BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Discussion archive

ComStar/Blakist Nomenclature[edit]

The present naming system (2nd ComGuard Division) was intended as a stopgap, now that consensus has been reached on Clan naming, should the Com Guard/Blakist Milita articles be brought into line? I'm assuming it should it be 2nd Division (ComStar) and not 2nd Division (Com Guard), but also seeking confirmation on the Com Guard armies, is 1st Army specific enough or should it be 1st Army (ComStar) to avoid confusion despite the fact nobody else uses groups named that? Cyc 17:08, 26 March 2009 (PDT)

I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate the Armies. --Scaletail 19:19, 20 April 2009 (PDT)
Okay, what about the units/divisions themselves, with me adding the armies and Clan units mentioning them from Tukayyid we're starting to get a lot of links. Stick with 2nd ComGuard Division or switch them to 2nd Division (ComStar)? Cyc 20:04, 20 April 2009 (PDT)
I might have preferred using parenthesis, but I don't think it's important enough to change. Don't forget about Star League divisions. --Scaletail 16:55, 21 April 2009 (PDT)
I like the "XXth ComGuard Division" nomenclature. Clear, and easy to pipe down to "XXth Division" if needed. My 2 C-Bills worth. Alkemita 10:27, 1 May 2009 (PDT)

[edit]

I've created the banner for this project. Would somebody (or several someones) be kind enough to add "{{WikiProject: Military Commands|tr=new}}" to the talk page for every command article? Thanks. --Scaletail 19:26, 20 April 2009 (PDT)

Mercenary Command Template Tweak Request[edit]

Is there possiblity of the current Mercenary Command templated being updating slightly? I recently did the Hell's Black Aces mercenary command and found the template's infoBoxMercUnit has some problems. Such as the name of unit not part of the info box. I actually had goto another merc unit article, copy & paste it to correct the problem. Also, the category link thats part of the template is out of date. I'm not certain whom to goto regarding this. Thanks -- Wrangler 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The name is part of the infobox. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't show up as it does now. I don't see any category at all integrated into "InfoBoxMercUnit", so I'm not sure what category you're talking about. Could you be more specific about the problems you're having? --Scaletail 14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Brigade articles[edit]

This is something that has been floating around on the outskirts of the project for a while now. Today it has been flagged up here... Talk:Skye Rangers. In my opinion the brigade articles have a lot of potential, see Federated Commonwealth Corps for what I think is a great brigade article. A lot of Brigades don't have articles or need some major TLC... Even some of the Merc commands would probably benefit greatly from being written as a Brigade article, see Wolf's Dragoons for a prime example.

Should Brigade articles be implimented throughout the Military Commands project and if so would the format of the Federated Commonwealth Corps be acceptable? --Dmon 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since their have been no objections I shall proceed to impliment "Brigade articles" for as many units as I can. --Dmon 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comstar Armies vs Divisions[edit]

Something else that is bothering me is the Comstar Commands category. I propose we reverse the categorys and have the main category featuring the Divisions (the primary unit of both Comstar and WoB) and have the armies as the sub-category instead unless another solution can be found (they are a bit to fluid to be treated like the Brigades IMHO) --Dmon 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. With tthe exception of Tukayid, rarely acted as "Armies". ClanWolverine101

Clans / Luthien Commands[edit]

I've noticed a problem. The Clan Galaxies listed in the Luthien (scenario pack) pack use designations such as "315th Jaguar Battle Galaxy". Every other touman roster I've seen has used the more familiar Greek lettering (Alpha Galaxy, Beta Galaxy, etc.) This is usually done even for second-line clan units. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.) It is my belief that the writers/developers of the Luthien Scenario book were unaware of how universal the Greek convention was among the clans, and came up with their own, one which is not supported elsewhere. Does this seem like something worth addressing somehow? Just a thought. ClanWolverine101

Could they actually be Clusters but the writers made a typo? --Dmon 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, at least not as far as the book is concerned. They give the names of the Galaxy, then they give the names of the clusters that are part of those commands. Unfortunately, the scenario pack seems to be the only canon source for what clan units fought on Luthien. ClanWolverine101
Remember ClanWolverine, alot of the things in older publications have been supeceded by following products. Lutherien Scenareio book has alot unique, odd ball stuff that didn't quite click with current BT Writers. I'd ask them about it if your not sure of it. -- Wrangler 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, but my issue is that 'Luthien' wasn't that old. Objective Raids had been released. So had the Wolf Clan and Jade Falcon Clan Sourcebooks. Those texts set a certain precedence for what followed, and that didn't seem to be the case with Luthien. *sigh* Oh well. How do we reach the developers? ClanWolverine101
Best place to reach the developers is probably http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php. Just as a side note I was looking through my notes and during the Luthien campaign in the MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries video game you are fighting the 31st Smoke Jaguar Assault --Dmon 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to seem petty, but I would question the canonicity of that source. :) ClanWolverine101
Oh I agree... thats why I made a point of saying it was a side note. I was just pointing out that the Luthien sourcebook was not the only "official" product to feature this conundrum even if it is the only "canon" one. --Dmon 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Waco Rangers[edit]

I'll take this one - I think I have access to the relevant material. Will post something within a few days. ClanWolverine101

Third Royal Guards[edit]

... by which I mean the "villians" from the "Highlander Gambit" novel. I've repeatedly seen these guys referred to as the Lyran Third Royal Guards on this site. I have to tell you, I think the writer screwed up. First of all, there were only two Royal Guard regiments, and both were decidedly loyal to Katherine. No way they have a third unit in Davion space that's loyal to Victor. It is my belief that this was supposed to have been the "3rd Davion Guards" of the "Davion Brigade of Guards". Any thoughts? ClanWolverine101

You could go ask here [1] or [2] if you cant find any other evidence as to the propper unit involved. --Dmon 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi ClanWolverine. The third Royal Guard's information can be found in Field Manual: Lyran Alliance and in the original House Steiner Sourcebook . There was also a 4th Royal Guards which was destroyed during the Succession Wars. -- Wrangler 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I thought that unit was destroyed sometime before 3054. Objective Raids didn't list them. ClanWolverine101
Don't Know, they weren't talked about much in books I've read either. I'm working on unit article on them right now so there will be listing for them. -- Wrangler 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The weird thing was, they were only called the ROYAL guards in the novel. They weren't called the Lyran Royal. So I always thought they were a misnamed Davion unit. ClanWolverine101
I believe thats because its only brigade unit known to be called the Royal Guards beyond Federated Commonwealth as whole. Remember, at the time the FedCom included both Lyran and Davion sides as single nation. There were no named Davion Royal units, thus why they weren't called them Lyran Royal Guards. Why give it specific nationaity name if the nationality was never used? Later in Dark Age novels, Lyran Royal Guards are refer to a Royal Units, dropping the Guard name. However, i think like Highland Gambit, the author was using short cut name to save on word count. -- Wrangler 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The unit brief on the 3rd Royal Guards RCT (Field Manual: Lyran Alliance, p. 98) describes the unit's failure on Northwind. They are definitely the "bad guys" in Highlander Gambit. --Scaletail 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy Needed[edit]

