Rarely have I seen such stupidity.
jedimasterED wrote:Certainly the films seem to make the numbers even... in that specifically depicted battle. Must we assume ALL battles were evenly matched?
Of course not, but you will later bring up the Clone Wars cartoon (among others) as a way of arguing in favor of the droid kill numbers. In each of those battles we saw rough numerical parity. Fighting even a few large-scale battles directly would massively drain the GAR's total fighting strength, while leaving the Separatist forces virtually unscathed. If this was actually the case, we would have to abandon the premise that the Clone Commanders were that much better than the Separatist ones, since a clone army that is one billionth the size of the Separatist army is going to lose massively in every battle of attrition that it fights, even if it manages to win the battle itself.
Are we talking 999 BILLIONS or 999 TRILLIONS of droids or just 1 BILLION or 1 TRILLION? You seem to have a more specific number in mind. Me? I think it is possible to conceive of these numbers very liberally. But that is just me. You don't have to agree.
Even if you talk about 999 trillion, then that still leaves the droid army with a billions:1 numerical superiority. You can talk about either and it doesn't make any difference at all in the final comparison. Things which do not change the order of magnitude of the numbers in favor of the clones will do nothing to change the overall assessment here granted. As a mental exercise, let's say that 99.99% of the droids counted in the assessment of "quadrillions" fail and are totally inoperable and non-reparable, disabled by obscenely poor quality control and the good work of our clones. The clones STILL have to kill over 3,000 droids each in order to have a fighting chance--far too high for the paltry "200:1" kill ratio listed in the article.
There are plenty of sources that show Republic forces trouncing CIS droid armies. Was it a struggle? Sure? But, again, I fall back on the Clone Wars cartoons and the number of droid kills made by the heroes in the films.
Oh, come on! Have you seen the movies? Have you seen the comics? Have seen the cartoons?! Good lord! I laugh at how many droids get taken out in the cartoons. It is outrageous!
We see maybe a few thousand droids taken out in all of the films. If your line of reasoning was correct, and the clones were able to deal with the billions to one kill ratio, we wouldn't expect to see even one clone trooper killed in ALL of the fighting.
By the by, how many droids do you think Mace Windu, Yoda, Anakin Skywalker, and Obi-Wan Kenobi alone took out? Certainly you can conceded that those Jedi have an astounding kill ratio... maybe we could agree on that? Please?
Of course, but not even the Jedi maintained kill ratios of BILLIONS TO ONE, which once again is what we need to see in order for the numbers to make any sense.
"Just too great," huh? This is what I'm talking about when I say I weep for imagination. Some of us are hanging too rigidly to our own logical, reasonable perceptions. I'll expound more on this below.
To be perfectly honest, I think you're the one whose imagination isn't working properly, since it seems as though you simply have no understanding of the magnitude of the numerical differential we're talking about. This isn't something you can retcon just by saying, "Well, the clones are good." The numbers GIVEN IN THE ARTICLE do not match up with each other, and when faced with the decision of which one to change the size of the clone army is the one which makes by far the least sense. It really and truly is an exercise in "doublethink" to be able to hold the numbers of droids, clones, and kill-ratios that were all given in the article in one's head at all times and think that the clones have any sort of a snowball's chance. You can pick which numbers in the article you think are wrong, but for my money (and, it seems, the money of the co-author who posted earlier), the clone army strength is the one that is wrong.
Oh, he made it believable, alright! But so much of Palptine's skill is in creating the perception of need. Is it possible that Palpatine, through his alter-ego Sidious, made certain that the droid army was kept at bay; that, even though they had FAR SUPERIOR NUMBERS, the CIS forces would be rendered to DRAMATICALLY BELOW their actual fighting capabilities? I am honestly asking, are there any sources that directly state the contrary?
This would literally be the con-job to end all con-jobs. It really would be like me saying pointing out one person from India and saying that he constituted the entire population of that entire country.
Ah, you misunderstand. And please don't tell where and when I should and should not participate in discussion. It is condescending and dismissive (and not altogether nice, either). I'm not copping out. I'm simply saying that Star Wars isn't reality. The internal logic and reason don't have to be self evident. Often times, decisions are made for "cinematic" and dramatic effect, not because they could honestly happen. It is the nature of the beast, yet here we have some of us asking a Hutt to be a Hoojib!
This is a cop-out, though. You're basically saying that what you're defending makes no sense within the universe, but that you're willing to accept it anyway. That's fine, but please don't argue that things like kill ratios, sabotage, and overstating enemy strength is going to change anything because those are "solutions" which do nothing to deal with the magnitude of the discrepency.
Irrational to you, perhaps, but not to them and not to others.
One of the authors just admitted that they were not rational, and virtually anyone here would agree when I say it is not remotely possible for an army the size of the population of the Earth to be wiped out by a single clone.
And the story tellers have their reasons, I can assure you.
I'm sure that they do: they were forced into publishing this insulting farce of a statistic.
Plus, I ask you to trust because it is their story to tell. If you don't like it, fine, but don't go insulting their efforts to tell the story just because you don't think it makes enough sense.
Sorry, but criticizing the plot and internal logic of a story is a fundamental part of critiquing fiction. Ever see movie critics? They're always picking apart plot-holes and insulting poor writers, and so do movie-goers when they see bad writing.
It doesn't have to do what you want it to do... no matter how much you know about it, spend money on it, think about it, etc. There are plenty of people who simply dismiss the unbelievable things in life. Others engage their imaginations and explore the possibilities, no matter how far-fetched.
The problem, here, is that in order to do this we must reject other parts of what the same writers are telling us (ie. the kill-ratio that they stated). They're clearly wrong about SOMETHING. All is not right in the state of Denmark.
