Writing Hope vs Destruction

[J_Chemist]

Hope for destruction.

See, the problem is, what is realistic? You got zombies. Either the good guys will out think them, or get slaughtered. Your telling g me 70% fatality rate on a village. Uhh... that makes no sense.

Percentage of fighters is most likely, if we are going with European ambient pre-gunpowder, would be about 1% of the village with 30% being farmers who know how to swing a pike. After that, you have about 30% way too old to be of any use and children, with the remaining 39% being women in reasonable health to pick up children and run.

If you have the village caught off guard, then you are looking at nobody escaping, especially if it's a night raid. If the 31% of the actually able to fight don't defeat the zombies, the rest of the village is dead.

Maybe one or two hide and don't get found, or maybe a few run away, but once you pass the able fighting men threshold, the rest are dead.

The town will put its strongest out first. If they lose, there is no attrition warfare. Once the men are dead, everyone is dead.

70% is too much. Either they fight them off with 0 to 30% fatality, or it's TPK. IN YOUR WORDS a much stronger and foul enemy. Once the defenses are breached, the enemy will have parity and the numbers show the village is toast.

So either the defenses hold until the MC shows up, or the town is dead. The chances of the town being at 70% dead or crippled when the MC arrives is astronomical. Just as likely as him showing up just in time.

Either actually write up the stats for both sides and dice it out, or go with the dramatic combat system. In dramatic combat, if you are boring, you're dead.

They're not zombies. I said they act something akin to zombies in the sense that all they do is eat living animals and people.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

They're not zombies. I said they act something akin to zombies in the sense that all they do is eat living animals and people.

Okay. That's worse. They are intelligent and capable of tactics. Therefore, the entire attacking force is combat capable.

Here:

Attackers:
Evil horde (50): 8
Evil leader (1): 10
- leadership multiplier x2

Defender:
Town sheriff (1): 5
- leadership multiplier x2
Healthy men (100): 2
Children (100): 0
Old people (50): 1
Women (100): 1

I don't care about woke feelings. This is biology.

Now you also have defenses these are a x2 multiplier, but only while behind the defenses. Once the enemy gets inside, this goes away.

The old and the women will be held back to watch the children, so thus is two stage.

Attacker to start: 810
Defender to start 810.

In this situation, both sides get wiped out, but the women, children, and old people live.

If the defenses are breached, it becomes 810 vrs 405. Assuming perfect attrition we have 405 vr 150 in the second battle when they get inside and go for everyone else.

Yes, you could put the old and women on the front line, but the deaths will be random, so in that case, it will be

810 vrs 1410, but assuming random deaths, and leaders die last, you will have about 27 dead men, 15 dead old people and 57 dead women. Sorry, but I don't know a village that would risk that sort of loss.

And if the defenses are breached, we have 810 vrs 705. Without defenses, even if everyone fights, the defenders lose

That's assuming effective parity. Increase the number of Attackers by any significant amount, any way you look at it, the Town is getting wiped out when you kill off the primary defenders, if any significant amount of the attackers survive.

The defenders will be weaker, have no organization and no defenses once the town's primary fighters are dead.

70% is a number you are just making up, or this town is full of vikings.
...
So. In order for 30% to survive, assuming the children are the last to die, you would have to have the horde attack, and exactly 8.43 evil horde and the leader get through to attack the women, children, and old. This would leave 100 children, 2 old and 3 women.
...
Now, your specific village and evil horde is different, but the formula remains the same. Play with the numbers all you want, but there is clearly a point where the village lives or dies, with anything between 30% to TPK is basically the whim of the author.

If your goal is realistic, then be realistic. If your goal is to tell a story and it just happens to be 70% survive, then 70% survive. It it possible? Sure.
Is that specific outcome likely, no. But hey, people roll natiral 20s all the time. No specific outcome is likely. You create the scenario. You choose the outcome.

There is a difference between unlikely and contrived. 70% is unlikely, but not contrived.

The MC Showing up in the nick of time is unlikely, but not contrived.

It isn't how unlikely something is, but how often you do something unlikely that eventually becomes contrived.
...

Remember: if Hitler had not gotten dental work done the night before D-day, he would gave been awake to order in the counter attack and the additional tanks would gave likely defeated the allies. As such, the allies basically got 12 hours grace because nobody was brave enough to wake up the furer.

A dentist who prescribed Hitler extra strong sedatives changed the course of human history.

 

[StainedGlassThreads]

Perhaps the survivors of the village manage to run away or evacuate before they're completely wiped out, rather than trying to fight the monsters head-on, or some of them fight/lay traps as a delaying tactic whilst others escape. The hero arrives, and upon seeing the village destroyed and empty, assumed they were too late, that everyone is completely dead and the hero utterly failed. To rub further salt in the wound, perhaps while unleashing their full power the hero kills a few villagers who were still fighting the monsters, and has to live with that guilt. Then they learn a small amount of people did survive. 30% may not be very much, but it's significantly better than zero, so suddenly things are more (justifiably) optimistic while in the hero's perspective.
Of course, as you say, a lot of deaths, infrastructure gone, and the survivors will have to either rebuild or relocate. But allowing the hero to mistakenly believe they're too late allows one to juxtapose 'bittersweet' with 'completely bitter and tragic.'

Then again, I'm not certain what you've planned and how plausible this all is, but it's a thought. Presuming the monsters are slow, only coming from one direction, or the village has enough forewarning to begin an evacuation of some people before they arrive in full force, perhaps it's an option?

 

[T.K._Paradox]

I personally despise nihilism or nihilistic takes hope is something beautiful in world that is laced with corruption and malice.

Regardless on the situation a returning hero saving a village from ruin is always something hopeful.

Even if a majority of the village has died their is still the hope of recovery, of cleaning up the rubble and coming back stronger.

Hell the most tragic events are usually the ones that united like minded people.

I personally am a sucker for the tide turner event, where backup arrive and obliterates the attackers when things look like they might turn for the worst.