>>548428>underrated post>>548415I actually plan on a more socially calculated approach. I'll probably channel my inner Mad Max at first, killing stray crazies and bandits for supplies. I'll then find a docile group that seems to be failing, and share the loot with them.
Here's where it gets tricky, because people have variable reactions to strangers, and I could get more than I bargained for. I have to be very aware of the situation at hand, both mine and the group's, so charisma is key.
I take advantage of their hospitality, making friends, pulling information from inside sources, and convincing them that they could live better, but it takes learning to attack rather than defend. I'll offer to teach them, which should stir up some tension, and when the leader tries to put his foot down, I'll manipulate the group and forge trust, making them feel like I'm someone that can fix their problems.
When the seed of doubt is sewn in the leader's dominion and his policy of pacifism is looked down on, I jump in and fill the power vacuum with promises of better lives in learning to fight for control.
I have a backup in case I fail, but human behavior is usually pretty predictable in high-stress situations. For the sake of length, I'll overlook the possibility that it could go wrong.
Now I have a team to work with, and using personal experience in surviving against actual people,
>hurr durr yea I playd gears of honor: madern hardline 4I can train them to be more efficient, to practice teamwork, to conserve supplies, and to cope with losing other group members.
From there I rebuild a new society, taking on/taking in other groups, gaining ground, and staving off attacks from whatever enemies we face.
Eventually I won't play soldier anymore. After leading for a fair amount of time and establishing a chain of command, I'll retire in a position of authority to maintain my image. Society will run itself, and thrive.
>>548474I'll see you in my crosshairs anon.
