Talk:Strategy game

This article could need from an overhaul, especially to synchronise it with the List of computer and video games by genre#Strategy page/section. To build on what I'm thinking of, it would benefit from a little discussion on genres and relations between them, war- and non-war strategy games, etc. Mikademus 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is also the Computer and video game genres#Strategy page to consider. Seems things are getting a little confused, but the strategy sections of these three articles (including this one) are at least quite consistent, which is more that can be said for some of the other genres... Mikademus 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree and suggest the following:

That the article needs to be be more concise and stay to the subject. The introduction needs to clearly define and describe. If there are sub-classes list them. In subsequenct sections deal with the sub-classes, clearly and concisely.

That in areas where the article diverges into subjects covered elsewhere can be handled by simple reference. Specific games cited should be for the purpose of providing clear examples. the selection of those cited should be well established over time, not something that will have come and gone from memory when this article is read years on. A complete enumeration of games should be avoided.

brucekg 05:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, Diplomacy is not a war-game, because the battle-model is highly abstracted (all units are the same strength, 2 units beat 1 unit everytime etc.)

I removed the following text:

Grand strategy games allow players to have both large strategic games, and smaller tactical games together. The best example of this series is the Total War series where players recruit and move armies, spies and diplomats on the world map, but then control the ensuing battles with an entirely different interface and commands.

The tactical portion of these kinds of games are usually a derivitive of real-time strategy, but many also have a close resemblance to war gaming. Turn-based is possible, but no examples of such are well known.

First, the definition is imprecise. There are many games where interface for strategic games and tactical battles is different. HMM, Masters of Magic, UFO, Ascendancy, etc., etc. It's unclear what definition is implied here and a quick google didn't turn up any definite examples of usage of this term. Also, in games listed above the tactical section is turn-based. But the Total War games are not "a derivative of RTS", they are RTS, but a very specific more realistic sub-genre. It's also not clear how can something which has "a close resemblance to war gaming" not be a turn-based game. For all these reasons I think the text should be removed. If anything like this is to be put back, we need to

• have a reference to the usage of the term
• have a clear definition

Paranoid 20:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that grand strategy games don't deal with tactical battles, but rather focus on the larger strategic picture. For instance, Diplomacy. Am I correct? If not, then what is the difference between 4X games and grand strategy? SharkD 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The city building games section is still considered a stub, if possible, please improve on it. --Tohlz

That kinda goes without saying, doesn't it? ;-) I did a copyedit on it. Here's a few tips on editing:

• You don't need to wikilink to articles using underscores. For example, instead of doing this:
  • [[Types_of_games|types of games]], you can just do this:
  • [[types of games]]. The wiki software knows to add underscores and capitalizes all words in links (so "types" would automatically changes to "Types").
• Sign your posts. I added your signature to your post above, but you can sign by using 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also adds a timestamp.
• Don't capitalize any but the first words in section headings. For example, "City Building" should be "City building". However, if the word is normally capitalized, for example, if it is a proper noun, it should be capitalized in the heading.

HTH. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Game of strategy is a stub that covers the same topic. Since this article is much larger, it should be the merge destination. Seahen 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The focus of the Strategy game article was really the computer games and only gave peripheral attention to other forms. The Game of strategy article really focused on the what the purpose and objective of a general type of game. I feel that what was said in one wouldn't necessarily apply in the other.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Game of strategy is more like Abstract strategy than Strategy game. Maybe those articles should be merged instead? Percy Snoodle 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree with that. --Rindis 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur. I also think that this article should be made computer-game specific, and the other bits perhaps moved to the "Game of strategy" article? Mikademus 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm leery of creating too much division between computer and non-computer games when talking about broad subjects that apply to both. Of course, I also believe that computer games could learn a few things about game design from other types of games if they'd stop ignoring their existence, so I have som POV here.... --Rindis 16:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rindis, I personally don't think a distinction like that would be good. I would only agree if it was renamed Computer strategy game, but even then I don't see why the two subjects can't be merged to give a proper overview of a strategy game, espeically since the intro talks about board games being one of them. Strategy games have been around much longer than computer games have. Radagast83 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

11:20, 1 March 2007 Selket (Talk | contribs) (Merging per consensus; all content on Game of strategy redundant. Deleting request)

