Silly Zombie Simulation with Unity

OK I have a fascination with the Zombie Horror concept, the movies and games. But after a while I began to wonder if Zombie Movies/Game/TV downplay the effectiveness of the modern military.

In the UK there has been a good deal of memorial programs and media coverage regarding the first world war. As you know soldiers ended up in bogged down trench warfare where the 'no mans land' was dominated by the new technology of machine guns.

Yet in the Zombie genre the effectiveness of automatic weapons, machine guns and artillery is often forgotten or skipped over as they drop you into the world without the military or government or the Zombie Apocalypse.

My theory was that a platoon of modern infantry could fight a retreating action against a streets full of zombies. And with enough platoons even massive hordes could be whittled down and eradicated.

Anyway I raised this as a subject on reddit and it got people thinking and talking. I got some great feedback on issues I had not considered. The fact that the military is taught to shoot centre of mass and head shots are very hard to do at range without a scoped sight.

But I thought a better way to test my theory would be to build a simple simulation in Unity. So I developed 'Hold the Line' a very simple zombie horde fighting simulation.

Initially I had only the players gun but that didn't match my theory so I added more weapons slaved to the players gun and 9 troops or guns firing into a street full of zombies can make quite an impact.

See for yourself http://arowx.itch.io/hold-the-line

Currently it uses 'paintball' style physics each bullet is a sphere that is shot and only removes a zombie when it hits the head.

But what could I do to improve the simulation?

And have you used Unity to simulate or test an idea?

 

1) Ammo limitations (50% infection rate = 150 million headshots = 150 million bullets minimum) "The US Army, said Chaffetz, only uses around 350 rounds per soldier." - http://rt.com/usa/army-million-rounds-dhs-472/
2) Zombie speed variance
3) Sheer numbers
4) Long-term attrition, supply & moral issues

 

Try these...

Soldier skill n-99% for a head shot.

Possible Conditions (conditions stack, maximum -95%):
Day, +0%
Night, moonlight -50%
Night, no light -60%

Light Rain -10%
Moderate rain -15%
Heavy rain - 25%

Fog -5% to -25%

Range 10 meters to 100 meters. Distance also increases the "cool down" timer on when a soldier can take a head shot.

1 head shot every 1 seconds per 20 meters so about 5 seconds per head shot without a scope at 100 meters.
With scope it is one shot every 1.8 seconds per 40 meters. so 3.6 seconds at 100 meters.

Zombies move about 2 meters every 4 seconds.

Soldier is dead when it collides with a zombie.

So a soldier with 85% skill who is fighting zombies at night under moonlight with moderate rain would be 85% - 65% = 29.75% chance with distance starting at (100 meters - 65%) = 35 meters distance.

 

@PolishRenegade LOL 350 rounds, that's 11 and a bit magazines each I don't think so, you probably need to factor in the fact that a lot of military personnel are logistics, command and support.
But good points.

@derf it's based on physics and all the guns mimic your own aim. In theory you could make the ideal zombie weapon by creating a rig that lines up and link fires/aims a bunch of belt fed machine guns. Mount it on the back of an armoured vehicle and lay waste to one horde at a time.

Or just a arm your troops with these.

 

Machine guns likely wouldn't be used by the military against a horde of zombies. What you are describing is basically "spray and pray" and it doesn't happen outside of the movies. To explain why, imagine you have a soldier with an M16 set to 3 round burst. He lines up his head shot and gets the kill. Congratulations, he's just used 3 bullets to kill one zombie. The most zombies he can kill with a 30 round magazine is 10. Whereas a solider firing in single shot mode, or a civilian with an AR-15 could potentially kill 30 zombies with that same magazine.

Now, imagine he puts his gun on full auto and sweeps from one zombie to the next. He's just used well into the double digits of ammunition to kill two zombies, assuming of course they are shoulder to shoulder. It would be more rounds if they are spaced out more. Even if they are packed in like sardines, his kill count won't be higher than four or five.

Muzzle drift and rise also make moving from one target to another more difficult during automatic fire, decreasing your chances of hitting the second target. This is even more disastrous against zombies where a head shot is all that matters. Putting a three round burst into a human's chest is better than one round because, also contrary to movies, one shot is not a guaranteed death. Putting three rounds into a zombie's chest is pointless because it can't kill them at all. So the shots still need to be controlled and precise.