To stave off a potential edit/flame war, we really need Policy:Unit Pages. Discussing overall structure of regiment/brigade pages, tables/no-tables etc. shouldn't be in individual unit pages. --Neufeld 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean even as I disagree with the exact recommendation. We already have two templates to use when creating military unit articles. Those should be sufficient for the order of what information goes where.
There were long discussions about the content of the brigade v. regiment articles, but Frabby (and others) believes exceptions should be made. That's fine. I have no opinion one way or the other.
The issue of tables is one that does need to be brought up and I intend to do that, but that is larger than just command articles.
That said, I have come to the realization that the Project pages are woefully out of date. I also intend to fix that. --Scaletail 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As I've said recently, it is my opinion that Mercenary units like MAC, Wolf's Dragoons, the ELH and others should have a single article rather than each regiment with their own. The level of content we have and the way its presented just encourages that sort of format IMHO. ClanWolverine101 15:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be discussed properly, as per my previous attempts to bring up the subject I am pro "brigade" article because I feel that it can be used to give a general history (i.e. the formation of the Ryuken) or feel for the formations (SoL's status are the elite kick-ass type folk) and the individual regimental articles can chart the actions of the unit in its various battles and who was commanding officer when etc. . The mentioned Merc units can carry in either format I agree but the house units IMHO will eventually benefit from the "Brigade" system especially as an aid to story writers/RPGers --Dmon 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that articles should be about any particular level of organisation. Instead, they should focus on a given unit (the article's subject) in whatever formation they are typically deployed. Merc units come in all sizes from single 'Mechs to lances, companies, battalions, regiments up to entire brigades (i.e. multi-regiment forces) and they are always hired full-size, not per regiment. That is the key difference. House units, by comparison, may technically be organized in brigades or even divisions, but are typically deployed in regiment or battalion strength. Pick the formation level that is the most noteworthy for your article. Frabby 16:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with each house brigade unit having its own page. When you talk about what the "Avalon Hussars" did, for example, you don't really talk about what the Brigade did - you say the 33rd did this, the 42nd did that, etc. So each unit should have its own page. But if Beta Regiment of Wolf's Dragoons does something, you say "Wolf's Dragoon was involved in (x) - they sent Beta Regiment." You see? ClanWolverine101 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Frabby. That's what discussion pages are for. I don't think there is a lot of question about this for your average House or Clan unit, or most Periphery units. FWIW, Dmon, what you have described is the way it works now. It doesn't sound like there's any disagreement here in general, though there is obviously disagreement about one or two specific articles. --Scaletail 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wolf's Dragoons and ELH articles are probably best left as single articles but MAC are Mercenary in name only in the same manner as the Amphigean Light Assault Groups are. Mercenary units that have no history of being mercenary and unbroken service to the same house are effectively house units so we also need a clear policy to cover these units who fit both. --Dmon 08:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
For your 'merc/not really merc' examples, I'd be tempted to write them as merc units, with the clear statement that they consistently served one house. I think you'd find many a reader becoming a drive-by editor 'fixing' the category back to 'mercenary', because the unit is known to be mercenary, if in name only. Also, as a reader, if I'm looking for mercenaries in Capellan employ and don't find the MAC there...I'd suspect the whole list, in a first impression.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly list MAC under Capellan Mercenaries, simply because for most of their published history, they were in that capacity. (Yes, I know they existed prior to 3000. But relatively little has been written on this outside of the MAC Sourcebook.) Again, its my simple position that groups like the ELH, Kell Hounds and MAC are in a special category along with the mercenaries even though all three eventually became House/SLDF troops.ClanWolverine101 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think units that have had more than one affiliation (Shin Legion, 4th Dracon, MAC, ELH, etc.)should be categorized in all categories that apply. --Scaletail 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree the multiple affiliation tags, I have already implemented this in the Shin Legion, MAC and some other units quite some time ago and it seems to work. I propose to go a small step further and suggest that the policy covers the order the tags are placed in so that the most recent affiliation is either first on the left or last on the right for ease of identification (my current personal use's the latter system) --Dmon 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with that per se, though I don't think its enforceable. IOW, if you do it with the articles you're interested, I'm fine with it. However, I don't think we need to 'warn' others that file them alphabetically or haphazardly.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with making it a guideline. Does anybody object to this guideline? --Scaletail 16:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This is all well and good, and I have no problems with the category tags. I do, however, want a consensus on the "one unit, one article" page, as opposed to giving separate pages to every regiment? ClanWolverine101 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. That should be handled for separately for each unit because that can vary from unit to unit. --Scaletail 16:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Large Mercenary Units[edit]

This seemed the appropriate place... when I last brought this up, consensus seemed to indicate people favored each regiment (and some smaller "indy" units like the Black Widow Company and Zeta Battalion) having their own page. So Wolf's Dragoons would have the main WD article, then articles for :

... etc.

Obviously, it doesn't just apply to Wolf's Dragoons. They've just always been the easiest example. How do people feel about this moving forward? ClanWolverine101 01:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am all for this format... but then again it was me who was pushing hardest for the current set up with the brigade articles so this would just mirror that move. --Dmon 06:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Originally, I took the position that certain mercenary brigades like Wolf's Dragoons, Northwind Highlanders, and the Eridani Light Horse should just be single articles, as a lot of the material deals with the unit as a while as opposed to each regiment. Sure, we can copy that material into the regiment article, but I'm not sure that's the best use of our time. Since then, I've mellowed. ClanWolverine101 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel these are way too many articles already, and it irritates the heck out of me. Why are regiments so special and not, say, individual lances? Of all those (sub-)units named, ony the Black Widow Company is notable or independent enough to warrant their own article. All others should be covered in one single, concise article named Wolf's Dragoons. Frabby 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Frabby, and I was arguing that point originally. My counter-point is if people are going to write seven different articles for McCarron's Armored Cavalry, I feel WD is deserving as well. (And yes, I know MAC went "House". :P ) ClanWolverine101 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been ranting against having multiple MAC articles, too, saying that they should be merged. :) What's wrong with "One Unit, one article"? Or, from a BTW user viewpoint, why should one have to read through several different articles to learn all there is about the same unit? Frabby 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
True! Here's the thing : Most House units act as Regiments. Most large Mercenary Units act as a whole. When you write the history of the Dragoons' Alpha Regiment, you essentially go over the entire history of the Dragoons, just leaving out a few bits they weren't involved in, and maybe throw in more detail about their specific operations. Still... kinda redundant, yes? So I hear ya, Frabby. I'm just laying out what it will be like if we continue down this path. ClanWolverine101 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Still, there are several examples of large merc regiments operating separately. See for example Wolf's Dragoons at the beginning of Jihad. One regiment on Tikonov, two in Combine employ, IIRC. Another example is the ELH which was split between Huntress and Dieron. It seems that the large merc unit operating at brigade scale was more a case of the 4th SW era, and doesn't seems to be all that common nowadays. --Neufeld 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sure, they split up the regiments. But the history is common. How often do we see an entire House Brigade participate in the same event? All eight Crucis Lancers hitting Tikonov during the 4th war I suppose. And the Davion Guard all siding with Victor in the FC Civil War, though even then they didn't all make it to New Avalon, did they? Its just a different animal, IMHO. ClanWolverine101 07:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Conventional Regiments[edit]

... unrelated to the above discussion. Recently, I've seen that people are making unit articles for conventional regiments. I feel this may be a mistake, as it creates a precedent where we need to find information for any conventional regiment we've ever heard of, plus all the countless ones we haven't. 99% of these articles will be Stubs! We can say "it was attached to so-and-such RCT" or it was "stationed on planet X in 3025", but even that may not always be the case. Simply put, it is not possible to write quality articles about the vast majority of these units. (In fact, I would defy anyone to name ONE conventional regiment that has had enough material published to produce a good article.) This is just my opinion. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that a conventional regiment is a non-battlemech regiment, quiaff? In that case I agree. --Neufeld 07:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Aff. Obviously, this usually means Armor or Infantry regiments. There are rare cases of Aerospace or Battlearmor only units, I suppose... ClanWolverine101 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good example 3rd Luthien Guards. In my opinion I actually think small details like this can make great game aids, OK the unit is not exactly fleshed out in great detail but I find it nice to have a canon unit for the GM to flesh out. --Dmon 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Granted, that's better than most. But I would assume there are few with that amount of material available. ClanWolverine101 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe non-BattleMech regiment should be listing, unless they don't have any fluff on them at all. You have the regiments attached to Davion and non-Davion Regimental Combat Teams which gain considerable amount history and would warrent a article. However, you have some that have minor menionings which gives a name and you hear it once a while that it. I think stuff like that should be treated to a List of Minor (enter nation name) Regiments. Thatt would give a home and what ever small fluff is written on them a home without clutter sarna with near empty articles. Also, we have to consider the future. Right now, as Jihad is about to end, traditional and frontline BattleMech regiments are being reduced in size. There likely won't be any BattleMech regiments after 31st century. Conventional regiments maybe more common. we should consider this when writting up these articles. Writers of Battletech are doing way with (unfortunately) alot of the traditional unit setups we grown up with. -- Wrangler 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, but let's give the developers a break until we see what post-Jihad looks like. I like your idea of putting all conventional units on a faction list page. People can stick what material they can find in there. ClanWolverine101 13:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Getting the ball rolling on this again - I'd like to revisit this issue simply because a lot of work is being done on various conventional units. For 98% of those units, very little content is available, and a quality article may be impossible. I would suggest a policy to address this issue. ClanWolverine101 06:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, CW, I agree with you. I certainly wouldn't spend my time creating all those articles, but that doesn't mean somebody else can't. Given the notability policy, I'm unsure of what another solution could be. Small articles are usually combined into lists, but I think a list of "Federated Suns minor commands" would quickly balloon out of control. I wouldn't be opposed to integrating information for those commands into the 'Mech formation they're attached to, but they do sometimes detach, so that can become problematic. --Scaletail 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I have no problem with creating conventional regiment articles, so long as they reach the notability policy. To Scaletail's point about a list ballooning out of control (which is a valid concern), maybe we could split them up by type (armor vs. infantry) or by numerical designation ("Fed Suns Minor commands, 1st - 10th"; "Fed Suns Minor Commands, 11th-20th"; etc.)? Perhaps they'd fit into the existing categories (Which is a double win because "Federated Suns Capellan March Militia Commands" etc. are currently empty.)--Mbear 00:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that a list would balloon out of control the second we had anybody who wanted to add considerable information to it, Sadly I think Mbears idea of attempting to create some sort of brigade style group article is unworkable simply because not many of the conventional units share a common system of designation... the only one I see working thus far is the unit type but in all honestly I find that option unappealing in addition to the problems presented by mixed commands or commands we do not have composition data for. --Dmon 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not in favor of trying to create a brigade style page for the conventional regiments. When someone said lists earlier, I assumed they were talking about using Category tags to generate the content of the list. If list means something like List of Minor Mercenary Commands, I'd say forget it. That list would become too large to be useful.--Mbear 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neuling WP:MC standardization project[edit]

I have noticed that Neuling has posted on some users Talk pages asking for support to what essentially equates to re-standardizing the format used by Canon Great House Military Commands to this 1st Argyle Lancers and having a coordinated effort to bring all said commands up to that standard. Neulings example is fairly close to the current unofficial standard of the moment with the only real additions being the era named history sections (something that has kinda added itself over time to break up the larger history sections) and the inclusion of the Bibliography section (an addition made via a discussion between myself and Revanche that has spread to most of the wiki) at the bottom so it would not be a huge leap to meet in most cases.

Personally I agree that the standard should be re-set and I would only wish to make several minor changes to Neulings template before standardizing it. One change I would propose I admit would be purely due to my desire to eventually see my personal labor of love My Organization Trees become a standard feature of the Articles but as Neuling is dead set against then I will respect Neulings proposal and not make an issue of what I would like to see changed until the discussion has started proper.

My vote is yes to the project and no to the template as presented. Please chip in folks --Dmon 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Actually reading what Neuling was talking about, that makes a lot more sense. I actually like this okay.
Dmon - Regarding the organizational tables, my issues are as follows : 1) Some of the source material is contradictory. 2) I question its value to the article. Can you, perhaps, sell me on this? ClanWolverine101 07:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear CW I am not actually trying to push for the organizational tables to be made standard or official... I was just being up front about the fact that one of the changes I intend to propose does have a secondary motive towards me possibly doing that one day in the future. I do actually believe however that all of the changes I intend to propose in this discussion are valid in their own right as well so I am not going to try and sell you on my tables just yet ;-p. --Dmon 08:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Dmon. I'm just stressing there is a reason why some people think the organizational trees are, in most cases, a bad idea. Should we start that conversation someplace else? ClanWolverine101 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Organization tree take up alot room, not every unit structured the way your tree suggests. Also CGL is getting away from traditional listing units and what they consist of now. Thus you tree may not be appliable anymore. As far Neuling's military command articles thing. Standardization is fine, but i maybe a bad person to saying this, but his grammer isn't that great. He planning to re-write the articles themselves? Era thing is part of Battletech, but i don't think it may work very well, since Dark Age era starts at beginning of 3082 until way pass what original start date of Dark Age. I think the History of units, should be broken up by the events the play part of. Thus, if unit wasn't around for 3039 or didn't do anything in it, it should have listing its history of being in the War of 3039. Etc. -- Wrangler 11:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair comments. I think we MIGHT be putting too much stock in those History headers he used. Perhaps - and I'm only speculating here - those were just examples of what would be done for the older IS units? ClanWolverine101 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Some of these unit's history are incomplete due to depth you got get all of it. Here some examples: Marion's Highlanders, 1st Kearny Highlanders, Vong's Grenadiers, 3rd Royal Guards, McCarron's Armored Cavalry and 2nd Republican. Some units are destroyed, some units continue under differient name. I do break up the section per era their in before it was standardized. -- Wrangler 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, there is nothing informal about the current system. It comes from Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle. There were articles on merc commands before House commands, so that's why it's named that, but there's no reason that format should not apply to all articles on military commands.
I whole-heartedly support adding a "Bibliography" section. I'm not as convinced about the need for "Color Scheme" and "Unit Colors". I don't see that ever being longer than a paragraph (very rarely longer than one sentence, really), so I think that should be addressed under "Description". I'm unclear if the sub-headings for Unit History are intended to be standardized or not, so I'll leave off my discussion until that is answered. --Scaletail 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to respond. Details on the unit are available, if someone doesn't want look at camo specs, they can look at unit's basic info. The Description serves two purposes. 1) It tell the reader what purpose of the unit and where it came from. This not always apparent, in combat formation name. Some formations have specific function, which isn't necessary explained. Description is quick and easy "look at" for someone want know what unit about and from whom without schrolling everywhere. 2) Second reason is some of the info boxes keep shooting the text on the first line to very top of the page, which makes sometimes "least to me" to being little hard to spot, or in hard-read place being squashed at the top. Specially, if there multi-subsection directory in it the article. Regular wikipedia doesn't seem have this problem, so i thinking it maybe a coding issue with the current code were using. Description is a stop-gag when i write my articles to keep text from floating to the top. -- Wrangler 12:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "Tactics" sections[edit]

I would like to propose dropping the "Tactics" sections from the format protocols. I DO NOT suggest deleting the information included; merely changing the format of that information. (Perhaps into "Notes" sections, which could also be used for other info and errata) I propose this for the following reason :

  • Material for "Tactics" sections is not available for the vast majority of units, especially considering we're now doing articles for conventional regiments.
  • What material does exist (mostly from the Field Manuals) is very brief in most cases, too brief to justify its own sections IMHO.
  • Aesthetically, having sections that are so brief doesn't look good.
  • Tactics change over the centuries, and many of these units ARE centuries old, having been rebuilt multiple times. What descriptions we have are generally snapshots, taken from the Field Manual eras.
  • In some cases, I question the value of the material. Again, this is not to say I'd sanction deletion of any of it; I'm merely stressing they shouldn't be given their own sections.