Huh? The only consensus I've seen is to merge Game of strategy to a different page than the proposed one. (i.e., to Abstract strategy instead of here.) --Rindis 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wasn't Homeworld a RTS? And wasn't it quite popular. I am going to add that to the popular RTS game list because it still is. Bobo10512 05:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Troy Dunniway not being a credible source for information on Real Time Strategy. Troy has been working as a developer for over 17 years, and has worked for Midway, Insomniac Games, UBISOFT, EA, Westwood Studios, Microsoft and Brash Entertainment. He recently worked on Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. The Thomson / Delmar Learning Game Development Essentials Series will be publishing his book Game Development Essentials:Gameplay Mechanics. 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.11.163 (talk)

The turn-based section needs to be rewritten, taking into account the existence of a separate turn-based tactics genre. SharkD 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. SharkD 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are puzzle games a sub-genre of strategy games? SharkD 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. SharkD 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody know what this means in English?Jatrius 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It basically means "wargames transferred from board/table-top to computers". SharkD 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think their status as strategy games is dubious. The primary skill involved is eye coordination. Maybe a better place for them can be found? SharkD 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"strategy" is noun, whereas "strategic" is adjective. "strategy game" sounds odd to me, because the game is strategic, but not strategy! If there is any reason behind this naming, please add it under a new section like "name" to the article. --Wayiran (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Fish sticks" not "fishy sticks". SharkD  Talk  00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is first a fish and then a stick. This is not first a strategy and then a game, but is a game which is strategic. "strategic game" is a game which is strategic, and strategy game, is a strategy which is of game type! Even google scholars shows 6,560 results for "strategic game" [1] and 5,230 results for "strategy game" [2]! So at least it should be mentioned in the lead section that "Strategy game or Strategic game is ...". --Wayiran (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"That is first a fish and then a stick." Maybe, maybe not. SharkD  Talk  02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

To be more technical about why it's called a "Strategy game" and not a "Strategic game," it's an attributive noun, which is a noun that modifies another noun. The difference between an attributive noun and an adjective is the former states the type the modified noun is. e.g. Rat Race—it's a race of rats. The latter describes a property of the noun. e.g. Ratty race, which would be a race that is dilapidated.

So to call it a strategic game would mean the game itself has some importance in a strategy. For example, World of WarCraft is a strategic game in the sense that, with Blizzard Entertainment's goal being to make money and be a successful business, it is strategically important in achieving that goal. But the official genre of World of Warcraft is a Role-Playing Game, not a Strategy game.Spezied (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The definition section speaks very definitively and very theoretically but I see no citations.

A lot of concepts are introduced, most interestingly the skill/luck spectrum. In fact, most of the Intro section focuses on justifying the skill/luck spectrum.

Some board games involve physical skill, and most video games do; and in some games skill is a significant factor. The sentence regarding skill is about as meaningless as saying, "There's no skill except where there is."

Also, the types given later in the article do not seem to be siblings, but random relatives. It would seem that if there's a category Abstract, then there'd be only one other category: Not Abstract—which would have to be simulation since Abstract is defined as not imitating real-world things and simulation as imitating real-world things. But wargames are simulations of war. And Strategy Video Games are in one sense a type of strategy game, but they're really a type of medium through which strategy games can be played. This means that Video Games includes both Abstract, Simulation, and Wargames, while Wargames is contained by Simulation, or Not Abstract.

If the games follow this categorization, it would look like this:

Video Games

Abstract

Concrete

Simulation

Wargames

Board Games

Abstract

Concrete

Simulation

Wargames

Which, of course, would be by no means an extensive list of all media through which strategy games can be played.

Since the introduction utterly lacks a foundation, and since I cannot find any theory of the luck/skill spectrum, I am reducing it to the definition, the etymology, and the distinction between 'Strategy' and 'Tactics.' The content should only be returned if accompanied by sources.Spezied (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strategy game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150223171820/http://www.ibridgeplayer.com/2010/08/how-to-automate-strategic-tactical-thinking/ to http://www.ibridgeplayer.com/2010/08/how-to-automate-strategic-tactical-thinking/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't videogame, so maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but it seems funny that both the games lauded as models in the Modern-day turn-based section are created by Firaxis and published by 2K Games. I also don't know enough about Wikipedia investigations to know how to see who put in that text, but my guess is it's a fankid or employee. Could someone more experienced in videogames take a look? Triplingual (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The section is indeed seriously flawed. It was included by one editor who basically did not do any other edits which raises warning flags, too. The exclusive mentioning of Firaxis titles is also not the only problem with the section. Parts of this edit almost read like an ad. Either way we still might want to assume that the edit was done in good faith. If you care to improve the section, most likely by severly cropping it, please go ahead (just as you always should feel free to do that). OdinFK (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Strategy games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Strategy games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply