense Plan|Optimal Defense Diagram]].
 
| Rolt Heights || 54 || 12 || 42 || 0 || No ||
This one just barely misses. I needs one more VSB building in the center/North portion of the suburb - I'd suggest Cayley Library (84, 12). One more VSB building in addition to that wouldn't hurt, but isn't required.
|-
|-
 
| [[South Blythville Barricade Plan | South Blythville]] || 52 || 13 || 38 || 1 || YES || Could use another VSB in the NW quad, but it's good as-is too.
| Roywood || 63 || 28 || 35 || 1 || No ||
This suburb has a few too many VSB locations to be fully compliant, but only just. Switching 4-8 locations to EHB would be sufficient.
|-
|-
 
| [[Shuttlebank Barricade Plan | Shuttlebank]] || 58 || 22 || 36 || 6 || YES || It would be nice if one of the NTs was VSB, but otherwise a decent plan.
| Ruddlebank || 57 || 20 || 27 || 6 || Yes ||
There are some minor tweaks I might make to this plan, like maybe designating one hospital EHB, but not much else.
|-
|-
 
| [[Spicer Hills Barricade Plan | Spicer Hills]] || 63 || 20 || 43 || 3 || YES || A few spots that might pose FR issues, but overall a good plan.
| Santlerville || 51 || 7 || 44 || 12 || No ||
IMO this plan makes Santlerville a death trap for new survivor players. 3 of its 4 hospitals, both schools, all 4 auto repairs and both NTs are designated EHB. To be compliant, this plan would need to make 7 - 9 more buildings designated VSB, including 2 more hospitals, 1-2 schools, 2-3 auto repair shops and 1 NT. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Spracklingbank Barricade Plan | Spracklingbank]] || 50 || 15 || 35 || 2 || YES || Plan is good.
| Scarletwood || 62 || 24 || 38 || 6 || No ||
There are a few too many buildings designated VS to be UBP compliant. More importantly however is that a few key resource buildings, particularly the Police Departments, are listed as EH.
|-
|-
 
| [[Stanbury Village Barricade Plan | Stanbury Village]] || 57 || 17 || 39 || 5 || YES || Personally I would move some VSBs around, but it's a great plan.
| Shackleville || 56 || 17 || 39 || 7 || Yes ||
Solid plan. The NT building is a tough call due to the distance to other options and the frequency with which it is under attack. One or both Auto Repairs and one more school could be made VSB and perhaps one or two other locations designated EH.
|-
|-
 
| [[Starlingtown Barricade Plan | Starlingtown]] || 47 || 10 || 37 || 4 || NO || Needs a couple more VSBs, and ideally one of the NTs could be VSB.
| Shearbank || 58 || 14 || 44 || 8 || No ||
Needs at least 3 more VSB locations (maybe Denmead School and/or Abrahall Auto Repair among those). The Mallows building, the Rush Building and Club Williames are good candidates to consider. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Tapton Barricade Plan | Tapton]] || 52 || 18 || 34 || 3 || NO || Too many VSBs, particularly in the west where FR lanes are fragile.
| Spracklingbank || 50 || 15 || 35 || 0 || Yes ||
I might suggest swapping 2-3 Auto Repair shops and Railway Stations for 3-4 non-resource buildings just to tweak the distribution some, particularly for the NW of the suburb.
|-
|-
 
| [[Tollyton Barricade Plan | Tollyton]] || 52 || 17 || 35 || 5 || NO || Needs another VSB in the NE; my suggestion would be to make Tavener EHB and Godwin School VSB.
| Stanbury Village || 57 || 16 || 41 || 6 || No ||
Stanbury Village is frequently hit by the RRF for containing the closest Mall to Ridleybank. Given that, this plan comes suprising close to being UBP compliant. It has sufficient VSB locations, just that at least one NT and one PD should be among the VSB designated locations, as well as perhaps the AR. It is a ''very'' close call on this one given it's location.
|-
|-
 
| [[Vinetown Barricade Plan | Vinetown]] || 55 || 18 || 37 || 4 || YES || Solid barricade plan.
| Tapton || 52 || 17 || 35 || 4 || Yes ||
Looks good! --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[West Becktown Barricade Plan | West Becktown]] || 49 || 16 || 33 || 0 || NO || Distribution of VSBs throughout the suburb is very poor. New plan needs to be designed.
| Tollyton || 52 || 15 || 37 || 5 || Yes ||
Again, a plan where I might suggested exchanging the designations of a few buildings, but generally a good plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[West Boundwood Barricade Plan | West Boundwood]] || 55 || 13 || 42 || 3 || YES || Could use another VSB on the east side, but not bad.
| West Becktown || 49 || 16 || 33 || 1 || Yes ||
The one Auto Repair should be designated VS, which would help with the large un-enterable area on the West border. There is also a cluster of 5 resource buildings to the south with 2 more nearby. The NT building should and the Fire Station could be switched to EH so two well placed non-resource buildings could be designated VS.
|-
|-
 
