Talk:BattleTech technology

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Merge to BattleTech#Technology, July 24 2013, see discussion. No consensus, June 22 2009 1 2001, see discussion.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games This redirect is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles

OK, here's a suggested split strategy which covers most, if not all, of the material on this page.

Suggested new Articles: Hyperpulse Generator, Battletech Weapons, Infantry (Battletech), Armored Fighting Vehicles (Battletech), Aerospace and Conventional Aircraft (Battletech), Warships (Battletech), Dropships (Battletech)

Sections to be incorporated into other articles: Interstellar Travel, Nadir, Zenith and Pirate Points, Omni Technology, Armor, Movement systems, Heat Dissipation, Jump Jets, Sensor systems

After this is done, I propose deleting or wiping this article and starting from the beginning, with the aim of making a much shorter article which briefly describes the general state of technology in the battletech universe, with the primary aim of describing the ebb and flow of technological sophistication by era, and between the Inner Sphere and the Clans.

Suggestions? M.U.D. 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i like that but even if we were to do this tring to explain in a simplfied manner would result in what we have here, so unless we just moved everythig that pretatained to each other on differant pages and devoted them to that spacific subject, rambling on here. It would be best break every subject at the main subject Such as Travel, Weapons and Etc. this wold be the only way I see that a split would be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok revaulting here, splitting this page would be a best no page should become conjested like this. I will be gin to make new and sepearte pages on articles that would be best grouped together due to either a lack of many resources and would not be best to have seperate.

secondly even if a section is split havig a general paragraph would still be needed. As I work on this those that wish to comment on or feel need to delete to this would cause some turmoil of some kind just leave it here this now a official wikibattletech project. Popa01 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey liten there is a need for a innersphere part since this section only talks about the clan tech mostly with a breif mention of inersphre tech in the intro but the clan has two which i see has stupid excuss the cander but we must add this asapPopa01 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as is, is rather cumbersome. How about an article split into Weapons/Ammo Tech, Drive Systems/Misc. Tech, et cetera? ArcticFlame 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i see your point however, I think things more or less specific to BattleMechs, such as mynomer, heat sinks, jump jets, etc. should be incorporated into the BattleMechs article. that would go some way for making this article less cumbersome. AidanPryde 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing that al info on the grounf units and aeropspace units should be split of since these are not technology but are particapating equipment in the battletech univeres. please ote on this and may work on this laterPopa01 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no sources what so ever, could someone fix this?--142.177.159.134 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have all of the tech readouts, and most of the other books. I will start on this soon. --Claytonius3 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH. What mech transforms into an aerospace fighter? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Zeta Gundam or something? For now, I'm going to change it because I'm pretty sure there is no transformer mech, being that it definitely goes against the whole mold that is the idea of a mech in the Battletech universe. If there is a transformer mech, tell me what book I can find it in, and if you want to be super cool, on what page, too.

--James 10:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) (fixed for accuracy, the original Gundam was a combiner, not a transformer.)

Land-Air Mechs (LAMs) can be found in the old edition of Technical Readout: 3025. As noted in the article, they were removed due to copyright issues with the owners of the Macross titles.

Here are additional answers:

LAMs can also be found in the AeroTech box board game extension of BattleTech (not to confound with AeroTech 2 which is not the second edition of the AeroTech box). Here we're speaking about the very first BattleTech products. Rules to design LAMs are in AeroTech, too.

Rules about using LAMs can also be found in the BattleTech Compendium book (the old one, with a lansdscape format like Technical Readout's, not to confound with the later BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare book).

-- JP_Raven

You're thinking of the Tactical Handbook, not the Compendium. There was never any edition of the Compendium that was oriented landscape. --Patrick T. Wynne 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Currently I don't own it but I'm quite sure I saw LAM rules in this landscape oriented book. I searched the Internet to find its name and reference but found no place to look at. Wouldn't it be great to list all BattleTech books on WikiPedia? By the way I don't find any suitable place to explain things about BattleTech as a board game; the BattleTech subject speaks about the BattleTech thing as a whole, with no focus about the board game which I'm fond of.

However I own an AeroTech copy and am sure the LAM rules are in it; after verification it's on pages 35 and 36, alons with three LAM designs.

-- JP_Raven

You never heard of LAMs probably because they stink. The LAM equipment takes up a ridiculous amount of critical space, leaving less room for more important items. Also, as mentioned above, they are conceptually way too close to Robotech to be legally safe.If i remember correctly, there were Phoenix Hawk (or maybe Shadow hawk...?) and Valkyrie LAMs. --Claytonius3 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were LAM variants of the Wasp, Stinger, Phoenix Hawk, and Shadow Hawk 'Mechs. Note that LAMs are variant models; the specs on one of these units may not mirror the standard model found in the TRO.