Machine guns are used primarily for suppressive fire. If there is a hailstorm of bullets flying about, a rational human being is going to take cover and stay there. Not because death is guaranteed, but because taking the chance is stupid. This means that while the machine gun is firing, the enemy is not advancing and is spending far less time firing back. Zombies aren't particularly scared of bullets, so suppressive fire is not a valid tactic.

 

You do understand the realistic damage a single round can do is quite phenomenal. OK let's presume that Zombies can only be 'killed' with a head shot. But every 'non-supernatural' zombie needs muscles, tendons, bones and nerves to move. Bullets destroy those bits of a Zombie as well as they destroy those bits of a human. Bullets hit bone and tissue destroy the effectiveness of limbs to work. Say an 800 round burst of bullets against a horde of thousands only head shots a hundred or less. The 700 rounds that still hit a horde of zombies tear through their muscles. bones, tendons and nerves. Reducing their ability to move and attack.

And Zombies don't dodge.

Ideally each round would be a head shot but does it need to be? Machine gun fire would reduce the zombies flesh to ineffective zombie burger. And each zombie with limited mobility would be a hindrance to the zombies behind it. Kind of a zombie traffic jam.

I am making the presumption that bullets cause real world damage and are not the "shoulder wounding" type used in hollywood.

 

"Shoulder wounding" is real world damage. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/#__federated=1

The guy was shot five times and still managed to get to his car and drive away. A single bullet likely wouldn't have even stopped him. Over 80% of the human body is a non-lethal target. Bullets aren't one shot, one kill things. That is Hollywood. It's why police officers are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down.

You are right that higher calibers would likely do a significant amount of damage to the zombie horde, but it would still be more efficient, and quicker, for the soldiers to take single shots to the head. Otherwise you have a pile of zombies to sort through that may or may not be capable of reaching up for a bite.

 

If you do a bit of looking online you will find that the .38 round can have a big difference in it's muzzle velocity depending on the actual round used. .38's tend also to have very short barrel lengths decreasing accuracy.

You do have a good point that a gunshot wound may not result in death to a person as long as the round or rounds miss, major arteries, nerve clusters and major organs. But one incident where probably very low power or even old ammunition was used. Should be viewed in comparison that every year in america thousands of people are shot and killed with handguns.

And that's the key difference you are comparing the one incident using a probably underpowered and inaccurate firearm used by a person in distress with limited training. To the effectiveness of trained infantry with modern assault rifles and machine guns against a zombie horde.

 

I think the ineffectiveness of the military breaks down to two major factors:

1) Mass defection from a breakdown of the social contract. It's hard to give orders when there are no social rules and each troop has to fend for themself.

2) All of our warfare is built on psychological warfare. Fully automatic weapons hit less targets over all, but it provides defense through the terror it induces in the enemy. Zombies don't care and are ruthless.

 

what..? ppl r actually discussing this topic ?

 

Yes, thousands of people are shot and killed. But how many are shot and not killed? Thousands of people are also killed with blunt force weapons. Are you going to claim that hitting someone in the legs with a baseball bat will kill them? See the article below for more information on gunshot mortality rates http://www.emsworld.com/article/10319706/gunshot-wounds 25% is the mortality rate for the abdominal area. I'd imagine it's even lower for the shoulder shot that you think is going to kill someone. People die from gunshot wounds when they bleed out, zombies don't bleed out. A person hit in the leg with a large caliber rifle is going to go down in pain. Zombies don't feel pain. Hitting a zombie in the heart will also no bring the high mortality rate listed. It won't bring any mortality rate. Zombies only die by severing the brain stem.

See this article: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/myth-handgun-stopping-power/ particularly the part that says "A good friend of mine was in a shootout two years ago and was hit three times with .38 Special Speer Gold Dots before he even began to return fire. He scored two hits on the bad guy with .45 ACP Winchester SXT rounds (the ones that known as “Black Talons” back in the day) and the assailant ran off." Black Talons are particularly nasty rounds.

