Misplaced Pages

Talk:BattleTech technology

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 27 October 2006 (Reply →above/below: If the change is controversial, it should be discussed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:52, 27 October 2006 by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) (Reply →above/below: If the change is controversial, it should be discussed.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Another split?

The article, as is, is rather cumbersome. How about an article split into Weapons/Ammo Tech, Drive Systems/Misc. Tech, et cetera? ArcticFlame 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, i see your point however, I think things more or less specific to BattleMechs, such as mynomer, heat sinks, jump jets, etc. should be incorporated into the BattleMechs article. that would go some way for making this article less cumbersome. AidanPryde 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sources?

This article has no sources what so ever, could someone fix this?--142.177.159.134 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

LAMs

WOAH. What mech transforms into an aerospace fighter? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Zeta Gundam or something? For now, I'm going to change it because I'm pretty sure there is no transformer mech, being that it definitely goes against the whole mold that is the idea of a mech in the Battletech universe. If there is a transformer mech, tell me what book I can find it in, and if you want to be super cool, on what page, too.

--James 10:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) (fixed for accuracy, the original Gundam was a combiner, not a transformer.)

Land-Air Mechs (LAMs) can be found in the old edition of Technical Readout: 3025. As noted in the article, they were removed due to copyright issues with the owners of the Macross titles.


Here are additional answers:

LAMs can also be found in the AeroTech box board game extension of BattleTech (not to confound with AeroTech 2 which is not the second edition of the AeroTech box). Here we're speaking about the very first BattleTech products. Rules to design LAMs are in AeroTech, too.

Rules about using LAMs can also be found in the BattleTech Compendium book (the old one, with a lansdscape format like Technical Readout's, not to confound with the later BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare book).

-- JP_Raven

You're thinking of the Tactical Handbook, not the Compendium. There was never any edition of the Compendium that was oriented landscape. --Patrick T. Wynne 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. Currently I don't own it but I'm quite sure I saw LAM rules in this landscape oriented book. I searched the Internet to find its name and reference but found no place to look at. Wouldn't it be great to list all BattleTech books on WikiPedia? By the way I don't find any suitable place to explain things about BattleTech as a board game; the BattleTech subject speaks about the BattleTech thing as a whole, with no focus about the board game which I'm fond of.
However I own an AeroTech copy and am sure the LAM rules are in it; after verification it's on pages 35 and 36, alons with three LAM designs.
-- JP_Raven

Merge myomer article

I’m asking for anyone with the necessary knowledge of the BattleTech universe please to consider merging the myomer article into this article. Having the term itself in the namespace seems legitimate, but, lacking immediate context, the information in that article is too verbose for a non‐fan and apart from the introduction looks more like a narration of the relevant fiction than information about it. Placing the information here and pruning unnecessary references might make it more readable and useful. —xyzzyn 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've merged. Not pruned, though, guess I'm more of an inclusivist. The page history of the former separate page is here. --Kizor 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The word BattleMech was linked three or four times, which just redirects back to this page. It's not even necessary to link the same word more than once in an article. Anyway, the article is a bit wordy and sometimes awkwardly worded as well. I also might have missed some more self-linkage. Some guy 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I looked at your lists of 'Mechs and I was wondering why there wasn't a Jupiter in the list of heavy 'Mechs.

I have attempted to reformat the wordy blurb at the very start of the article. I hope this makes things more organized. If you have any thoughts for futher cleanup, please feel free to discuss. Wizardry Dragon 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the following under mynomer that was added is unnotable/irrelevant:
Her husband, Justin Allard posessed a prosthetic arm which used this technology, along mini hidden laser that popped out of the forearm. It came in very useful in saving his wife on the night of their assasination attempt.
As such, I'm going to revert back to my old version ... that is unless people really thing it's valuable. Reeks of fandom to me, to be honest, and isn't neccesary in the context of an encyclopedia article. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the part about the prosthetic arm is relevant. It is what many of the prosthetic limbs in the BT universe are made of and therefore a common use of the mynomer. I think it deserves mention, maybe not the part about saving his wife, but the rest. Also I started to change all the BT shorthand to BattleTech, but then I thought that there might be some legitimate reason for it. Otherwise, it just seems a little lazy to me.AidanPryde 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done some restructuring, I think the BattleMech section in its entirety deserves its own article (and have marked it as such). It was dominating the article which is supposed to be about technology in the BT Universe of which a BattleMech is just one part.

De-duplicated some of the information in the rest of the sections (not completely, there's too much for one sitting). Also added some headings for items that should be in this article in order to complete its stated objectives.