| [[West Grayside Barricade Plan | West Grayside]] || 57 || 16 || 41 || 2 || YES || Good plan, although one of the NTs could be at VSB.
| West Boundwood || 55 || 12 || 43 || 6 || No ||
W. Boundwood has no schools or auto repair shops designated as VSB, and in general too few VSB designated locations. 2-6 more well placed VSB locations, including at least 2-3 schools and repair shops would do it.
|-
|-
 
| [[Whittenside Barricade Plan | Whittenside]] || 58 || 14 || 44 || 5 || NO || Poor VSB distribution. All PDs and hospitals should be VSB, as well as one of the NTs.
| Whittenside || 53 || 16 || 37 || 7 || No ||
Tough call! Really it was both Fire Stations being set to EH that made the decision (Creyghton is a Railway Station!). I'd like to see at least one of the FS's set to VSB and maybe 1-2 other resource buildings as well, but in general this is a good plan (IMHO).
|-
|-
 
| [[Williamsville Barricade Plan | 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.
| Williamsville || 58 || 14 || 44 || 6 || No ||
A close one. Needs 3-4 more VSB designated locations of which 1  should be another auto repair and one should be a school. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|-
 
| [[Wray Heights Barricade Plan | 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.
| Wray Heights || 62 || 17 || 45 || 6 || Yes ||
A fairly good plan (UBP speaking ;). With the number of buildings in this suburb it could live with one or maybe even two more VSB locations, but numbers are OK as is. The layout could perhaps use a little tweaking to improve distribution a bit, including perhpas trading a couple auto repairs for schools. Clevely Way would be an ideal spot for an RP, with two NTs within two blocks, one VSB and one EHB, plus Diaper AR as an entryway.  
|-
|-
 
| [[Wyke Hills Barricade Plan | Wyke Hills]] || 55 || 17 || 38 || 3 || NO || Screech Lane PD should be VSB and there are some FR issues.
| Wyke Hills || 55 || 15 || 40 || 5 || Yes ||
Still needs a couple Auto Repair shops VSB, but the plan is pretty tight and still in the proposal phase, so hopefully they'll sort that out. Adding 2 AR's at VSB would also bring them close to an ideal 2:1 EH/VS ratio.
|-
|-
 
| [[Wykewood Barricade Plan | Wykewood]] || 48 || 16 || 32 || 4 || YES || It's compliant, but I would recommend changing some of the VSBs to EHB to safeguard FR lanes.
| Wykewood || 48 || 18 || 28 || 1 || Yes ||
This map is extremely difficult to read.But assuming I've got it right it looks like a fairly good plan.
|-
|-
 
| [[Yagoton Barricade Plan | Yagoton]] || 62 || 14 || 46 || 8 || NO || There is a lack of VSB buildings in the center of the suburb, both essential buildings and otherwise.
| Yagoton || 62 || 15 || 47 || 6 || No ||
The ratio of VS to EH is barely sufficient and there are no schools or Auto Repair shops designated VS. If 2-3 of each were designated as VSB this plan would be fit the UBP.
|}
|}


==Plans awaiting review==
==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.'''
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.'''
If you are submitting a plan for a suburb that has never been reviewed, you can also edit the [[Uniform_Barricading_Policy#Known_Barricade_Plans|map]] to include a link to the plan, and set the status to 'MapDanger' which will change its color to orange signifying an unreviewed plan.


