In reply to w byrd (msg # 88):

True, to a point.  Though if you have someone that has the engineering principles down and the people to make it, it wouldn't be that difficult.

We've seen in other cultures that have experienced culture clash or their own mini apocalypse that if knowledge isn't continually maintained, it's rather easy to lose it.

People (let's call them mechanics) have a set of skills but then it becomes very difficult to put these skills into practice and they aren't called upon to exercise these skills very often.  These mechanics then start to age and the youth don't really see the point in learning these archaic useless skills and the mechanics only tend to teach how to fix something right now.  In other words, the mechanics tend to teach how to repair something now and don't teach the underlying skills which would be required to build something new in the future.

From entire languages, to weaving water-tight baskets, and all sorts of other cultural crafts, it's pretty easy to lose "important" cultural skills and knowledge within the relatively short timespan of only 20 years.

Anyway, if you want to see what would be required to continue civilization, here's the best site I know: http://opensourceecology.org/

If you want the best post-apocalyptic defenses, it's to rebuild civilization.  Look at your house now -- are you worried about looters breaking in and pillaging everything?  Well, maybe if you live in Ferguson, Missouri or somewhere.  But normally you're not really worried, right?  Sure, you could go buy bunches of guns, but eventually you have to sleep and if people are all starving enough and they hear that you have food, they're going to keep coming and eventually your erstwhile neighbors will be hitting your house hard enough that you'll fall.  So you can't just defend yourself, you need to build up your neighbors as well to share the burden of defense and because 1+1+1 can equal 5 if you all really support each other (a good group is more than the sum of its parts).

Besides, if you really want to keep you and your family going, you basically have to keep civilization going or be able to rebuild civilization.  All precious metals and things require high technology to get.  No more gold, not enough oil to make plastic anymore, etc.  We need technology.

In the time I was gone today I seem to have sparked a rather brilliant and well-considered sidebar debate.  Well, it's pretty on topic.  I mean, being able to SEE your enemy is pretty crucial to avoiding losing your sentries and your settlements.


In theory, food would be exceedingly scarce in some places and not-so-much in others depending on agricultural abilities, toxicity and residual radiation in the soil, and many other factors that are far too difficult to assume.  20 years post-fall (aka apocalypse, I like 'fall' better) we can assume the survivors did so for a reason.  That means they could efficiently farm or hunt, gather or scavenge enough to get by.  These are traits they've passed on to their kids, who've now reached young adulthood.

So, we'll just assume that while there's hardly enough food to be 'fat and happy' (so to speak) they're not all starving to the point of lethargy every day.  I won't say food isn't scarce, and that some groups, tribes or settlements aren't starving to the very brink of death and probably resorting to cannibalism in some extremes (to try and say anything else would be a bit too optimistic).

Of course, we'll also assume that there are trade routes established in the more resilient communities.  Traders would probably have reverted mostly back to the old time covered wagon types, much like the caravans in Fallout.  After all, even if there IS fuel it'd probably be a might expensive to burn it up just moving back and forth from place to place- even more so if one group (like the caravan companies, also from fallout) were making rounds.  We'll assume that at least half make it at all times, because more would again be unrealistically optimistic and less would really mess with the balance of the game.

Problem is, more secure you are and better known, the more refugees you're going to have wanting to eat your food... So it's give and take.  I'd say, if you stop and think about it, there'd be a lot of people vying for the job of riding that darn bike. ;)  "We'll keep you fed enough to be nutritionally sound, but for x numbers a day you have to pedal" is a whole lot better chance of survival than "If you can bring in enough trade, bullets especially, you can have a can of beans."  Better long term job.  So I can definitely see the human powered electricity working- albeit in some places more than others.

Likewise, solar paneling would be effective under certain conditions.  I'd say they'd be rare, but feasibly still around in 20 years if the world ended today.  Most likely, there'd be backup generators and an extreme conservation of energy (especially where solar power is concerned).  Much like was said earlier in the convo: use the power when the alarm sounds, whatever that alarm may be.

Steam and water wheels are pretty brilliant as well, and fit with the setting.  I mean, Weird West (again a precursor to the post-apoc version) had some very strong inclinations toward steam-punkish if you wanted to go that route.  Didn't have to of course, but there was the option.  Steam is pretty viable, and I believe also produces heat so could possibly be dual purpose.  (Correct me if I'm wrong?)

I'm definitely liking the water wheel by the way.  The survivors would need a source of potable water.  The rivers wouldn't provide that, of course, but they'd provide water that could be boiled and filtered or otherwise purified so it stands to reason people would flock there anyway.  Waterwheels seem like a pretty logical next step for those that take up positions along rivers.

==============================

Edit: Specifically to Hutt ('cause I forgot to add this):
Strength in numbers is pretty crucial.  The human race has in some form or another depended on it (not including outlying factors of course) since time immemorial.  That's why one of my main settlements has an all-hands defense strategy.  Strength in numbers, and when they only have five well trained guards they sometimes need more force to fight back.  Will it work?  Remains to be seen, really...  Theoretically those guards could and would train them, if they all live long enough to pass the knowledge on...  But in the end I am a slave to the dice.  (Okay, so that's a bit dramatic but yeah.)

