Found a couple while cleaning out my BattleTech folder this week.
It's weird that the period from 3050 to 3081 hasn't (to my knowledge) been recognized as the Fifth Succession War, in line with how the first three Succession Wars are defined. The famous "Year of Peace" from the end of 3050 to the end of 3051, the year (if you ignore the Capellans) after Task Force Serpent returns in early 3061, and the half year between the FCCW and Jihad are more akin to the lull in the middle of the Fourth Succession War than to the larger gaps between Succession Wars.
I view the
BattleDroids continuity as the result of Kerensky choosing to stay in the Inner Sphere, and I'm baffled that anyone thinks the Hegemony could attract and sustain enough of the SLDF to survive.
It bugs me when newer TROs give the average "notable warrior" more space than the average overview, that "capabilities" seems to be shrinking into irrelevance, how battle stories get shoehorned into the "warrior" entries instead of the deployment history, and in general that the mix of content no longer fits the traditional sectioning. It's fine that the mix of content has changed, just, maybe ditch the old headers and get new ones that organize the content more aesthetically.
Players using the phrase "Alpha Strike" for firing all of a unit's weapons in a single turn is useful and fun and fine, but I'm always disappointed to see characters or in-universe documents use it the same way. Pulling every trigger simultaneously isn't a good idea (see:
Scarabus arm assembly, Vlad's first(?) Trial against Phelan), and there's nothing remarkable about staggering your fire over five, ten, fifteen or any other arbitrary number of seconds; that all goes double if the interval of fire has no bearing on anything else in the story. In the old card game (and I believe in real life), the term "Alpha Strike" involves running your ammo bins dry; I don't remember what commands you could give your AI lancemates in the MechWarrior videogames, but it wouldn't surprise me if it worked the same way there too.
I am to this day confused at how the "scale" chart in the back of TR:3039 got greenlighted.
Also, tangential to this topic but in the same general vein, it bothers me when confusion or disagreement about the semantics involved in a discussion get confused for the discussion itself. Years back, that eventually happened enough times, and I was still invested enough, that I started
a whole other thread for the most frequently disruptive terms.