Jump to content

Photo

Where Would You Take The People You Cared For In Twd/ftwd Universe


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Where Would You Take The People You Cared For In Twd/ftwd Universe (17 member(s) have cast votes)

Of all the "safe places" TWD/FTWD has been to, which would you take your family to?

  1. (TWD/S1) Campground (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. (TWD/S2) Farm (2 votes [11.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  3. (TWD/S3) Prison (7 votes [41.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.18%

  4. (TWD/S3) Woodbury (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. (TWD/S4) Terminus (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. (TWD/present) Alexandria/Hilltop/Sanctuary/Kingdom (5 votes [29.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.41%

  7. (FTWD/S1) Madison's neighborhood (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. (FTWD/S2) Yacht (1 votes [5.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.88%

  9. (FTWD/S2) Mexican Farm (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  10. (FTWD/S3) Racist Ranch (2 votes [11.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
ZedHead

ZedHead

    Lurker

  • Members
  • 390 posts
  • LocationStill waiting on a bus.

If you could teleport to one of the main bases on one of the two shows, which would it be? I tried to only use places where a majority of the characters have been for multiple episodes. It may not have suffered the same fate as on the show, but which would you choose?

 

I personally would go with the ranch in S3/FTWD. Its fairly isolated and self sustaining. While it has some obvious setbacks, it could turn into a true safe-haven if negotiating is done right.


  • 0

#2
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

If results happened as in show, then the Hospital. Where the hospital was when they left it was in a good place. I said at the time they should have stayed. They were starving and dehydrated while on the road, and with a baby, they should have stayed. Rick had the upper hand even, when Abe et al returned. I was in the minority on that, of course.

Now, without events that transpired in story- I'm going to the prison. Easiest choice in the world.


  • 0

#3
kombat

kombat

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,978 posts

I'll go with Mosher's perspective on this.

 

As it went in the show(s), probably racist ranch. Without knowing all the terrible things that would transpire, Alexandria.


  • 0

#4
Nareen

Nareen

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCanada

The key to long term survival anywhere in the ZA is to establish secure communities and start producing food and as much other stuff as possible.  It doesn’t matter how secure your place is if you starve to death.

 

If you remove outright predators like Negan, the Claimers and the Governor, any one of the places we've seen might do.  The prison was great, but so are Alexandria, the Kingdom and the Hilltop.  Alexandria even has electricity and running water at this point.    

 

Woodbury might have worked but for its crazy leader.   Terminus had a little horticulture going on but was subsisting on cannibalism.   The farm proved unsafe in the long run.

 

Celia had a thriving community but all those walkers on the place made a catastrophe waiting to happen.

 

The ranch was thriving too but its racist policies would always cause conflict with other people.    I would be concerned about water if there was a drought but that may because I'm an easterner accustomed to green forest, not desert.  

 

The campground was clearly unsafe.    Madison's neighbourhood had nothing to offer, IMO.   I don't think that the middle of a large city would be good in any case.     The hospital was defensible and provided medical care but how many people could you feed from that little rooftop garden?  What future was there for such a small group in such a limited space?  

 

I would never go to the slavery and violence based Sanctuary, which will eventually implode anyway.   I don't think it should be lumped in with Alexandria, the Hilltop or the Kingdom in the poll because it is nothing like them.

 

So I'd choose one of the prison, the Hilltop or Kingdom, and most probably Alexandria for its comforts.


  • 1

#5
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

If Alexandria can be taken without the Sanctuary then that's pretty much the choice.

My presumption is that the prison is the most herd proof, and like Theodore Douglas said, they can divert the local creek to flow into the prison (or something like that).

But Alexandria is the better choice if it stands alone, electricity is too useful.


  • 0

#6
thelastpaul

thelastpaul

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

I actually chose Hershels farm.

 

If you set up a proper perimeter defense (IE: Dig trenches, move large obstacles to filters zombies/people) you've got a very defensible, out in the middle of nowhere type of place that not many people will find or care to take. 

Yes, there was that giant herd that tore through there but knowing what we know now, it shouldn't be an issue for our heroes. 

Farm for me. 


  • 1

"You better kill me now!" "Pardon?" "You better kill me now, or I swear I will find a way to kill you. And I wont stop!"
"I know you won't. I know you won't say yes to Michael either. And I know you won't kill Sam. Whatever you do, you will always end up.. here. Whatever choices you make. Whatever details you alter, we will aways end up.. here. I win. So I win."


