Series 3 and why it was the weakest

It's often said that S2 of Survivors was the weakest - it's called 'The Good Life with Guns' etc. I disagree and think that S2 was a necessary period of reflection after the chaos of S1, and allowed characters and themes to develop.

I think that S3 is the weakest because it loses all sense of continuity. The 'looking for Greg' storyline could have worked for 2 or 3 episodes, but for the whole series it just became annoying. We lost all sense of what was going on with the other characters in the series and what was happening at Whitecross (or did they all move on from Whitecross - see, it's not even clear!). S3 just became a series of bickerings between Charles and Jenny while they rocked up at the latest weirdo cult settlement to sort out their problems for them.

In my opinion, S3 would have worked better if:
1. Greg had been killed off or otherwise written off.
2. Episodes had alternated between Charles going on the road to try to build links with other settlements, and 'back at the ranch' episodes similar to those of S2.

Although this is a criticism of S2 as well as S3, I also think Survivors was way too 'cosy'. With the exceptions of some episodes, such as 'Parasites' and 'The Last Laugh', the country is shown as a settled, law abiding place of self sufficient communities. In reality, I think the world would descend into a neo-feudal system of robber barons raiding each other for supplies. This is hinted at in 'The Last Laugh' with the mysterious 'Captain', but the theme is never really drawn out.