Any comments about a plan previously reviewed or awaiting review should be made on the [[Talk:Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews|talk page]].
Any comments about a plan previously reviewed or awaiting review should be made on the [[Talk:Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews|talk page]].
*The [[Sons of Brazil]] made a cades plan for [[Gatcombeton_Barricade_Plan|Gatcombeton]]. --[[User:LukazDrakon|LukazDrakon]] 17:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)
*[[Havercroft Barricade Plan|Havercroft]] -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
*[[Lerwill_Heights]] -- not UBP [[User:Duglis|Duglis]] 21:27, 30 March 2007 (BST)
* [[Talk:Grigg_Heights#Barricade_Plan.2C_part_2|Grigg Heights Barricade plan (part 2)]] --[[User:John Cannonfodder|John Cannonfodder]] 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
*[[Osmondville_Barricade_Plan|Osmondville]] -- [[User:Boobl|Boobl]] 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
*[[Pimbank]] It's at the bottom of the page. --{{User:Benigno/sig}} 22:05, 30 March 2007 (BST)
*[[Dakerstown/Barricade Policy|Dakerstown]] --[[User:La revolucion|La revolucion]] 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
*[[Greentown]] --[[Alice Cuinn]] 07:47, 7 May 2007 (BST)
*[[Crowbank/Barricade_Plan|Crowbank]] -- [[User:Fingersmith|Fingersmith]] 7.June.2007
*[[Pitneybank Barricade Plan|Pitneybank]] -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 04:13, 17 June 2007 (BST)
*[[Human Habitat for Huntley|Huntley Heights]] -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 04:51, 4 July 2007 (BST)
*[[Raines_Hills#Barricade_Plan|Raines Hills]] -- [[User:KalChoedan|Kal]] 09:41, 4 July 2007 (BST)
*[[Randallbank_Barricade_Plan|Randallbank]] -- [[User:KalChoedan|Kal]] 09:41, 4 July 2007 (BST)
*[[PDBP|Danversbank]] (Plan sponsored by the [[DRRP]]) -- [[User:Fingersmith|Fingersmith]] 4.July.2007
*[[South Blythville Barricade Plan|South Blythville]] -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 23:01, 7 July 2007 (BST)
*[[Dunell Hills/Barricade Plan]]
*[[Dunningwood Barricade Plan]]
*[[Hollomstown Barricade Plan]] - Needs to be reviewed soon. -- [[User:BlackReaper|BlackReaper]] 04:47, 7 October 2007 (BST)
*[[Starlingtown Barricade Plan]]
*[[East Boundwood Barricade Plan]] - New plan since last review. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 18:59, 7 August 2007 (BST)
*[[Chancelwood Barricade Plan]]
*[[West_Grayside#Barricade_Policy]] --[[User:Dan Everyman|Dan Everyman]] 09:53, 21 October 2007 (BST)
*[[Barrville#Barrville_Barricade_Plan|Barrville Barricade Plan]] --[[User:Kolossov|Kolossov]] 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
*[[Vinetown Barricade Plan]] - Newly formed plan --[[User:Timmyw|Timmyw]] 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
*[[Penny Heights Barricade Plan]] - New plan to replace the old [[Penny Heights Optimal Defense Plan]] --{{User:Nallan/sig}} 00:11, 22 May 2008 (BST)
*[[Pegton Barricade Plan]] - Replaces old plan --[[User:William Told|William Told]] Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:33 (GMT-5)
*[[Brooksville Barricade Plan]] - Changed according to the incompliances --[[User:Buqet|Buqet]] 15:27, 26 August 2008 (BST)


===Plans requiring re-review===
===Plans requiring re-review===
*[[BOW/Suicide_Prevention_Protocol|Earletown]]  
<!--''No plans requiring a review at this time.''-->
*[[Kinch_Heights_Barricade_Policy|Kinch Heights]]  
*[[Roywood Barricade Plan]] - updated to address comments. <span style="font-family: Segoe Script, Comic Sans MS, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em">[[User:Chief Seagull|<span style="color: green;">Chief&nbsp;Seagull</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Chief Seagull|<small>squawk</small>]]</span> 15:08, 17 June 2010 (BST)
*[[Roachtown_Defense_Plan|Roachtown]]  
*[[Dakerstown Barricade Plan]] - updated to address comments. <span style="font-family: Segoe Script, Comic Sans MS, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em">[[User:Chief Seagull|<span style="color: green;">Chief&nbsp;Seagull</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Chief Seagull|<small>squawk</small>]]</span> 15:33, 17 June 2010 (BST)
*[[East_Boundwood_Barricade_Plan|East Boundwood]]  
*[[Dulston Barricade Plan]] - Modified to fix problems pointed out in comments. --[[User:Jerran1|Jerran1]] ([[User talk:Jerran1|talk]]) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[Nixbank_Barricade_Plan|Nixbank]]  
*[[Earletown Barricade Plan]] - I'm reasonably certain this should fix the problems, which from my interpretation, opens a Hospital, and opened up two more VSB+2 buildings in the NE quadrant. [[User:AndyMatthews|AndyMatthews]] ([[User talk:AndyMatthews|talk]]) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Eastonwood_Barricade_Plan|Eastonwood]]  
*[[Buttonville_Barricade_Plan|Buttonville]]  
*[[Reganbank_Barricade_Plan|Reganbank]]  
*[[Lockettside_Barricade_Plan|Lockettside]]  
*[[Quarlesbank_Optimal_Defense_Diagram|Quarlesbank]]  
(I added the above plans for rereview based on comments made below --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 20:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC))


==Comments and Feedback==
==Comments and Feedback==
Line 311: Line 234:
Old review comments can be found in the [[Uniform_Barricading_Policy/Archives#Old_plan_review_comments|archives]].
Old review comments can be found in the [[Uniform_Barricading_Policy/Archives#Old_plan_review_comments|archives]].


[[Category:Department of Emergency Management]]
[[Category:Policy]]
[[Category:Barricade plans|*]]

Latest revision as of 23:15, 23 October 2024

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

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.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Uniform_Barricading_Policy/Plan_Reviews&oldid=2443878"