Talk:Battle of Rantemario
From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki
When Bewcock launches all fighters, he orders all carriers and battleships under central command (i.e. the HQ fleet) to enter the front lines. This is confirmed by the official Chinese subtitles on the DVDs. In effect, he is committing his reserves. The fansub of placing all carriers and battleships under central command is erroneous. Iracundus 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Largest Battle of the War?
Shouldn't that go to Amritsar? FPA Forever
- It is close. Amritsar had the 13th Fleet, 8th Fleet, and 5th Fleet as still intact formations. However even then, the 8th and 5th Fleets had both suffered nearly 30% losses each. If we use 13,000 as the average sized fleet, then that means those two at 70% strength add up to 18,200. Was the 13th Fleet up to standard size yet? The Yang Fleet reached its size only as a result of absorbing Amritsar survivors. Iracundus 12:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that it was reinforced up to normal size by then. It didn't seem to be out-matched by Kempf's fleet, or any of the others it fought at Amritsar. It was always illustrated as being the same size on the tactical maps. Does anyone recall the normal manpower complement of an Alliance fleet? The invasion plans stated 8 fleets with 30,227,400 men. That's about 3.78 million each, although that likely includes logistics units.
- The 13th Fleet absorbed the remainder of the 2nd, and possibly the 4th and 6th, Fleet(s) in order to reach normal fleet size by the time of the invasion and Amritsar. This happened soon after Iserlohn fell if I recall correctly. Either way I had assumed after viewing the series that the overall Alliance invasion of the Empire was the largest campaign of the war, with easily the largest amount of ships and soldiers taking part. However, Rantemario was the largest gathering of ships at a single point for a single battle. When the Yang Fleet is factored in, which I think should be, then Rantemario should be the largest battle. Speaking of, Yang's fleet should be listed in the forces list but with it clearly stating that they joined at the absolute end of the battle. Strayor 17:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes — also, names of battles
I've been thinking about battle pages in general terms for a while - I think they should have infoboxes like wikipedia does. There's almost always enough data in the show to fill them out pretty well. Vympel 14:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- If we can, that'd be great, since it would help us get lists out of the article and into the 'strength' column, such as the list of fleets from the Second Battle of Tiamat page, and rather conclusively lets one briefly glance to figure out the forces, commanders, and who won. I suppose the question is do we start assigning classifications to victories? Such as the 'Decisive Victory' category on Wikipedia, and the 'Tactical (X) Victory, Strategic (Y) Victory'. The one092001 15:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a good idea, and agree that we should put as much information in there as we can possibly 'standardise' (including the outcome). If you guys want to put together a list of all of the fields that should be present in such an infobox, i can quickly do up a template and some documentation.
- Also, since i've got you — i can't remember where i posted it, but at one point i had enquired about what our policy should be regarding the names of battles. I have always felt we should use or emulate whatever names the official/licensed sources use, which typically (but not always) contain the word starzone or something at the end; Canary meanwhile had decided that starzone was redundant and removed it from all of our existing articles.
- This has left me in somewhat of a dilemma, because the renaming of all of those articles has created a huge number of broken redirects, and i don't want to have the bot correct them until we sort this question out.
- What do you guys reckon? ♥ kine @ 23:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think "Starzone" is clunky and redundant myself. Now for battle infobox, looking at wikipedia I'd say date, location, result, commanders and leaders, strength, and casualties and losses, should be included. Now in terms of how to set up the results - I think we should play it by ear for now, see what feels right when we're playing with them. Vympel 08:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Starzone is clunky and redundant. The infobox is good for describing the basic statistics, at least for those battles where we have complete stats. One thing however is the terms 'decisive victory' because for the war to drag on for 150 years, many victories despite being great ones such as 2nd Tiamat were not truly decisive as the war continued in a stalemate. In the FPA-Imperial War page, I have used either "major victory" "victory" and "minor victory" to denote various degrees of victory.
- The other point that I think would be difficult to squeeze into an infobox is the flagship of each officer. We have many flagship articles but I think few links to them for new readers that may be unfamiliar with what flagship each character (especially more minor ones) might have had. Iracundus 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like i'm outnumbered on the name thing. OK, we'll do it that way.
- I will start working on a template shortly, will update again a bit ♥ kine @ 21:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to vote in favor of re-adding 'starzone' if that's what the characters use, but if the matter is decided, that's how the cookie crumbles. As for victory descriptors, it's just another matter of subjectivity as to what 'decisive' means. As for infobox fields, the usual ones are dates, location, result (win/loss), effects (changes to the strategic situation, if any), then belligerent factions, commanders, strength, and finally casualties. The one092001 22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reckon we're still outnumbered either way. :/ Anyway, i think i've got the infobox nearly done, take a look at the test page: Template:Infobox/battle/test
- Does that look good? Any suggestions? Do the headers ('Belligerents', 'Units', &c.) look out of place? What do you guys think ♥ kine @ 23:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks great to me! Love the killed in action cross thingy too. Vympel 01:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks great to me. The one092001 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- If the template is done, can we start adding it to the battle pages? The one092001
- Sure why not. Vympel 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. I've put up the boxes for Astarte and Rantemario, feel free to add them to anything else. Sorry for my continued neglect :) ♥ kine @ 00:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)