USFPutty 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a Shadow Hawk LAM. Neither Aerotech or the Tech Readout: 3025 have them listed. Both the Valkyrie and the Shadow Hawk were constant favorites for players to convert. Trynn Allen 13:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m asking for anyone with the necessary knowledge of the BattleTech universe please to consider merging the

I've merged. Not pruned, though, guess I'm more of an inclusivist. The page history of the former separate page is here. --Kizor 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word BattleMech was linked three or four times, which just redirects back to this page. It's not even necessary to link the same word more than once in an article. Anyway, the article is a bit wordy and sometimes awkwardly worded as well. I also might have missed some more self-linkage. Some guy 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at your lists of 'Mechs and I was wondering why there wasn't a Jupiter in the list of heavy 'Mechs.

I have attempted to reformat the wordy blurb at the very start of the article. I hope this makes things more organized. If you have any thoughts for futher cleanup, please feel free to discuss. Wizardry Dragon 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the following under mynomer that was added is unnotable/irrelevant:

Her husband, Justin Allard posessed a prosthetic arm which used this technology, along mini hidden laser that popped out of the forearm. It came in very useful in saving his wife on the night of their assasination attempt.

As such, I'm going to revert back to my old version ... that is unless people really thing it's valuable. Reeks of fandom to me, to be honest, and isn't neccesary in the context of an encyclopedia article. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the part about the prosthetic arm is relevant. It is what many of the prosthetic limbs in the BT universe are made of and therefore a common use of the mynomer. I think it deserves mention, maybe not the part about saving his wife, but the rest. Also I started to change all the BT shorthand to BattleTech, but then I thought that there might be some legitimate reason for it. Otherwise, it just seems a little lazy to me.AidanPryde 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done some restructuring, I think the BattleMech section in its entirety deserves its own article (and have marked it as such). It was dominating the article which is supposed to be about technology in the BT Universe of which a BattleMech is just one part.

De-duplicated some of the information in the rest of the sections (not completely, there's too much for one sitting). Also added some headings for items that should be in this article in order to complete its stated objectives.

Not yet confident in removing the clean-up request as the article is still overly long and I think the 'Mech discussion needs agreeing first. Kyle 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some mostly minor editing today, but I realized this article is written from the point of view of the table top game. I think the POV should be from the novels, as that better covers every aspect of BT technology. There could be a seperate article about the technology within the table-top game.AidanPryde 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that BattleMechs belong in their own article rather then as a sub-set to this one.--

I also agree, splitting the article will improve both. Is there anyone who disagrees? AidanPryde 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've also checked "what links here," and it looks like most links are coming through the BattleMech and Battlemech redirects anyway, which reinforces the case that it should be broken out. --Groggy Dice 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about how jump ships work doesn't make sense to me. It says that to make a succesful jump, there needs to be negligible gravitational influence. But the article says that the nadir and zenith points are above and below a star. It shouldn't matter if youre above below to the side or caddy corner from a star, it still has the same amount of gravity unless another planetary body is negating that force through its own gravity, like in a pirate point. The novels I've read never explained anything more than that jumpships used nadir zenith or pirate points and that pirate points were much closer to the target planet than the other two. So is this a user error or is this info from a sourcebook and the fiction is flawed, or am I just an idiot who doesn't understand physics?

whoops, forgot to sign AidanPryde 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your physics is right. There's functionally no difference high above the poles (Mass distribution through the star would have some negligible effect, but not in game-scale terms) then at the equater. I can't find any reference in the source materials I have at the moment, but my guess is that if there is such a reference it's the result of artistic license on the part of the authors - or simply a game designer / SciFi author who slept through Physics 101.

--Bagheera 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this problem some more and I think i understand the problem, the Nadir and Zenith points are far enough away from the star to have only a small amount of influence. The points also have to be above or below the star because otherwise the planets of the system would affect the jump. This is why pirate points are so useful, since they are so much closer.It seems so obvious now. AidanPryde 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just having fun speculating about BattleTech physics now.) I don't think that explanation holds.

* At various times the planets might all be an the opposite side of the star. Is it safe to jump then?

* Planet mass varies wildly; Arthur Charles Clarke described the solar system as "consisting of the Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris", Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets combined. Everything but the large gas giants should be negligible for jumps, and their effect should probably be felt far, far outside the star system.

A better explanation for the jump points would be some effect of the star's rotation, but that would kill Lagrange points. --217.235.218.107

The 'zenith' and 'nadir' coordinates would probably be the 'above' and 'below' points located as precisely up and down from the plane of the ecliptic as possible, to allow for avoiding gravitational influences and mass objects. So, in this case, these positional references assume a generally flat orbital plane in a system, and the points exists 'above' and 'below' that plane, relatively, at 90 degree angles centered off the sun to allow optimal flight time to any given destination in-system.

USFPutty 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly correct. According to the Dropship and Jumpship a point above and below the eliptical plain in points of minimumal gravitational effects were choosen as central points of commerece. While it is recognized that "pirate points" may actually be closer to the planet of destination, the computations required for a successful jump are more involved. This isn't as big of a problem for ships that have reliable jump computers but for those ships that are not in good operating condition it is a hazerdous jump at best, final at worst. Hence the establishment of the two main jump points. Should breakdowns occur facilities would be on hand to deal with all but the worst of these failures. Trynn Allen 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are more problems with the Jumpship section, an anonymous user seems to object to calling Nadir and Zenith points Nadir and Zenith, asking that Nadir and Zenith articles be understood. I have read the Nadir and Zenith articles and I understand that in the real world, the words nadir and zenith do not refer to arbitrary points below or above a star or anything specific for that matter. But in the BattleTech universe, this is what these points are called. I can't say much for the source books, but the novels clearly refer to Nadir and Zenith points being below and above a star. So to avoid a revert war, does anybody have any beef with these points being called here what they are called in the fiction?

