Talk:Turn-based tactics

Video games High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Merger

If a merger should be made again, it should be in the other direction, as this article has greater scope. SharkD 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and more titles

The article seems to be off to a good start, though it should be edited some more.

Similar to the real-time tactics article there should be (non-confrontational) comparisons to other turn-based strategy games, like Heroes of Might and Magic, Warlords, and even Civilization, to emphasise the focus and difference of TBT games. Also, a section on on-line "play-by-email" games might be in order, since they are TBT games, only multiplay over longer time.

As for titles, I'm certain there are titles currently shoe-horned into the tactical turn based role playing games article that should be lifted here. On the top of my mind I remember a few games that should deserves a discussion here, also:

Laser Squad (I think it was called)
Jagged Alliance
"Battle Isle: Incubation" was an early 3D TBT Miqademus 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre bounds

The turn-based strategy article already discusses play-by-email games. Also, all the titles you listed are either discussed or categorized under the tactical role-playing game article. Finally, I'm not able to write more on this subject (notice that I copied all the text in this article from other articles). SharkD 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes TRPGs from tactical wargames? I'm leaning toward this: In tactical wargames "units range from individual vehicles and squads to platoons or companies". In TRPGs units are people. SharkD 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth said, the distinctions made between TRPGs and TBT are, well "blurry" is the nice way of putting "artificial". Still, there exist a distinction and it should be documented. Laser Squad, Jagged Allience, Incubation, and other titles, are turn-based strategy, not tactical role playing games, in a few areas: (1) they are not based/spin-offs on primarily Japanese RPGs; (2) they do not focus to the same extent on "Bing! Level up!" classical RPG memes; and (3) TRPGs tend to usually be played on smaller maps, with less fog of war, etc. So, in sum, TBT is the genre/category under which TRPGs would be an archetype/subspecification/distinction. Therefore, as I said above, some of the titles currently shoehorned in under the TRPG article should be moved here. Also, a merger would be inadvisable, however, the TRPG article should be updated to indicate that TRPGs are a subtype under TBT. Miqademus 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these games should be moved to the TBT article. TRPG is the genre they belong in. I also think the TBT article should remain as it is: directing readers to the TRPG and TWG articles. SharkD 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

There's a debate, of sorts, as to whether the turn-based system is more tactical by nature than the real-time system. We should make some mention of that. We can use this as a reference. SharkD 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in the turn-based strategy and real-time strategy articles. SharkD 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Games

There's no love for the tactics genre at Moby Games. SharkD 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Examples

Combat Mission! That's a brilliant, prime example. The scale can be from 1 squad to an entire regiment, and it involves an insane ammount of realistic bullet-deflecting calculations! :) 81.99.62.39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.62.39 (talk) 19:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SPWAW shot 01.jpg

Image:SPWAW shot 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Wars

I'm not sure Fantasy Wars should be included in this genre. The website says that you can control up to 500 units. This doesn't seem like the type of small-scale confrontations indicative of the genre. Also, the website doesn't say so, but I suspect that the game will feature base building/production found in more strategic titles. SharkD (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the game has been released already. There doesn't seem to be any base building in the game. And, units are bought, not produced. Also, both the IGN preview and review seem to emphasize the use of tactics over strategy. SharkD (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tested it, and it is somewhat of a borderline case. It is not archetypal TBT in that you have very few factical options, and using hexagons makes it appear similar to TBS, but I'd say that the game quite clearly belongs to this genre. What is it called on the developer's homepage? Miqademus (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilisation series?

Shouldn't the Civilisation series of computer games be listed on this article?58.168.120.205 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete merger

Resolved

– The result of the discussion was: Keep as is

Turn-based strategy is almost the exact same thing as Turn-based tactics. "Turn-based tactics do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage." I do not think that this is sufficient enough for a strategy game to be called a tactics game. Chess is a strategy game as well as a tactics game. Wikipedia is the only website on the net that claims a difference between strategy and tactics, therefore we need to delete the Turn-based tactics article and merge the content into Turn-based strategy. Comments are welcome. -- penubag 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I decided to move/collect some of the sources here, as they were used excessively in too few places. SharkD (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEGO is not a Combat Mission innovation

Article claims Combat Mission innovated unique "WEGO" system. That is not true. Many classical computer wargames, like Kampfgruppe, had a "WEGO" system.Burninghull (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]