I'm going to assume that you have never been hunting, or don't know much about hunting. When hunting, it is important to hit the so-called "kill zones" the areas with the vital organs. In my state, Virginia, it is illegal to hunt deer or bear with anything smaller than a .230 caliber due to the decreased likelihood of a humane kill. That rules out AR-15s and the military's M16. Of course on burst or full auto, the likelihood of death to the deer would increase dramatically, but absent a shot to a vital organ, you are still relying on them to go down in pain and bleed out. Zombie deer would not do that.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/general.asp

 

It depends on the game. The Dwarf Fortress code, as a fun example, allows any remains that contains a body part that can grasp to be re-animated. This can lead to zombie hands crawling towards you.

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Undead

I would think the military would be using flamethrowers over conventional bullets. Flaming zombies could always potentially set other zombies on fire depending on how grouped up things become.

 

And the military have mounted machine guns that fire high caliber ammunition at staggering rates or gatling and vulcan machine gun and small and large caliber artillery/mortar rounds. The military don't hunt deer they aim to kill/destroy/explode their enemy.

OK my point is take your deer hunter and multiply him by 30-40 give them an assault rifle, grenades, mortars, sniper rifles, designated marksman rifles, bayonets, armoured vehicle, SAW and Heavy machine guns, .50 caliber anti-stuff rifles, grenade launchers, shotguns semi-auto, pistols automatic, body armour and helmets. Fire support, drones, tanks, attack helicopters, bombers, A10 warthogs, artillery support, C130 magic dragons, claymore, mines, hellfire missiles, laser guided bombs and C4.

The Zombies have teeth, hands and a level 5 biohazard virus.

Tactics for fighting the zombie horde, engage at range, armour up and keep the ammo coming.

Or take your initial premise of the guy breaking into the house, only this time fill the house with a SWAT team or Infantry Squad and send in a Zombie.

The military probably would take a battle or two with a horde to adapt their tactics but that tends to be the case for all wars as technology marches on.

 

Oddly enough, we don't have to speculate. The Pentagon has an actual zombie plan. http://www.scribd.com/doc/223872345/CONPLAN-8888#scribd

As you said, they list petroleum for fire barriers, not bullets as defensive requirements. They list airstrikes as offensive measures.

That's correct. Mounted machine guns such as the M60 or the M2 can fire at staggering rates. But not at the rates they do in the movies. 1000 rounds per minute is the maximum fire rate, not the effective fire rate. Barrels overheat if fired continuously. Mounted machine guns are only useful in the open, and even then it would be a massive waste of bullets to spray and pray unless the zombies are packed together like sardines. And even the loss of their arms and chest muscles isn't going to stop or deter them, you'd have to take out the legs. Which would mean actively aiming away from the kill zone. And then, you've stopped them but not killed them. You'd still need to go in with something else to finish the job. 30-40 men taking targeted shots to the head on with the semi-auto selection would kill zombies more quickly and with far less bullets than firing thousands of rounds from an m60 and hoping to get a lucky head shot or take out both legs. And mounted machine guns aren't the same thing as the light machine gun that you original said they should outfit everyone with. Conservation of ammo would be of vital importance since we'd have no way of ensuring that manufacturing facilities don't get overrun with zombies. Firing thousands of untargeted rounds would not be even remotely strategic.

You just listed a whole bunch of stuff other than machine guns. All of which they would likely use in place of the machine guns. If the zombie horde is packed tight enough for machine guns to be effective, than other forms of weaponry would be much more effective and would reduce the risk of stray bullets hitting civilians.

Except the real life scenario would likely be the opposite. It would be a building filled with zombies that a team must clear. You aren't going to have Seal Teams waiting around in hospitals, malls, and other large buildings waiting for zombie outbreaks.

But it is your game, make it however you want.

 

@HemiMG LOL Let's just agree to disagree.

Or we could build a realistic mod for say battlefield or one of the other multiplayer FPS games turn up the simulation to as realistic as possible and and drop in the zombies and civilians and troops. Which would be much more fun!

 

---

Being Ex-Military and deployed in several combat situations you are about 99% correct.

 

@HemiMG and @Skibo187 so what tactics would you use to combat a citywide zombie outbreak?

Say the city of Los Angeles, and a zombie outbreak occurs there with patient Zero arriving on a flight to LAX. The virus turns people who are bitten into rabid crazies who attack others who are then turned and the process only takes about 10-20 seconds. Although it also spreads via bodily fluid but can take from 3-10 days to have the same effect.

How would you tackle the problem?

