Groups: David or Goliath?

How about both?

Alas, there will always be people who prefer to play in large groups. As a reaction to those groups, there are other people who decide for whatever reason that such a playing style isn't for them. In regards to the Way of the Foamed Dart, these are things that simply are and will always be. In the first couple of posts I attempted to lay out the pros and cons of each configuration.In short, large groups are great for newer players and those looking to lead and instruct new players, as well as those who feel more comfortable with the strength the numbers provide. This is coupled with the fact that running with a large group provides a certain type of (awesome) experience and feeling only available in that setting. But all these things hinge on the cohesion the group maintains and once this cohesion is lost the above stated benefits can cease to exist, as players break formation to ensure personal safety.

On the other hand, this hazard can largely be avoided by moving with less people therefore having less pieces in play. You maintain a lower travel profile and also have more flexibility when coming in contact with zombies. Its easier for a smaller group to hide, scout or ambush zombies, where as unless a  large group  has advanced warning, they are generally limited to either attack or retreat. Once again, there is a particular feeling one gets from the game setting itself and those who like an us against the world experience should go for it. That said, the room for error is minimal. In large groups, there are always players getting picked off at corners or caught lagging behind. But whats one person to forty? One person to five or six is a completely different story. In addition to this reality, you have to have a specialized assortment of blasters, placed in the correct formation to be effective. You need to have readily available options for dealing with zombies at close or long ranges, coupled with people capable of using these blasters properly. Most importantly, if you don't keep a constant state of vigilance in all directions, you won't need any specialized weapons: you'll be tying your bandana around your forehead and dropping your blasters off at base.

So in my opinion its a wash: both are awesome for completely different but not opposing reasons. If proper attention isn't paid to utilizing these groups in an effective way, both lead to calamity. But also in my opinion, there is another question at hand:

How can the two configurations complement each other?

I posted the Large Groups edition of this series on the SFSU HvZ Facebook community and got further insight from a couple of players. Chris James, who I know from playing with B.U.R.N. in the San Jose Area and who also makes cool Nerf related videos like this and this, stated that he prefers smaller groups, but sees the larger groups as an asset. Larger groups naturally attract more zombies and create a significant diversion, allowing smaller, more mobile teams to sneak away un-noticed to take care of missions.

Another strategy uses the same tactic in reverse: smaller squads can go out looking for and drawing in zombies as well. They would not be able to stray far from this large group, but upon making contact with a group of zombies, they can shoot some darts and pick off a couple. If its a big enough group of zombies, there would be no way to make a serious dent in numbers by doing this. However, the smaller group can pretend to freak out, or skip the theatrics and just plain run. Keeping cohesion during a retreat with five or six people isn't that hard to maintain and it still presents a worthy enough target for a group of ten or so zombies. The squad keeps fleeing, taking pot shots, before leading the group of ten zombies into forty something humans laying in ambush. This giant force would be able to either pin down or disperse this group into individual zombies, allowing another small squad or two to handle missions or scout before moving ahead.

Even if neither strategy is tested in the near future, I believe the two configurations should work alongside and compliment each other, rather then wonder or discuss which is the more effective way to go. Ultimately as both can execute the same tactics (scouting, fire support, ambushes, diversions) with different results and benefits, they should be just viewed as their own thing and if both groups are present at a game, they should include each other in dialogue and plan what to do jointly.