Talk:Commando

This article is within the scope of the BattleMechs WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. 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.

Production Date[edit]

I noticed the production date change, TRO 25 lists it as 2466, 25revised aparently lists 2486. Im wonderign if 25R does superceed 25 in this or if it was clarified in the new Stiener book.CJKeys 22:14, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Since 25R came out after 25, my assumption is that the later book trumps. I just figured it was a typo, but now that I know there is a discrepancy I'll try to do some more research and see what I can come up with. --Scaletail 11:10, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
I changed it back to 2466, as that is the data in TRO:3050U (page 12). --Scaletail 09:53, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Variants[edit]

COM-7B: I thought jump distance increased in increments of thirty meters. One hundred and sixty meters doesn't fit that. Judging by the Commando's speed I thought either 150 meters or 180 meters would be more likely. But I thought I'd check first. Haruspex 05:02, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for catching that. It's fixed. --Scaletail 18:45, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Is the COM-1D Commando misssing? It's mentioned in the TRO3039.--BigDuke66 12:07, 15 June 2009 (PDT)

BV Category[edit]

This mech is listed as a 0 - 500 BV 'mech but none of the variants are under the limit (although one is very close). One variant has no BV or BV2. And the main variation comes in under the limit in straight BV but not BV2. So the question arises do we use BV to qualify the 'mech categories or do we use the supported BV2?--86.7.73.27 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The -2D has a BV of 432. --Scaletail 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Starterbook Sword and Dragon[edit]

Removed the Update needed tag for Starterbook Sword and Dragon. The Commando presented there is a standard COM-2D.--Mbear 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apocryphal Variants Section[edit]

I separated the apocryphal variants out into their own section, modeled after Cyk's work on the Assassin and Bushwacker. There's a little more to this one as there are variants from three different video games. Can anyone think of a better way to note which source each comes from, especially if there are multiple variants from that source? I would like to apply this format to all applicable designs.--Cache (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

I agree with this format for standardizing variants from other non-canon sources, I'd like to assist with this when I have time. To start, I have added this standardization to a few so far including the Awesome, Victor, Jenner, and Dragon. I intend to go through any old games I still own and check the variants they used if any. I can't think of a better way to do this and simply list the link to the game or article (like Battle Technology) it came from as long there is an wiki entry for it. --Thehawk (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2017 (EDT)
I see no better way than this format, but would request that the Awesome and Victor entries get citations added.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:58, 26 July 2017 (EDT)