Not yet confident in removing the clean-up request as the article is still overly long and I think the 'Mech discussion needs agreeing first. Kyle 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some mostly minor editing today, but I realized this article is written from the point of view of the table top game. I think the POV should be from the novels, as that better covers every aspect of BT technology. There could be a seperate article about the technology within the table-top game.AidanPryde 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that BattleMechs belong in their own article rather then as a sub-set to this one.--The Fifth Horseman 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, splitting the article will improve both. Is there anyone who disagrees? AidanPryde 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've also checked "what links here," and it looks like most links are coming through the BattleMech and Battlemech redirects anyway, which reinforces the case that it should be broken out. --Groggy Dice 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumpships

The part about how jump ships work doesn't make sense to me. It says that to make a succesful jump, there needs to be negligible gravitational influence. But the article says that the nadir and zenith points are above and below a star. It shouldn't matter if youre above below to the side or caddy corner from a star, it still has the same amount of gravity unless another planetary body is negating that force through its own gravity, like in a pirate point. The novels I've read never explained anything more than that jumpships used nadir zenith or pirate points and that pirate points were much closer to the target planet than the other two. So is this a user error or is this info from a sourcebook and the fiction is flawed, or am I just an idiot who doesn't understand physics?

whoops, forgot to sign AidanPryde 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Your physics is right. There's functionally no difference high above the poles (Mass distribution through the star would have some negligible effect, but not in game-scale terms) then at the equater. I can't find any reference in the source materials I have at the moment, but my guess is that if there is such a reference it's the result of artistic license on the part of the authors - or simply a game designer / SciFi author who slept through Physics 101.

--Bagheera 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about this problem some more and I think i understand the problem, the Nadir and Zenith points are far enough away from the star to have only a small amount of influence. The points also have to be above or below the star because otherwise the planets of the system would affect the jump. This is why pirate points are so useful, since they are so much closer.It seems so obvious now. AidanPryde 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(Just having fun speculating about BattleTech physics now.) I don't think that explanation holds.
* At various times the planets might all be an the opposite side of the star. Is it safe to jump then?
* Planet mass varies wildly; Arthur Charles Clarke described the solar system as "consisting of the Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris", Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets combined. Everything but the large gas giants should be negligible for jumps, and their effect should probably be felt far, far outside the star system.
A better explanation for the jump points would be some effect of the star's rotation, but that would kill Lagrange points. --217.235.218.107


The 'zenith' and 'nadir' coordinates would probably be the 'above' and 'below' points located as precisely up and down from the plane of the ecliptic as possible, to allow for avoiding gravitational influences and mass objects. So, in this case, these positional references assume a generally flat orbital plane in a system, and the points exists 'above' and 'below' that plane, relatively, at 90 degree angles centered off the sun to allow optimal flight time to any given destination in-system. 204.117.14.101 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


It seems there are more problems with the Jumpship section, an anonymous user seems to object to calling Nadir and Zenith points Nadir and Zenith, asking that Nadir and Zenith articles be understood. I have read the Nadir and Zenith articles and I understand that in the real world, the words nadir and zenith do not refer to arbitrary points below or above a star or anything specific for that matter. But in the BattleTech universe, this is what these points are called. I can't say much for the source books, but the novels clearly refer to Nadir and Zenith points being below and above a star. So to avoid a revert war, does anybody have any beef with these points being called here what they are called in the fiction?

AidanPryde 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, as the Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain false or misleading information. However, there are at least two ways to keep the names without polluting the rest of Misplaced Pages with BattleTech misconceptions:
Just don't assume that everybody loves BattleTech enough to allow redefinitions of astronomical terms. --62.225.37.69
I apologize if the wording came off that I was trying to usurp the definiton of nadir and zenith. That wasnt my intent. I see your point now though. I'll attempt to tackle this sometime this weekend. AidanPryde 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Read

If I remove editsm for whatever reason, please do not readd them - this could be a breach of the three-revert rule. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rendering Glitch?

Under the Land-Air_.27Mech_.28LAM.29 section, I keep seeing about 4 right after "would end its" and just before "official existence." I attempted a minor edit to see if the glitch would dissapear, though I don't think it went through. I'm seeing this glitch under Firefox 1.5.0.4. Any clue whats up with that? --Vix 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see it too, it looks to me that the are being pushed around by the pics on the right side. I'm not sure what to do about that.

An idea of article

As far as i can see, this article is solely about Battletech's vehicular warfare tech (mechs, tanks, battlesuits, omnisuits) than everything else; which is good, but limited in scope (Would give good examples to compare, but there are none.) even if that's all Battletech is about. Since I'm not a book person (and you guy's point is in going beyond the games), I cannot add these sections myself, but here's a few things I was questioning while doing the dishes:

  • An overview opening. Battletech technology seems based on giving a realistic feel or take to many sci-fi staples, like faster-than-light travel and communication, hi-tech weaponery, scientific achievements and so. Minor stuff like medical and cybernetic prothesis are considered normal, stuff does breaks down, school life is quite XXth century-ish in overall scheme (Source: Mechwarrior books), and cars still have wheels. What else can be said? What about handguns? Clothes? Their knives are blades or little laser swords? Constructions? Entertainment? Do they have cyberpunk stuff like the simchips and hitech drugs seen in Shadowrun? What about the workmechs? Is there anything remarkable in everyday life to be ponted out?
  • Also, a section explaining about equipment axioms -- critical space, weight, efficiency (range / damage) and specially heat, which plays a quite big role in the game. Most article seems to assume the reader already has understanding in Battletech 'tech, so those should be explained ja? Kobayen 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe your first point could best be tackled by something to the effect of a 'BattleTech Technology in daily life' article?AidanPryde 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Or just an opening section -- but as I mentioned, I'm not qualified to write it. Then, I just dropped my two cents... Kobayen 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Split

I support the split. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense, as otherwise the article would be a bit unwieldy with large sections covering one thing, and much smaller sections on the others.