AidanPryde 21:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, as the Wikipedia shouldn't contain false or misleading information. However, there are at least two ways to keep the names without polluting the rest of Wikipedia with BattleTech misconceptions:

• Create Nadir (BattleTech) and Zenith (Battletech) (While you are at it you might as well create above (BattleTech) and below (BattleTech), but I disgress.)
• Explain the problem ("... which in the BattleTech universe are the points above and below a star ..."), without linking to the real-world articles.

Just don't assume that everybody loves BattleTech enough to allow redefinitions of astronomical terms. --62.225.37.69

I apologize if the wording came off that I was trying to usurp the definiton of nadir and zenith. That wasnt my intent. I see your point now though. I'll attempt to tackle this sometime this weekend. AidanPryde 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wrote an entire article Jumpship (Battletech). I'd still like to eventually see this entire article split. Its just a matter of writing more specific articles M.U.D. 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: Wouldn't a Pirate Jump point be located inbetween a star and a planet such that the pull of gravity from the planet is equal [but opposite in direction] to the pull of the star? This would lead to jump-points that are close to planets, and the gravitational pull experienced by the observer would be equal in both the nadir- and zenith-directions... just a thought. 137.53.85.122 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Alexcranson[reply]

It is my understanding that this is essentially the way it works. --Scaletail (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems after looking around that the jump points would be synonomous with the Langrangian Points most perpendicular to the ecliptic and referential to the target planet and that planet's sun.Chris (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove editsm for whatever reason, please do not readd them - this could be a breach of the

• An overview opening. Battletech technology seems based on giving a realistic feel or take to many sci-fi staples, like faster-than-light travel and communication, hi-tech weaponery, scientific achievements and so. Minor stuff like medical and cybernetic prothesis are considered normal, stuff does breaks down, school life is quite XXth century-ish in overall scheme (Source: Mechwarrior books), and cars still have wheels. What else can be said? What about handguns? Clothes? Their knives are blades or little laser swords? Constructions? Entertainment? Do they have cyberpunk stuff like the simchips and hitech drugs seen in Shadowrun? What about the workmechs? Is there anything remarkable in everyday life to be ponted out?
• Also, a section explaining about equipment axioms -- critical space, weight, efficiency (range / damage) and specially heat, which plays a quite big role in the game. Most article seems to assume the reader already has understanding in Battletech 'tech, so those should be explained ja? Kobayen 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe your first point could best be tackled by something to the effect of a 'BattleTech Technology in daily life' article?AidanPryde 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just an opening section -- but as I mentioned, I'm not qualified to write it. Then, I just dropped my two cents... Kobayen 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, as otherwise the article would be a bit unwieldy with large sections covering one thing, and much smaller sections on the others.

I too support the split. So long as a link to the new BattleMech article remains on this page.AidanPryde 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say splitting was a good idea, too. BattleTech 'Mechs are well-established enough to have their own page. This one could remain and perhaps incorporate some of Kobayen's above ideas. (Lordjim13 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok I went ahead and split the BattleMech part into a new article, Im still a little bit of a noob at Wikipedia, so help me clean it up. On a side note in the midst of spliting the article, i discovered that the three pictures of battle mechs were the cause of the 4 edit buttons being push around. as they were supposed to provide pictures of BattleMechs, I'll try to readd them to the newly split article with out causing the same problem. AidanPryde 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also 'BattleMechs' typed into the search page redirects here, i dont know how to change this to redirect the battleMechs articleAidanPryde 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the 'battlemech' redirect to this page, was set up as 'BattleTech Technology#Mechs' is now 'BattleMechs'. Someone else must have fixed the 'battlemechs' search because it works for me. Shrike92 02:03, 27 September 2006

I'm not sure what these words mean in the BattleTech universe, but the sentence made no sense in English. Without a reference system, there can be no "above" or "below" a star. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need for a snarky redefinition of above or below simply because you disagree with the wording of an article. Please don't
  disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In the fiction, Zenith and Nadir are used to refer to the jump points. they are referred to as the "Zenith Jump Point" or "Nadir Jump Point" If you need proof, I took a little time to look and on page 24 of the "Operation Audacity" novel, are the words "Nadir Jump Point." The words still retain their meaning of above and below, Zenith and Nadir sound better though, which is probably why they are used. The reference for the above or below is the elliptical plane of the solar system. The points would lie on a line going directly through the center of a star, 90 degrees from the elliptical plane of the solar system.

Zenith and Nadir Jump Points is the way I used them in the last revision and I did not link them to the Nadir and Zenith Wiki articles because some confusion could be drawn from that. Maybe above and below don't belong as they don't make sense in zero gravity, but Zenith and Nadir definitely belong. This article is about the fictional Battletech universe, therefore it should reflect the way the things work and are talked about in the fictional universe. If you want to explain all the inaccuracies in the Battletech, create an article about it. I agree with Wizardry Dragon that this is not the place for it. AidanPryde 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any BattleTech novel handy, sorry. I don't have any doubts that, in the BattleTech universe, the words have exactly the meaning everyone claims here.

