Sarna News: BattleTechGear.com

BattleTechWiki talk:Combat Vehicle Portal

Arrow IV Vehicles[edit]

I am proposing a portal of all vehicles armed with the Arrow IV. Is there disagreement to this? ClanWolverine101 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer one that includes both Arrow IV, Thumper, Sniper and Long Tom ones. Or at least if an Arrow IV category is made, then one for tube artillery is also made. --Neufeld 08:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the "fire support combat vehicle" category insufficient? --Scaletail 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Because the Fire Support category doesn't even mean Artillery. It includes LRM Carriers and other vehicles with potent long-range "normal" weaponry.
Try this : Look at the 3050 era onward. Look at all the mechs with TAG. WHY do so many mechs need TAG? There was only one mech refitted with Arrow IV (Catapult) and damn few vehicles. I feel justified in suggesting it'd be good to nail this down.
And I don't mind including the other Artillery vehicles either. ClanWolverine101 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I decided to be bold, and added: Category:Artillery_Combat_Vehicles. --Neufeld 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I would have, but I feared it would have been deleted... ClanWolverine101 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, does that mean we should add categories for other types of weapons? Should we have "Missile Combat Vehicles" and "Laser Combat Vehicles"? I'm not saying you don't have good reasons for your suggestions, I'm saying I don't know them. --Scaletail 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course not. This is specific to Artillery. (Which, on the "modern" battlefield, means Arrow IV, but I digress...) My point, very simply, is that Artillery vehicles deserve their own category because they function much differently than other vehicles. Many published scenarios including artillery don't even place the units on the map! Obviously, they work differently than even "standard" vehicles with Long-range weaponry. We've seen in many unit rosters that Artillery units are treated differently. Given how many portals we're using, this seemed to have more merit than most. ClanWolverine101 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I might add that artillery vehicles are more clearly defined than most other role categories already in use. --Neufeld 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point. Also, with MOST artillery vehicles, there aren't a hundred variants intended for different roles. ClanWolverine101 05:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The description of the roles comes from TechManual; they're not made up by an editors, but, rather, come from a published, canon source. The description of fire support vehicles does not mention artillery, but whether that is because artillery vehicles do not belong there or because artillery is not in TM, I cannot say. I understand your points about the differences between a vehicle that carries artillery and one that carries missiles or PPCs and I agree they should be categorized separately. --Scaletail 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It is fair enough that those "role descriptions" are derived from a canon source. But look at how that went for the 'mechs. There are so many variants attuned to so many roles that those portals become meaningless. So while those tables are canon, I feel no need to rely on them. ClanWolverine101 05:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but most vehicles don't have as many variants as most 'Mechs, so I don't feel that it's as much of a problem. In addition, a lot of vehicle variants are relatively minor, such as with the Hawk Moth. --Scaletail 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think my point is that while those Techmanual role tables are certainly canon, that doesn't make them very good or accurate. ClanWolverine101 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)