Talk:First Battle of Hoover Dam

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "First Battle of Hoover Dam".
It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use the forums for these purposes.

Anyone know how to get rid of the '{' on top of the template. I attempted to get rid of it, but to no avail. Any help? Kastera1000 03:50, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure it out either, from here. Seems like a waste of time to me, all these fancy datarows. :/ Nitty Tok. 03:59, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Nice! We fixed it. I am oh so happy! Kastera1000 22:56, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

General or Chief?[edit source]

Hanlon was listed as a general because he was referred to as such in this edit, before the infobox had been added. Presumably this information was not made up, and it does seem unlikely that he would lead the NCR at the rank of Chief (given that it is General Oliver who leads the second battle), although I would like to see a source for it before it is re-added to the article. --Flower of Pock-Lips 16:56, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Hanlon is never referred to as a general in the game. The rank structure of the NCR Rangers is different to that of the regular NCR Army. Oliver was actually the commander of the army forces during the first battle as well, but it were Hanlon's rangers that won it. Ausir(talk) 17:02, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

New Picture needed[edit source]

The current one is inaccurate to the current Fallout Universe.

Willow?[edit source]

Wtf is the Battle Of Willow Beach? The page has been created 6 times by some wannabe Troll. Trolly Polly Olly 12:14, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently mentioned in the official game guide, and until a little bit ago was linked on this article. I unlinked it to help prevent further spam creation until such a time as someone who knows something about the battle can create the page properly. --Kris User Hola.jpg 12:23, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Direct referenceing[edit source]

Please don't revert my edit back. To make the article as accurate as possible we add the whole reference along with it's source in the article.--Ant2242 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you cluttering up the references when you can just link directly to the quote in question? All you accomplish is wasting space on the page. The entire purpose of my project is to allow people to link to a quote instead of having to paste it into the references. Stop reverting my edit. --VaultPowerUser (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

68 Tribes at the First Battle of Hoover Dam?[edit source]

Personally, I do not think it is accurate to state that the Legion was made up of "68 reconditioned tribes" during the First Battle of Hoover Dam. This seems to only be put because Ulysses states that Lanius conquered 19 tribes during his time with the Legion (its also referenced in the article), and warned of the NCR being the "twentieth tribe beneath his heel". It is implied by the "68 tribes" count in this article (and I believe in several other articles) that right after the Hidebarks were conquered and assimilated, Lanius immediately became the new legate (the previous one had just been.. "cast out"), and starting in 2277 until 2281, he conquered 19 tribes, integrating 14 and completely wiping out 5 of them. In his 4-year reign as legate, Lanius' victories seems to bring the total tribe count to 86. There are several problems with this. First of all, 86-14=72, so it should be "74 reconditioned tribes", not 68, and second of all, why would Caesar make Lanius his new legate and grant him the title of supreme military commander of Legion forces immediately?

There is no way he only conquered all of those tribes during his time as legate. It seems more likely that Lanius and his tribe was conquered in the early 2270s, and Lanius was granted a leadership role in the Legion, but was kept out east, away from the Mojave and Colorado river where the previous legate was building up forces for the first assault on Hoover Dam, which would also probably explain why he knew nothing of Lanius before he was cast out. In this period of time, Lanius was gifted his current name by Caesar himself, and probably conquered or exterminated a few tribes along the way. When he became legate, he further expanded Legion campaigns in the east (like the costly Denver campaign), and conquered even more tribes, bringing his personal count to 19 tribes.

His personal tally should in no way be used to determine the Legion count. I'm also sure the two legates did not conquer all of the 86/87 tribes that the Legion is composed of. Take Gaius Magnus for example. His personal customized centurion armor is titled the "Armor of the 87th Tribe", suggesting he himself conquered the 87th tribe. There must be a handful or so of centurions who conquered and exterminated their fair share of tribes. Anyways, the tribe count for the Legion should not be stated at all in this article, as it would be impossible to determine the amount at the time of the First Battle of Hoover Dam. All we know is Lanius conquered 19 (integrating 14), and Gaius Magnus conquered the 87th tribe. The "68 reconditioned tribes" should be removed, along with its reference. Rilery13 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You raise good points. I was writing a response, but all of what you write checks out. I can only congratulate you on this, it isn't every day that I meet someone as well versed in Fallout lore as you. Tagaziel (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :), I really appreciate that. I sometimes take pride in how much Fallout lore I know, but then I realize that knowing this stuff isn't going to pay off in the long run, and doesn't matter or contribute to real life whatsoever! But I do love reading about Fallout and especially playing the games. And to be honest, I was really surprised on how quickly the article changed after my comment. The "68 tribes" count was really bothering me, but it was a common mistake and could only be corrected if you delved deep into the lore (and had enough spare time!) like I did! Anyways, thank you for the edit on the whole article, and for your comment. :) Rilery13 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Thank YOU! Do you notice anything else?--Ant2242 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the article seems perfect, correct, and completely accurate. I personally love this battle in Fallout because it is so nicely and so finely fleshed out, much more than any other battle in the entire Fallout Universe perhaps, but I am not certain. The ONLY thing I personally have a problem with is the fact that it is mentioned that after the battle, the NCR celebrates the battle back home "despite heavy casualties". From the Boulder City Memorial, we know the NCR suffered 107 fatalities during the battle. How could 107 dead be considered "heavy casualties"?

