Talk:Long War Table

Transport entry

Is the Transport entry really necessary? There's really not a reason to be transparent with the 90s version, as the 90s version actually allowed you to build transports, had different tiers, had possibility of them getting attacked, etc... In XCOM:EU/EW/LW, it's just one ship that can't be damaged, destroyed or rebuilt, and taxes a constant 20 credits per month. It doesn't seem to me like that warrants it's own page. Thels (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

There is no separate page for Transport. Skyranger is just mentioned on the Hangar page, which I think is fine. As for the entry on the main page, IMO both Interceptors and Transport should be deleted as they just link within a page, which is generally wrong for main page entries (no other entry links within a page). Riw (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

I did not want to undo the change by ‎Ushiwakamaru completely, as I felt that would be rude without placing his input somewhere. As Long War information is irrelevant in vanilla XCOM, I transposed it to the Long War section for the user. Perhaps the addition to the table was impulsive. However, in terms of aesthetic uniformity, vanilla XCOM table does not have Interceptor or Transport entries, so I agree with Riw that deletion of both entries would be prudent.--DracoGriffin (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Oh, I agree we should definitely keep the information about the Skyranger on the Hangar page. I just don't feel like it warrants it's own unique entry on the Long War index table, which would only cause it to get bloated. It's not a facility, after all, and as Riw said, it's not it's own page. Since we seem in agreement, I'm removing both entries from the Long War index table. Thels (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2015 (EDT)