Do people find merit in my proposal? ClanWolverine101 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the tactics section is mostly redundant due to various factors so I would support this motion. --Dmon 16:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Can I get a consensus on this? ClanWolverine101 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your desire to rename/replace "Tactics" section. --Mbear 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree too.--Doneve 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this still on the table folks? Because I still feel that it is the most redundant section of most unit articles (except for the empty notes sections) and wish to see it improved or removed. --Dmon 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's still open for discussion.--Mbear 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Tactics are valid thing used by the units. Its what gives them a personality on the battlefield. I disagree alot units do not have tactics. I've gone through large quanity of Field Manuals and other sourcebooks. Tactics starts starting appear in Field Manuals due to them concentrating on individual regiments. Tactics in these books also translated to being used in Special Rules annex in those books. Some units use fade-attacks tactics to lure enemy in so they can flank them. Others are bare knuckle assault units that specialize in dropping on top of the enemy via dropships. Heck there regiment, Marik Guards, used its Light Battlemechs and its majority of LAMs which Makes up 3/4s Guard's numbers to use LAM's ability fent and do other attacks based on its speed and abilities. Tactics gives the player reading the article a idea what this unit does. Yes, recently info on Regiments don't mention them due to consoldation of articles, no room for them. However, they still refer to these abilities as recently as Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents. I think we need give little time for actual freshed out Manuals come out again, since Jihad became a ever changing event. Post-Jihad era may give some time for regular house and merc units get their info on Tactics. Please without tactics, these regiments and other size forces are just names. -- Wrangler 12:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second, Wrangler. He isn't saying get rid of the information, he's saying he'd like to see it moved into the Notes section. This would allow us to say something like "In the Fourth Succession War the 3rd Lyran Guards were known for their creative use of Assault Mechs. Severe combat losses forced them to rebuild with Medium Mechs and the 3rd became proficient in raiding."--Mbear 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am more in favour of working the information into the text of the main article, or as Mbear said adding it to the notes section alongside the relevent special rules. --Dmon 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Officers and Composition[edit]

Ok so this is something that has been bugging me for quite some time... is there a reason editors have been ignoring the Officers section in the articles and putting all the info into the unit composition section even to the point of having a mini biography of some commanders in some cases??????? --Dmon 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I'm wondering if the Officers section is critical? The info could just as easily go under History of Composition.... ClanWolverine101 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You hit the nail, some officers have no info only in the FM there is the name listed and no other actions from him. I add the most compositions with this scema, but i updated this in next time, oh i forgot, I jump in.--Doneve 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with replicating the Field Manual format to closely if only to try and avoid easy plagiarism, but I feel the Field Manual style officer section a better solution for commanders descriptions than messing up formatting of unit compositions but adding them there. Cyc 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A number of mercenary units are forged by their commander, so, in that case, some background info on that individual is relevant. Could you be more specific about this issue? --Scaletail 01:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deployment Tables[edit]

I'm here to discuss my latest Project,the deployment tables. First this is only a summary and there are no tables, I learned my lesson. For all how doen't know my goal with this pages. From 3025 until Jihad era, to put all Faction in a overview with a short explanation which unit see action and which doen't fight. I Give you a short example for my further work
1.LCAF 3055
1.1.Lyran Guards
During the Operation Revival several regiments of the Brigade fight against the Clans. They suffer normaly horrendous loses and were destroyed/surrender to the attackers. A few units could retreat and were rebuild.
Destroyed units
1st Guards
=> partly destroyed on Maestu (FC) November 3051 through Gamma Galaxy
=> partly destroyed on Shaula (FC) December 3051 through Delta Galaxy
26th Lyran Guards RCT
=> partly destroyed through Beta Galaxy on Kobe (FC) December 3051
=> partly destroyed on Tamar(FC) November 3051 through Golden Keshik and Alpha Galaxy
Active Units
3rd Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Fanatical - Graceland
6th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Reliable - Rasalgethi
10th Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Fanatical - Fort Loudon
11th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Reliable - Callison
14th Lyran Guards RCT - Veteran - Reliable - Ford
15th Lyran Guards RCT - Elite - Fanatical - Hesperus II
24th Lyran Guards RCT - Green - Fanatical - Donegal
30th Lyran Guards RCT - Regular - Reliable - New Home
32nd Lyran Guards RCT - Green - Reliable - Solaris VII
36th Lyran Guards RCT - Regulars - Reliable - Tsingtao
My thoughts are. To put step by step all know information from the sources in an overview and from their to the brigade pages and finaly in the units. That all informations are on the right place. You all know my work. I put amount of work in the unit section and historical events like the incusion of 3963, the operation revival. In the future all events will be standarized. All Brigades will be also expanded. I know all this will take time and with your support and agreement will become real. I finish first the 4th Succession War and put this information in deployment pages with era destination (3028). I wait for your anwsers. Neuling 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Neuling - The intent is certainly noble, but I have a number of concerns. For one, I think the formatting needs work. Second, you shouldn't use the abbreviations for those article titles. (What's the FCAF? :) ) ClanWolverine101 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that these articles are essentially reproducing tables from published sourcebooks. I also don't think they're the most effective way of conveying the information therein.
In a Field Manual, which is a snapshot of a military organization at a specific time, that table format probably is the best way. If I'm reading, say FedCom Civil War for example, and I want to follow a specific unit, I can check the table to see where they went next. On BTW, I don't have to do that. All I have to do is keep reading the article for that command. We utilize InfoBoxes to get that "snapshot" information. Maybe it's just the way I use the wiki and the books, but I don't see the value of these articles. --Scaletail 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy, I read your concerns. I think it is a difference when i put several informations in to article and these are no plagiats because are sorted after brigades and in the normal deployment articles doesn't stand further information about specific units. I explain the value again. These articles give a short view about the events that happend between two such articles for exmble.For example CCAF from the deployment 3055 unitl 3064 the military changed significantly. The CCAF was involved in Operation Guerrero, Operation Bullog and the War with the St. Ives Compact. All three events are important put there is no further overview. Also the CCAF disband all commands and create new brigades. I wrote above that I will put those information in the next stept in the artile for the specific units to. When you have question please ask me again. Neuling 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me see if I can explain better. I understand what you're doing. I'm just saying I think it would be more effective for the information in these articles to be put in the articles for the individual commands. In many ways it simply duplicates the command articles. I guess what I'm asking is the following: why is this method of presentation better than what already exists? For instance, wouldn't the best place for the information about the CCAF reorganizing their military be in CCAF? --Scaletail 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I doesn't duplicate information. I put a short information at the deployment page and the other user can take this inforamtion and expand it in the command articles. Every military organisation had changed the over the 60 years (from 3025 until 3085). I think all information in one article is insufficient. You take the the CCAF let see. Changed 3028, 3052, 3064, 3067 and Jihad times. This all in the main article of the CCAF is to much. Another fact is that it confused me when the Reserves of the CCAF 3025 is presented in the same article as the units of the CCAF from 3067. AlIt will take along process to complete my work step by step. But I see results and the other users agree with me in many points. Neuling 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Structure[edit]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the page structure for a unit. Is there a standard Template? Normally a Wiki has a summary section directly below the page title. In these templates there seems to be a conflict sometimes using a Summary section and sometimes using the Formation Header for that kind of data. I also noted recently to the Holdfast Guard page that a series of bullet points were used instead of paragraphs. Personally I'd like to see a Summary at the top of the page rather than a Formation section and full paragraphs instead of bullet points for unit actions. Naturally, I'm happy to use whatever format people prefer but could we have some clarification? — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Tomlib (talkcontribs) on 5 September 2010.

The format is the same used for mercenary units, which can be found at Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle. You are correct that bullet points are not the preferred method of presenting most information. A summary that uses bullets should be put into the proper format. If you see an article that needs work, don't be afraid to be bold. --Scaletail 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me be more direct. I was putting "formation" information above the History section at the top of the page and above the Auto Generated Content section. Someone then edited my work and placed it in a new "Formation" heading under the History Heading and below the Content. I didn't want to get into a war moving it back and forth. So could we have a ruling. Formation information above the Content or below the "History" section? Tom 02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That was Neuling. I would recommend removing what ever he adding. He been on his own project and likely didn't notice you editing the page. The sub-section is just a place-holder, i re-do it way you want to. Some places he adding sections that don't exist for that article. Hang in there, Tom. -- Wrangler 13:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the bullets, that was me. I was starting out on Sarna.net when i wrote that. There wealth of information on Capellan units, but there isn't alot information on events they partipated in. So Bullets was format i went with. -- Wrangler 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I was not upset in any way. :-) I just wanted to set a standard so we could all be on the same page. It seems that Formation should be included in the summary section just below the Article Title is the general consensus. Yes, the bullet points are an excellent start to be expanded upon if further information is forthcoming for source material. Again, I didn't want to change someone elses work if I was violating a standard. Thanks for all the feedback! Tom 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For your review[edit]

