Editing Talk:Targeting-tracking system

{{WikiProject Technology|tr=new}}
__TOC__
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em">
==Fire Control==
===No Fire Control System===
Crew requirement is based on the number of crew required by support weapons and heavy weapons.
:On the RPG Scale,  gives a bonus of +0 to the gunnery gunnery skill modifier.
:On the BattleTech Scale, this is a penalty of +2 to the gunnery roll target.

===[[Basic Fire Control]] System===
Crew requirement is halved from the number of crew required by support weapons and heavy weapons, in cases where the required crew for weapons is one, it cannot be the driver.
:On the RPG Scale,  gives a bonus of +1 the gunnery gunnery skill modifier.
:On the BattleTech Scale, this is a Penalty of +1 to the gunnery roll result.

===[[Advanced Fire Control]] System===
Crew requirement for weapons is reduced to one, which can be the driver.  This piece of equipment is directly equivelnent to the [[Targeting-Tracking System|Targeting & Tracking System]] assumed to be mounted on all combat vehicles including Powered Armor (and Battle Armor sub-type), BattleMechs, Conventional Fighters, and AeroSpace Craft. 
:On the RPG Scale,  gives a bonus of +2 the gunnery gunnery skill modifier.
:On the BattleTech Scale, this is a penalty of +0 to the gunnery roll target.</div>
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

==Milspec==
I known what is Milspec, but not all user's their use the wiki, don't know what this is, please can the contribur he add the ref. notes fix this with working links, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== O-P or O/P, or are they completely different? ==

In the O section, there are many "O-P"s, but are are they the same as the "O/P" used in the Catapult articles? Thanks in advance for any answers.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 == O-P or O/P, or are they completely different? ==
-In the O section, there are many "O-P"s, but are they the same as the "O/P" used in the ''[[Catapult]]'' and ''[[Catapult II]]'' articles? Thanks in advance for any answers.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
+In the O section, there are many "O-P"s, but are are they the same as the "O/P" used in the Catapult articles? Thanks in advance for any answers.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
-:Hy Raven i know of the problem, but i follow the canon sources and when its stated O-P or O/P i follow the source, i hope this helps?--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 11:17, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
-::Thank you. I guess I should just add the O/P part then. I was a bit confused because there is an "O/P 1078" and there is an "O-P 1078", and I thought they were the same thing.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 11:44, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
-==Need to check this article against PrydeRockIndustries fansite==
-We have found Fanon that was imported from a fansite by that name, and the format and the initial page creation here indicate a strong possibility that this will need to be checked for fanon and/or incorrectly cited info.  --[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 21:45, 11 March 2022 (EST)
-: All Honor to [[User:GreekFire|GreekFire]] for tackling this and other massive issues in this article.  Resolved. --[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 12:04, 13 April 2022 (EDT)
-== Mad Cat naming==
-I have removed the part about the genesis of the ''Mad Cat'' reporting name, as it inaccurately suggested the T&T system had somehow decided that name. That is not correct. Re-reading the passage, it just couldn't decide if the ''Timber Wolf'' was a MAD or CPLT series 'Mech. The ''Mad Cat'' designation was only mentioned later in the ComStar briefing, and seems to have been coined by ComStar. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:56, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
-==Rules section==
-I think we should either scrap this entirely (Sarna recently formed a consensus to the effect that CGL is selling rulebooks so we shouldn't simply reproduce the rules here), or massively rewrite and trim it. It needs to be more generic; as-is, this section only covers the classic boardgame rules. Finally, the wording under "Combat" is weird - as written, it suggests a cumulative penalty to the to-hit roll and to the gunnery skill, i.e. applying the penalty twice. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 15:56, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
-: I favor scrapping it.  My reasoning is this:  the Rules problem is ''huge'', and if we insist that we have to rewrite every single rules section, it is going to place a demand on our limited volunteer-hours that simply cannot be met.  Rewrites should be reserved for concepts that are particularly desired to be saved, such as [[Special Pilot Abilities]].   This page can function as a lore page just fine without the rules.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 16:22, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
-::kill it dead --[[User:GreekFire|GreekFire]] ([[User talk:GreekFire|talk]]) 18:13, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
-:::Banish it to that place where only the History tab will ever know it was there!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 18:24, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
-::::By your command :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 02:55, 13 April 2022 (EDT)
-==Eden Microelectronics Wasat Aggressors==
-I normally stay far away from this stuff, but while doing my work on ''[[Historical: Operation Klondike]]'' I found the Eden Microelectronics Wasat Aggressor Type 5 (p. 172, Annihilator) and Eden Microelectronics Wasat Aggressor Type B (p. 174, Imp).  I will leave it to those as are more conversant with the 'Mech Components Fandom to figure out what to mine from that and add here.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 08:44, 30 April 2022 (EDT)