Personally, I don't understand the 'above' and 'below' stuff at all. To wrap it into a simple question: Which of the two points is Nadir and which is Zenith? What makes them different? If one is 'below', do things fall up from there? This is just confusing. I don't expect you to change what the words mean in the BattleTech universe, but to provide the casual reader with the means to make sense of the explanation. Yes, the explanation of jump point physics is bogus, but I don't care in the scope of this article. However, one should be able to understand the article without implicit redefinitions of English words.

I don't think that Nadir and Zenith should be avoided at all cost. I certainly don't think that 'above' and 'below' should be avoided. I do think that any deviations from standard English should be noted.

I have no idea which point is "above" and which is "below." I'm guessing that is decided when the first jump in a solar system is first calculated. So to explain the jump points, would this be more to what you mean, "The Zenith and Nadir points lie on an imaginary line going directly through the center of a star, 90 degrees from the elliptical plane of the solar system far away from the star."? If so, I think it's a little too much for the average reader. It needs to be stated in simple terms. But next time, please provide an alternative to the problem or start a discussion before you delete important information. AidanPryde 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a perfect example of fiction not being true to fact - but it's fiction for goodness sake. It's the language used in the game world, and therefore is completely appropriate. So for the fourth time,
  stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I really don't. Please feel free to enter the discussion any time you like.

Quoting AidanPryde: "I have no idea which point is 'above' and which is 'below.'" So why do you expect the casual reader to understand the explanation?

I don't think I have to provide an alternative just because I identify and delete an erroneous statement. I can in fact not think of a simple replacement, just because BattlePhysics is so damn weird. The best thing would probably be a section on JumpPoints which explains the BattleTerms and gives some background.

• Yes, yes you do. You have disrupted the Wikipedia entry by introducing an edit that has not been accepted by the community, which has been reverted frequently. The talk page here is the appropriate place to discuss controversial changes. Continuing such edits without reaching consensus is
  disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and acting in bad faith. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Repeating it doesn't make it more true (and in fact makes you look slightly childish). (Well, it may work in BattleVerse, but not in real life.) You can read my statements here to understand my point. OTOH, all I read are far-fetched accusation (not to mention misquotes).

It's really simple: Explain which point is Nadir and which is Zenith without assuming the reader agrees with the BattleTech authour on which point in the Universe is up. That's all. No need to pull Wikipedia rules out of your ass. Just explain the facts in English iso BattleEnglish.

This article can (and in fact should) be used to explain fictional matters; it should not use a fictional language.

Wouldn't Zenith obviously mean above, since the term refers to a high point, an apex, etc.? Therefore, Nadir would mean below. --

tjstrf Now on editor review! 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Whatever, that's not the problem. The problem is that 'above' doesn't say anything in space.

Complain to the authors of the series, not Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's job to repair plot holes in science fiction series. --

tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

We can't explain which point is which because I've never seen or heard it explained which is which. Maybe its out there somewhere, in a source book or something, but I don't know. Wizardry Dragon isn't pulling rules out of his ass, you are being disruptive, whether you know it or not. The way the article is written before you keep reverting it, was not fictional language, it was using the terms as they are used in BattleTech. No its not correct usage of the term but many sci-fi and other fictional works use scientific terms incorrectly and do not garner explicit explanations of problems. An explicit explanation of what jump points are and how they are unrealistic or inaccurate in the real world does not belong in this article and would be asinine. If YOU think it's important that this problem be explained, then be bold and create an article about jump points and explain it there. Others think its fine as is. AidanPryde 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPT means that I should eg. not replace random sections of the article with rubbish to demonstrate that the article should be readable by someone capable of English. It does not mean that my changes should not disrupt your view on the matter.

This is not about explaining SF technology, it's about explaining technology in English. See

Heisenberg compensator

for an example how completely wacky physics can be explained in English. See many episode of Star Trek for examples on how they shouldn't ("...then the ionic discharge offset the plumotronic crapacitators, which lead to the zallification of the Gnilf" - "Ah, that explains a lot!"). Please, please bring up that point again and again.

I don't have to complain to the series' authors, because I don't fracking care whether neutrons are blue or rivers run uphill in BattleVerse. Any explanations however should be readable, or else furryless green ideas would no longer sleep furiously.

• This is a content dispute about terms used to describe fictional science in a fictional world. The only appropriate way to describe such is with fictional (and in this case, arbitrary) definitions. Consensus is pretty clear against the edits here. If you continue to edit
  blocked. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't mind definitions of fictional terms, but you can't seriously ask for fictional definitions. How could that possibly work?

Again, the solution is simple: Find a way to define BattleTech's Nadir and Zenith in English terms. If you can't, define the BattleTerms you need. Repeat until done.