Barber's Marauder IIs is up. Take a look and discuss. ClanWolverine101 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice article, only two things I would say to improve it might be to add an Officers section simply so readers do not have to read the full text to find when the unit changed hands and update the Organization section to one of the more current Composition History section headings and add a 3025 composition or near as you can anyway. --Dmon 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Alliance Air Wing[edit]

2nd Alliance Air Wing is posted. Comments, critisms, praise, adulations, and libal are welcome.--Trynnallen 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd Alliance Air Wing is posted as well. I have added the information from the Alliance Borderers to the 3rd as the FM:P has it listed there.--Trynnallen 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Trynnallen. Example: In the Components, you should state what year your pulling your information from. I would suggest to look at other articles to get idea. Example 5th Regulan Hussars or the 2nd Republican. -- Wrangler 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed--Trynnallen 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bannockburn's Bandits[edit]

Have done some cleanup on the Bannockburn's Bandits article to clear the plagiarism tag and add some information up to 3067. Still needs some work but I think it is a start Wookiebear 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Have finished for now editing Bannockburn's Bandits Time for other eyes Wookiebear 05:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilson's Hussars[edit]

Cleared plagiarism tag from Wilson's Hussars and added some information from the original Mercenary's Handbook, added 3025 and 3056 unit compositions and other errata. Don't have most recent source available right now so can't get fully up to date Wookiebear 05:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Taurian Guard[edit]

Have updated Taurian Guard page and have cleared the stub tags. Is a start, have added all resources I know of and/or have available at this time Wookiebear 04:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Brion's Legion[edit]

Brion's Legion has been updated and can be reviewed. Have added all information I can find regarding this unit in the sources I have available Wookiebear 18:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Taurian Guards Regiment and SASF[edit]

Taurian Guards Regiment and SASF articles have been created Wookiebear 04:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Battalion[edit]

Zeta Battalion is up, if anyone wants to give it a look. ClanWolverine101 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Force overview[edit]

I have an idea to display the available forces as overview during the different periods and I think most people find this helpful. I will display only a short exampleewhat coult it look like.


Forces through the ages[edit]

Interesting... could you show it as an example? Pumping out raw data onto the wiki without a decent context doesn't really add to it. ClanWolverine101 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I love the idea of this project. My first question: where would it live? --Scaletail 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, but i think it is not the right place for this table on the talk page.--Doneve 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Where is the right place for such kind of information? Neuling 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be in its own article. I don't think the site needs it. Forces come and forces go. Universal Regiment/Unit Listings isn't easy thing to place. -- Wrangler 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree to Wranglers statement, the tables must to his own proper article.--Doneve 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the CAPS?[edit]

Hey Neuling - Why the CAPITAL letters for some units? ClanWolverine101 17:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question???.--Doneve 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Parent Formation[edit]

Project members: I just stumbled across an error that could be rectified by you. It appears that many of the units list only their state as the Parent Formation in the infobox, even if they are a sub-unit of a larger one. For example, until I corrected them, all the sub-units of the various Swords of Light (ex: 3rd Luthien Guards, of the 2nd Sword of Light) show their parent formation as the DCMS, when they should be their respective Sword of Light. I suspect that someone went through the Field Manuals and just made the state military the default Parent Formation.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That was me Rev, at least on the DCMS articles anyway... It was while the whole thing about the Brigade articles was under discussion so at the time every house unit was listed as being part of its state until it was sorted out. --Dmon 20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Aaah, ok...I wasn't privy to that (or more specifically, I wasn't involved). Is it alright that I changed those, or was consensus to leave it as home state?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Brigade Insignias[edit]

All - So I am writing some articles, and there are some missing brigade insignias that I need. Since they were short-lived, it is possible they were never published, as the were AFFC designations for Lyran units. The ones I need are as follows :

Donegal March Militia
Skye March Militia
Sarna March Militia
Tamarind Militia March
Tamar March Militia

Any help? Thanks. ClanWolverine101 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

4th Skye Guards[edit]

4th Skye Guards are up. I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 03:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Top level military command revamp[edit]

You might have noticed that I have started working on the top level military articles (AFFS, DCMS, CCAF, ...). Since I have managed to sort out what I intend to do, I thought I should describe it.

  • Phase 1: Using the 'main' template. This solves the problem on where to link to the main article. The other solutions are not optimal, since they either forces use to put the link in the heading, which looks bad, or forces us to work the link in the description below, which while better has its own problems (especially when phase 3 gets implemented).
  • Phase 2: Sort the top level units into active and dead as the latest Field Manual, Field Report or similar. (A future category might be used if a unit is added after the lasted report. For example Jade Falcon Alpha galaxy.) I define as top level units galaxies, brigades/corps and independent regiments.
  • Phase 3: Make sure that all top level unit articles has a summary, and mark it with < onlyinclude > < /onlyinclude >. Then sync that summary and the old summary in the armed force article, removed old text from armed force article and transclude in the unit article. This solves the problem of keeping two articles synced. This phase is the one that takes the slowest and one I rather had help with.
  • Phase 4: Remove list of regiments/clusters that are not top-level, especially since they might move between brigades/galaxies. The regiment lists only clutter the main article, and should really only be in the article for the individual corp/brigade/galaxy. This makes the armed force article cleaner, makes it easier to read, and removes tables.
  • Unit icons, what to do? What I can not make up my mind on is if there should be unit icons in the armed forces article. Opinions?

--Neufeld 09:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now done Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery up to and including phase 4, if you want to see an example. --Neufeld 19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I rather like the new layout. I have been doing my own work tonight and have moved a lot of the Clan Touman's from "Cat=Clan Commands" to "Cat=Military organizations", I personally believe that this category more suits the Top level military command articles better. I also support the move to listing corp/brigade/galaxy's rather than Regiments. It gives us a tiered flow for readers to follow up or down the chain of command. I am a very shoddy article writer but would like to help out in other ways with this project if I can --Dmon 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I support your changes, it seems like a good idea. As for helping out, making sure that all corp/brigade/galaxy articles has a brief summary on the top of the page before the first heading would help a lot. --Neufeld 08:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I like the revamp also. Nice work!--Mbear(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth / Organization Format[edit]

So rather than debating how something should be done, I give you an example of how it COULD be done. Please review my Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth article when you have a chance. Thank you! ClanWolverine101 18:12, 26 December 2011 (PST)

I hate it strongly. Why did you not contribute to the discussion above if you disagreed with my ideas? Remove the tables. Use transclusion for the brigade summary text instead of duplicating effort. Remove the listing of individual regiments. --Neufeld 00:29, 27 December 2011 (PST)
Neufeld - You do not run this site. Nor do you unilaterally make policy. I will not otherwise respond to your demands. If the consensus of admins and editors wish to remove the work I did, then I will accept that. In the meantime, I would suggest you review the policies of this site yourself. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 08:48, 27 December 2011 (PST)
Fine I'll leave. Destroy my work instead then. --Neufeld 08:59, 27 December 2011 (PST)
Neufeld - No one is destroying your work. Please note that the article I chose to change had not been redone under your proposal. ClanWolverine101 09:43, 27 December 2011 (PST)
All - SO: For most of these articles, it may be difficult to do what I did. Some of these brigades have existed for hundreds of years, and have had many commands come and go. The AFFC is different because the commands that were active as of 3050 were pretty much everything they had, and from there it was downhill. As for the text, please note that I rewrote/added to much of it, particularly with respect to its service under the AFFC. ClanWolverine101 09:43, 27 December 2011 (PST)

force structure of the different factions[edit]

Hello together: I have an idea but will listen first to your opinions. Every faction have different forces structure and deploy their troops in many different way. My questions are:

1st: Were can I place the information? On an page only for some the unique troop type like infantry and amor. Or is the content better placed at the main article about the military organization like the AFFS.
2nd: Which form can I take for the information without the fear to get accused for plagarism. In the past I used some form of table but that is on sarna not widely accepted.
3rd: I think it is helpful to know what is an Aufklärungsregiment by the LAAF/LCAF or the differents between Kampf-/Sturm-/ und Einsatzregimet (which are descriped at Field Manual: Lyran Alliance page 26).Neuling 11:43, 19 January 2012 (PST)
As you asked me about my opinion, I'll try to answer them. I'll need to add a disclaimer that I don't really pay much attention to the force structures at all.
My gut feeling about question #1 would be to split a given article (like AFFS) into a main article ("AFFS") and a ("Force Structure of the AFFS") article, which elaborates on the setup.
  1. 2 and #3 I can offer little help with (save translating the Steiner formation names). --Dirk Bastion 12:06, 19 January 2012 (PST)
I am waiting for more responses and a example page.--Doneve 12:09, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - Please sign your work. As Dirk indicated, a Germanic translation of what you are talking about would be necessary.
Short-term, I think its important that we don't remove a ton of material and say "Oh - we'll fill it in later" and "we'll add references later". The big reason why I redid the AFFC as I did was because it had been stripped down and looked terrible. That might be your preference, but it damages the reputation of the wiki.
Long-term, I am all for a standardized process. As I have said repeatedly, I handled the AFFC the way that I did because of its fairly unique status. It is a known and determined quantity who served it and when. For articles on the "Big Five" house forces, it might make sense to condense the brigades section. That's not to say I like the current format of those pages right now, but there it is. ClanWolverine101 12:20, 19 January 2012 (PST)
I will repeat it once more: I will write about the structure of an amor regiment for example from the LAAF in comparison to the AFFS.
An tank company of the LAAF (Field Manual Lyran Alliance page 27) had 2-3 platoons (8 to 12 vehicles) and the AFFS (Field Manual Federated Suns page 24) fields company with 3 platoon (12 vehicles). Or another example are the infantry formations:
DCMS - 756 soldiers (Field Manual Draconis Combine page 17)
AFFS - 774 - 1032 soldiers (Field Manual Federated Suns page 22)
LAAF - 763 - 994 soldiers (Field Manual Lyran Alliance page 28)
FWLM - 1792 soldiers (Field Manual Free Worlds League page 21)
CCAF - 805 soldier (Field Manual Capellan Confederation page 35)
Mercanery - 834 soldiers (Field Manual Mercaneries page 28)
The differentes between the corresponding forces are huge and I think it is the work worth. The brigade pages will not be changed. Neuling 12:40, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling please take a look on this Inner Sphere military structure, then we become not some trouble, look at first on the wiki from pages that include your idea, yes data mining suffer a lot of time, but i do this every time before i poste anythink, and don't merge with other articles.--Doneve 12:49, 19 January 2012 (PST)
I can do it without the table structures like following example. The smallest unit of the standard CCAF infantry is the squad (7 troops). The next level is the company which is compromised of 4 squads (28 troops). A standard battalion include usually 3 platoons which are lead by a command squad (259). The battalion could also be contains 4 companies togeher with a command squad, which brings its strength to 343 soldier. The common CCAF regiment structure shows 3 battlion and the command squad is expanded to platoon strength (805 soldiers). If the regiment has an fourth battalion the status changed to reinforced regiment (1,064 soldier). I could write an article about it and put then the link at the main page. It changed nothing. The existing articles are not harmed and my work will could about the faction or the force type.Neuling 13:13, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Case in support of his point: the definition of "SLDF Division" is shortened. We know roughly what a SLDF division actually entailed beyond the standard definition and could put that on a different page, SLDF military structure or something similiar.
I'll just paste it here, it was originally posted by Bad_Syntax in the CBT forums and he derived it from the organisation chart in the Star League sourcebook.
1 Medium Mech Battalion (Headquarters)
1 Dropship Battalion (Squadron?)
1 Aerospace Brigade (Jump Infantry Divisions have 2 Aerospace Brigades)
-Detachment of engineers (unknown size) to build landing strips
-1 Aerospace Regiment
--3 Aerospace Wings
---9 Aerospace Squadrons of 6 identical fighters
-1 Conventional Aircraft Regiment
--3 Conventional Aircraft Wings
---9 Conventional Aircraft Squadrons of 6 identical fighters
-1 Conventional Transport Aircraft Regiment
--3 Conventional Transport Aircraft Wings
---9 Conventional Transport Aircraft Squadrons of 6 identical fighters
1 Artillery Brigade
-1 Air Defense Regiment (Armor)
-2 Heavy Armor Regiments
1 Artillery Brigade
-1 Heavy Artillery Battalion
-2 Artillery Battalion
1 Engineer Battalion
1 Signal Battalion
1 Supply Battalion
1 Cavalry/Recon Battalion
-1 Heavy Armored Reconnaissance Company
-1 Light Armored Reconnaissance Company
-3 Land-Air Mech Company
Seems helpful to denote the different organisations in a more detailed way. It might be useful to split off several smaller articles like Neuling suggested - one for each nation's military and keeping the main military structure article as portal of sorts.--Dirk Bastion 13:17, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Actually, now that I checked it out, the SLDF article seems good enough, you could just plug it in there somewhere. Maybe a bad example after all. --Dirk Bastion 13:21, 19 January 2012 (PST)
I hope Mbear weight in, i leave a note on his talk page.--Doneve 13:23, 19 January 2012 (PST)
If I am reading the proposal right, To me this just looks like a list that does the same job as Inner Sphere military structure and think the ONLY place for it is in said article. I think it might be useful too if you where to include the manpower of say a Battalion (and proof of attached support units etc) fully backed up by references but to list how many lances/platoons are in any given unit. I am tempted to get a little annoyed and tell the reader to read the rest of the article and do a little math. I shudder to think how horrible the page will look (and how boring to ACTUALLY READ) once EVERY structure level is converted to explain the complete chain of command in minute detail in every section. --Dmon 18:16, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Hello everyone. I know I've not been active recently due to my life changing, but I wanted give my input if can. I think it maybe pointless go into too much detail individual units if it isn't updated anymore. Catalyst Game Labs is driffing away from detail unit information. I do enjoy degree of detail where is, but sources from the old faction Field Manuals are greatly dated and likely never to be done again due to CGL recent (2012) mentions that single faction source books do not sell well. That means their squeezing everything into one sourcebooks such as the new Field Manual: 3085. They mention the main regiment and supporting ones and that it. Why go into the structure of units when CGL is no longer pubishing these facts? They don't talk about how each unit is built/made up anymore, the Miliary Structures are going be greatly changed anyways for the Dark Age and strink in hurry in the times to come. It maybe time to keep it simple unless detail info is actually published. Battletech is becoming less detailed of a game. -- Wrangler 18:49, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Agreed, Wrangler. ClanWolverine101 19:12, 19 January 2012 (PST)
The structure of the SLDF article (as Dirk pointed out) isn't particularly appealing to me, but is probably necessary for that particular article. I'd rather not use it elsewhere unless we really have to.
Neuling - A clean aesthetic is critical. I cannot stress this often enough. I, myself, prefer tables. Not everyone does and they ARE more work, but they create a better appearance. I would not care to use what you put above. ClanWolverine101 19:12, 19 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling a couple questions:
  1. Are you talking about doing this for 'Mech regiments or just armor/infantry units? 1st
  2. You want this just to apply as a "typical" regiment, correct? (That is, you're not going to put one of these on every regiment/brigade page, are you?) 2nd
  3. These pages you propose are to highlight the differences between factions and the "standard" organization on the Inner Sphere military structure page, correct? 3rd
Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 04:10, 20 January 2012 (PST)
1st - I talking about all four branches (mech/fighter/Armor/infantry) and some spezial unit structures like Mobil Fire or the different Goliath Scorpion Trinary types.
2nd - That is correct and my only goal. The brigade pages would only include a short note for example that every Free Worlds Legionnaires mech regiment is support by 2 infantry regiments. Or that the Ceti Hussars splitting their forces in 3 equal subcommands.
3rd - Not only Inner Sphere. I suggest to include the Periphery powers and Clans also. I hope the anwser gives you a clear view about my projetct.Neuling 07:47, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - I'm not saying this info isn't relevant. But for most units, it simply isn't possible to produce a precise, referenced, comprehensive breakdown for most units. Take a look at what I did for Alpha Regiment of Wolf's Dragoons, with the composition history. There was a lot of material on these guys, but hardly comprehensive for most years.
How would your proposal look in practice? ClanWolverine101 07:58, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Please present us a example page, like User:Neuling/Example page or another name.--Doneve 08:06, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Hm, a lot of the content merged with the Inner Sphere military structure, my brain is in work, and i wait for more response from the other guys.--Doneve 09:54, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - Saw your work in the sandbox. Its not so bad, but should be tightened up. Do you intend to post it to every unit? Or just the main military pages? ClanWolverine101 10:06, 20 January 2012 (PST)
To ClanWolverine101 - No I think it should be at a seperate page with a link at the main article of the FWLM because the site will be get to long over the time.Neuling 10:11, 20 January 2012 (PST)
This could possibly be some of the best your you have ever produced Neuling! I am still unsure about how it will be implimented but I shall watch and let you know what I think. --Dmon 01:18, 22 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling, sorry it took me so long to get back with you about this. I don't see anything wrong with what you're proposing. It might be helpful to provide a "baseline" regiment link for each of the militaries. On the DCMS/AFFS page under "Units of the MILITARY NAME" section. That link would go to a page that describes the general organization of each regiment's composition. Armed Forces of the Federated Suns Regimental Organization for example would have your info from FM:FS in it. We could do the same with the Clans, explaining how the Goliath Scorpions or Cloud Cobras deviate from that example.--Mbear(talk) 05:45, 2 February 2012 (PST)
Mbear, please take a look at the example page for the FWLM User:Neuling/Example page then you see what my intention is. I can take a unit and explained the structure in detail too but I will test it before I putting to much work in it. Neuling 05:56, 2 February 2012 (PST)

