This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —MJ— _{War Room} 18:54, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of The Essential Chronology? If so, could I get the info in there that's related to the Fourth Battle of Kuat? Thanks, 501st dogma^(talk) 18:25, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

• From "Picking up the Pieces" (8.5 ABY) "But for every hit the New Republic took, they gave it back to the Empire threefold. Admiral Rogriss lost the majority of the engagements. The New Republic at last captured Kuat, giving them access to the system's unparalleled shipbuilding docks, though damage to the yards was so extensive that new construction was delayed indefinitely. Unfortunately, the Kuat Drive Yards design team escaped to the Deep Core aboard the half-completed warship Eclipse. Bloodied, Rogriss ordered a retreat. Warlord Teradoc, whose hit-and-run strikes had made him an exasperating gadfly, scurried back to his own territory. Admiral Ackbar fortified his newest gains. The New Republic now controlled three-quarters of the settled galaxy. And during the relentless battles, the Republic and Empire suffered grave fleet losses. The construction and acquisition of new warships became a top priority for both sides."
  • Voila. Cade Calrayn 18:27, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks! It's almost the exact same as the info from the New Chronology, but it does have some new stuff. 501st dogma^(talk) 19:05, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
      • Another question. The Atlas says that the ships yards were soon producing vessels for the New Republic after the battle, instead of being damaged indefinitely as both Chronologies say. Would the Atlas be correct because it is newer, or the Chronolgies because the claim was supported in both books? 501st dogma^(talk) 21:40, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
        • It's not necessarily a conflict. "Indefinitely" means "not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact" (see here). It doesn't necessary mean "for a long time". The damage delayed new construction indefinitely, meaning that the NR at that time wasn't sure when they would be able to resume. They apparently got things fixed up quickly and were in production by the time of the Atlas reference. The only way this is a conflict is if the Atlas depicts production so soon after the battle that it's implausible for there to have been sufficient time to repair the damage. As I own none of the sources, I do not know how much damage there was or what the time in between the references is (or if either of those things were even explicitly stated). If it must be a conflict, I believe we go with the newest source, which would be the Atlas, as we do not know if it is an error or a retcon, and we assume the latter in absence of evidence of the former. —MJ— ^{Training Room} Wednesday, July 4, 2012, 21:53 UTC
          • I think I can make it work with no conflict, event though the atlas says it was soon producing ships after the damage dealt. The sentence would go like this I think; "Only hours after Kuat's surrender, Imperial undercover agents attacked Kuat, triggering explosives that heavily damaged Kuat's shipyards, so much so that construction on new ships was delayed indefinitely. However, despite this and the loss of senior KDY staff, the New Rpeublic was soon pumping out warships for Ackbar's fleet via the Kuat yards." Thanks, 501st dogma^(talk) 11:23, July 5, 2012 (UTC)