 

That's some pretty awesome info to consider. Liked just for how interesting it is, lol.

Covering myself in mud to mask any smells, and live in a dense forest where I could get makeshift weapons from heavy fallen branches & rocks, catch fish in a river and have a good supply of lumber to return to after I scavenge tools from the city. Guns are a no-no. As posted, you're not going to have enough ammunition to get them all, and a single shot is going to lure them all. Having a mask (to keep flying fluids out of you ) & a blunt weapon is probably ideal because it'll keep you in shape and build up your stamina to get used to day to day survival.

If you're looking to add a story that leads to a cure at some point, you have a lot of options but you should stick to 1.

1) outside research given to you via airdrops for you to experiment on captured zombies with (I am Legend, Dying Light, etc)

2) research centers you need to find and make friends with the scientists inside and capture & bring zombies to them to experiment on (War Z)

3) there is no cure, kill everyone and quarantine the infected (Hatred, The Dead Linger, Cabin Fever)

4) you, the protagonist, are immune to the disease and you need to get yourself to a research center like #2 and have them synthesize a cure from your blood

5) You're immune, and your blood is already the cure. You can turn zombies back into people if your blood enters them. You can die of blood loss if they bite you or scratch you too much, but you can cut yourself and fill vials of blood to prep cures. This adds a unique element to your zombie world because you're less inclined to kill people because you can cure everyone given enough time. (Day Breakers - especially if cured zombies' blood can also be used as a cure)

I could go on for a while. Zombies were my childhood, haha.

 

No the premise is that you are in command of the US military in the region of the outbreak. What would you do to stop the spread of the disease?

 

Ah, that's different. Quarantine and kill or quarantine & cure. An RTS / command game sounds like a great idea at first, but you have to do it right or it could turn out boring xP

Maybe instead of the entire military, you can be a sub commander in a mobile base? And you can set the controls up like that 1 game that nobody knows about where you can switch back and forth at will between controlling an individual character fps style or controller a whole group rts style.

Just... just... make your gameplay more engaging than hacker:evolution and plague:evolution...

 

The original idea was a simple simulation of a squad with automatic weapons vs a horde of Zombies, not to play a game but to simulate how effective a squad could be against a horde.

But the discussion has moved onto the wider issue of could the modern military be effective against a zombie outbreak. And would automatic weapons be effective against a horde.

So the idea is if there is a zombie outbreak at LAX in Los Angeles, and you are in charge of all local military in the region, what would you do?

 

What kind of zombies are you dealing with? If it's zombies that walk, I'd just tell everyone to walk faster. If it's zombies that follow you to the ends of the earth in a sprint, then there'd better be a secured perimeter. Also, what is the vitality of these zombies?

Original zombies -> cannot be killed no matte what, a brainless finger will still come at you, move slow
next gen zombies -> alive until the brain is destroyed, move slow to medium pace
current gen zombies -> alive until taking sufficient damage anywhere, move fast

 

next gen although seem more current than your current gen zombies.

 

It's an annoying trend. First, zombies were just unkillable undead. Then they were killable in the head but could move a little quicker. And in modern times we have resident evil zombies who can die from several bullets to the limbs / torso, but can run faster than people can.

What kind of interface do you have in mind? Plauge Evolved or more RTS? Maybe Zafehouse?

 

It's a simulation or in this case a thought experiment!

 

Seems @PolishRenegade would be the winner of said thought experiment.

Having played your web thing a second time, I think having everyone shoot simultaneously and have their aim just an offset of yours is a little silly. You said that head shots are hard without a scope and military training entails aiming for the center of mass. Maybe you can have it so that the guns beside you are lmgs and mounted guns that aim for the chests of random zombies in order to slow them down a little. Inaccuracy and spread with those machine guns can cause some head shots, but mostly be there to slow down the horde. Then you can have the player be the one with a scoped gun trying to get head shots.

Though the course of this conversation has drifted quite far from what you have on the page there xD For the slow moving head shot killable zombies you have there, I think long, hollow spikes with holes in them would be the best way to handle those. They would impale themselves on the wall and you could run gas through the line to burn off / blow off the remains.

 

I think you all should read World War Z (not the S***ty movie, it was abysmal and doesn't represent the book at all.)

