Talk:Armed Forces of the Federated Suns

Regarding the NAIS - how could Ian Davion have been an alum when Hanse Davion founded it after his death? :) ClanWolverine101

Graduated from it when it was just NAMA. Cyc 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a split. The NAMA's being folded into the NAIS is sort of a totally different thing. ClanWolverine101

I disagree. It's the same school, just with a different name. --Scaletail 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - Would you agree to somehow clarifying that issue in the text? ClanWolverine101 00:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Davion Guard - Regional Loyalties

The blurb text on this article notes the Brigade of Guards as a regional unit. It was always my belief that they were drawn from all over the FS. Which is correct, and can we get a reference? ClanWolverine101 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

FM:FS, pg. 75: "The Royal Brigade recruits the best candidates from the AFFC's schools and academies year after year.... the component units owe allegiance to no particular world or region--only to the Prince and their nation." Seems pretty cut and dried to me that the Davion Guard is a national unit, not a regional one. --Scaletail 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right - so why does the article call the regional? ClanWolverine101 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any ambiguity, I had grouped all formations (including those on other pages) according to genesis, not their current practices (which change over time). The Davion Brigade of Guards were "nothing more than the personal guard of the Davion family" on New Avalon, but "gained prominence during Reynard Davion's reign as president of the Federated Suns" (FM:FS, pg. 75). This is in stark contrast to the Deneb Light Cavalry, which joined the Federated Suns shortly after the departure of Aleksandr Kerensky (FM:FS, pg. 84). Though the Guards now recruit from all over the FS, the Guards began as a regional militia/retinue.--S.gage 17:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I should make one more note: I decided to cluster brigades according to origin because such groupings are short and sweet methods for conveying (and organizing) information. With the large number of formations within the AFFS, comparing and contrasting may become overwhelming to new players to the game. If you want to use alternate criteria for grouping military formation, please feel free.--S.gage 17:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to tell you, I dislike the current arrangement immensely. No offense. I do not deny the origins of the Davion Guard - but that was long before the Star League, even. There's no question that the Davion Guard and Avalon Hussars are both "national" brigades. And yes I understand both the DLC and Crucis Lancers were both from leftover SLDF troops. I'm putting this on my to-do list. ClanWolverine101 18:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I have no complaints RE: alternate grouping criteria.--S.gage 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Page size

This articles is about half as large as it should be. Something needs to be moved or removed in order to bring that size back down to where it should be. I think there are far too many images here (even on my DSL connection they didn't load right up). I suggest removing the paint schemes from the articles and seeing where that puts it. --Scaletail 00:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to split the awards into an article of their own. --Neufeld 17:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. Is there any way to allow users to select low- or high-bandwidth when viewing BTW? That way, the content could be included, which frankly is informative and enjoyable.

2. If you want a "bare-bones" approach to large pages (essentially, treat AFFS as a large index), we could split off all of the content and leave the images in spin-off articles.--S.gage 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "low-bandwidth connection" option that I know of. I can agree with the idea of leaving most images in the articles specific to those topics, though I agree that the information is currently presented in an appealing way. I think spinning the awards off can work as well. I suggested the paint schemes go because they seem, to be, to be the least relevant set of images with regards to the AFFS as a whole. They are certainly important to the commands they belong to, but don't think this article is harmed by their removal. --Scaletail 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the awards and linked to the same content on Awards, but the page is still too long. In addition to reasserting that we should remove regimental paint schemes, I think the rank insignias also need to spun off to their own page. --Scaletail 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I was thinking the same thing when I checked the page. --Neufeld 14:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation : Split the Academies to their own article. The NAIS, especially, was far more than an extension of the AFFS. ClanWolverine101 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that instead of or in addition to the above changes? --Scaletail 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ClanWolverine101 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have always considered the index pages for the Great Houses as the best overview of the hierarchy, training, and many corps/brigades of the Inner Sphere. In particular for smaller brigades, it is not advisable to have a small page for the New Ivaarsen Chasseurs (which is a small brigade of 2 BattleMech regiments). This is rationale for my treatment of this page. As such, I feel it is best to leave as much info about corps/brigades, and provide links to articles detailing smaller formations.

Now to business: Even with a fast connection, I have found pages with lots of images (regardless of the size of each) can slow down. Some of the camospecs images are not necessary (especially if they do not reflect unit-specific combat/parade colors), and I can ID these images for removal. Not counting the camospecs images (which help describe corps/brigades, and are therefore useful with my aforementioned criteria), there are still 250+ images depicting unit crests and rank insignia, including 180 rank insignia. I am betting this is where the slow down is occurring. If we remove individual regimental crests (which are already located on the unit pages themselves) and leave the brigade/corps crests, we might speed up page loading times. Further, we could move all rank insignia to a separate page, just as we did with the awards. I can also re-save all of the camospecs we want to keep into other, better compressed file formats (suggestions are welcome for file type). Everyone compromises, and the problem is (hopefully) solved, maintaining enough information to be informative about hierarchy, training and larger formations of troops. Thoughts?--S.gage 03:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with S.gage the unit emblembs must add to the seperate unit pages, the AFFS site is blowing off by images there find their place on their owen pages.Doneve 03:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I like all of those suggestions. Perhaps we should start with the rank insignias and see where that gets us? --Scaletail 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rank insignia moved to new page: Armed Forces of the Federated Suns Military Ranks. That should speed up your load times.--Mbear 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the content of the Corps/Brigades section be split off into their own pages. I've shown an example of what I mean on the Davion Brigade of Guards page. All the insignias are good to have, but I don't think individual unit logos should be on the AFFS overview page. They'd be better suited to the unit's homepage. --Mbear 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mbear and personally like the old style list to the more recent tables... IMHO the Brigade articles will fill this niche better, and it keeps the faction articles looking simple. --Dmon 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AFFC vs. AFFS

Okay - I know for several years after the Lyran Seccession, Davion's military was still called the AFFC. But really? These articles should be split. At its peak, the AFFC included over 250 mech regiments, and probably a few thousand conventional regiments. It had its own distinct identity. Is there disagreement on any of this? ClanWolverine101 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Its another thing on my to-do list, definitely support such expansion. Cyc 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be splitting off? The only I see that is explicitly part of the AFFC and not the AFFS is the FedCom Corps. What am I missing? --Scaletail 19:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment mainly breaking redirect, and while heavily AFFS influenced the AFFC has slightly different command structure, regional breakdown, naming and of course different ranks. The non-FedCom Corps unit and military academy sections IMO should be little more than links out to existing brigade/academy pages, little need to duplicate there.

Touching base on this again - It is my opinion that the AFFC, that existed in its entirety from 3040-3057, had its own distinct identity. After the split, the LAAF started acting like the old LCAF, and the so-called AFFC started acting like the AFFS, in practice if not in name. It is my goal to create a proper page that includes all the brigades and units that were at one point part of the AFFC, including a list of major mercenary units. Said article would also give context on the most common mechs, tactics, command structure, etc. Does anyone disagree on this? ClanWolverine101 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reshaping the Page

The current information of the text reflects the status from a few years ago, but with the releases of the Sourcebooks First Succession War and Second Succession War the source material available is much larger. In my opinion the splitting of the material is a good way. The shape of the AFFS after its expansion and the horrific looses over the Succession Wars is not cleary shown. What are your opinions about the topic? neuling