Talk:Lyran Alliance Armed Forces

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.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Military Commands team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

Needs work[edit]

Needs more work--S.gage 13:09 EDT 23 June, 2009

5th Lyran Regulars were re-formed after the Jihad. They appeared in Operation Hammerfall. Should they still be listed as destroyed now, since the novel is only place they appear? -- Wrangler 12:36, 29 June 2009 (PDT)
This is kind of complicated. The Lyran Regulars are units which are thrown at suicidally difficult tasks. If the commands survive, great! If not, give it a couple of years, and someone will reform the unit with old cast-off BattleMechs and green recruits from somewhere else. In other words, it makes sense the 5th would be reformed by the end of the Jihad. The historical tags might not be the best way to convey information, especially for this kind of unit - I guess the whole problem with running a game in multiple time periods raises the question, 'what is historical?' I will remove the tag on this page, but this detail should also be added to the 5th Lyran Regulars page.--S.gage 17:33 (EDT) 29 June 2009
'what is historical?' This might be an appropriate time to introduce an idea I had, where we establish the 'character' of BattleTechWiki as an encyclopedia of the BattleTech universe from some unspecified point far in its future, where we're reporting everything we know about the CBT 'verse from a perspective of "this is what we know about the history of the Inner Sphere up through the Dark Ages (or whatever)." As canon time proceeds, the amount of information we historians uncover grows. I can write up a longer essay describing the roles of the Editors in this future time. The idea is to provide a non-allied, historical perspective. Thoughts? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (PDT)
Related to that, the 5th Lyran Regulars that took part in Hammerfall were a part of the (second?) LCAF, not the LAAF. Much like the Com Guards, the Lyran Alliance Armed Forces have a distinct timeframe for its existence (when it was created, when it ceased to be) so a help for historical perspective (write from perspective of post 3084) even if Jihad muddies things at the moment. Of course as a secondary issue it also raises questions of what should be done with the present copy/paste from House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth) LCAF article BTW has, as we do seem to slowly moving towards a shared format for the militaries and its of course primarily circa 3025-3030. Cyc 21:19, 29 June 2009 (PDT)
I like Revanche's ideas here, because it seems simple. I had considered this before, and thought about adapting the all of the articles to be temporally neutral. However, the changes would be labor-intensive and I really did not think the benefits would be worth the effort, considering all the other articles just waiting to be written. The task I had considered would entail:
1. Combining renamed states (for example, Lyran Commonwealth and Lyran Alliance point to same page, but what about the Federated Commonwealth...?)
2. Era-specific details are briefly examined in the main articles, but accessible in full by following a link from the main article - from LCAF to LCAF of 3025, AFFC of 3050, LAAF of 3067, etc..
The benefits of this kind of organization are that we don't give away too many plot spoilers, and we still provide an easy manner to navigate. Also, one need not modify the main article every time there is a new sourcebook released. The drawbacks are MANY - redundancy, effort, and writing in a manner that precludes 'spoilers'. Anyways, consider this as an alternative. I like Revanche's idea better, and I do NOT a recommend doing this.--S.gage 22:20, 29 June 2009 (PDT)

Jihad era Royal Guards[edit]

Hi everyone. I was going over some information regarding the fighting on Tharkad. It appears the two remaining Royal Guard regiments have merged to an generic single regiment simply called the Royal Guards. This is problematic name, since its very generic and its the name of what used to be brigade of Royal Guards units. My question is, which unit should the Royal Guard article should be listed in or should it a seperated article for the Jihad era Royal Guards? Such as the name Royal Guards (Lyran Alliance). Since the their not 1st or 2nd or long lost 3rd Guards, which all have seperate histories. If you read Jihad Turning Points: Tharkad and read thumbnail profile for the Royal Guards, you'll understand what I'm talking about. -- Wrangler 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you have a main page (Royal Guards) defining in summary terms the the history of the use of the name, with links to individual articles regarding the specific units?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Revanche. I would treat that regiment as though it were the 1st Royal Guards, but the unit simply dropped the "1st" from the name since it was no longer relevant. Leave Royal Guards as the brigade article. --Scaletail 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, in the 1st royal guards article history section I'd say something like

Jihad era[edit]

As the First and Second Royal Guards were so heavily damaged in the recapture of Tharkad, the survivors of the Second Royal Guards were integrated into the First Royal Guards RCT to bring them up to strength. The Second Royal Guards colors were then retired until the entire unit could be rebuilt. --Mbear 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Brigades and March Militias[edit]

The tables that originally held the brigade information have been replaced with a set of headings and lists. The content that was formerly in the tables has been moved to the appropriate Brigade page. Also, the redlinks to the various March Militia commands have been updated to redirect to existing militia commands. Hopefully this will prevent duplication of effort.--Mbear 15:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strength of units and status[edit]

I'm going to list unit strengths (in percent) to allow the reader get a feel of the status of units at the start of the Jihad. Especially to get destroyed vs truly destroyed/no longer listed issue clarified for all units. --Neufeld 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The page is intended as an overview of the military not tied to specific time (pre-FedCom Civil War or pre-Jiahd). IMO it would be better to add their strengths pre-Jihad to the unit articles in question, not the LAAF or even brigade pages. Cyc 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the strength should be listed on individual units pages, and have added it when I have edited them. On the question about time, I have to disagree. Listing all units that ever existed in the LAAF without some point of perspective will just confuse the readers and editors. Also this page is for a overview, forcing the reader to jump to all individual unit pages to get that overview is sadistic. --Neufeld 09:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue to me is that it is not clear what the percentages indicate. If I had not already read this talk page I would of wondered what exactly the seemingly random numbers next to the units where, never mind what era they is relevant too. --Dmon 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is not the place for this information. --Scaletail 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)