Talk:Computer wargame

message: I think the support for the existence of this article is rather weak. I.e., what began as a minor aside in the Wargaming article should remain as such. (E.g., "...so the term 'wargame' is not traditionally used in the context of computer games.") I also object to the broadening of the definition to include real-time strategy, turn-based strategy, real-time tactics and turn-based tactics. With the exception of the last two, these can be rendered to include non-war-themed games, as well. Sure, the Strategy game article groups them into "wargames", but it doesn't say this genre exists. This also adds to the confusion regarding the genre classification debate, as we have, effectively, nine categories to choose from. SharkD (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: :Image:Vaslforsl.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vaslforsl.jpg

message: :Image:Warcraft 3 Humans fight Orcs cropped screenshot.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Warcraft 3 Humans fight Orcs cropped screenshot.jpg

message: This article is at odds with opinions expressed elsewhere. For instance, according to one Gamespy article, "a wargame's armed conflict is either based in history, or a conceivable alternate history." The scope of this article is much broader, and includes just about any strategy game with combat in it. This should be corrected. SharkD (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support that. There is definitely enough information out there to talk about PC wargames, but right now this article is in rough shape. Randomran (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried to update the article to reflect this. SharkD (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: Total War %28series%29 is worth mentioning I think. And not so apparent at first glance - Sword of the Stars.
The former is widely known while the latter is not and is usually called a 4X-hybrid and thus I should explain:
It's a turn-based game with focus on real time space combat with lots of thought behind it's design down to the crew sizes dependant on specific ship design and species physique. Ship loadouts differ depending on the race reflecting their proposed mindset and their FTL drive tech. Story writer and lead designer of the developer team are still presenting players with loads of the background info on the game forum. Game AI is tuned to follow specific racial traits.
Combat itself is in 3D with ships affected by inertia. There are no chances to hit - every shot is simulated with a chance to deflect from armored surfaces. Per poly targeting. Each turret is a separate entity and each ship is composed of 3 sections with separate functions which can be destroyed independantly. The usual trick is to blow up an engine section so that the ship would drift away from the main combat allowing your forces to focus their fire on other targets. HPs are not shown - instead you are given a vague evaluation of the ship's state.
To classify by unit and map scale it's a strategic wargame with tech advancement, really simplified colony development and ship design for turn-based part.
Hope someone else would also find it interesting.
-- 91.77.215.45 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some other games 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Non-contested move   (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wargame (video games) →  – Per the lack of dissent in this WPVG thread, I propose that this article be moved to reflect the vast, vast usage of the term "computer wargame" by reliable sources. It stretches from the 1980s through today. There is no term for this genre more prominent or more widely-accepted than "computer wargame"; Wikipedia already, correctly, uses the term "board wargame" that reliable sources have used to delineate tabletop and computer-based titles for decades. 
It may seem strange to use "computer" in an article title, given that the WPVG MOS requires us to call computer games "video games", but this is a unique case. Wargame is one word; it cannot be written as war video game, in the way that we generalized computer role-playing games as role-playing video games. Video wargame is rarely used by reliable sources compared to computer wargame, and using it as the Wikipedia standard would give undue weight to the term. 
The current title of this page is vague, has no basis in reliable sources and cannot be delineated from board wargames in an article's text body: if you simply call something a wargame, it's a coin-toss whether you're talking about a board or computer game. The reader has no way of determining which it is without clicking a bluelink and seeing the parenthetical part of this page's title. Additionally, readers and editors familiar with the genre will be confused by the "Wargame (video games)" title in general, as it has no relationship with the way this genre is discussed anywhere besides Wikipedia itself. All of this makes for a counter-intuitive experience for both readers and editors, and does not reflect the way reliable sources describe the genre.
For all of these reasons, I think it's necessary to move the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 October 2020