In the sourcebook Dropships and Jumpships Nadir is taken to be a point below the South Magnetic pole of the destination star and the Zenith is the point above the North Magnetic pole of the destination star. Trynn Allen 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I just now noticed the irony of my "See above" message below.) The statement as it was written is not parsable in English and thus has no place in en:Wikipedia.

Explanation: The statement uses in-game vocabulary to explain in-game concepts. no attempt is made to provide definitions for the in-game vocabulary, so the statement is not understandable. Additionally, since the in-game vocabulary looks exactly like English words, many readers will be confused. The words above and below used in the statement cannot be used in their English meaning. The explanation of BattleNadir and BattleZenith relies on position relative to a star and the orbital plane of its planets. Concepts as above and below without making a reference point make no sense here. In the words of AidanPryde: "I have no idea which point is 'above' and which is 'below.'"

This I can get on board with, with some reservations. The thing everyone seems to miss is that the point of reference is the system's star. Perhaps this could be made more obvious and clear in the article? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got this part. First, no direction is above the star unless you state your frame of reference. Second, if (as I assume) you implicitly use the planet's orbital plane as reference, you would still have to explain why Nadir is different than Zenith. --217.235.241.172

I'll give it some further reading later tonight, but as far as I can recall, the "Zenith" point uses the planet you're orbiting as a reference. Plot the direct opposite from this point using the star as the point of reflection, and you have the "Nadir" point. I might have the names mixed around, but I believe that is the concept. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand (but I hope that you are not suggesting after all this time that the initial statement was wrong even in BattleTech terms). Are there zeniths and nadirs on every planet? --217.235.241.172

Nonono, the Zenith and Nadir is for calculating a jump point. Jump points, as I understand the BT lore, are createds dynamically by certain ships outfitted with jump drives. These ships, ever so originally, are called jump ships. To calculate the area where you can jump, (by whatever science BT uses, I don't even pretend to understand it. Something about gravity that flies in the face of Newtonian physicics), you need to calcualte these two "imaginary" points. You can then enter a jump gate at either by some method that I, again, don't understand. (The previous explanation wasn't wrong per se, but it was very incomplete and therefore grossly misleading) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a "Jump Gate" The Jump points are any point in space from which a jumpship disappears, as well as the standard (Z&N) and non standard (pirate) points at which they arrive at their destination. The departure point is not any place in particular, just where ever the ship happens to be.--Claytonius3 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on that BattlePhysics? --217.235.241.172

What I've read in BattleTech: 3rd Edition seems to support what I have explained above. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get your explanation above. How is the planet you're orbiting referencing Zenith? What if you don't orbit any planet?

I'll try to come up with a more clear and understandable explanation and post it here, please give me some time though I have surgery on thursday and may not be around for a bit. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main life supporting planet in a system determines the Zenith jump point by its poles. If the North pole of the planet is pointing more or less in one direction, that direction is the side of the orbital plane that the Zenith point is on. Which of course means the Nadir is on the opposite side. This is how I have understood it. AidanPryde 06:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now we have to decide which side is the North Pole, but anyway; is the distance defined? --217.235.248.12

Oy ve! you people... Why can't we just say "Generally, Jumpships can safely enter a planetary system at only two points, designated in the fiction as 'Zenith' and 'Nadir'. At certain periods, planetary motion causes the temporary creation of 'Pirate Jump Points' some of which lie closer to the planet." And avoid use of ABOVE/BELOW completely. Forget the plane of the elliptic (even though I agree), it is too much to expect non-fans to understand our terminology. --Claytonius3 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that. Only it doesn't give the location of Zenith and Nadir points, but I'm not sure that matters that much. AidanPryde 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the books, the LaGrange points are usually described as abov/below the planet, such as "Because the reinforcements were coming from the Nadir jump point, the Castle Brian could not communicate intelligence; the bulk of the planet shielded the radio waves." But I'm not sure that it makes any difference to anyone whether the LaGrange points are in relation to the planet. I think the important info is that there are two standard points, and sometimes pirate points appear closer to the planet. Everything else just makes it overly complicated. --Claytonius3 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in after a lengthy break. Some good suggestion here I think, but I want to say two things: First, currently Naddir and Zenith are stated, but not explained. That doesn't make the article wrong, just a bit weird. Second, I think the missing link is to make the reader understand that BattlePhysics does not make sense here. Once this is done, one could to everything. (Again, see Heisenberg Compensators for an example.) So, very simply: "In the BattleVerse, Nadir and Zenith describe two fixed points relative to a star. For dramatic reasons, these points are determined assuming a fixed plane of reference. Also, it is assumed that a star's gravity is lower at a right angle to the planetary plane." yaddayadda.

Nagyss, are you trying to say that Nadir and Zenith are relative to a planet? Sigh. --217.235.231.214

So the main problem is the definition of 'above' and 'below', and whether Nadir and Zenith should be included/explained? The Jumpship section has more problems than just these, (no offence) it could use some help.Nagyss 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem may be that no actual explanation is given for how a JumpShip "jumps." Something about the bending of space, etc. should be included. Perhaps once that occurs, the rest of the section would make more sense. Scaletail 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant portions of this article which require editing. Here is what I have noticed needs work in the article:

• Citations: This article has none. It needs them, or it may face a challenge for deletion under
  WP:V
  .

