Talk:Alliance battleship (788 UC era)

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Jump to: navigation, search



Mind if we do not bold the kanji? Mainly because the bold version is much less legible. Iracundus 10:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm a stickler for format consistency, that's why I've bolded it. If everybody else wants to un-bold it though, I'm fine with it. =) Glacierfairy 18:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Consistency can be maintained by un-bolding the rest :) Iracundus 07:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That would take lots of effort 0.o Glacierfairy 08:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly a possibility, but i think it'd be best to have a consistent format (even if it's non-ideal) than to have two competing ones, so can we stick with the bold at least until we come to a consensus and (if applicable) fix them all?  ♥ kine @ 17:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I've already un-bolded all the kanji, unless I've missed some. If you refer to the issue of bolded katakana vs. kanji, the difference is one of the character. Kanji fit many strokes into the same compact space occupied by a simple katakana character. When kanji is bolded, some of the subtler details within a character risk being lost into one homogenous bold blob. Such a similar issue doesn't occur in the much sparser katakana. Iracundus 07:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
No, but it's inconsistent and will appear to be a formatting over-sight if we bold one and not the other. I would add, btw, that both the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias bold kanji/hanzi. Admittedly their fonts are slightly larger  ♥ kine @ 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any formatting over-sight or issue with having one set of rules for kanji and another set for katakana. Iracundus 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Just wondering, do the sources say how much the railgun round weighs? Even a 5kg round would produce a yield of 134.4 kilotons at that speed. Vympel 13:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No mass given for the round unfortunately. However as you have stated, any reasonably sized round would have quite big yields. However the limiting factors in the weapon would be the relatively low speed compared to the neutron beam cannons and also the lack of final terminal guidance. The impression I get is that these space railguns are short range, inaccurate, but devastating when they hit. Although I do not recall seeing Alliance ships firing them, I have wondered whether the photon torpedo lookalikes fired by the Imperial ships could be meant as a representation of a railgun, even though they are visually moving much slower than 5% lightspeed. Iracundus 08:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Very difficult to find pics for the battleship that are satisfactory / aren't more appropriate for Ulysses. Vympel 04:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, just noticed - where are the additional three fighters, according to the data book? Vympel 08:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. It doesn't say. It just says the capacity. If I had to personally speculate, I'd say stacked on top of one of those rows of 3. But then we never see details of fighter operations from the battleships. We only see Katerose in episode 102 launch and then fly between the ventral antenna of a battleship. Iracundus 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The missile launch in episode 71 I always thought was from Diomedes not the standard battleship next to it. Looking closely the contrails seem to emerge from the side of the Diomedes. Iracundus 08:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a good media player like VLC or MPC, you can run it frame by frame, its clear the missiles couldn't be coming from anywhere else but the battleship (also this is another example of cold launch):-; Vympel 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also I messed up, its Episode 71, whoops.Vympel 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, never saw the projectiles before launch. Somehow the idea of a cold launch didn't cross my mind. Iracundus 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Just wanted to say, all of these articles like this are fantastic! Great job! The only issues i notice off-hand are the italics in the titles, which i can correct later (either by overriding the ship infobox italics or by creating a new infobox especially for ship classes/types), and also the use of 'Modern' — seems inconsistent with our narrative perspective, which is that of a future observer.  ♥ kine @ 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgot about that - I really need to go through all the ship articles and make sure the past tense is used consistently, sometimes I forget. What to replace it with ... maybe nothing? Maybe just have it "Alliance battleship" (or whatever) whilst the previous eras speak for themselves ... Vympel 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We could either get rid of the modern era bit entirely or we could do something like 796 UC era Iracundus 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe 'Early War' and 'Late War' would work? FPA Forever
There are still the 2nd Tiamat ones (745 UC era). Plus the Hameln II which seems to be an intermediate design between the 745 UC destroyers and the 796 UC ones. Iracundus 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, when Siegmeister defected in 728 UC, he surrendered himself to an Alliance patrol, which clearly used the same ships as those of 745 UC. Thus, I'd safely call the Second Battle of Tiamat designs 'Mid-War' warships. FPA Forever


Is it just me, or are the dimensions relatively the same between battleships of 640 and 788? Does this mean that the Alliance generally kept the same general dimensions over the 250 or more years that the Star Fleet existed?

What do you guys think? FPA Forever

They're similar, but even an increase in length by 18.4m and width by 3 metres is enough to add a significant amount of internal volume. Height is iffy since they include antennae. Vympel 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
True, but still, that increase of 18.4 meters and 3 meters came over at least a century of time. Very small changes in such a long time. FPA Forever
Technological progress may mean also things miniaturize. If you look by comparison at the Imperial ships, they seem to have shortened but plumped out in width and height, presumably due to the nacelle arrangement over the old everything in a single hull design. Iracundus 08:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Dimensions are always a tricky thing. I suspect the Alliance eventually standardized on a general design that they felt fulfilled the battleship paradigm, and simply updated that broad design once technology had been refined (after being trialed on the flagships, which show great variation over time). It is worth noting though that the ships Bruce Ashbey commanded bear little resemblance to either those of Lin Pao or Yang's era. The one092001 14:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Tool box