Talk:Battle of Muunilinst

There seems to be some contradictions within Star Wars wiki. This page lists the Battle of Dac as the Battle taking place after it. But Battle of Dac lists this as the battle after it. So if you keep clicking "battle after," you just go in circles. The pages list Dac as 22 BBY and this one as 21.7 BBY, but List of battles lists them both as 21.6. Anyone feel able to clear this out?-LtNOWIS 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a victim of the ambiguity of the Battle after and Battle before format. I personally think that Previous battle and Next battle would make a lot more sense. – Aidje talk 04:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me to be a consequence of having multiple battles shown simultaneously. --Death Regis 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that, and I admit it is a possibility, but I still hold to my ambiguity theory. The current format always leaves me thinking "Wait... this is the battle after that one, or that's the battle after this one...?" – Aidje talk 04:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, alot of battles have been held simultaneously. Any who watched Ep III can see that there were 5 going on at the same time. A rewording to the format is still needed. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Arrrgggghhh... this is becoming so annoying. What we need to do is make sure we know when each battle began as that is what we go by, not how they show them in the movie. For example in Ep III, we see the beginning of one battle and then the then end of another, so in that case, the second came first. So when we finally know the correct order, we should have that in the List of battles and then we can correct the Before and After problems, but then this won't work with all these going on at the same time. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I say it's convoluted enough that it should be left out of the info boxes. A lot of battles were happening simultaneously, and sometimes the order of battles simply isn't clear. Besides, if we add a new battle, people don't always think to adjust the text of other battles to reflect it.  For instance, when a Battle of Derra IV article comes up, both the Battle of Yavin and the Battle of Hoth will need to be fixed - and that's one of the *better* known EU battles.  Wait until we try to place things the Siege of Trasemene! JSarek 02:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the Neimoidian in the control room with San Hill supposed to be Gilramos Libkath? I've read that it's Nute Gunray but it's Gilramos' hat.
 * Gilramos is dead by then, Hyperspace avatars says it's Gunray, so I dunno.--Rune Haako 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Amount of Acclamators
the amount of Acclamators that fought in this battle is in the hundreds, as said by the New Essential chronology -SWF
 * "Hundreds of assault ships" might suggest hundreds of Acclamator-class ships, but by no means requires such an interpretation. --McEwok 02:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The FULL quote is this:
 * San Hill, the arrogant chairman of the InterGalactic Banking Clan, had worked to make his homeworld of Munnilinst an unassailable castle keep. The Republic countered with sheer numbers, sending hundreds of assault ships, each one groaning from the weight of troopers and war machines. Many vessels reached the surface only as smoldering hulks; others found themselves cut off from their drop zones, forced to make landings behind enemy lines.
 * If there were only about a dozen actual Acclamators, and most of these "assault ships" were small landers or gunships like you minimalists want to believe, then how could this attack have been one that made use of "sheer numbers?" Oh wait, I forgot, 3 million troops in a galaxy of several million planets is big to you people. JimRaynor55 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people have suggested they used non-cloned troops, the Imperial Army of the Clone Wars. -LtNOWIS 06:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, this doesn't take away from the fact that ITW:AOTC and SW:CL talks of "millions of divisions undergoing intense performance evaluations" at the start of the war in the Kaminoan clone program. And that's not even a fixed number, so you'd think the "only fiction" or "just fantasy" people would be more than happy about this. Then again, it looks like "goalpost-moving" has become as sport these days. VT-16 11:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * JimRaynor55 - if Muunilinst is a planet, how can it be an "unassailable castle keep"? Quite apart from anything else, it was successfully assailed during the Battle of Muunilinst. This is vague, rhetorical prose, giving a sense of the battle, not precise figures... but we do have precise figures, too: specific evidence that the GAR had 1.2 million clone troopers in the field at this stage in the war....
 * VT-16 - there's a quote saying "millions of divisions undergoing intense performance evaluations"? Seriously? I was under the impression there was just this line: "The first batch of clone divisions are ready for deployment; millions more are undergoing intensive performance evaluations"; and the meaning of "millions more" in this context is disputed - does it mean "clone divisions", or is "clones" silently understood? Other, more explicit, canon evidence, indicates that the Grand Army of the Republic had a muster strength only three million clones, or... um, eighty Corps and 320 brigade-analog Legions. The Division isn't a unit formation in the GAR at all, which means that "clone divisions" could mean something other than "multi-regiment troop formations".
 * I'm sorry if those replies seem frank. I'm entirely in favour of the page acknowledging the fact that some fans think Muunilinst should be really big; but it should also stress the highly inferential nature of the evidence they cite, and the opposing position. --McEwok 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"JimRaynor55 - if Muunilinst is a planet, how can it be an "unassailable castle keep"

It's a forterss world, and the Republic sent a lot of forces to counter that -SWF

What kind of assault ships?
Please list the specific quote that claims assault ships other than Acclamators participated in the assault. Otherwise, I'm changing it back. VT-16 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)