#7
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

One of the potentially nice things about the prison is it's growth potential. You could house a lot of people there, and people are a great resource. Plenty of land for planting, water source near enough to readily secure, double fenced with towers, and eventually they would have had the whole thing cleaned up.

I'm also assuming that people are still a potential problem even if they are free of a Joe, Gareth, Philip, or Negan to wreck the whole thing. Are we assuming people are never problems? Part of choosing the prison for me is to avoid problems with future human antagonists.

Without human antagonists then Alexandria.


  • 0

#8
Nareen

Nareen

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCanada

One of the potentially nice things about the prison is it's growth potential. You could house a lot of people there, and people are a great resource. Plenty of land for planting, water source near enough to readily secure, double fenced with towers, and eventually they would have had the whole thing cleaned up.

I'm also assuming that people are still a potential problem even if they are free of a Joe, Gareth, Philip, or Negan to wreck the whole thing. Are we assuming people are never problems? Part of choosing the prison for me is to avoid problems with future human antagonists.

Without human antagonists then Alexandria.

 

 

I don't disagree about the prison.  It was out of the way, was built to be secure, could hold lots of people and produce food.  Unless a guy with a tank came along, it was a good prospect. Alexandria is more comfortable though.  Maybe they could move those handy wall supports to the inside.

 

People would always be a problem but I'm assuming that there would be fewer or no implausible and over-the-top villains like Negan and the Governor, just garden variety psychos like Joe's bunch and the Wolves. Outlaws who would cause harm and have to be fought off or destroyed.  That's why a group of communities with a mutual defense pact would be a good idea, IMO.


  • 0

#9
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

I don't disagree about the prison.  It was out of the way, was built to be secure, could hold lots of people and produce food.  Unless a guy with a tank came along, it was a good prospect. Alexandria is more comfortable though.  Maybe they could move those handy wall supports to the inside.

 

People would always be a problem but I'm assuming that there would be fewer or no implausible and over-the-top villains like Negan and the Governor, just garden variety psychos like Joe's bunch and the Wolves. Outlaws who would cause harm and have to be fought off or destroyed.  That's why a group of communities with a mutual defense pact would be a good idea, IMO.

I hadn't considered the community situation, and frankly I prefer that to the prison- you've swayed me. A collective of communities allows for a fall back safe place in case yours is compromised, and is ultimately healthier since different communities will evolve different methodologies and a better cross pollination of ideas. So taken as a collective- I now chose Alex/Hill/Kingdom. 


  • 0

#10
Mr. NomNom

Mr. NomNom

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,274 posts
  • LocationOhio
I still feel the farm could have been one of the better choices. Yea it got overrun but a lot of places have.

It might have been in the open but really nobody knew they were there. If it wasn't for Shane they would have been way better off. Plenty of trees and cars to build barriers and walls and there were already animals for food.

Would they have ran into someone sooner or later? Probably, still you had a good amount of things.
  • 0

#11
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

I still feel the farm could have been one of the better choices. Yea it got overrun but a lot of places have.

It might have been in the open but really nobody knew they were there. If it wasn't for Shane they would have been way better off. Plenty of trees and cars to build barriers and walls and there were already animals for food.

Would they have ran into someone sooner or later? Probably, still you had a good amount of things.

I think the farm's a fine choice. I personally think you need more people, though. 


  • 0

#12
Boota

Boota

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 148 posts
  • LocationKokomo, IN

I've thought about this before, thinking specifically about what I have access to here in north central Indiana. We have a level four prison just a few miles from here surrounded by farms and heavy equipment dealerships. I thought the prime situation for forming a community around here would be to secure the prison and then systematically begin a farm on the extensive prison grounds. I think the inmates already have a large garden they maintain there right now anyway. I worked at the prison for a brief time and as well as having a secure perimeter fence and watch towers, the entire complex forms a huge courtyard completely enclosed inside all the big concrete buildings. 

Looking at the show, I think the prison could have been held indefinitely with a little more ingenuity. There are heavy equipment places all over rural America. They should have made finding one a priority. Diverting the creek and securing the breach in the wall would have been much easier with backhoes and bulldozers and such. After the first attack on the prison, with the truck crashing through the gate, you could have also used to equipment to dig pits and trenches at every approach, never giving anyone another straight shot to build up speed and blast the fence. (The tank would have still worked, but you can't think of everything. I mean, who has a tank?) The trenches would also serve to collect walkers that approach and keep them off the fences as well. I'd just leave enough room to be able to maneuver a semi into the gates, so long as the driver was good enough to avoid the pits on approach, to be able to bring livestock and supplies in.


