Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Whisperling]

Having 2-3 locations per landmass wouldn't be a bad idea. There's always the possibility of some unforeseen disaster wiping a single settlement out, and redundancy should hopefully serve to minimize the risk.

DC seems to be a decent candidate for one of the North American settlements. California could be the second, and a third more accessible to Canadians wouldn't be a bad idea.

Australians should probably stick together. I doubt we have enough people there for multiple settlements.

I don't know enough about Europe and Asia to suggest a location. However, we should not try to get them into the states. Trying to travel between continents is a terrible, terrible idea when we don't have the infrastructure to run and/or maintain large boats.

[TheBiggerFish]

True.
But then we need to maintain the Internet infrastructure anyway...

[Insanegame27]

Yeah, and isn't there a joke along the lines of "if you don't like the weather in Michigan, just wait 10 minutes"?

Same with Alberta.
Speaking of which, I see Calgary is outside of any currently known danger areas on the map posted above. Even though farming wouldn't be great at least we'd be free of nuclear winter or the volcanic ice age; heh, that's funny, considering Canada is known for being colder than your precious states. Well, not after the apocalypse!

Honestly, I'm still seeing no problem in having set-up be in Australia instead.  Yeah, it's a long trip, but the Southern Hemisphere seems to be the better option, and of the Southern Hemisphere, Australia is the most built-up area.

Map being used, for Reference

Yeah, and transportation shouldn't really be a problem. I mean, you have nearly free reign to all of your country's army/navy/air force. Just find someone who knows how to fly a plane/helicopter and you're good to get to Australia, where the only problem is getting water, and in reality, that's only a mild problem. When it rains everybody stocks up, and with only forumites we would get more water in the tanks than we can use.
We don't have an overly long or cold winter, and it does snow in some places in the height of winter if you're a snow person, 9/12 months is pretty much Summer.


Quite frankly, we need at least 500 people per settlement for a stable genetics base, so that rules out many settlements per landmass. And I have NO IDEA how many ACTIVE accounts there are, but I don't think it's high enough to have settlements everywhere.

EDIT: Oh, and we rarely have any natural disasters. seen here for earthquakes (not very many, mostly offshore and rarely caused any injuries. We rarely get tornadoes (unless you count willy-willies) and we have a LOT of farmland.

[Strife26]

Transcontinental flights are not a nontrivial task. Transcity flights are not a nontrivial task.

I am unsure how much more I can say this.

[Insanegame27]

They are trivial. Many forumites know how to fly a plane (I do, and helicopters to boot). It is a simple matter to arrange a pick-up point.

[Sirus]

So...you also know how to get access to fuel supplies, fill up, fix any problems that arise, navigate in possibly-adverse weather with no ground assistance...?

Actually flying the plane might be trivial, but flying is only a tiny part of making these sorts of trips.

[Insanegame27]

most (if not all) airports stock fuel, so supply is easy. Filling up is necessary to being a pilot. Fixing problems is also something you're trained to do. As for the adverse weather... once again, pilots are trained to do it.

[Orange Wizard]

I prefer boats. Less prone to exploding in horrible flaming ball of fiery death.

[Insanegame27]

But boats are SLOW...

[UnicodingUnicorn]

Boats are slow, but can haul a ton of stuff to boot once they get big enough. Also, sails...

[hops]

You guys should probably go to Tibet or somewhere that you can avoid the resultig nuclear fallout from the power plant meltdowns.

[Insanegame27]

You guys should probably go to Tibet or somewhere that you can avoid the resultig nuclear fallout from the power plant meltdowns.

Australia also has no nuclear power plants... Unless the government is hiding it.

[Orange Wizard]

Also New Zealand, where the general populace is weirdly anti-nuclear.

[flabort]

You guys should probably go to Tibet or somewhere that you can avoid the resultig nuclear fallout from the power plant meltdowns.

Australia also has no nuclear power plants... Unless the government is hiding it.

Canada... might have a couple, but not enough to make it a concern, because I don't think they're near any pop centers or water-sources.

[Insanegame27]

Also New Zealand, where the general populace is weirdly anti-nuclear.

I just don't understand it. Why would people NOT want a highly volatile highly deadly highly polluting (if things go to shit) source of energy made famous by two mass murderizings in WW2? Otherwise it's good, clean power!


(Note, I am actually pro-nuclear myself)