Battle of Munro?

[Aeronautico]

This just popped into my head a while ago. Does anybody know anything about the Battle of Munro? I have heard that humanity lost that battle, but what were fleet strengths, the leaders, the losses? Is there any source that can give us any background? Just curious.

 

[Dundradal]

The beginning of Fleet Action covers the 6th Battle of Munro when Confed was attempting to retake the system as part of the opening moves in Operation Red Three (IIRC?). Concordia and Tarawa were present and Hunter is part of Broadsword attack on a light carrier.

 

[Aeronautico]

Well, that's a start. Anything on the first five battles? I'm not expecting anything major. This has always seemed to be a very obscure set of battles.

 

[ChrisReid]

It's pretty much just the attack on the carrier detailed in the beginning of Fleet Action. The previous battles is a reference to how Confed had been attempting to retake the system for three decades.

You should check out Star*Soldier for a big summary of information not found in the games. One thing it has is confirmation on multiple Behemoths, which would be something good to tweak in your Wiki entry from yesterday.

 

[Catnip]

Anything on the first five battles?

"A lot of good ships and a hell of a lot of personnel had died in six attempts to retake the planet."

My reading of it is that there were six previous battles and the one just beginning in the book would be the seventh. The passage doesn't seem totally clear, though.

 

[Aeronautico]

Whoa, wait a minute. There was more than one Behemoth? How is that possible? The Behemoth project, at least to my knowledge, spawned only one such ship, and if there were multiple Behemoths, why would the loss of the one at Loki have been so devastating? Are sure this isn't a totally different class of ships? I'm confused.

 

[Dyret]

They built more later to blow up the bugs or something. Read Star*Soldier.

Oh, and on the subject, do we actually know the Exeter was replaced by the Gilgamesh?

 

[Aeronautico]

Well, to my knowledge, the Exeter was in fact succeeded by the Gilgamesh after 2660. Fewer Exeters were seen in the 2660s and the Gilgamesh was clearly the standard destroyer for the first half of that decade. Maybe it is not a direct successor, I don't know, but it is a successor.

One more thing: Now we're talking about Behemoths against the Nephilim? This is too much. Some one's gonna have to give me a thorough background behind this thing's history.

 

[Dundradal]

One more thing: Now we're talking about Behemoths against the Nephilim? This is too much. Some one's gonna have to give me a thorough background behind this thing's history.

Read Star*Soldier

Well, to my knowledge, the Exeter was in fact succeeded by the Gilgamesh after 2660. Fewer Exeters were seen in the 2660s and the Gilgamesh was clearly the standard destroyer for the first half of that decade. Maybe it is not a direct successor, I don't know, but it is a successor.

This is the type of stuff you shouldn't be putting into WCPedia since it's not fact, it's just your own conjecture. It's better to just keep entries to what we know, not what we think we might know/feel.

 

[ChrisReid]

Well, to my knowledge, the Exeter was in fact succeeded by the Gilgamesh after 2660. Fewer Exeters were seen in the 2660s and the Gilgamesh was clearly the standard destroyer for the first half of that decade. Maybe it is not a direct successor, I don't know, but it is a successor.

A critical thing to understand is that just because a later game introduces something to us, it doesn't mean that that thing is a replacement (or even newer). We see Gilgameshes and not Exeters in WC2 because because it's a better gameplay experience. That doesn't mean Gilgameshes succeeded Exeters at all (now something else could firm that up, but everyone's always making incorrect assumptions based off things like this).