If my PCs want to mess up the status quo they can.  If they anger enough neighboring settlements or run screaming to the walls for safety from an enemy (rather than taking a less direct route to lose them) then I very well might never get the answer.  That settlement will run the risk of being destroyed in mass battle.  Anything else, to me, runs the risk of my favoritism changing the outcome.  If I sway the results in any way they'll smell it, and slowly but surely the facade of a semi-living organic world will crumble.

ALSO: I'm in Missouri, actually.  Ironically, close enough that I'm a bit paranoid their crazy might spill over into my little personal bubble and crash with my own.  Two different forms of crazy colliding? That never ends well.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:56, Mon 18 Aug 2014.

Well, I would say that convoys between town would have to get through alright more often than not.  It's a matter of sheer economics.  Whomever throws together the caravan has to buy the wagons, pay the people, and buy the goods.  If each round trip only made it half the time, the payout would have to be enormous.  They, would probably have a 95% survival rate.  The 'harder' the area, the more guards they carry.  Anything less, the whole thing would become unprofitable (you can only charge so much before people won't (or can't) buy.

Human power, is a viable option, but it's at the bottom.  Steam would top the list, then water, then wind, finally human.  I left solar out, because it is it's own special case.  It's got a good deal of benefits, but enough drawbacks that you still need another system.

As for using newcomers as 'peddlers' it would usually be better to have them till fields and such.  Improve defenses.  Most towns I see accepting new resisdents if the brought a skill set to the town that it could use.

Funnily enough, our civilization still runs on steam power.  All those old science fiction books that I love from even as recent as the 70's talk about atomic power and how it could power engines here on earth and yadda, yadda, except still all power comes from steam.  Coal, atomic power, wind turbines, solar, pretty much all of it heats up water that drives a steam turbine.  "But what about those solar cells that directly convert sunlight into electricity?"  They're nice, but nowhere near as efficient as thermal solar, or "using sunlight to boil water to drive a steam turbine and the name just happens to sound like the more electrically direct real solar cells".

Very true.  Just boiling water and using that to power a turbine happens to be the most efficient way to convert thermal to electrical power.  Even going through the mechanical stage.

Wach ..... I think it was modern marvils idk but there is a show about modern boby traps

The kinda stuff they have been doing sence WWII has been nuts like wiring dead bodies so some one tries to take the helmet of the dead solder home as a suvinier it blows up. 0.0. Who thinks to do that to the bodies of there own guys before falling back

Or riging just a tin can in the road with a small bomb kick it or run over it and bomb

Then they showed one they were teaching US troops to use, and it was putting a live grenade in a glass cup and balancing it on a door handle

I'll have to watch that one.

Other than "he", you are correct.  :-)

It's probably a peeve of mine that most people don't realize that, in most circumstances, it's more efficient to directly burn food as fuel than to consume it and try to convert that food into electricity/stored energy by use of human-power.  Human beings are incredibly inefficient energy consumer-producers.  Anyway... got this soapbox now, only slightly used.  Anyone else want it?
This message was last edited by the user at 16:21, Mon 18 Aug 2014.

In reply to cruinne (msg # 97):

Nah, I've got my own soap box, it goes everywhere with me!  LOL

Sorry about the "he", it was meant in the gender non-specific form.  'She/he' is just too cumbersome to use conversationally and 'he/she' has negative connotations I prefer to shay far away from and all the made up non specific one's aren't well enough known.

As for burning the food compared to bodily converting it, you are correct.  To a point.  The human body doesn't convert energy all that well.  The only fault would really be the fact that a lot of our food wouldn't burn that well, lol.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 98):

I dunno, you'd be surprised what foods I can manage to burn.  :(

LoL.  Yeah, my kitchen would tend to disagree.  Burnt icecubes, coming up!  Would you like a side of blackened watermelon?  (But all kidding aside, I'd urge a look into epicene "they". http://www.editorscanberra.org/a-singular-use-of-they/ )


Anyway.  I'm enjoying the booby-trap conversations.  Next time I run a game, I'll have so, so many things to try.

Using 'they' in reference to a singular subject has only served to confuse the issue in my experience.  Most people don't get it.

And I always throw this out there.  If anyone wants to have me help them with their game, character, setting, or whatnot; I'm always willing to help.  While I'm hesitant to call myself an expert, I've very knowledgeable in this kind of stuff and military matters.  Also police as well.  If anyone has any questions that they don't want 'out there' that PC's might see, feel free to ask.

I'll stick with my (s)he.  Of course, that does get awkward these days because so many places use emoticons and sometimes have an (s).

Those 'pack explosives into something unexpected' are also known as improvised explosive devices.  Be careful looking those up or someone might end up looking you up in return. ;)  The most disturbing one I ever saw in person was inside a dead donkey.  Fortunately it didn't go off.  I think that the disgusting and shocking aspects would've been more traumatic, to me personally, than the explosion itself.  (Depending on whether or not the blast hit me I suppose.)  Pomegranates also tried to float a few explosives down the canal water.  It didn't work very efficiently so they quit, but one or two of them washed up into view so we figured out what they were up to.