The conventional techniques... bombs, tanks, machine guns, etc were all abject failures. (Battle of Yonkers)

The ultimately functional technique can be described as

" using semi-automatic, high-power rifles and volley firing, focusing on head shots and slow, steady rates of fire;"
(Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z)

Think old school revolutionary war style tactics, with the redcoats lining up in a row and shooting at the other row, while the alternate group in the line reloads.

 

Well in theory as the troops are not fighting living humans, then that could open the way for hollow point or exploding rounds that cannot currently be used on the battlefield.

Also canister or shotgun rounds could alleviate the need for headshot accuracy. Combined with anti-tooth zombie-proof armour and it should be a walk in the park.

Then there is the metalstorm weapons system that electronically fires multiple bullets or grenades from fixed barrels using electronic rounds to devastating kinetic effects.

Also there is the trackpoint rifle scope and rifle that ensures shooters hit their targets by doing the range calculations and only firing the bullet when the firing solution is on target.

Although I wonder how well super strong and thin wire at neck height along a street would work against a horde if staggered lines were placed at a range of heights.

Or What about bolas and sharp spades/axes.

My point is that modern firepower would be great against the massed horde. Any military general would love an enemy that gets tightly grouped in cities without air power. A few modern drones with hellfire missiles could be devastating, ditto artillery naval or land based or bombing from the air.

 

Some things...

The WWZ zombie paradigm includes any zombie infected fluids hitting any mucous membranes would cause infection, so overkill/splatter was considered a bad idea.

Bombs and missiles were specifically not very effective because the primary effectiveness of them is concussive shock to organs, which didn't affect zombies.

They did also make a specific Axe/Spade hybrid for decapitating and anti-bite armor (made of plastic I think)

Probably my favorite chapter of the book had to do with how effective and important dogs were to the effort, by using distraction to maneuver hordes into the best position for the firing lines, and even doing things like, going up into a highrise building and barking from the roof, causing the zombies in adjacent highrise buildings to fall out the windows or off the roof.

 

I think it depends on the type of bomb some are designed to cause blast damage, others fragmentation damage and some napalm damage. Even if the blast impact does not take down a zombie the shockwave would throw them around and damage buildings and structures around them. e.g. dropping a tower block full of zombies with explosives would be very hard to survive.

LOL actually base jumpers with demolition experience could have so much fun in a zombie apocalypse!

 

The most effective way to kill zombies is to freeze them. No motion in the limbs, no fluid splatters. Toss the frozen zombies into a compactor of some sort and they'll shatter into little bits of ice.

 

So a steam roller spraying liquid nitrogen.

 

lol basically. With the zombie fluids in a solid state, there's little to no risk of infection. And zombies are kinda slow moving so you can chase them down with the steam roller... actually, they'd probably come right to it with all the noise it'd be making. Make all sides except the front spherical so they can't grip anything, and you're golden.

 

Time Splitters 2 showed me that fire is not a good idea for zombie extermination... Animated flaming corpses that don't feel pain, not fun. Also, human flesh isn't the most environmentally friendly kindle.

 

Depends on the type of fire used, napalm sticks and burns into flesh.

Even if the flame or explosion does not kill a zombie chances are it will take out their eyes and ear drums, what danger would a blind and deaf zombie be?

Then there was that material they used in mythbusters in effect they used thermite that burns at thousands of degrees C poured a line of it over a car and ignited it and it cut the car in half.

Or what about digging wide trenches with heavy duty acid then just enticing the horde to a nice acid bath. In effect cleaning up your zombie problem!

 

You know what's really awesome and messed up at the same time?

Spoiler: Nature

A zombie apocalypse would give an evolutionary advantage to persons born with harlequin ichthyosis, because their skin would be hard to bite though. If you don't already know what this is, don't google it unless you have a strong stomach.

 

Well it's the concept of walking fire that sounds dangerous, especially if it's already attacking you. I'd rather ward off a horde of zombie then a horde of flaming zombies. Think about it, there'd be fire EVERYWHERE. That door you just hid behind? It's on fire. That wooden baseball bat? On fire. The hand you just cut off of that clingy corpse? Fire... Too much fire...

 

Can we agree that the only way to take on a Zombie hord sensibly is to engage them at range with either accurate head shot weapons or very devastating ordinance. Or if you do get in close use armour and don't mix close combat with fire or acid.