Composition History section layout[edit]

I think we should have a chat about how this section is to be set out in articles.. I think the 3059 section in the 8th Dieron Regulars is perfect. What does everybody else think?

Example 1 (8th Dieron)

8th Dieron Regulars (Regiment/Veteran/Reliable)

  • XO: Tai-sa Kris Rusch
  • 2nd Battalion: Chu-sa Dean Wesley
  • 3rd Battalion: Chu-sa Kathy Sakura

-Note: The unit is made mainly of medium Mechs and had received 12 OmniMechs. A large portion of the regiment is upgraded.

8th Dieron Regulars Aerospace (Wing/Veteran/Reliable)

  • Wing Commander: Sho-sa Taki Russo

-Note: Only a new attachement, the fighters build a good reliationship to the other units of the battle group.

111th Dieron Heavy Armor (2 Battalions/Regular/Reliable)

  • Armor Commander: Chu-sa Frederick Sato

-Note: The armor supporting units hads changed in the past decades routinely, but the 111th Dieron will be attached permanently.

8th Dieron Regulars Infantry, Carmens Commando (Regiment/Veteran/Questionable)

  • Troop Commander: Tai-sa Carmen Rodriguez

-Note: The CO is a former special ops and trained her first battalion to act like a commando unit --Dmon 09:27, 2 February 2012 (PST)


Example 2 (Neuling's favorite of the format)

3059[edit]

2nd Benjamin Regulars (Regiment/Regular/Reliable)

  • 2nd Battalion: Chu-sa Keith Mick
  • 3rd Battalion: Chu-sa Hamilton Veil
Note: The Steel Jaws(2nd Company - 1st Battalion) is a experienced unit in street fighting and had received many upgrades for their heavy/assault machines. The remaining unit are mainly medium weight. Approximately 60 percent of the Mechs are upgraded.

War Shrikes (2 Companies/Veteran/Reliable)

  • Wing Commander: Dai-i Jase Montgomery
Note: As a active fighting unit they saw a lot of combat. Their machines (mainly Slayers & Shilones)spotted many upgrades.

15th Precinct Armor (Battalion/Regular/Reliable)

  • Armor Commander: Chu-sa Reese Massikocho
Note: The past as a law enforcement unit learned them many city fighting skills. The light IFS are best suited for such fights.

Vlad's Vanguards (2 Battalions/Regular/Reliable)

  • Troop Commander: Chu-sa Vlad Petrovka
Note: The unit contains two infantry types, one fast jump infantry battalion and one motorized battalion, this gives the parent unit forces quick response.

Example 3 (Compromise from Neuling)


3059[edit]

2nd Benjamin Regulars (Regiment/Regular/Reliable)

  • 2nd Battalion: Chu-sa Keith Mick
  • 3rd Battalion: Chu-sa Hamilton Veil

Note: The Steel Jaws(2nd Company - 1st Battalion) is a experienced unit in street fighting and had received many upgrades for their heavy/assault machines. The remaining unit are mainly medium weight. Approximately 60 percent of the Mechs are upgraded.

War Shrikes (2 Companies/Veteran/Reliable)

  • Wing Commander: Dai-i Jase Montgomery

Note: As a active fighting unit they saw a lot of combat. Their machines (mainly Slayers & Shilones)spotted many upgrades.

15th Precinct Armor (Battalion/Regular/Reliable)

  • Armor Commander: Chu-sa Reese Massikocho

Note: The past as a law enforcement unit learned them many city fighting skills. The light IFS are best suited for such fights.

Vlad's Vanguards (2 Battalions/Regular/Reliable)

  • Troop Commander: Chu-sa Vlad Petrovka

Note: The unit contains two infantry types, one fast jump infantry battalion and one motorized battalion, this gives the parent unit forces quick response.



Thanks Dmon to start a talk on the project page, i want to say this format is perfect, clean and good to read.--Doneve 09:30, 2 February 2012 (PST)
Regarding the "Notes", I'm not sure I like them. The rest looks pretty good though. ClanWolverine101 10:12, 2 February 2012 (PST)
I read the comments above and I have a different opinion. I think it is better to use th format with :* and ::Note because the text get more structure and is better devided . I will use the format for the 3067 composition section how long no official policy is established. Neuling 08:23, 3 February 2012 (PST)


I disagree, it looks much better with * CO and :* XO and the - Note like this style, please don't change the format, no other user had problems with it and it looks cleaner, when we have a policy with clear statements, then we can change it.--Doneve 08:29, 3 February 2012 (PST)
We have both different estetic opinion about it. Please do not reformat my future edits.Neuling 08:31, 3 February 2012 (PST)
When i think it looks poor, i change it.--Doneve 08:34, 3 February 2012 (PST)
Then I restablished the format once again to my work. Neuling 08:38, 3 February 2012 (PST)
I don't do so much work in the composition history in the last 2 Years and see you destroy the etablished format, you are the on and only don't like it, i think we wait for the policy.--Doneve 08:41, 3 February 2012 (PST)
If a official policy is established I accepted it and think until then I will use a small different format as temporay solution.Neuling 08:46, 3 February 2012 (PST)
Neuling - Respectfully - We have established that formatting aesthetics are not your strong point. If you persist in vandalizing the wiki with a poorly written formatting structure you unilaterally decide to implement, then we will ask the Admins to take appropriate action. The problems above include : 1) The officer line is missing. (Good catch, Doneve) 2) The "Notes" line doesn't look good and should probably be dropped. You can always find another way of putting that material out there constructively. 3) There are typos here, as there are in virtually every edit you seem to make. 4) Aesthetically, it needs tightening. We have tried to help you, Neuling. We have tried to address our concerns about your work in a positive manner. You have persisted in ignoring us. In addition, your comments to Doneve above were very offensive, and frankly, its not the first time you've directed offensive and disrespectful comments towards another editor. Doneve, like yourself, is not a native English speaker. But he has worked hard to produce quality (as well as quantity) work, building consensus with the other editors and admins, and improving the overall quality of Sarna. You do not do any of these things. Most of the edits you make have typos or other problems. Many show poor formatting. If you want to propose a new structure, their are positive ways of doing that (like posting it here, and starting a discussion). Disrespecting people who are actually interested in improving the quality of the wiki, vandalizing the work of other editors by replacing it with your poorly written material, these are not the actions of a valued member of our community. PLEASE take a step back and reconsider your position. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 09:09, 3 February 2012 (PST)
Hey, all...I was asked to weigh in with my opinion, but please weight it accordingly: I'm not a member and I don't feel as invested in this issue as much as you all are. That's not a criticism of your discussion or efforts; it's just that I think it's best you make the final decision in consensus.
My opinion is that the sub-ordinate units should be indented from the left, as per the chain of command. Therefore, the article subject would be flush against the margin and each subordinate unit entry would be indented with a one colon (:) or more. My second perspective is that the bold font not be used on the subordinate units. The wlinks serve that purpose, but you don't want to over-emphasize the subordinate units compared to the article subject.
Hope that helps. Continue to seek outsiders' perspectives, but let their feedback influence your own decisions and not become the decisions.
I would urge each of you to hold off on modifying more than one article (your personal example) before consensus is reached.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:15, 3 February 2012 (PST)
I read your messages. Should my words are to harsh, then I apologize to you. You doing me wrong when you write that I doesn't follow your advice. I changed my way of the formats for the reference as an example. I use more often the Sandbox to try thinks out. Furthermore I talk to you several times about the formatting. I think I improved the work over the last days seriously. I took several of my articles of line, reworked Operation Götterdämmerung yesterday and put on all planets the corresponding references. When I upload pictures I follow the policy. I'll see what my work will have consequences for.Neuling 09:34, 3 February 2012 (PST)