Chief Hanlon mentions that the war with the Legion (in the Mojave theater at least) yields loses of "over a thousand troops every year". Assuming the war started in 2077, 4 years of war has brought the NCR at least 4,000 dead troopers. That's 40 times the casualties at the First Battle of Hoover Dam! The count of at least 4,107 dead troopers in the war in no way alters or hinders the NCR Army to keep a nice firm grasp on the region, as the NCR has entire battalions and companies of soldiers stationed in the Mojave, with bunches of camps and outposts. Don't get me wrong, 107 dead troopers is still a lot of casualties, but I personally wouldn't consider them "heavy". What I like to think is that maybe the NCR suffered hundreds, maybe even over a thousand wounded troopers and rangers at the First Battle, and these casualties combined with the killed NCR troopers would overall make the losses for the NCR "heavy". It isn't extremely important to mention or even talk about, just something that bugs me personally. But oh well, it can't be changed, and the celebrations are considered cannon. I don't doubt the NCR wouldn't celebrate, of course they would. Just the fact they are celebrating due to "heavy casualties" does just not seem accurate. I'm not saying to consider changing the article, just acknowledge this. But that is just me :). Rilery13 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One could argue "game logic".--Ant2242 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha very true! Rilery13 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive the shameless self-promotion:

The New California Republic Army has at least ten battalions in total, Rangers and soldiers counted together, and is able to withstand the loss of one thousand troops each year in the Mojave Campaign alone without compromising their combat capability. This translates to some 90 troopers dying each month. Given that the loss of 103 troopers at the First Battle of Hoover Dam was considered heavy losses, but acceptable, this is data that can be used to make a very rough estimate.

I'm drawing on real world data, so this may be sketchy. During the Battle of Tarawa, the United States Marine Corps lost about 5% of men in battle, with a further 7% wounded, which was classified as heavy losses. Battle of Iwo Jima had close to 10% killed, and 20% wounded.

Assuming that heavy losses that do not destroy the military potential of a given formation will typically on the level of 5-10% of the manpower (remember, the effect amplifies for smaller armies and the NCRA certainly is smaller), and that the First Battle for Hoover Dam consumed around that mark, then I estimate that the NCRA had between 2,000 and 1,000 troops (roughly a battalion) committed to Hoover Dam.

Assuming that the Boulder City memorial is dedicated exclusively to the memory of those lost at Hoover Dam and not other camps, you're looking at several thousand of troops in the Mojave theater. If five battalions are committed to the Mojave campaign (assuming Hayes' is the highest number), that's anywhere between 10,000 and 5,000 troops, with thousands of troops on the home front.

Furthermore, that allows you to estimate the size of the Brotherhood force. If between 2,000 and 1,000 troops are committed to a major battle, and Operation Sunburst certainly qualifies as one, and the Brotherhood was outnumbered by a factor of ten to fifteen, then there were anywhere between 75 and 200 military personnel at Helios One. No Brotherhood civilians (if they can be called that) were present there according to sources, but since it's unlikely that the Paladin is larger or much smaller than the others, I think you can estimate Initiates, Scribes, and Knights at about double their number.

That's a grand total of circa 225 to 600 people per chapter. Compared to thousands of troops the NCR has at its disposal, they're outnumbered.

Veronica does say something that indicates this rough estimate can be more or less accurate: "I'm worried they'll be the death of the Brotherhood. They take what they want. We defend our interests to the death. But there's a handful of us and tens or hundreds of thousands of them. So it's not going to end well. Last time we clashed we lost a lot of people. Retreated to our bunker. Now we're afraid to even move around during the day."

Several thousand sounds a bit much? The Legion assimilated a total of 87 tribes. The exact size of the tribe varies, but if you make a conservative estimate of a contribution of 100 men from each tribe, ignoring natural growth from slave births, and enslavement of peoples not aligned with any particular tribe, that gives you a respectable force of minimum 8700 fierce troops. The bulk of the army travels with Caesar, so that's thousands of troops committed to the front. By comparison, the NCR doesn't look lost.

Hanlon confirms that the Legion indeed comprises thousands of troops:

"{a little angry}The Legion is more than just Caesar! It's got the momentum of thousands of men behind it."

Please point out errors in my reasoning, I'd like to include bits of it on The Vault, but it needs to be impeccable.

Basically, losing a month's worth of soldiers in a single battle is heavy casualties. Note that it also meant that the NCR retained operational capability. Tagaziel (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that is incredible. Congratulations on doing and figuring out all of that. It answers all my questions and then some. It definitely makes complete sense and I can't think of any better reasoning. It must have taken you a while to piece all of that together, but thank you for doing so.

Here's a question though, but it does not conflict or really involve with your reasoning. I definitely agree on at least a thousand or so soldiers were committed at Hoover Dam, and subsequently continued occupying the area, but where do you think all of these soldier's were stationed and slept? And how would you organize the units of the NCRA? Personally, I estimated that a battalion's strength was 384 men, and would be commanded by a colonel, although I am probably wrong. But if there are all these thousands of soldiers, where do they go? There's approx 40 soldiers at Camps Forlorn Hope and Golf, and around 60 beds at Camp McCarran, and only around 8-12 soldiers or beds at smaller camps like Bitter Springs, the El Dorado Substation, and the Sharecropper Farms. So, where are all the soldiers going to sleep? Of course, the main reason could be game limitations, but what do you think? Rilery13 (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical limitations. The world is scaled down by a factor of 16, so what you see is a compressed version of how it would appear in reality. For reference, try to get from Vegas to Henderson in the game and then in real life. Google Maps is of great help. Tagaziel (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I figured. I knew it was scaled down, just not to that factor of 16. Its too bad they couldn't do a full scale game, but I understand there are major limitations and that probably the majority of players would absolutely hate it. And I'll definitely be checking out Google Maps. Rilery13 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)