Talk:Quetzalcoatl

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Name issue

This ship brings up a new issue - this is a ship that is never explicitly named in any version of the OVA. It is only named in licensed material. An FFC for this ship hasn't been done yet - however, 1/5000 models of this ship have been done by Alba-Create (they also make the FFC models, by the way) attesting to that name (check discontinued items on HLJ) and on the fansite with the .gifs. This brings me to ask - is there any purpose in treating the licensed models non-canon? What about them could possibly be non-canon? All they really have to tell us is the name of the ship - and there's a website with nice pics of them that would be useful for weapons count. This issue will come up several times more - Merktaz' and Staden's ship in ONW, for example. Vympel 08:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no issue at all with using the names, i think we're all agreed on that already. I've even put on the canon policy page that it's OK to use secondary/licensed sources for names if the official sources don't contain them. So that is no problem.

I also agree that it's acceptable to use licensed sources in the infoboxes, as we have been doing with FFC. If there's another citation code that i should make for the 1/5000 models so we can use weapon counts or whatever from those in the infoboxes, i will def do that as well. Just let me know what they should be called!

The only thing i am hesitant about is mixing secondary/licensed information into the main body of the article (above the 'Appendices' section). I think doing that would represent a serious inconsistency with relation to other sources, would make articles too volatile (new merchandise is coming out all the time for example), and would make it difficult for us to ever say that the main body of the article is 'complete' (again, because new merchandise is coming out all the time). If we limit secondary/licensed stuff to their own sections under Appendices, then it's all clearly delineated.  ♥ kine @ 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, I should've rechecked the policy page, I was going by vague memory! But yeah, a citation code for the Alba Create models. Hmmm. ACM? As for the licensed information/ appendices issue, I think we've discussed it in the past, I believe Canary and my opinion was that if we put say, the significant amount of fluff text in the FFC booklets (when we translate them - a fellow on SDN recently managed to translate a lot of info on the Battle of Dagon from the old-style battleship entries in those booklets by use of WebOCR and copious auto-translation checking and rechecking!) in Appendices the situation would soon arise that the Appendices are far longer and more informative than the main article. Anyway, not really relevant to this issue, that was just me forgetting to check the policy page, derp. Vympel 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Appendices sections are often going to have that 'issue' anyway, once we really get going. It's unavoidable, especially with subjects that don't have a lot of appearances in the OVA like some of these ships and most of the starzones — the combination of novels, manga, video games, background information, &c., is going to outweigh the anime-derived information almost every time. The addition of a paragraph or two from the model books isn't going to change that. And i think that's perfectly OK, personally

As an aside: How did we determine that Hawood was the one who surrendered to Kircheis in 015? I see where the surrender happens, and i see that the Japanese Wikipedia agrees with our text, but when i look at the episode i can't find any mention of specifically who it was. Does this come from some other source or did i miss something?  ♥ kine @ 04:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the episode Bergengrun reports to Kircheis that "the enemy commander" had agreed to surrender. Now, that does leave open the possibility that Hawood was killed / incapacitated and it was his replacement who did the surrendering I guess ... Vympel 08:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, i mean, how do we know that it's the 7th Fleet as opposed to some other one? Just process of elimination or does it actually say?  ♥ kine @ 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I get it - yes they do say - when the 13th Fleet arrives in the system, they note this is where the 7th Fleet was stationed, but its gone, and only the Kircheis Fleet is waiting for them. Its also process of elimination - the Kicheis Fleet could not have made any other fleet surrender, since they're all accounted for throughout the episode. Vympel 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, i see. That's what i was looking for, cheers  ♥ kine @ 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Data book

Given the data book provides dimensions and crew numbers for ships not yet covered by the FFCs (I assume) would it be worth doing a mini FFC style cite code to put in the ship info box? Maybe "DB" or something? Vympel 04:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the dimensions for this one, and the Krishna, came from the DVD features. Given how the other Alliance flagship dimensions have matched perfectly the FFC ones, I have no reason to doubt them. The Imperial ones however have a few typo errors. I'm looking for dimensions on the Valkyrie and the crew size for Imperial destroyers as the number given seems low. Might need to do a Gaiden census of that destroyer Reinhard was on. Anyway, I think we might ultimately need Data Book and DVD feature as mini cite codes.

The next tricky step and one which I've thus far been avoiding has been for those ships where there is discrepancy between the FFC and the earlier Data Book. This seems to be because there seems to have been reversal of idea and decision sometime between the Data Book and the FFC. For some ships it is relatively minor such as the exact number of fighters carried. However for others it is more significant. For example, Tristan is now said in the FFC to have a funky experimental electromagnetic/gravity force field defensive device in its prow mount whereas before in the Data Book it hinted that it was a weapon mount. But that pales in comparison to the Hyperion which in the Data Book was written as a new construction but in the DVD features and FFC is written as an older generation ship (and the anime stylistically parallels it with the bridge appearance and outward appearance of the Hard Luck).