I didn't really see myself defending the numbers. I was defending the imagination that I was using to explore the possible reasons the GAR could hold off the droid army of the CIS. I apologize for giving the impression that I honestly believe 5 million could defeat however-many-trillions.
And it's a fine little exercise, but these imaginative forays are ultimately aborted by the magnitude of the discrepency. Again, this is like picking out one person and saying that no one else lives on the planet Earth. That is the size of the difference, here.
Again, I was waxing poetic and I am sorry if you wanted more rational discourse. But, again, please stop telling people what to do when engaged in a discussion. It is pedantic. Furthermore, there is an element of Star Wars that is irrational. It is the fantasy, the mystical, the make-believe that requires the most suspension of disbelief, and I think it could be employed to help explain the discrepancy in numbers. It is an option. You can choose to use it or not. I choose to use it here, because it is fun to think this way. We have far too much to think reasonably about. Star Wars is about fun, adventure, escape. So this situation is hard to believe. Okay, fine. But so is all the other stuff I mentioned in my little rant.
If you want us to accept your little "It's fantasy: it doesn't matter!" statement that's fine by me, but insulting other people because they point out the fallacious nature of your imagined scenario is not acceptable and frankly belittling. It is sometimes fun to imagine things: I wish I had a billion dollars. It ain't going to happen, though, and efforts to get this numerical discrepency to make sense will fail.
Perhaps no amount you possess. And I am perfectly okay with other people not being able to employ as much imagination as others.
I think you'll agree then, when I say that it takes a SPECTACULAR amount of imagination to get these figures to make any sort of sense. And not just imagination in the sense that, "Okay, lightsabers and hyperspace exist." This is something entirely different because it has nothing to do with the fundamental premise of the SW universe.
Conservative from your point of view. My point of view includes the possibility that there were far fewer droids in combat than we have been told.
Again, though, the magnitude of the discrepency. This would be like me saying that everything with a "Made in China" sticker on it was created by the same guy.
There are plenty of sources that show Republic forces trouncing CIS droid armies. Was it a struggle? Sure? But, again, I fall back on the Clone Wars cartoons and the number of droid kills made by the heroes in the films.
So what? The number of droids killed in every single moment on the films
might total a few thousand at the most. No where NEAR the billions that every single clone trooper should be taking on by themselves.
How many droids were taken out in TPM when Anakin accidentally blew up the control ship? How many droids were then lost on Naboo?
Probably a few tens of millions at the most. Once again, this doesn't approach the level of domination that the clone troopers should have if we are to believe these figures.
How many droids were taken out on Geonosis (especially after the foundries were captured and shut down)? How many droids were taken out in the missions on Republic Commando? What I'm getting at is that the possibility exists that Republic forces had a ridiculously high kill ratio.
The figure cited in the article you're defending was a 200:1 kill ratio. That's not even in the BALLPARK of what we need for the number of clone troopers to make any sort of sense. If you reject the 200:1 kill ratio (even though that's already greater than what has been observed in any of the films and cartoons), then why bother to defend another number set in the same article? What makes you think that that number is correct when other numbers must then admittedly be flawed?
The possibility exists that more clones were produced. The possibility exists that Palpatine engineered a war and kept many of the droids out of combat.
Both are true, but in the case of the "Grand Army of the Republic" the implication from the films is certainly that this was to constitute the bulk of the Republic's strategic forces (hence the big deal in creating it: who would BLINK in the face of a 3 million man army in the SW galaxy?). It's possible that Palpatine deployed only a tiny fraction of the droids, but can anyone seriously claim it believable if only one droid in one BILLION was deployed to the front lines (which would still outnumber the clones by a good margin, BTW)?
The possibility exists that the droid army was much, much, much smaller than reported.
True, but why bother writing in numbers if they admittedly must be changed in order for them to make sense? And, again, can anyone claim that the Separatists could've pulled such a fast one on the reporting services that no one noticed the fact that their army was only a billionth the size that was reported? This is LITERALLY like taking one Chinese man and claiming that he's the entire population of China, or taking three people and saying they represent the entire labor force of the globe. NO ONE would believe such a blatant deception and it would be immediately apparent that such numbers were blatantly wrong, even for people with absolutely no military experience or understanding.
The possibility exists that local forces did the majority of the occupation and holding operations.
Again, this is true, but what's the big deal about creating a three million man army for the Republic? Especially since they consist almost entirely of observers. If you cite the Clone Wars cartoons, then you're basically forced to admit that the clones did the bulk of the fighting on numerous campaigns (remember the line about how the Calamari couldn't possibly outfight the separatists by themselves, hence the deployment of numerous Acclamators full of clones?).
The possibility exists that those droid armies that did see combat were poorly commanded, battle plans were poorly executed, and dramatically over-matched. The possibilities are endless... yet some of us are only looking at the numbers.
That's because the disparity in the numbers is so great and the magnitude of all possible retcons is so comparatively small. Once again, what kind of military ineptitude and over-reporting of military prowess would allow for ONE PERSON to take on an army made up of the entire population of the Earth? The Earth army would barely even notice the guy, even if he was a thousand time better than anyone in their military.
And, you know what, that's fine. But please don't tell those of us who look around the numbers that we are "silly," "irrational," and "wrong." It is our choice, too, how we interpret and engage these stories.
That is true, and if you would like to totally ignore the numbers I have no problem with that. Nonetheless, it is not possible to defend the numbers cited with any sort of a coherent or logical argument.
I think the Ewok's way of seeing things is the most interesting yet!
It's very interesting in the sense that it's astounding what sort of mental gymnastics he was forced to go through to even arrive at the conclusion himself. Unfortunately, it is totally inadequate for explaining this to anyone who takes a glance at the numerical discrepency listed here.
I also don't like how they repeated the overly-used brainbug that every large military ground vehicle must be an APC on the side.