I was, by force, subjected to watch Antique Roadshow last night.  Don't ask.  It was torture of the worst degree.  But I saw a bag of coins and randomly had an idea I needed to share: in the case of explosions, coins would be ready-made shrap*.  :)  You want to mine your settlement so those evil raiders don't get in?  Use coins.  Small, solid, and pretty sharp when flying through the air.  Likewise, filling a shotgun shell full of nickels will blow the lock off of a door about 70% of the time(don't ask how I know)so they'd make for good reloading when buckshot is scarce. Since they only have novelty value in a world based on barter, there's another use for them right there.

Edit: *Shrapnel
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 04:12, Tue 19 Aug 2014.

The quicker and cleaner you kill an animal, the better it'll taste.  Otherwise, the more the animal was scared, kicked, and otherwise exerted itself, the more acidic the meat will be.  Plus it'll rot faster (and I'm not making this up).  For the best taste, you really want your meat to die peacefully and quickly, and you want your meat to be well rested for a good day before it's killed.

I don't know, but I presume it's the same for humans as for other animals.

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 103):

this is Partly why hunters go for a kill shot from surprise....kill it clean and fast, with as little time to thrash about and get worked up as possible...but if yer starving you take any kill ya can...a tasty meal is a secondary concern compared to good old fashion starvation.... Goes for cannibals as well.

---

Here's a good page for solar cookers I found a while back while looking at caping gear...it's a good example of how something very effective can e made out of simple/salvaged materials.

http://www.solarcooker-at-cant...ingasolarcooker.html

think one of the better defenses is being hard to find....

but that's hard to pull off and have a place you can survive out of

I'll confirm on the hunting bit too.  And I don't see any reason why it would be different for humans as well.  Same basic biological processes.

And yes, being hard to find/inaccessible is a defensive measure in and of itself.  The flip side to that coin (like most defensive measures), is it can work against you.

You have to take extra precautions going to and from, so you aren't seen or tracked, plus there is the likelihood that also means you will have limited escape routes.  I'm not saying that it isn't valid, but that it could be used against you.

<tt> Wait... I thought fear added flavor to the meat. :O  I've been doing it all wrong.


Edit: Yeah, for some reason all of my ascii diagrams turned into graphs.  Disregard all of that message.  I did have a layout of a wall idea, but it didn't work.  If anybody's interested just shoot me a PM and I'll make some not-so-pretty paintbrush art to show you what I'm thinking. :)
This message was last edited by the user at 16:56, Wed 20 Aug 2014.

Really with any of the junk type walls, the best thing would be to use the junk as a reinforcement for other methods.  Concrete, mortar, or even adobe.

The basic re-envisioning was to have paired vertical support beams every six feet or so, and a diagonal support beam lodged between them.  That way the wall would go something like:

|\|/|\|/|\|

And all the junk and rubble would really just be filler.

The Hoss USMC FTW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...t=PLBA2D9F8DFAD05563

Boom! There it is! Can't go wrong with battlefield proven methods from the good ol' US Marines.

Also, for an exterior perimeter wall, can't go wrong with standard chainlink fencing that has old hardwood utility poles lashed tightly all 'round the outside. It provides a visual barrier, it's not so easy to climb, even provides a little ballistic protection.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:09, Thu 21 Aug 2014.

Good stuff, in general.  More focused to modern defenses against another military.  Not saying it isn't worthwhile.  Heck, I've advocated the ditch from the get go.  Not using tanks to make it, but then again they probably wouldn't have tanks.  The fence is good, but I'd want more.  Fences are better than nothing, but a wall is better.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 111):

It is a wall. Once you drive a few feet of the hydro pole into the dirt, then wire it to the fence, it ain't goin' nowhere. For additional stability, reinforce it on the opposite side with hard packed earthwork. It's basically a makeshift palisade. AThey used walls almost exactly like it forn thousands of years, and they worked.

The rest of the sapper stuff is specialized, yes, but far far more useful in a world where you might run into vehicles. The Tank Berm (the ditch is only one part of the equation) is designed to basically expose the underside of a vehicle so that it can be shot at whilst the occupants of the vehicle are prevented from shooting back.

The log obstacles will stop pretty much any vehicle that's not heavily armored in it's tracks. Slamming into that is going to give the crew whiplash at the very least.

It's a reinforced fence.  You build up the rear and turn it into a palisade, that's a wall.  I'm all for that.  Double layered chain link, give it a good 16-20 foot, that's what I'm talking about.  And really the phone poles are a good idea, using them as the basis of a palisade.

The berm is ok.  Use the ditch then a wall the purpose for the berm is negated.  Your defenses are too high to really hit the bottom.  And yeah, logs will stop a vehicle.  If you have enough of them, you put extra out before the ditch at a 45 degree angle.