The smart decision in that situation is usually to avoid the encounter altogether. You know because there is only so much energy you can spare, if you are facing wave after wave of zombies, you are only going to get tired. I remember in world war Z where they got around this by basically exchanging soldiers in the middle of a battle with other men from the units. A guy gets retired someone takes his place and he takes a rest, once he is ready, he goes back to his position replaces the other guy and keeps fighting. Man that book was ingenius in how it killed zombies.
Swing sword at zombies, the possibilities of you getting surrounded are pretty great even with a katana. If you are far away with a gun that is less likely to happen. Once you run out of bullets/grow tired than the gunsman can get away but the swords man would be stuck and killed.
So you're assuming the swordsman is an idiot. It would be fairer to state this up front though. In which case, I agree. The intelligent, "assessing zombie ingress from afar" gun holder will fare better than the "run at zombies regardless of how many there are and keep hacking at them until I am too tired to run away" swordsman.
I'm assuming they both have the same intelligence level. Neither of them are idiots but face the facts. Fighting from afar is a better chance for survival than fighting with a sword.
Face the facts: not fighting from afar is better than wasting bullets needlessly. If you are far enough away in a zombie apocalypse to run away, do that. Second fact: bullets are a limited resource. Third: I'd take a sword over a gun in a heart beat in a zombie apocalypse. You're kind of assuming perfect aim etc here too.
I'm assuming they are both civies who picked up a weapon. Hence having the same intelligence and what not. Fighting up close would get you killed faster. Guns wouldn't and you can always scrounge around for bullets. That and using a long range weapon like a crossbow or bow and arrows is a lot better than upfront confrontation. You always have arrows if you can retrieve them. Either way facing a large mob is stupid, but going straight for them with a sword, yeah, I'd rather have a gun or bow with me than a sword. Swords and bats and such would be for a secondary weapon. Just in case. And hey, tie a firecracker to an arrow and let it fly. Shoot it in another direction and bam, a lot more effective and versatile than just a blade.
They have the same intelligence, so I am going to assume here you mean both the gun and sword wielder are fighting up close. Why are they fighting up close? I thought we already agreed surviving is best done by running away? How is the gun person going to fare better than the swordsman surrounded by zombies? In one move I can cut almost 180 degrees. Gun shoots one direction only. And if it's not a direct headshot, no effect is noticed. While you are scrounging around for bullets, surrounded by zombies, I am clearing a path to the door. You know, so I can run away and stuff. Or are we back to the "the gunman shoots from afar, but the swordsman runs at the zombies" again? Coz like. Even a computer programmer can see that that is s dumb move. Now you're shifting the goal posts. In which case I want a harrier jump jet fully fueled and the keycodes to the satellite launch system. I'll fly away and nuke the fuckers from orbit.
Ok let's really break this down. 2 guys in the street. Spot weapons. You pick up the gun, I grab the sword. Now what? A horde of zombies round the corner. You say: the swordsman fights up close I say: Fuck this, I am outta here, and run away. 2 guys wake up in a hospital room. Spot weapons. You pick up the gun, I grab the sword. Now what? We hear a horde of zombies run down the corridor outside the room. You say: the swordsman fights up close I say: Fuck that, I am staying right where I am. 2 guys walk into an elevator. Spot weapons. You pick up the gun, I grab the sword. Now what? We hear a thud above and zombies start to drop through the escape hatch in the ceiling, one by one. You say: the swordsman fights up close I say: Definitely, but so are you!!? You say: I can scrounge for bullets I say: stop being silly, there are no bullets in here!! Please, show me how they get into a situation where the gunman fights from afar, and the swordsman has to fight up close, and then tell me again they are as intelligent as one another.
So when you force the swords man into confrontation he runs away until he has nowhere to run? Now you're the one assuming the swordsman is an idiot and a coward.
So back to the thread, unless you write it well enough there is no reason swords would be the high class weapon and guns would be useless. Unless it's some social thing.
Really? So you have 5 rounds in the clip and you empty them into the zombies in the above scenarios and turn to the swords man and he's gone. You say with disgust: coward. Then run away to find some more bullets? How is remaining alive idiotic? How is shooting all your bullets and running away not the same level of cowardice? Since when was being a coward anything to do with the effectiveness of katana vs gun in a zombie apocalypse? Please, show me how they get into a situation where the gunman fights from afar, and the swordsman has to fight up close, and then tell me again they are as intelligent as one another.
To add to the debate. In a zombie apocalypse I would go for the bladed weapon. It has more uses than just for fighting. Clearing vegetation, skinning animals and cutting them up. Not easy with a sword but you have more chance than you would with a gun.
My view for Zombie Apocalypse is: Machete, Bow and Arrows, and an automatic rifle for a secondary. To survive best in an Apocalypse of Zombies the best strategy would be: Pick your fights, and be silent unless there is no other option (hence the rifle).
You don't want to use a katana for anyone of those. They are stupid brittle and take a lot a training not to nick on bamboo. Michone looks cool, but the reality is by now her sword would have mentos size holes up and down the blade.
The zombies may be, but I saw a piece of plastic put a pin-head sized nick in a katana. How well do you thing it's going to do with a snap button? Or a zipper?
With katanas it really matters who made them. I've seen the 'real' katanas that are made correctly that extremely sharp and almost unbreakable. It depends on the steel that is folded into it.
No, not actually. The steel that was available in Japan was referred to in Europe as "pig iron". The folding process puts a lot of carbon back into the blade but they're still very brittle. The problem is that the folding process doesn't get all the way to the edge, and there's no flexibility there. This katana was a "real" katana, and cost a little under a grand. Shark skin hilt and everything.
Well why can't they just add into the story that they re-sharpen the blade? Besides Blade uses a katana and no one questions why his blade stays sharp.
That's actually another tricky one, because if you don't treat the nick right the blade will start rusting really bad. And just holding it on a grindstone is worse. You need special oils to treat the blade, and bamboo powder and a whole bunch of other stuff that I don't even understand.
Well at some point you just have to leave some stuff out because it doesn't effect the story and the reader probably doesn't care about it.
