Talk:Turn-based strategy

message: Parachese: Pachisi or Parcheesi? -phma
What?  No mention of RPGs? 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: So, I just came across Tactical role-playing game, a much more fleshed out version of Turn-based tactics. Personally, I'd like to move its content to Turn-based tactics on top of the existing article, but the reason I found TRPG in the first place was the fact that most game articles either link there or to one of the "strategy" articles. Nifboy 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More genre fun

message: I'm pretty surprised when the article "Turns" redirects to this article. It should be a disambig page instead. After all, people don't usually mean turn-based games whenever they say "turns". 203.117.28.221 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a disambig page: Turn. You'd think the plural should go to the singular form, not somewhere else entirely. So, I'm headed off to fix that. --Rindis 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turns redirect? 

message: "However, when a particular player gains access to the game during his/her turn it is not uncommon to value the time taken by the player to make the move to improve the fairness of the game."
I have to disagree with this statement. I think that stop-clocks make a game more playable--not more fair. In fact, I think that the use of stop-clocks is an err on the side of convenience at the expense of fairness. -SharkD 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness

message: I added a description of real-time hybrids, such as the Total War series. -SharkD 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real-time hybrids

message: I am pretty sure Weird Worlds is timed, except that the timer stops when the player's ship arrives at a planet. It can, however, be resumed. I am not sure it qualifies as a pure TBS. Chronolegion 13:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Worlds 

message: Should we start removing tactics games from the lists of games, since turn-based tactics has its own article? SharkD 07:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most instances of TBT games in the lists of games. Still not sure whether it is appropriate. SharkD 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turn-Based Tactics

message: A console is a computer. Why are there two sections of examples? SharkD 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most would argue that a "console game" and a "PC / computer game" are not the same. Differences include user interface and control methods, installation vs. play from removable media, etc. etc. They may both be examples of video games, but are not necessarily one and the same. -- Slordak 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. SharkD 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two sections?

message: All the examples that I recognize are "tactics" games and, therefore, belong in the tactics article, not here. If there are any real console strategy games, the please list them. SharkD 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Console examples

message: Artillery sub-genre isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I think its notable enough to be included. --Mika1h 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Artllery games can be realtime, too. I suggest you mention it in the strategy game article. SharkD 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble figuring out why these games are considered strategy games. Seems more like a complicated shooter. SharkD (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery 

message: Why are screenshots being removed from this article? SharkD 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots removed

message: It sure doesn't seem like any of the browser game examples are actually turn based.  Any thoughts?  Over the next few days, if I can truly make sure that they aren't turn based, then I will start removing them.  --luckymustard 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser game examples 

message: This article spends little time actually discussing strategy games. It mostly deals with the turn-based system as a game mechanic. I believe the article (with its current text, minus the several lists) was previously named turn-based game. I suggest it be reverted back to its former state and a new article be written focused on strategy games that are turn-based. SharkD 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead with the split. The article looks kind of empty now--just a bunch of links. SharkD (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest split/rename

message: 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)
replies: text: You need to fix the merger request notice on (at least) Turn-based strategy. Please consult WP:MERGE for process. D. Brodale (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You may also want to disclose that an apparent trigger for this proposal is this discussion ("Can you help?"). D. Brodale (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And mention that the discussion is being multicast to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Complete merger of articles: Turn-based_strategy and Turn-based_tactics. D. Brodale (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained the origin at WP:videogames, apologies for not providing the link -- penubag  02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ideally, you should modify the editor hatnotes on both pages to point to a common discussion thread. Right now, you're pointing all over the place. D. Brodale (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, didn't think of that, good idea...fixed. -- penubag  02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete merger

message: It seems to me that all turn-based strategy games fall either into the turn-based tactics genre or into the 4X genre. If that's really the case (and my 20 years of gaming experience support this) than shouldn't this category just be deleted completely? The two "subgenres" already have their own pages and the only thing linking these games is the turn-based mechanics. Mechanics don't equal genre though and so imho this genre has to go. A page explaining turn-based mechanics outside of the genre discussion would be more fitting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.113.33 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just not true. There's a lot of turn-based strategy games that are neither turn-based tactics or 4X games. This article is rated "start" class, meaning that it's barely more than a stub. It just hasn't been worked on that much. Randomran (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that a large proportion of turn-based strategy games fall into either the 4X or Tactics genres. That's no reason to delete this article, though. The term "turn-based strategy" is in common use, and deserves a mention on Wikipedia. That said, I see a lot of titles in :Category:Turn-based strategy video games that already belong to one of its sub-categories, and therefore should be removed. SharkD (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn-based strategy is just a frame for two other genres?!