I too support the split. So long as a link to the new BattleMech article remains on this page.AidanPryde 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say splitting was a good idea, too. BattleTech 'Mechs are well-established enough to have their own page. This one could remain and perhaps incorporate some of Kobayen's above ideas. (Lordjim13 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Ok I went ahead and split the BattleMech part into a new article, Im still a little bit of a noob at Misplaced Pages, so help me clean it up. On a side note in the midst of spliting the article, i discovered that the three pictures of battle mechs were the cause of the 4 edit buttons being push around. as they were supposed to provide pictures of BattleMechs, I'll try to readd them to the newly split article with out causing the same problem. AidanPryde 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also 'BattleMechs' typed into the search page redirects here, i dont know how to change this to redirect the battleMechs articleAidanPryde 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the 'battlemech' redirect to this page, was set up as 'BattleTech Technology#Mechs' is now 'BattleMechs'. Someone else must have fixed the 'battlemechs' search because it works for me. Shrike92 02:03, 27 September 2006

above/below

I'm not sure what these words mean in the BattleTech universe, but the sentence made no sense in English. Without a reference system, there can be no "above" or "below" a star. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. I keep making the point that BattleTech is not the real world and is not generally considered to be influential enough to redefine words. However, the fan boys keep ignoring reason and keep reintroducing sentences that do not parse in English. As this is the English Misplaced Pages, not the BattleTech one, I don't see why these sentences should stand as they do. They make no sense, as 'above' and 'below' have no meaning without a reference system.
So, please, don't think that BattleTech is more important than the English language, and, please, don't disrupt Misplaced Pages again by adding sentences that simply make no sense in the English langauge. If you want to explain the meaning of the words 'Nadir', 'Zenith', 'above' or 'below' in the BattleTech universe, feel free to do so, but don't assume that every reader knows this fringe dialect of the English language.
In the fiction, Zenith and Nadir are used to refer to the jump points. they are referred to as the "Zenith Jump Point" or "Nadir Jump Point" If you need proof, I took a little time to look and on page 24 of the "Operation Audacity" novel, are the words "Nadir Jump Point." The words still retain their meaning of above and below, Zenith and Nadir sound better though, which is probably why they are used. The reference for the above or below is the elliptical plane of the solar system. The points would lie on a line going directly through the center of a star, 90 degrees from the elliptical plane of the solar system.
Zenith and Nadir Jump Points is the way I used them in the last revision and I did not link them to the Nadir and Zenith Wiki articles because some confusion could be drawn from that. Maybe above and below don't belong as they don't make sense in zero gravity, but Zenith and Nadir definitely belong. This article is about the fictional Battletech universe, therefore it should reflect the way the things work and are talked about in the fictional universe. If you want to explain all the inaccuracies in the Battletech, create an article about it. I agree with Wizardry Dragon that this is not the place for it. AidanPryde 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any BattleTech novel handy, sorry. I don't have any doubts that, in the BattleTech universe, the words have exactly the meaning everyone claims here.
Personally, I don't understand the 'above' and 'below' stuff at all. To wrap it into a simple question: Which of the two points is Nadir and which is Zenith? What makes them different? If one is 'below', do things fall up from there? This is just confusing. I don't expect you to change what the words mean in the BattleTech universe, but to provide the casual reader with the means to make sense of the explanation. Yes, the explanation of jump point physics is bogus, but I don't care in the scope of this article. However, one should be able to understand the article without implicit redefinitions of English words.
I don't think that Nadir and Zenith should be avoided at all cost. I certainly don't think that 'above' and 'below' should be avoided. I do think that any deviations from standard English should be noted.
I have no idea which point is "above" and which is "below." I'm guessing that is decided when the first jump in a solar system is first calculated. So to explain the jump points, would this be more to what you mean, "The Zenith and Nadir points lie on an imaginary line going directly through the center of a star, 90 degrees from the elliptical plane of the solar system far away from the star."? If so, I think it's a little too much for the average reader. It needs to be stated in simple terms. But next time, please provide an alternative to the problem or start a discussion before you delete important information. AidanPryde 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't. Please feel free to enter the discussion any time you like.
Quoting AidanPryde: "I have no idea which point is 'above' and which is 'below.'" So why do you expect the casual reader to understand the explanation?
I don't think I have to provide an alternative just because I identify and delete an erroneous statement. I can in fact not think of a simple replacement, just because BattlePhysics is so damn weird. The best thing would probably be a section on JumpPoints which explains the BattleTerms and gives some background.