Talk:Cylon Tactics/Archive 1

I was opposed to the needless addition of this material to the main Cylon article by Jzanjani, and I am now happy that it has been given its own distinct page as opposed to cluttering up the main Cylon articles. Just wanted to meniton that. Stay the course. --Ricimer 21:16, 30 December 2005 (EST)

Light Bombers

There's a Heavy Raider link with a description including "light bomber." What's the justification behind this description? Raiders carry nukes, which are the closest thing to an anti-capital ship torpedo around, making them fighters with the (curiously under-utilized) capacity to act as torpedo bombers. I can't quite think of anything that could be analogous to more conventional bombers while spaceborne, so I have to assume torpedo bomber is the sense meant. Did I forget a Heavy Raider with nukes that appeared somewhere? If so, I might wonder why this makes it a light bomber while the Raider is not; it hasn't been seen to act regularly as such, and boarding parties and torpedoes are somewhat incompatible strategies, making simultaneous implementations in a single vehicle seem odd to me. --CalculatinAvatar 23:45, 30 December 2005 (EST)

This happened before your time Calc, but this entire section was rapidly written by that weirdo Jzanjani, who, in my personal opinion, never contributed anything of value to this wiki whatsover and had no firm grasp of anything BSG-related. Of course, this is my own opinion, to which I am entitled on a talk page, and for which the evidence speaks for itself. Regardless, I had many complaints when this section was added but consensus was against me. Quite frankly, most stuff he wrote here was either A) Totally redundant and covered elsewhere or B) Inaccurate. It was like he was trying to make his own light-fanfic by forcing BSG-stuff into the mold of some sort of hardcore military video-game set of rules, i.e. arbitrarily deciding that a Heavy Raider is a 'light bomber' when it is in fact a heavy fighter/troop transport. Just edit it and don't hesitate on this one.--Ricimer 00:20, 31 December 2005 (EST)