  • 0
"We went together like Kennedys and head wounds."--Lenny Kapowski, Mr. Undesirable

#13
Jamber

Jamber

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

tbh i would chose none of the above, they're not isolated enough for my tastes, your  gonna be under constant attack from people who want what you got ............ and wouldn't care to grow a "community" tbh, how much people eat in 1 day alone, let alone for the rest of their lives? yeah, how about no, idc for that responsibility ... ones i care for and them alone


  • 0

#14
Nareen

Nareen

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCanada

tbh i would chose none of the above, they're not isolated enough for my tastes, your  gonna be under constant attack from people who want what you got ............ and wouldn't care to grow a "community" tbh, how much people eat in 1 day alone, let alone for the rest of their lives? yeah, how about no, idc for that responsibility ... ones i care for and them alone

 

 

This might work for short term survival, if you're lucky.

 

But what about if the flu comes?  Or a herd?  Or Joe and the Claimers?    You die.

 

What if you get appendicitis?  You die.

 

What about when you get older and less capable?   You die before your time.

 

What about sexual partners for your children as they grow up? 

 

Isolation is no guarantee of anything other than that there is no help when bad stuff happens. Something will happen; it always does.  A community, or better, a group of communities can help each other out.     I'm thinking long term survival.

 

Live together or die alone.


  • 1

#15
Mr. NomNom

Mr. NomNom

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,274 posts
  • LocationOhio

I think the farm's a fine choice. I personally think you need more people, though.


Yea. People would be a problem and learning how to farm is an bigger issue. Barely have room for error.
  • 0

#16
Mr. NomNom

Mr. NomNom

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,274 posts
  • LocationOhio

tbh i would chose none of the above, they're not isolated enough for my tastes, your gonna be under constant attack from people who want what you got ............ and wouldn't care to grow a "community" tbh, how much people eat in 1 day alone, let alone for the rest of their lives? yeah, how about no, idc for that responsibility ... ones i care for and them alone

No matter what, something bad is going to happen best to have people around when it does. If rather fight with a few people then by myself knowing sooner or later they'll get the jump on me.

Nowhere is gonna be safe. The dead wonder. People will scatter from fights or the dead they are trying to escape. They end up in places they really don't want to be.


Food will always be an issue. So will ammo and other supplies. It would be better to have more than one person to scavenge for things.

Edited by Mr. NomNom, 17 July 2017 - 04:31 PM.

  • 0

#17
Jamber

Jamber

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

This might work for short term survival, if you're lucky.

 

But what about if the flu comes?  Or a herd?  Or Joe and the Claimers?    You die.

 

What if you get appendicitis?  You die.

 

What about when you get older and less capable?   You die before your time.

 

What about sexual partners for your children as they grow up? 

 

Isolation is no guarantee of anything other than that there is no help when bad stuff happens. Something will happen; it always does.  A community, or better, a group of communities can help each other out.     I'm thinking long term survival.

 

Live together or die alone.

if you need anything that requires, surgery, you're pretty much dead anyway, hell anything with long term medication for that matter ... where i'm at we're isolated, community of if lucky 7000, maybe generous about 10k .. small numbers but what i have for an idea of isolation is, some sort a hunting retreat (think 100x better than the farm) rich people use it atm its so far away in the woods that u need a helicopter to reach ... food, i could get that ... the real problem for me would be, how to get there on foot, be a real danger for me to get lost in the wood but i'd try

 

get old? think on that world, i think any survivors, most won't see old age, i see alot of older people alive and comfortable only b/c of their medication they take daily .. them, they're kind, they're dead in the apocalypse, there's no medicine  ... i think most people would die off around 40-50's it's a world pretty much before modern medicine now

 

my child? hm she's not even 3 yet, she'd be trained how to survive and be ruthless when necessary .. when she goes out looking for a boyfriend, she's not gonna be a victim, she's not gonna be weak, at least that would be my hope


  • 0

#18
auximenes

auximenes

    Lurker

  • Members
  • 244 posts

I'd say the prison, with the hospital being a close second. The secure infrastructure of the prison seals the vote for me.