• Paragraph style: The frequent small paragraphs in the article suggest a lack of organisation and result in an article that reads very "choppily". This kind of choppy prose indicates that the article needs reogranization to be more cohesive and succint.

• List-like: With the exception of some large blocks of text at the end, the majority of the article reads like a list that is only elaborated on a little. We need it to appear more cohesive, and more like an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia
  is not a collection of lists
  .

• Importance/organization: With the largest blocks of text at the end, there is a suggestion that the information at the top is the most important, and yet, these portions are elaborated on the least. Either you need to assert the importance of these articles, or reorganize them to the bottom of the paragraph.

-- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work to cut down on flowery language -- massive, behemoths, etc. in the dropship section for example. We don't need to add our own emphasis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an administrator who saw a request for assistance at the Village Pump. While I'm unfamiliar with the BattleTech universe, I'd like to offer a few suggestions. First, please sign your posts on talk pages. There's a Sign your name option right below the Show changes button on your edit screen. Second, it doesn't seem that

Oops, I missed your message. Thanks for taking the time.

Sign: Yeah, I know, I don't see the point for IPs, so I tend to forget.

I will try it here for a while, if the argument continues to rotate I will go to RFC. Thanks for the hint. --217.235.242.235

I think the primary crux of the argument is a lack of any desire to compromise, or change. The editors on the article think it's more or less fine and have been resistant to change, except for a proposed split, whereas some editors have proposed changes tha thave either been ignored (mine) or controversially reverted (217.235.242.235's). I'm trying to mitigate things from snoballing too much, if I come off as anything else, then I apologize. I'm not adverse to changes to this article - I've been trying to affect chanes myself. However, it is NOT constructive to simply say something need changed. Please, if you want a change, offer an alternative other than sasrcastic redefinitions of obvious terminology. If you want to be taken seriously, act seriously. If you want to affect a change that would improve the article, then propose one. Simply deleting parts of the article because they are "bad" is not constructive. Find way to turn "bad" into "good" -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a simple delete can be constructive. The statement was bogus in my opinion, I had no alternative handy (still don't), and I considered it to be better to remove the false statement than to leave it in; the article was improved by that action.

I do discuss alternatives, they are mostly ignored however. Please point out the alternatives you provided, as I have missed them. --217.235.241.172

I don't think the statement was bogus, as in false, it's simply unclear - and that's why I think we should change it as opposed to deleting it - find a way to make the unclear statements clear. I've been trying to just in general regorganize the article and make it better sourced and more clear myself, I pointed out some of my objections in the talk heading "Copy-Editing Required".

I think a lot of any negativity here is mostly just feeligns running high from both of us. Neither of us are acting in bad faith. I was trying to warn you that others would take your actions badly, and you were trying to

be bold and edit out something you felt was wrong. I apologize, again, if my words were taken as anything else. We both have similar ends here, lets not but heads over semantics. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the statement was not even false, it simply wasn't English. I provide examples of what I mean above. I also make suggestions on how to find a solution. Please respond to them. --217.235.241.172

Could you please reiterate them, then? I'm quite possibly misunderstanding what you meant. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --217.235.241.172

"See above" isn't very helpful to me. I asked you to reiterate your point, because I don't understand your previous suggestion, or at least, how it would be helpful. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're most likely to get good results from

Yeah, we should do that. --217.235.241.172

A delete wouldn't be such a bad thing for this page. Its in violation of a whole raft of wikipedia guidelines; citations, encyclopedic tone, etc. etc. etc. And that's just off the top of my head. M.U.D. 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone restore the pages the had the mechs cuz I would like more info on the separete mechs and all the links for the individual mechs are red.

The mechs page is linked in the see also section, or was when I removed the section. Per

Support Neutrality) 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I wont do it yet but like all other tpe of unites Mech are unreprisented in this articl just a short paragrapgh about mechs in geral would suffice Popa01 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

