Talk:DropShip

Article or Category?

While I do like the brief rundown of DropShip classes at the end of the article, I have been thinking if it would not be better to redirect the whole article to the Category:DropShips in a similar fashion as it was done with Mercenaries. Having both the article and the category is sort of pointless, and putting the article into the category (the only way to link the category from the article that I know of) is awkward. Opinions? Frabby 05:44, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

How about a "See Also" section that would send the reader to Category:DropShips? Scaletail 14:04, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

I did not know how to properly link to a category until I saw how you did it in the above statement. Thanks! Frabby 08:24, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Glad I could be of some help! For help with linking, you may want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Links. Scaletail 12:40, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Revisiting this, since I feel the article is getting too long and needs to be trimmed. Redirecting the article to the category would allow us to cut the list of DS types at the bottom. I have always been unsure if it is really needed and with all the new designs that have been published it got too long within the article for my taste.

On the downside, all other type of vehicles ('Mechs, fighters, tanks, etc.) as well as Mercenaries, etc. should then also have their articles included in the category, with a redirect from article to category. That is what has so far kept me from enacting my suggestion. Frabby 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories should have a same name article that gives the general description.... there is a way to get that main article for a category to show up first in the category... but i only read it, not learned it..--Cameron 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Classification of DropShips

Do we need this section at all? Spheroid and aerodyne DropShips follow different construction rules, this is why I included the distinction (and the deep-space ships where the distinction in rendered moot); but the classification has no effect in-game or in-universe. It is also arbitrary in some cases, and superflous in others (do we really need BTW to explain that a Cargo DropShip carries cargo?). I therefore suggest to remove that section entirely. Since it is Wrangler's work I will bring it up with him. Frabby 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is valid. It allows players or people of interest to know what function of design is. I know it sound slightly superflous, but not everyone is expert in all things Aerospace. This is reference site for many. Just Aerodyne & Spheroid does say anything that what it shaped like. Seeing example: Princess Class DropShip doesn't tell anyone what heck it suppose to do other than sounds girly or has to do with royality. Cargo DropShip are dedicated freighters, with vasts cargo hold, a Dictator is not design to (unless converted) to do that. Cargo ships tend to have less weapons normally. It does have in-game effect, since someone wants catch passenger flight off planet, their not going jump on a Union Class DropShip. Their going take passenger ship. Thus, why classification are there. -- That my option. Wrangler 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostech?

When did DropShips become lostech that should not be attacked? Even in Aerotech 1st edition, TR:3025, and the House Sourcebooks, DropShips were fair game and attacks on military troop transports were standard operating procedure. They were also in continuous production throughout the Succession Wars in much greater numbers than JumpShips. --Cray 08:03, 16 March 2009 (PDT)

I guess it was just a general impression, as I have been unable to find a source for this in any sourcebook. You are right in that even early, lostech-ridden publications seem to regard them as fair game. However, by the late 3rd SW a ritualized 'Mech combat had evolved where DropShips would land unopposed, that is where I got my impression from. There may also be a line somewhere in a novel to this effect. Will ask on CBT.com and remove or alter this part if I get no satisfactory answer there. Thanks for spotting this! Frabby 19:03, 21 March 2009 (PDT)

I started playing in 1986 and don't recall a single instance of that sort of attack pattern in the Inner Sphere in any of the 3rd Succession War material produced by the original writers. Safcon is a Clan thing. Most 3rd SW battles I've seen describe fierce resistance to DropShip landings. For example, the fighter write-ups in the 1986 publication TR:3025 (Sparrowhawk, Corsair, Transit, Transgressor, Stingray, and Chippewa) all describe 3rd Succession War attacks on DropShips, either during approach or retreat. TR:3025's write-ups of the DropShips (e.g., the Union-class Red Eagle and the Overlord) both discuss 3rd Succession War attacks on DropShips, while all three DropShip write-ups spend a lot of detail on risks to DropShip operations. Similarly, I think you'll find examples of contested landings late in the Third Succession War in the House Sourcebooks, the Periphery SB (the OA preferred to use fighters to shoot down pirate DropShips in space), "JumpShips & DropShips," "Sword and the Dagger," and so on. There were some unwritten rules to warfare in the 3rd Succession War, but the Inner Sphere was not nearly as chivalrous as the Clans. I'm not saying you're wrong since you're demonstrably well-informed of the BT universe, but establishing that the 3rd Succession War Inner Sphere politely allowed DropShip landings and 'Mech deployments would take a good handful of references. --Cray 16:03, 23 March 2009 (PDT)

To conclude this discussion, DropShips were not considered inviolate lostech. The section in question has been removed from the article (some time ago already). Frabby 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't the Categories like Category:Assault Dropships be formatted the same... i.e. Category:Assault DropShips?--Cameron 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Frabby 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Two-Part Split

I am requesting the list of Ships be split into Spheroid/Aerodyne and Militry/Civilian (with precedence to either method, i.e. Spheroid Militry, Spheroid Civilian, Aerodyne Militry, and Aerodyne Civilian OR Civilian Spheroid, Civilian Aerodyne, Militry Spheroid, and Militry Aerodyne). It would make it easier to navigate in this fashion. Andering J REDDSON

Have you tried using the sub-categories in Category:DropShips? It breaks the articles down along those lines. --Scaletail 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Chart

Should apocryphal DropShips be put in the chart? -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2013 (PST)

Yes, with the caveat that I think the chart should be replaced with a simple "See also" link to the category. Frabby (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2013 (PST)