2nd Royal Guards[edit]

For your approval - 2nd Royal Guards have been rewritten. ClanWolverine101 19:51, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Damn.. I wish I could even think about writing articles that good! --Dmon 15:32, 14 February 2012 (PST)
Thanks! ClanWolverine101 15:53, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Renaming Issue[edit]

I have spotted minor issue that will crop up in the future... So I would like to head it off at the pass. In FM: 3085 the 3rd Proserpina Hussars as the last remaining unit of their brigade are given orders to merge into the Pesht Regulars, they do this by becomming the 3rd Pesht regulars Problem is we already have a 3rd Pesht Regulars.. A unit that as far as I can tell was stomped by the Clans or disbanded in the aftermath. Any ideas on how to handle this clash? (I can't really think of any names that sit right with me. --Dmon 18:33, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Dmon - Its easy. We treat it as if the 3rd Proserpina Hussars had been disbanded and the 3rd Pesht Regulars had been rebuilt. IIRC, that's how we did it when the 9th Ghost became the new Otomo. (Yes, I know it wasn't that cut and dry, but close enough.) ClanWolverine101 19:27, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
I did feel that was the easiest way but just was not sure due to the Hussars having such a long history compared to the relatively bare bones 3rd Pesht. still if you feel it is acceptable to handle it that way I feel a bit better about it. Cheers --Dmon 19:51, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
I think you have the right of it. --Scaletail 17:07, 26 March 2012 (PDT)

Star League Commands[edit]

Regarding everything I've been saying about the sub-par state of most SLDF unit articles, read this: [3] I, for one, am very excited and hopeful. ClanWolverine101 11:53, 18 April 2012 (PDT)

Indeed that has been up for a few weeks I think. I am rather excited myself about it:-) --Dmon 12:40, 18 April 2012 (PDT)

Rewritten: 26th Lyran Guards[edit]

26th Lyran Guards has been rewritten. I tried to trim the content a little, and I went light on the graphics. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (PST)

I'll be sure to go through that one after I complete a couple other major article cleanups first. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (PST)

Request Peer Review[edit]

St. Ives Academy Training Group is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2014 (PST)

I'll put this on my to-do list; if anyone wants you can put pages you've completed (or for that matter any pages in need) that you want proofread on my talk page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Tikonov Guards is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2014 (PST)

2nd Tikonov Guards is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Looking good Aldous very nice articles, do you think you would be willing to take a crack at the first so we have the entire brigade rounded out?--Dmon (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2014 (PST)
I intend to do them all.--Aldous (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2014 (PST)

1st Tikonov Guards is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2014 (PST)

3rd Tikonov Guards is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2014 (PST)

4th Tikonov Guards is done and needs approval.--Aldous (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2014 (PST)

Active Units[edit]

I noticed that I should explain more my actions. I create an example for my idea to show in form of a table which command of a brigade/army or someting else was active. I hope I find a good solution and I get support for it. Take a look at User:Neuling/pesht regulars table. The table shows which unit was acive during the different time frames and it shows also the strength of the brigade. with best regards Neuling (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

I personally think something like this could be very good for the brigade pages but I think the year markers are to specific for said page, I would consider changing it to use the BattleTech eras system rather than specific years. Let the individual unit articles deal with specific years.--Dmon (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2014 (PDT)
I would agree with Dmon's comment. Having the eras is (IMHO) more useful. For units that were destroyed, we could put a note in the correct era column. Using Neuling's table, the 4th Pesht Regulars would have "Destroyed 3052" under the "Clan Invasion" column.--Mbear(talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (PDT)
Neuling has also put together a demo page at LXXII Corps (Star League).--Mbear(talk) 06:00, 25 April 2014 (PDT)
Another example at Stone's Brigade.--Mbear(talk) 06:41, 25 April 2014 (PDT)
The idea with tables are good, but i don't like the formating!--Doneve (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2014 (PDT)
OK. What formatting do you like?--Mbear(talk) 10:23, 16 May 2014 (PDT)

Shortened Layout for Main military Pages[edit]

I apologize for the disturbtions which I create with my major changes to the DCMS and AFFS pages. By the way what are you thinking about a shorthened version with some information from the sub pages. I will show my thoughts in form of an example: User:Neuling/military pages layout. My goal is to get support and help if the idea is good enough. With best regards Neuling (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Here are the results from the forum(s) on what the people think:
  • AFFS (the new way) - 4
  • A mix of the two - 6
  • FWLM (the old way) - 2
I think that people really like the idea of cleaning the pages up and making the information more manageable. The thing that people most often asked for was a mixture of the two where there would be a summary paragraph (or two) and a link for further, more detailed reading if you are interested. This would allow people to still find all the information as before, albeit more spread out. Do you guys think that this is a good move? -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2014 (PDT)
Yeah I can roll with that idea. But we need to get an exact format nailed down and "approved" before we roll it out I believe.--Dmon (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2014 (PDT)
I'll be working on a prototype at my sandbox. Feel free to comment on it. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
I will keep an eye on it and chip in where I feel appropriate.--Dmon (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
I feel like we shouldn't even have a separate subpage for some of those shorter sections (e.g. Organization at AFFS) that are only 1-2 paragraphs, but then again consistency might also be important. What do you think? -BobTheZombie (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2014 (PDT)
I agree with the shorter sections argument. I think we should keep sections with 1-2 paragraphs on the main page. Making a new page for two paragraphs just seems silly.
RE: Brigades and Units: If memory serves, there's a way to bring content from one page into the main page. I think it's the Onlyinclude tag. Basically we could use the first paragraph of the brigade page as the short description for the unit. (Reusing text is a good thing since we only need to update it in one place.)--Mbear(talk) 06:08, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

I do not think it is even about the fact that there are only two paragraphs, the command structure and organisation are exactly the kind of things that should be found at least in brief outline on this page alongside any history we have and a brief outline to the major brigades (not differentiating between active or not at this level, consider it as more a general "notable units") and a link to a page with a more detailed list of all brigades.--Dmon (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

I like the idea of reusing the text; rewriting all of that would be an unnecessary waste of time. I think that listing the notable brigades may make the page quite long and it could more easily be explained in full in a sub-page. Perhaps we could explain some of them in a paragraph instead of listing them. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2014 (PDT)
I have worked on my sandbox version of the page, and I don't know what more information should be added for some of these, so they tend to have a single sentence below the link. I don't like how that looks; perhaps someone with the knowledge/books could expand these some and make them better. It seems like a good idea in theory, but needs someone who knows more about this stuff than me to work on it. If someone else could do that, that would be great. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2014 (PDT)

For Review : 3rd Hussars (Free Rasalhague Republic)[edit]

The 3rd Hussars (Free Rasalhague Republic) are up for review. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2015 (PST)