BattleMech article was spun off of this one because it was too long. I suppose that a short paragraph would be in order as a means of introduction. Scaletail 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah I'm going put one and a sub section for Indimeachs since they have been life force in the enconomy and since the DA saga have become even more of a threat in the battletech univerese. But they have been a threat even before the DA line began just that they went unnoticedPopa01 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be anything on NARCs, Anti-Missile Systems, flares, or Arrow IVs. Could someone add something on these? Edit: After a quick browse through (gasp) MechWarrior 4, it seems that this article also lacks information on X-Pulse lasers and the Long Tom artillery. 68.124.176.160 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Just what a data core is has not been covered either. Also, one "anti-terraforming" mission on Mechwarriors 2 and the fact that many planets in the mechwarrior 4 universe seem so earthlike suggest that some kind of terraforming technology has been perfected. Could someone please elaborate on this? 199.247.245.1 21:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be missing turretes and bombast lasers, too. 199.247.128.250 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added info for Narc, AMS, and artillery. I also added a brief section on terraforming and other civilian technology, though that is somewhat problematic. Most planets that are inhabited are not modified at all, so it's kind of hard to define the negative of terraforming. Bombast lasers are specific to MechWarrior 4: Vengeance, so I suggest you check out that page. As far as turrets, well, I sincerly hope you know what a turret is, if not then google it. Scaletail 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, now I actually have something to do on this account! Anyway, there still doesn't seem to be any info right now for Narcs, though everything else is there now. Maybe there should be something about the different variants of the X-Pulse laser too, like the really-fast long-range one in MechCommander and the ER/pulse hybrid in MechWarrior IV. I guess I should be adding the information myself, instead of just requesting it... whatever. 68.124.176.160 (cough) Cipher42 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive use of holographic technology is also missing esa 00:00 6 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.110.46 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Co-ordination
	This article has recently been tagged as requiring quality standards . The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. the article has multiple overlapping problems. the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
Discussion I went ahead and did the best I could to minimize the use of bullet points in regards to weapons. I left the bullets for weapons that are different from others within a single category, but combined the same ones into one or two paragraphs. I also removed a few references to 'Mechs that really didn't add anything to the subject matter, i.e. stating that a certain 'Mech used the particular weapon being discussed but not mentioning anything special about it. Hope this doesn't seem like I overstepped my bounds and that it helps out the page. Crystalattice 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I went ahead and removed all the bullet points. I realized they actually weren't needed with the change to paragraph format and the bolded words work just as well to delineate different topics. Crystalattice 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm wondering out loud if the best way to organise this page would be to not use it as a shopping list of technologies, but rather a detailing of the progression of technology in the BT universe as based upon the timeline. The organisation of the history of the BattleTech universe article works fairly well and gives a good structure in which to provide detail about the various technologies introduced along the way. Thoughts? Kyle 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think the best way to proceed might be to break the article up into sub-articles, all of which link back to a BattleTech technology category. Right now it feels more like a list, and I think most of the sub-topics here are expandable enough to be articles in their own right.M.U.D. 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] There's a lot of excess (meaningless) sentences and ridiculous run-ons. I'm fingering through and cleaning up some grammar and trimming the fat. TotalTommyTerror 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Notabilty Leaving aside the fact that "yikes!" is not really a helpful comment for why an article is not 'notable', there's nothing (that I can see) in any of the current notability guidelines as to why this content is not. If the argument is more of quality, then it should be obvious that this article is being worked on quite frequently to improve the quality of sources and writing. sigh* Kyle 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also at a loss to understand the notice. The technology is naturally of importance, given that BattleTech is a sci-fi universe. Scaletail 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Considering the fact that the game has millions of players in the United States alone and that there are 70+ fiction novels out there. There is no way there can be a notability issue.Showers 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] There's a lot of debate on this issue...battletech fans don't see a notability issue, but lots of other people do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jumpship_%28Battletech%29 M.U.D. 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Melee Weapons Is this section really necessary? I highly doubt that putting a giant club in the hand of a giant war-machine counts as technology. At best, it should be moved to the BattleMech article, since only they can use melee weapons. Scaletail 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply ] All those things count as technology. Mayve not the most sophisticated technology but technology nevertheless. Showers 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Absoutly not, Since Melee is just another, ans i note that it also mentions a hatchet and claw that it descirbes as being used mostly by infantry. Melle means physical and anthing of the latter would put under Melee. Popa01 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] The section on Battle Armor already notes that they have the use of a claw the grab onto a 'Mech, so why do we need another section on it? Hatchets, Maces, and Swords are used exclusively by 'Mechs, while claws are already noted; so I reiterate my position that the Melee section should be either deleted or moved. Scaletail 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why is that all the other types of wapon systems re listed but Melee, Melee weapons are just a common as so I few the weapon tech part is incomplete without the Melee. And why should it be moved or deleted when if by saying the Melee should be removed all the other weapon tech should also be removed or deleted. Not that I only mentioned modern combat weapons if to please you how about adding classical weapons that can be found in nations such as the combns and capplen that use swords just they would a knife or a guass rifle.Popa01 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] It belongs with the battlemech article, as do all battlemech subsystems. M.U.D. 