Does anyone have the FFC 10 booklet scanned and available by any chance? Iracundus 05:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re sources and citations: Whatever source it is is fine, since i guess we've settled on allowing secondary/licensed shit in the infoboxes. I will make some more citations for them eventually (whether it's DVD features or Data Book it's necessary). Still lots of things going on right now, sorry if i'm once again side-tracked for a while. :/ Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if anything needs immediate attention, of course

Re discrepancies: I agree that will be tricky. I guess i can see only two consistent (and by that i mean no case-by-case stuff) options at the moment — either carry on our newest-wins policy (the most recent source is correct); or simply avoid structuring contradictory data in a way that forces us to choose (i.e., just present each source separately in a 'here's what this says, now here's what that says' sort of way). But it will probably require further thought i guess

Re FFC10: No scans that i know of, but Vympel owns it, so he can probably be our source :)  ♥ kine @ 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have FFC10, so I can scan the booklet, only problem is taking it into work to do it. I'll try and remember to do it before the end of the week. Scanner at home sucks. Reminds me I had to scan the back of the FFC boxes too for the FFC section. Re: Valkyries, here's Reinhard's cruiser launching them from the Retriever arc of the Gaiden:-

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6581/uglyducklingvalk.jpg (finished coming out of hangars) http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2946/uglyducklingvalk2.jpg (rotate and fly away)

Animation scaling being consistent all the time is very hard to do though.Vympel 09:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Imperial cruisers have hatches all over the place. From pop-up turrets to pop-up missile launchers, to Valkyries in the front section. I always thought they would have come from like the rear bottom section like the Imperial battleship. Another point I notice is the total length for that configuration of the Valkyrie seems to be greater than the width of the cruiser. Also the two launch ports on either side cannot be completely symmetrical as otherwise there would not be enough internal space for both Valkyries. At times I think the Alliance survived as long as it did because Imperial designers over-engineered their designs, with excessive features and using the most complicated way to accomplish something (like the Valkyrie launch method compared to the Spartanian). Iracundus 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, well the cruiser's width does "taper" outwards from the front to the back, so it depends on where exactly the hatches are. Its not the best perspective to judge that (cruisers are 141m wide, with the engines sticking out the most). One positive of the Imperial launch method for fighters is that they're not as exposed to getting blown up. Though destroyers do deploy Valykries sorta like the Alliance method. Vympel 11:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have found my old Alba Create Mechanical Photo File book, published 1998, which thus predates the Data Book by about 1 year. The Valkyrie is given with length 25m, in its forward thrust configuration. If it swings its thrusters around 360 like in the launch configuration, that would mean it is approximately 50m from tip to tip (approximate since the other two arms of the Valkyrie are slightly shorter). However given that the picture shows the launch occurring forward of the silver domes of the cruiser, that still makes it somewhat dubious that there is enough clearance for 2 Valkyries of total tip to tip length 100m. Iracundus 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Valkyrie's dimensions in forward thrust configuration is given as 25x8x8 metres, for minimum volume of 1600 cubic metres. However given its launch configuration that at least doubles to 3200 cubic metres for a Valkyrie hangar. Iracundus 13:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a digression but as an example of Imperial over-engineering I point to the Imperial standard battleship's lower rear engine. Not only does it serve as the engine spewing out hot plasma, it houses Valkyries, is the main load bearing point for ground landing, has the ground ramp for unloading personnel, and appears to have missile launchers (as shown in episode 102). What were the designers thinking, putting missiles and fuelled up fighter craft right next to an engine? No wonder the ships explode like bombs when hit. :) Iracundus 14:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I love that missile launching shot in Episode 102. It looks beautiful. But in terms of landing - Imperial ships don't actually touch the ground when they land, do they? They sort of float few metres off. Vympel 08:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm I might be wrong on that one. It looks like they hover really close. However in episode 26, it does look like the lower section of Imperial ships touch the water, and at least one looks like it might be knocking aside trees (though that might also simply be thrusters at work). As for the missiles, if one pauses and looks at them they look different from the laser fusion missiles fired in episode 15 or My Conquest is the Sea of Stars, and their impact on Alliance battleships looks to destroy only the front section, with still major debris leftover, inclining me to think they are conventional warheads. Iracundus 10:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure about their being conventional- remember (I just did now, lol) that we also see the "Brunhild-design" nuclear fusion missiles fired at the Alliance supply fleet in Episode 14, and they rip into Alliance battleships in much the same manner. The ones in Episode 102 may well be just a different model. Refer also to Episode 2 of HBSHBL in the Gaiden, the nuclear fusion missiles (they're called "bombs" in the subs but they're clearly missiles) fired by the battleships on Van Fleet 4-2 are a different model to the MCISS/14/15 missiles. Another wild card is the comparatively tiny 'bomb' style weapon fired by the Imperial gunship at the battleship during the 4th Battle of Tiamat. Vympel 01:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The hard part is we don't have to my knowledge very concrete data on missile types. There have to be performance differences to justify carrying so many missile types, especially how they seemed to be crammed into every free space on board the Imperial standard battleship, and for why we don't seem to see the other types more often than the episode 14/15 ones. I don't think there is any doubt the "bomb" fired by the gunship is nuclear, given its devastating effects on the entirety of the Alliance battleship hull. However at some level one has to wonder if they were so effective, why aren't they used all the time? Why bother with their normal weaponry? Ultimately I think the only rationales would be cost/supply issues, and range. Perhaps the episode 102 missiles are shorter effective range, allowing for smaller missiles and thus more missiles to be crammed on board, whereas the longer episode 14/15 ones have greater range but therefore take up more storage space. Iracundus 05:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)