  • 0

#19
Nareen

Nareen

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCanada

if you need anything that requires, surgery, you're pretty much dead anyway, hell anything with long term medication for that matter ... where i'm at we're isolated, community of if lucky 7000, maybe generous about 10k .. small numbers but what i have for an idea of isolation is, some sort a hunting retreat (think 100x better than the farm) rich people use it atm its so far away in the woods that u need a helicopter to reach ... food, i could get that ... the real problem for me would be, how to get there on foot, be a real danger for me to get lost in the wood but i'd try

 

get old? think on that world, i think any survivors, most won't see old age, i see alot of older people alive and comfortable only b/c of their medication they take daily .. them, they're kind, they're dead in the apocalypse, there's no medicine  ... i think most people would die off around 40-50's it's a world pretty much before modern medicine now

 

my child? hm she's not even 3 yet, she'd be trained how to survive and be ruthless when necessary .. when she goes out looking for a boyfriend, she's not gonna be a victim, she's not gonna be weak, at least that would be my hope

 

You are thinking short term survival.  I am thinking long term survival, living instead of just breathing, and a future for the young.  

 

People could live long and relatively stable lives in protected communities, where they could help each other, look after orphans, the sick and the aged and so on. Anyone who wasn't a psycho murderer of other criminal would be an asset, even if all they could do is mind the small children, process food, nurse the sick etc. and so free up others with more important skills.  This is how the social evolution of our species occurred - people banding together and combining resources in a hostile world. 

 

There were a number of doctors around in TWD until Rick, Negan and Dwight killed most of them.  Those, like me, requiring long term medications would die, but I would have been dead anyway before Rick woke from his coma. 

 

You admit that your daughter would have to go out looking for a boyfriend - that means other people.  She had better hope there are other survivors.


  • 0

#20
mosher

mosher

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationOttawa

 

 

You admit that your daughter would have to go out looking for a boyfriend - that means other people.  She had better hope there are other survivors.

And how did they survive- who are they now? Unfortunately, if a harsh world breeds harsh conduct, meeting strangers might rarely be a happy occasion as people compete for resources. Trust would be in short supply. A large community, or even better a group of communities, can offer the trust necessary to be with others, as well as a buffer against strangers. One or two people roll up on your town and you might be able to slowly bring them in. One or two people roll up your group of half a dozen and you'll have to be thinking about if letting them stay is something you can afford. 


  • 0

#21
Jamber

Jamber

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

and your assuming most will "band together" right from the start .. there will be a lot of death of survivors in those 1st few months-years? and lets say in those first few weeks a small group has a few idiots in it, those idiots may end up bringing the infection into the group (there are a lot of very dumb people in this world as is)  i'd say the 1st 3-5 years, the biggest threat to continued living is other people, either thru their own stupidity or uselessness and/or b/c their a raider of some sort

 

me alone with family may survive .... me in a group of people ... some one in that group can and may end up killing me or family thru no choice of my own like, while the group is asleep some idiot loses his shit, goes crazy and somehow/way opens a door and leaves it open (you gotta assume that world will break a few survivors and may take others with them)

 

those couple of years, if one really likes living, they can't rely on a big group b/c not all of them are smart and making bad choices in all likely hood will result in the death of someone


  • 0

#22
Nareen

Nareen

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • LocationCanada

The notion of a small family group heading off into the wilderness with dad as protector and provider is very romantic but not very practical.

 

Human beings make mistakes.  Are you and your family immune to that?  One broken leg, one infection, one random walker bite and you're done. Clothes, tools and utensils wear out, food and medications are used up, things break or are lost and the only way to get replacements is to go out and scavenge.   Then you meet people.  

 

On TWD people were banding together from the start - the quarry group plus the Greens on the farm, then the prison, Woodbury, Alexandria and the other communities.  All those communities worked. The reasons they went bad were sometimes plausible but often rather far fetched and happened because TWD is a television drama and requires - drama.

 

I would rather join with other people who would have my back as I would have theirs.  The more people, the stronger the group. 


  • 0

#23
Mr. NomNom

Mr. NomNom

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,274 posts
  • LocationOhio
I'm very much with nareen on this.

The walking dead is a show and in kirkmans mind I guess he sees the world is full of bad people.

So, if it is. How do we have a functioning government? Or a working society? For thousands of yrs people walked this planet and were not extinct yet.

