I begin my personal disaster management thinking by considering what folks did with and without back in the 1850's. A lot of our potential problems are self created, by becoming dependent on modern conveniences.
My next set of questions are about the difference between prepping (what you have) and surviving (what you find).
The former requires a stationary, defensible bastion, and the materials needed in advance are too massive in most cases to move elsewhere.
The latter depends on skills, not goods, and requires awareness, movement, and making do by living off whatever is found along the way.
Just as it is better to be a little bit cold in winter exposure, it's also better to be a little bit hungrier than full when surviving a catastrophic change. The human animal's senses and drives are sharper when they are accompanied by hunger. Many will die off, and we need to consider whether that's a good or a bad thing.
I prefer to present a moving target over a stationary one. If someone finds me and my stash, they'll be back in force, and that will not spell survival for me. This is the key problem with basing a stationary defense around a stationary generator. When a situation becomes untenable, and most will, survival will depend on abandonments; of food, of shelter, of defensive constructions, and eventually, of people, too. The first things that will be stolen will be the generators. After a time, people will be weighed and judged based on their usefulness; and some, maybe many, will be left on their own.
In the Marines we were trained to envelop and overcome. We assigned advantage and disadvantage. The invading forces (us) had the advantage of mobility. We could hit a stationary defense from any/many angles. The defender was tied to his defensive works and his stocks of equipment/supplies. He could be driven off them, or attritted among them, but going anywhere else imposed a serious degradation of their resources. Meanwhile, the attackers could be staged in waves, given rest, and sent back in, with their duration in contact being based on their supplies and ammunition discipline. None of this can be done as successfully by the defender. You can't be a turtle and carry your house on your back.
Simple harassment would wear them down without substantial ammunition expenditure.
My plans, if I have any, will be based on traveling light, and on constant mobility, not necessarily fast, but constant.
Finally, a stationary defense really does need to have a large number of participants. This brings with it the burden of small unit politics.
Uh, uh... not my style. My style will need to be based on thinking outside the box, and utter surprise.
Greg
PS,
Book #1,
Book #2.
I, too have read 'The Ranch" series. Extremely entertaining, it is still pointless. The set of circumstances that enable the Ranch to exist are next to non-existent.
One must also consider that any potential opponent keeps their cards closer to their chests than the average survivalist fiction writer can imagine.
If you think you know everything about what one might face, you're almost certainly wrong.
If you project the image of a threat, you are taken as such. There is no way in Hell that can be beneficial.
www.un.org 