Alternately you could chopper into a tower block fight your way down stealthily setting up explosives as you go then going loud to draw the horde in and fly off blowing the tower and zombies up!

Actually there could be a problem with Zombies after all and this is something I didn't get my head around but here goes.

Hordes can get big fast (depending on Zombie speed and infection speed)

And most countries only have about 1% of their population or less working as police and soldiers.

Now google the population size of your town or city and factor in the one percent of defence forces.

e.g. Los Angeles 3.884 million so lets say it has a defence force of 38,840 civil and military defence personnel.

Now assume a zombie creates another every minute so their population doubles every minute. Now assume that it will take time to mobilise your defence force and bring them in to take down the zombies. First responders 10 minutes. Backup 20 minutes troops 60+ minutes later.

1 minute 2 Zombies
5 minutes 32 Zombies
10 minutes first responders arrive 1024 Zombies vs a dozen police.
20 minutes backup arrive riot squads and swat 1,048,576 Zombies.
60 minutes (or any time after 23 minutes) the army arrive tanks, gunships, artillery the whole of Los Angeles and surrounding area are a horde.

 

@Arowx to quote some recent funny things in the youtube comment section of videos about police brutality:

"Don't bring a gun to a drone fight". This was in response to a mix of arguments about people owning guns to form a militia to resist a tyrannical government (the right to bear arms true meaning) and the failure of certain legislature to pass to stop the police from obtaining anything, including tanks. Why do the police need tanks? Why do the police need drones? I dunno, but the quote at the beginning means we should stop arguing about taking guns away from people who want them because

1) - at the present state of technology, we're not fighting off our government if they turn the military and police against us. They have tanks, explosives and drones. The automatic weapons and handguns some people are trying so desperately to hold on will not make a difference save for them blowing their own brains out before drones can spray napalm or something on the entire neighborhood.
2) - whether people have guns or not, whether we have a tyrannical government or not, the police are going to occasionally in various isolated incidents abuse their power. If you fight back at all, it escalates and they'll probably kill you.

Having said all that...

1% of the population can roflstomp 99% of the population when you factor in the 1% being inside tanks or other armored facilities while drones fly around picking off huge chunks of the 99%. And zombies can't use guns or whatever so it's literally slow moving, decaying, unarmed civilians limping toward a series of tanks and drones lol. If you implemented a game like that, people would feel bad for the zombies

 

Well there is the Atomic option where 1 person can press one button and the Zombie problem is neutralised, which is covered well along with other anti-zombie tactics in Atom Zombie Smasher.

But to contain a Zombie Outbreak it is how quickly you can destroy it, once it has spread beyond a certain threshold it would cover the globe. But what would limit its spread is the speed of the walkers and the time it takes someone infected to turn.

If it takes longer for someone to turn and or the virus can be spread in a slower fashion than via bites e.g. body fluids then inherently the virus can go underground and spread further creating a broader outbreak region.

 

In my opinion, if it's a squad that defends itself, it means that there won't be a lot of ammunition to spend so it's better to use precise and semi-auto fire. It's better to use a weapon with higher stopping power rounds, like 7.62mm. These include rifles like the M1 carbine, ak-47 etc. This goes for rifles.
For other weaponry, grenades of any kind are usefull, as they can kill a number of zombies. Also, a meele weapon is a must in case firepower can't hold them back enough. In my opinion a machete or any other medium range weapon does its job.

And don't forget a Barret. Always have a Barret!

Seriously though, with its .50 Cal round there isn't the problem of trying to shoot the head. A bullet on the chest can make a zombie, and the zombie behind it, to spread in half!

 

I always thought one platoon of tanks would be enough to take out any zombie horde. Think about it, they make noise, they're fully protected from the weak zombies, and they can just keep rolling over them, don't even need ammo!

 

You sir, are a freak and this is an awesomely clever, thought-provoking exercise. Kudos to you sir!

Fun things to consider if it were real life:

• Limited ammo
• Changing magazines
• Weapons jam sometimes
• Independent humans would overlap fire
• Independent humans would be much more effective than me pretending to be 9
• The pile up of bodies would MASSIVELY slow the zombies
• The pile of bodies would make it hard to hit.
• Humans get tired.

Clever and fun! Double-hats off to you and Happy New Year!
Gigi