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Achieving encyclopedic style Looks like there are a few high-level issues with this article that make it unencyclopedic: Too much detail. This is the killer, in my opinion. Presumably this article is intended to be an overview of the state of technology in the BattleTech universe as a whole, but instead practically every last piece of equipment from the Classic BattleTech wargame is detailed -- all the way down to flame throwers, hatchets, eight separate varieties of laser, sub-classes of ammunition, etc. While it's true that military tech is central to BattleTech, describing it in that amount of detail seems way out of line with Wikipedia's recommended style. (See point 3 in the good article guidelines .) Much of this detail probably doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia at all, but if it stays, it should be moved into daughter articles that focus on those specific pieces of equipment. Poor organization. The way the article is organized doesn't make it particularly easy for a reader, particularly one not familiar with BT, to get a good idea of BT tech. For one thing, the current structure seems to be based on how the BattleTech rules divide things up, which isn't necessarily logical. ("Weapons" versus "equipment", for instance -- only the rules make this distinction, since objectively speaking they're all just components.) In-universe style. At best the text reads like a WizKids publication, and at worst like an actual ComStar report. ("Warships bristle with naval class weapons and squadrons of aerospace fighters, making them the bane of naval commanders in the field.") When writing about a fictional universe, a certain amount of this is almost unavoidable, but there's certainly lots of room for improvement. Lack of in-line references. There are a handful now, but more is needed. I've redrafted the majority of this article off-line to try to address these issues, and would be glad to post it. However -- a lot of what's in the article now (probably about 75% of it) would be eliminated or condensed into more summarized forms, and I don't want to offend previous contributors, so I'd welcome user comments first. If anyone thinks a serious pruning and re-drafting isn't justified, let them speak now! :-) Huwmanbeing 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree that significant work needs to be done on this article. Could you post your redraft on a test page so we could see it and discuss it? --Scaletail 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Good idea. I'll finish the last few sections of the re-draft and get it online someplace where we can review it. Huwmanbeing 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Any progress on this?M.U.D. 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I took a sabbatical from the project for a while, but at last I've completed the overhaul of this article! It's available here:  User:Huwmanbeing/Sandbox1 I decided to do the redraft a separate page because it's a pretty extreme rewrite, and I want to make sure to get everyone's opinions and input before replacing the current page. I've tried to address the issues cited above by reducing the amount of detail in certain sections to make them more summary-like; reorganizing sections; redrafting passages that read like rules; redrafting passages that were in a non-encyclopedic style/tone; and adding in-line citations and references. It still needs work, though, so please let me know if there are changes you'd like to see, things to add, things to remove, etc. etc. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ★ 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The redrafted version of the article's now in place. I hope it looks OK! It still needs work, but it'd be awesome for this and other BattleTech pages to eventually achieve good article status, so going forward we should try to stick as closely as possible to the GA guidelines. In particular: keeping the article broad, avoiding in-universe perspective and making sure sources are cited where appropriate. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ★ 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply ] Sources? I see the page was recently tagged as relying heavily on primary sources, which is certainly true, but I'm not quite sure how to get around it. The idea, as I understand it, is that the article shouldn't only cite FASA's or WizKids' own in-universe publications, but should also cite at least a few independent outside sources. Does anyone know of any that might be appropriate? Perhaps magazine articles concerning BattleTech, or even books that might talk about the franchise? As popular as BattleTech is, I'd like to think there might be an independent source or two out there that we could cite. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply ] I know this is a rather amateurist thing to say, but I really don't see why such things should be third-party referenced. A popular piece of fiction should not need to be ..supported.. for validity, surely? If the author-text says that in this fictional universe, "it is thus", why is an external confirmation required? And in this sort of lark, where all the writing on the subject would either be fanfic or on a contract basis, what form would a relevant third party source take?? Gah, you know what I mean, I'll hush right up.. Geno-Supremo (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply ] No, that's not amateurish — your questions are reasonable. Wikipedia's point I think is that, in the interests of objectivity, no article on x should rely solely on material published by the creators of x. BattleTech's an unusual case, though. It's clearly a suitable subject for an article based on its breadth and volume of material; however, it seems nearly impossible to find third-party articles that say anything substantial about it. Someone on another site recently mentioned that the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction had an entry for the BattleTech franchise, so I'll see if I can track that down. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge proposal Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleTech technology has concluded, I think we should discuss the possibility of a merger to BattleTech. My reasons to merge are as follows: I can't find any reliable, secondary sources that are unaffiliated with GNG . Without some real-world context, this is basically a plot summary . Does anyone else have anything to add, support or objections? -- T/C) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply ] I support a merge. I can make available a third-party source: an excellent 8-page feature from G.M. magazine, although note that this is way back from October 1988. It is largely coverage of all the different supplements that were available at the time (CityTech, Battleforce, etc) but does have some commentry on the technology. Example: "In [Jordan K. Weisman]'s game, anything 200 years old is incredibly advanced compared to equipment produced in the 31st century world of BattleTech. A lot of machinery and equipment can never be replaced as the knowledge of how to create this technology has been lost, thanks to hundreds of years of warfare." I don't think there's enough to support a seperate article about the game's technology, but it might be useful for anyone wishing to perform a merger. Leave me a message if you'd like me to scan it in. Marasmusine (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't support a merger, though I do understand some of the rationale; instead, I favor tightening this page and broadening the citations. A few points: BattleTech is a notable and prolific franchise in which fictional technology is arguably the most important feature. This makes a fuller summary of such technology more appropriate than it might be for other, otherwise similar subjects. Secondary sources should certainly be cited, and as Marasmusine notes, they do exist. I understand that another is The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which I'll try to lay my hands on. The main BattleTech article is in my opinion best kept as a high-level summary of the entire franchise, with specifics about certain elements presented in separate subordinate articles. For like examples, see "Fictional elements" (Template:Star Trek), "Universe" (Template:Star Wars), etc. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I also do not support a merger, for the reasons that Huwmanbeing has given. Omnedon (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I just found and purchased a used copy of the Encyclopedia on half.com, so by next weekend I should be able to add that as a cite. (It's a book I've wanted to own for a while anyway!) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cool! Once there are some secondary sources and out-of-world context, I think we'll be OK. -- T/C) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ] I don't support a merger. --Rockstone35 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]