Talk:Field Manual: Capellan Confederation

Primary Writing[edit]

Is there really a need to differentiate who wrote what part? --Xoid 00:11, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

The TOC in the book makes the distinction, so I included it. I can't see the harm in adding the information in this instance. I did not use that info in Field Manual: Update because there so many sections that enumerating all of the them would consume too much space, but that's not a problem here. Scaletail 20:35, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
If too much space is a problem we could use one of those templates Wikipedia has to auto-hide the information; that way only people actually interested in the full accreditation would see it. I find it odd that they even had individual accreditations… while it can certainly be useful for knowing who to blame for unbalanced game mechanic y, I've rarely seen it in practice; I had assumed you done additional research on this one. >_> --Xoid 08:56, 31 October 2007 (CDT)


I am aware of some trivia regarding the names of the unit commanders in FM:CC, but am unable to source it (it derives from a thread on the main battletech forums that was lost when the database was wiped out in 2011). Per that discussion, author Loren Coleman reached out to Camille Klein (author of the Marian Hegemony section of FM: Periphery) for suggestions for unit commander names. Per her post on the old forums, she gave him a list of Usenet posters who'd been pro-Capellan. Welcoming thoughts on whether this warrants inclusion on the front page of this article. --Mendrugo 13:07, 22 March 2018 (EDT)

I like this idea, Also kinda gives a bit of weight to an idea I am having about doing similar with the "Backer" pilots from the upcoming Battletech Video Game. --Dmon (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
Regardless of the CBT forum thread being gone, still exists. At the very least it would be possible to verify that the commander names coincide with usernames.--Cache (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (EDT)