People were brutal before. It happens and it may very well happen again. However, when you banned and have more people the better the chances of your survival.
  • 0

#24
Jamber

Jamber

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia, Canada

a lot of those groups were there only for "story element" imho meaning it's a tv show -- again back to reality, the amount that it would take to feed those numbers of a group even of the quarry size is a lot ... and b/c it's the beginning most of the "supply-runners" will prob mostly die off .... b/c i think, that's where most of the death will happen, on supply runs .. i'm of the age of being on a supply run, makes sense .............. but how long *if i live* till i start getting pissed off at the weak back at camp who do nothing? they're safe, while my life is in danger constantly for their stomachs ............. i'd say pretty damn quick, not a fair arrangement what's so ever to the person who risks life or infection to get food for everyone

 

and being isolated wouldn't be forever .. i'd say a good 5-8 years for the simple reason, in those beginning years, pretty much most of those weak/stupid whatever .. people are dead, they're no longer a threat ... people prob more so than zombies are the threat .......... take glenn for instance, sure he put the blame on the coward who ran ... when he lost 1 of the group in that revolving door? (forgot his name .. but the one with the gruesome death) ... shouldn't it have made sense ... that you kill the coward and save your own? what i'd do ... i'd push that door, killing the coward but saving my own group ... that was the right choice imho

 

wouldn't you like to know that about such a person, lets say you have a teenager, son/daughter going out on a supply run with a glenn type person ... that glenn type is actually more of a threat to my family then the zombies b/c he can't make the hard choice .. stranger (and coward) and family .. family wins out all the time ..


  • 0

#25
Mr. NomNom

Mr. NomNom

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,274 posts
  • LocationOhio

a lot of those groups were there only for "story element" imho meaning it's a tv show -- again back to reality, the amount that it would take to feed those numbers of a group even of the quarry size is a lot ... and b/c it's the beginning most of the "supply-runners" will prob mostly die off .... b/c i think, that's where most of the death will happen, on supply runs .. i'm of the age of being on a supply run, makes sense .............. but how long *if i live* till i start getting pissed off at the weak back at camp who do nothing? they're safe, while my life is in danger constantly for their stomachs ............. i'd say pretty damn quick, not a fair arrangement what's so ever to the person who risks life or infection to get food for everyone

and being isolated wouldn't be forever .. i'd say a good 5-8 years for the simple reason, in those beginning years, pretty much most of those weak/stupid whatever .. people are dead, they're no longer a threat ... people prob more so than zombies are the threat .......... take glenn for instance, sure he put the blame on the coward who ran ... when he lost 1 of the group in that revolving door? (forgot his name .. but the one with the gruesome death) ... shouldn't it have made sense ... that you kill the coward and save your own? what i'd do ... i'd push that door, killing the coward but saving my own group ... that was the right choice imho

wouldn't you like to know that about such a person, lets say you have a teenager, son/daughter going out on a supply run with a glenn type person ... that glenn type is actually more of a threat to my family then the zombies b/c he can't make the hard choice .. stranger (and coward) and family .. family wins out all the time ..

To your first point. Risking your life while the "weak" Back home do "nothing". So you're telling me that while you're out you don't have the sense or abilities to put people to work? Really? So you can't put one person in charge? So some people can build weapons or defense? People need homes you may have to build those. Farming needs done. There are a dozen things to do while you are out and about about.

Glenn was a good supply runner because he was alone and scoped areas out and wasn't a moron who ran into any empty house. He was fine in a big city with thousands of dead and dangerous people. He went in there a few times without being seen or getting killed. Rick ruined that for him.


The kid dying wasn't on glenn. Nicholas along with the rest of his supply runners got dozens of people killed. Blame the woman in charge who wouldn't look past the fact her son's weren't doing a good job she kept a blind eye to it because it was her family. The issue is they never put a stop to it. Glenn clearly stated they didn't know what they were doing and he was ignored.

Also, why make my kid go? Not until a few yrs into this. If it is a few yrs by then I would have trained her. She'll be battle ready and not wait for someone else to make the decision for her.

As for the weak/stupid. What would you consider weak? And what would you consider stupid because one person might be a moron in one thing but great at another. If I can find some kind of man who is a great strategist in a battle situation but is in a wheelchair. Do I kill him for his handicap? Sure his ass might not be able to walk but if he can help me beat a threat with limited loss of life....well I'll take him.

Edited by Mr. NomNom, 25 July 2017 - 01:24 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome to RoamersAndLurkers.com, the largest walking dead forum and discussion board online. If you are a fan of AMC's The Walking Dead or Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead Comic Book, we invite you to peruse and enjoy our discussion board, and don't be afraid of joining in!