Could Crawford have made it?

HiggsBoson2142

Crawford was the game's version of Woodbury. There were people. Lots of people. And supplies, medicine, ammunition, and food. There was just one problem. Anna got the infection into the place. She killed Logan and he turned, and Crawford went to shit along with him. My question is, what if she hadn't killed him. Could Crawford really last.

Zeruis

Well, Woodbury didn't impose such harsh rules on it's people. Crawford did. I'm guessing that Crawford might have lasted a bit longer before people went insane, certainly enough until Lee's group were to come there.

Phoenix VII

Given Crawford's rules, I think it was only a matter of time before someone snapped, though whether that would've happened before or after the point in time when Lee's group raids Crawford is probably anybody's guess.

Rock114

Woodbury would have survived if the Governor hadn't tried to take the prison. Crawford never stood a chance. With all those rules in place, creating so much tension, it was only a matter of time before it all came tumbling down.

Fiddle Diddle

I disagree, I think Crawford would've survived, perhaps even thrived.

Strict rules and regulations don't make people go insane. If anything, people have been shown to go to ridiculous lengths to adhere to what they consider to be authority. Yeah, they rationed supplies... because they probably didn't have much to go around. As long as they had a way of getting new food (it seems that they subsisted mostly on what they could scavenge) and as long as they kept walkers out and close tabs on everyone, they had a chance.

The brutality towards children and the sick was unnecessary and short sighted, but the leader, this Crawford "Bell Zombie" guy, he wouldn't have been around forever. I think that over time, their extremist ideal may have softened a bit.

BlankCanvasDJ

Fiddle Diddle wrote: »

I disagree, I think Crawford would've survived, perhaps even thrived.

Strict rules and regulations don't make people go insane.

Until they can no longer follow those rules. The problem with Crawford is that obedience isn't just a matter of choice like normal laws are. You can't choose whether you get sick or not. And even if everybody agreed to those rules, once somebody gets sick they'll start disagreeing real quick. What happened was bound to happen eventually.

Wrighty

Crawford was just too strict, revolution was inevitable.Besides if one woman with a gun, can kill enough to start a full on outbreak and you're group cant handle it, you deserve to die :P

If they had lessened their grip on the people after a while, then maybe they could have made it.

Milosuperspesh

question:

if crawford was against pregnancy and children under 14

how would they 'thrive' with out any future generations/offspring ?

they'd all be kicked out/culled because old age isn't allowed so i would say depending on the supplies they had a few years.

cos eventually people would get sick, fights would break out, even a rebellion/mutiny..a cou/coup to remove oberson.

Ninnuendo

In all honesty Crawford was pretty much doomed no matter what.

If you, as a leader, take a moderate and softened approach (which is what Oberson did at first) then eventually accidents will happen, people will die and the community will demand stricter security. If you don't provide it, someone else will.

And well you've seen what happens with the strict approach. There's a very fine balance and it's inevitable that eventually it tips too far one way or another.

Pellet

if it only took crawford 3-4 months to fall (probably less) then i doubt it