My role in Humans vs. Zombies, after my first semester of play, has been the decisive, vocal and educated leader. During Fall 2007 I was a pioneer in the unconventional warfare, examples of which include:
- Duck Maneuver (I think we called it that) -. Nate Klessig and I left a the sieged Violette through a side door, coordinating an ambush on the door zombies with the humans still inside. Everyone made it.
- Baldwin Radio Technician - A columned group of zombies rushed our four-man position, so I took the left flank and sprayed a Magstrike clip at eight zombies at once.
In Spring and Fall 2008 I was seen as an experienced player, a survivor, and a generally charismatic guy. Even as a zombie the other players needed me, and eventually expected me, to take a role as a general. I’ve had my good leadership calls and my bad, but they still trust me. This is probably due mostly to my tendency to stick my neck into danger for another’s survival, and it has certainly got me munched. This is a less favorable state for me since I’m a better human than zombie, and a better leader than follower. I haven’t studied zombie tactics as much as human tactics, so I’m most effective at the top of the human hierarchy.
In a given battle situation, a mob of zombies plows into the human position. Does Charlie hold his position to stun a few zombies, knowing he’ll save the comrades behind him but inevitably get munched? Or does he screw them and retreat 25 feet to a more survivable position? When four zombies semicircle around a retreating human such as Josh Hirner or Ben Shannon, do the rush knowing full well that they’re going to get stunned (and potentially not feed)? Or do they hesitate, hoping to wrap around the human for a more tactfully advantageous opportunity? My point is this: There is no higher cause that can justify a person to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. HvZ is not a political war game and it’s not La Revolución. It comes ultimately to survival of the individual. Then is the concept of a unified, cohesive army (on either side) achievable or just a fool’s dream?
Let’s look again at my game tendencies. As a human I escort humans, take dangerous parts of missions, and combat the zombies directly. As a zombie I organize the ambushes and lead charges. I go out of my way, putting myself in danger, to make sure that a few other players have less danger. Players see me as an effective leader, but they also see me as a way to minimize their own risk. To cite Fall 2008’s Baldwin-McClain lab technician massacre, I led the humans into a dangerous deathtrap and I lost control of them. I compromised their safety and they had to think for themselves. Uncontrollable chaos.
Now, let me say that I have been reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and will soon delve into books by Sun Pin, Machiavelli, and Clausewitz. Hypothetically speaking, if the humans had a unified mentality and were willing to work together without doubt beyond the reasonable constrains of human nature, I could very easily minimize (or negate!) casualties on missions and achieve victory in as many of them as possible. The contingency is that humans work together, and this requires that they put aside their survival instincts and individualism for the sake of the group.
It’s said that you have to die before you can live. Humans and zombies will not have to sacrifice their 15 minutes or their lives to a good general. They must, however, be willing to do so. This is where the trouble lies. I can’t tell my humans, “I promise you’ll make it out alive.” Then they won't expect danger. I can’t tell my humans, “Prepare to die for our side’s cause.” This forces the individual to compromise themselves, which no one will do. For this reason, the human cause will never be unified and will never live, but rather just survive.
Zombies have an easier time in masses because they each understand that death means a 15-minute downtime. In smaller skirmishes, though, zombies are either timid to rush (because their numbers and strength are small) or they lack confidence in their ability to tag one of the three humans they rush. The mentality that rushing is better than a free escape is the best mentality a zombie can have. The mentality that rushing is better than not rushing is the worst mentality a zombie can have. The latter gets into more global strategy, which I will not discuss at this time.
As a human leader, I have to work with the humans’ survival mentality. I’ll never have a total unification and, thus, a perfectly networked pyramidal system of teams, squads, platoons and armies can never be enacted. Victory will never be achieved with total organization and this is integral to understanding HvZ war dynamics. All I can do is show the army the preemptive battle plans, tell the army how the enemy is projected to respond, tell them how we can respond to achieve victory, and hope that they buy it. If they like it, great – we have a survivable game plan. If not, well – go with another plan and be ready to run when it turns sour. That, after all, is the mentality each of your players will have.
Humans and zombies are terribly indecisive creatures. The leader occasionally rises from the masses, but this isn’t because they need to lead – the leader could just as easily run away from trouble, maybe munch or stun a few people along the way, and make it to the next sunrise. Rather, the people need to be led. When a group needs a decisive person, the telltale sign is that they become disordered and separated. The leader role is created out of necessity and it is filled by the most eligible candidate at the time (see my side note at the end of the post).
For this reason, I will almost certainly avoid the position of widespread leader among the humans and the zombies. By the coming semester I will be very well qualified and very well trained, but there are certainly other people who would enjoy leading just as much as, if not more than, myself. If the necessity arises I can and will provide the leadership needed to keep my group alive. If someone steps up and suggests decisions that may be less favorable than those I would choose, I will not hesitate to bring mine up. If I’m in a small group that gets skirmished, I will shout tactical orders to keep us all alive. But I no longer need to be the general. My year-long reign is over.
I must take this time to acknowledge an observation concerning my zombifications. During Fall 2007 I never took an active leadership position on missions and I was one of nine on that helicopter. In Spring and Fall 2008 I took very vocal, very active leadership positions and I was munched during missions both semesters. Needless to say, I’ve noticed my tendency to survive more effectively alone despite the "protection" of fellow humans. I’ll certainly contribute when I see a loophole that could send a plan to hell. However, stunning individual zombies over a long period of time seems to be safer than surviving the big clashes, and I want to get back on the helicopter this semester. Thus, don't be surprised if I contribute to missions by staying away from the humans.
-John
A side note: Taylor Moody, an experienced player and an unconventional HvZ theologian, had an interesting social experiment of which I am supportive. The concept is this – throw the fledglings out of the nest and let them learn to fly. At the beginning of the first human mission, gather up experienced players and well-respected leaders and separate them from the masses. Then see which newbies step up as effective leaders among the chaos. Remove them from the masses to work with the more experienced players and repeat as necessary. By the end of Day 4, and assuming that leaders step up for all players as well as for smaller mission-specific teams, as many as 20 functional leaders could be revealed. Operation Fledgling is contingent on less than one third of the population being zombified on Day 1, of course.