User Avatar Image

what were those markings on the buildings in savannah?

posted by trunks2003 on - last edited - Viewed by 1.8K users

I found the paper in the class room but it was hard to read what it all meant.

15 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • i could say why would they bother, but there is no point in trying to figure out the reasoning behind a leader that is against procreation, it's so badly thought out it's insane

  • The paper was very clear.

    It listed Days since the initial outbreak, number of potential citizens, walkers, etc.

  • @thestalkinghead said: i could say why would they bother, but there is no point in trying to figure out the reasoning behind a leader that is against procreation, it's so badly thought out it's insane

    I'm not sure Crawford was badly thought out because it was against procreation.

    Long term survival is impossible in TWD. The current generation of humans is the last, and the species will be extinct within a few years. (This assumes, that no one develops immunity/finds a cure, but so far the TWD zombie apocalypse seems "perfect".)

    So, what's the point of babies in TWD? They don't let people sleep, make a lot of noise, use a lot of resources, and they aren't going to live enough to grow into children.

    The issue around babies is whether they are important for morale. Crawford failed because it made people so miserable that they snapped. Maybe babies would have prevented that. However, instead of babies, maybe Crawford could have kept morale up in other ways that don't have as many risks and drawbacks.

  • aap053mjupb.crawford.png

    Here's a recreation of the exact sign example found in the classroom.
    It's an upside-down anarchy sign, by the way. :p

  • spraypaint.jpg

    It's this. Military used it after Katrina (in new orleans). Basically it tells anybody who comes after them that the house was searched already. It also let's workers know if there are dead that need to be pulled from the house.

  • @IndigoHawk said: I'm not sure Crawford was badly thought out because it was against procreation.

    Long term survival is impossible in TWD. The current generation of humans is the last, and the species will be extinct within a few years. (This assumes, that no one develops immunity/finds a cure, but so far the TWD zombie apocalypse seems "perfect".)

    So, what's the point of babies in TWD? They don't let people sleep, make a lot of noise, use a lot of resources, and they aren't going to live enough to grow into children.

    I don't think Crawford's necessarily against procreation - just against procreation in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak. On one of the videos, Dr. Logan tells Anna something along the lines of "you can try again in future, when things are better." It seems to me that their plan is to gather all the physically fit, self-sufficient people, use them to clear out zombies, build infrastructure and so forth until they've got a village in which they can raise children and then relax the no kids rule.

  • @IndigoHawk said: I'm not sure Crawford was badly thought out because it was against procreation.

    Long term survival is impossible in TWD. The current generation of humans is the last, and the species will be extinct within a few years. (This assumes, that no one develops immunity/finds a cure, but so far the TWD zombie apocalypse seems "perfect".)

    So, what's the point of babies in TWD? They don't let people sleep, make a lot of noise, use a lot of resources, and they aren't going to live enough to grow into children.

    The issue around babies is whether they are important for morale. Crawford failed because it made people so miserable that they snapped. Maybe babies would have prevented that. However, instead of babies, maybe Crawford could have kept morale up in other ways that don't have as many risks and drawbacks.

    I disagree, I think the first few years will be the worst but the walkers will start to deteriorate too much and become immobile. The human population would be alot smaller most of the old and sick would be dead and that means less new walkers. I think then people would be able to control it a lot better.

  • @trd84 said: I disagree, I think the first few years will be the worst but the walkers will start to deteriorate too much and become immobile. The human population would be alot smaller most of the old and sick would be dead and that means less new walkers. I think then people would be able to control it a lot better.

    If you want science in zombies, here is it: they will be totally fucked up after 1-2 weeks, not years.

    Also, the infection can only make everybody a zombie because the virus affect by air and not only by bit, why? because zombies are walking dead people which can´t do ANYTHING against the ARMY, or a person with a shovel.

    The only realistic thing is: the virus makes most of people zombie by air , not bit, and only the inmune ones survive (lee, carley, etc), but after 2 weeks or so all the zombies are fucked up so they can restore the humanity. The end. It isn´t fun, isn´t it?

    Same with the fast-more realistic zombies, they will be dead in 2 weeks or so by hungry, just like in 28 weeks later. Same with slow zombies, an army can easy kill people who only knows to run and bite... imagine some tanks can kill a whole city and the infected people can´t do a shit about it. OMG they are gonna bit the tank? lol.

    The only dangerous is take the virus by air, so the danger of this is just like other normal virus.

  • @Jokieman said: spraypaint.jpg

    It's this. Military used it after Katrina (in new orleans). Basically it tells anybody who comes after them that the house was searched already. It also let's workers know if there are dead that need to be pulled from the house.

    This is correct. I lived in New Orleans during Katrina. Its a alive-death-cleanup system. I speculate that Crawford was marking which houses were safe for storage, later in habitation, or later raiding.

  • @trd84 said: I disagree, I think the first few years will be the worst but the walkers will start to deteriorate too much and become immobile. The human population would be alot smaller most of the old and sick would be dead and that means less new walkers. I think then people would be able to control it a lot better.

    I'm basing the argument against a future generation of humans on how the zombie apocalypse seems to work in TWD, not how other, perhaps more realistic, zombie apocalypses would work. In TWD, zombies are walking around perfectly fine months after the outbreak even though they aren't metabolizing to produce energy, eating food to restore energy, or have an immune system to stop bacteria from eating their bodies and making them fall apart. So, they last forever.

    In TWD, everyone is infected by the virus. No one is immune. Anyone a zombie bites/scratches/whatevers will die. Everyone who dies comes back as a walker. The slightest mistake (which everyone will make at some point) is fatal. No matter how careful a system is, it will fall to the zombies.

    In that kind of environment, there is no future, so it's arguable that babies don't make sense. The TWD zombie apocalypse is particularly, intentionally, and unrealistically hopeless. Maybe people who know more about TWD can disagree, as I'm only familiar with the game.

Add Comment