There is much debate over how many people you should work with in a zombie apocalypse. In this post I’ll examine the three realistic possibilities and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Duo: A team of two people is very stealthy. Aside from the obvious ways in which two people will make less noise than twenty, you should also consider that two people can resolve arguments more swiftly. A group of two also has the advantage of going solo of being able to run a watch while the other person sleeps. This should not be underestimated, since your sleep will be far more restful without worrying that a zombie could sneak up on you while you slumber.
The downside of a duo compared to larger groups is that it’s slower moving. If you’re smart, you’re aware of the need to pace yourself. You know that fatigue in a survival situation is like driving drunk: it seriously increases the odds that you’ll die. However, with two people sleeping in eight hour shifts, that leaves only eight hours of travel time per day.
You also may be light on skills with only two people. Societies are able to thrive because they can spread out expertise over an entire population. If you only have two people in your group, you may lack someone with, say, engineering expertise or you may not have a decent mechanic, should the need for those skills ever arise.
Small group (3-6): Now you’re getting mobile. At this point you’re getting to where you can travel for twelve hours per day or more. You’re also getting a good diversity of skill sets.
But there are still problems with a group this size. It’s highly likely that your resources will be very limited, and the more people you add to your group the more of a strain that’s going to be. Also, with every addition to your team, you’re significantly increasing the odds of somebody making a mistake and giving away your location.
And while you’ll travel longer, you’ll be slowed by the fact that decisions are now a group process. Arguments will take longer to resolve, especially if the people in your group were added because you encountered them at random rather than because you deemed them to be trustworthy and competent. This is where some sort of government may need to come into place, where people can call a vote that binds the rest of the group or where a single member has ultimate deciding power in all disputes.
Large group (6+): You may think that the superiority of numbers would make you safer, but you’d be wrong. While a group this large will likely have somebody with a necessary skill for most situations, you will be bogged down by internal disputes that will wear on both your energy and your morale. Such a group is also impossible to coordinate unless they have trained together, which makes larger groups clunky and prone to mistakes – mistakes that could ultimately wipe the entire group.
Remember, your goal is to avoid fighting if at all possible. There may be a time when humanity will have to fight back, but that war won’t be won by a group of ten people, most of which likely have minimal experience with combat, if they have any experience at all. Until then, going hunting for zombies is a terrible idea. You might catch out a single zombie or a pair of zombies, but consider the noise required to dispatch them. That type of racket will probably bring several more zeds to that location in short order and before long you’ll have a full scale battle on your hands – all when you could’ve just walked away from the first zombie.
These guidelines can be modified if you know the potential new addition to your group and have no reason to doubt their reliability or competence. However, it’s my conclusion that a small group is ideal, barring any other variables.