This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

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

Untitled[edit]

Content here was split from BattleTech technology AidanPryde 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

A clean up has been posted presumably due to a Non-NPOV. THe user that added the clean up said that the article is Inner sphere centric. Does anybody agree with this? I think that Battletech itself is Inner Sphere centric and thus the article reflects that. Let me knoiw your $.02. AidanPryde 06:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BT is itself Inner Sphere-centric, mostly because that's what the writers wanted to focus on. The Clans were introduced largely to shake up storylines and as an excuse to add in more powerful gear to the game. RunedChozo 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnimechs?[edit]

Under the construction heading, the article talks about hardpoints being used to attach armor, life-support, and weapons to the endo-skeleton. My understanding was that that only described Omni-Mechs. Hardpoints indicate an ease of attachment which is not indicated in the fiction, except for in omni-mechs. --Claytonius3 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; the difference is that for non-Omnimech chassis, the "hardpoints" are specifically designed for certain weaponry and not others, requiring rework to switch the Mech's weaponry out. Oftentimes, though, there are a few hardpoints for different variants (it's easier to rebuild a Prime variant into an A variant than it is to completely re-customize the weapons). RunedChozo 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes - Reasons and Sources[edit]

BattleMechs are capable of speeds greater than the 108kph/67mph - e.g. the LCT-1V Locust from Technical Readout 3025 has a top speed of 129.6kph, I am changing this to read "some...well over 100 kph"--Doctormonkey 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMechs are possible at masses less than 20 tonnes/tons in Maximum Tech Revised, although these are not truely "canon" or Level 1 or 2 rules, I am changing this to "typically 20 to 100"--Doctormonkey 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the opinion about aircraft, tanks and artillery being inferior to BattleMechs is probably wrong but cannot find a source at this point so will only change it later when I can find a source--Doctormonkey 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Probably wrong? In a 1v1 scenario, no tank nor aircraft short of a dropship can even think about defeating even a scout mech. The non-mech vehicles are invariably slower, more weakly armed, and more lightly armored. JaderVason 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even a 20 ton scout mech against a 100 ton tank or especially aircraft? I'm not so sure, at least in the novels. Generally, this may be true, but not always. We need a source on this. AidanPryde 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug* Speed kills, and also, allows life. The scout would be a fool to engage the tank, because it would probably be slower than a track athlete, based on how speed is allocated in the Battletech universe. Aircraft are always big time pests, but I don't know if any of them have the punch to down a mech, nor do I think any of them have the chin to take a hit from a mech. Unless it's my beloved F-15 we're talking about.......Seriously though, the battletech universe seems have vehicles very well balanced against one another of the same type, and poorly balanced against mechs. It seems the be the emphasis of all battletech fiction that Mechs rule, everything else sucks. But I'm no expert. I'd recommend you follow whatever hunch you have. JaderVason 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnifighters definitely have the punch to take down a 'Mech, and even give a good show of themselves against more heavily armed/armored things like Dropships (and no 'Mech would be fool enough to try to take on a Dropship by itself either). The heavier tanks have given a heck of a good show of themselves in various novels too, and have BV (Battle Value) in the system that speaks for a definite parity with some of the lighter 'Mechs, especially when paired up with an experienced crew. Also consider the combats in the Dark Age novel series, where armor is more prevalent than 'Mechs, and you'll see some big differences compared to the earlier novels where Mechs trumped everything. RunedChozo 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I'm so flagrantly wrong, somebody aughta change the article. JaderVason 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the concept of the BattleMech as Lord of the Battlefield is something of a tagline for the games, so it is perfectly alright to have it, especially in the intro--Doctormonkey 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Designs[edit]

This section reeks of fancruft. I think noting that many 'mechs are customized is worthwhile, but listing them seems wrong. Scaletail 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan/IS designation.[edit]

The way in which names are given in this article is a bit confusing at times. Can we all agree that the IS designation is used first, followed by the clan designation between brackets? Like Mad Cat (Timberwolf). As it is now, the way Clan mech names are posted differs from time to time.

Classifications[edit]

So to which class 'Mechs between 35-40 tons, 55-60 tons and 75-80 tons classify? --83.8.119.127 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is in the article under the appropriate weight classes. --Scaletail 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 'Mechs with weight of 36-39 tons etc? --83.8.103.163 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'Mech masses go up in 5 tonne lots, so there are 35 tonne and 40 tonne 'Mechs but no 36, 37, 38 or 29 tonne 'Mechs ('Mechs are also weighed in metric tonnes rather than Imperial tons --Doctormonkey 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctormonkey (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing it up for me. :) --83.8.107.120 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC) aka 83.8.103.163 aka 83.8.119.127 :P[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg[edit]

Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg[edit]

Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Battletech cover stormsoffate.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Battletech cover stormsoffate.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Price delusion?[edit]

Many of these 'Mechs use an internal combustion engine, usually diesel, due to the high cost of fusion reactors.

By the year 3,000 I think a litre of diesel will set you back more than a fusion reactor. :P 122.107.81.122 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy[edit]

It has been argued and demonstrated (pencil and paper AND computer simulations) that if two antagonists have the same technology and the same money, one side acquires battle mechs, and the other tanks, the tanks will win (numbers, target profile, cube square relation for armor thickness, ambush capacity, secondary functions [infantry support, soft target elimination, mobile artillery], maintenance expense, availability factor, un armored anti armor vulnerability [ie concealed anti armor guns, TOW style weapons, copperhead clusters], and recovery).Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand/merge?[edit]

Does anyone else think it might be a worthwhile effort to convert the information at the below link into a non-universe point of view to expand this page?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_BattleMech_Technology

Or would a complete new page be more warranted than adding this info into the "battlemech construction" section?

--Dds667 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]