Talk:Real-time tactics

Necessary?

Okay, I'm all for the judicious use of pedanticism, but come on now. I've never heard 'real-time tactics' used in any mainstream way. I know the difference between strategy and tactics, and I still use the popular term 'real-time strategy' to refer to tactical games—because regardless of technical correctness, that's the genre name. 'Real-time tactics' should exist as just a brief note on strict usage in the Real-time strategy article. -- Perey 07:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheatedly. I understand that these are distinct subgenres, but the naming here is stupid and segregating them into entirely seperate entries is counterproductive. A "Strategy" and a "tactic" are synonyms in the dictionary. This label is meaningless and undescriptive and is rarely, if ever, used in the media or in the marketing of these games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.188.212 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically enough, since this article became more prominent various media outlets have started using the term. --Tom Edwards (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its use is still not mainstream, though.

Lexicography have very little relevance to genre names. Do not stare yourself bilnd at the terms "strategy" and "tactics". RTT and RTS distinguish between different computer game genres, not between the dictionary definitions of "tactics" and "strategy" (RTA for more info). Put it like this, in hindsight, the RTS genre should never have been named that, it would have been more suitable with "real-time abstracted attrition warefare" or something. Miqademus (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not different genres. What this article calls RTT meets each and every defining trait of RTS games. It breaks away from certain popular conventions of the genre, and thus is a notable subgenre, but does not fall outside of the scope of what an RTS is. An RTS game is any game that puts you in the position of military commander, ordering units about in a real-time environment. It is not just Dune II clones.

Your opinion, your original research. Facts: The definition of "genre" is extremely subjective and complicated; computer games companies (f.f. Massive Entertainment) use the term RTT; computer press use the term RTT; computer press often avoid the term "RTS" in favour of the more generic "strategy" due to genre definition problems; strategy gamers use the term RTT to distinguish between genres/styles/callitwhatyawill. Fact; Wikipedia documents terms as they are used. Miqademus (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. Many people take objection to RTTs being thrown together with RTSs - they do fundamentally differ in nature. Using your reductio, is any category other than perhaps "videogame" really necessary? I (and more with me) consider it a valid category, and it is used. Using "RTS" to classify RTT games is misleading and misnomeric. Mikademus 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing from reductio, simply from actual, live usage. Real-time strategic and tactical games are grouped under the name 'real-time strategy'. And the two aspects are very strongly linked. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any RTS (by your definition) that's purely strategic (it would have to be something like Risk, and that's turn-based); and then this article goes and says RTTs can include strategic elements if they are 'not in the battle moments of the game'. I agree RTS is a misnomer, sometimes, but I fail to see how it's misleading. Surely nobody's ever bought a game they were told was an RTS and gone, 'Oh, no! This game has tactics!' -- Perey 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the terminological confusion of "tactics" and "strategy" has been the bane of classifying (mostely) wargames since the term "RTS" was first coined. I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choire now, but RTS games are really most of the time simulations of a stylised production-economy, with some equally stylised battle-ish action placed on top. This could of course be called both "strategy" or "tactics", however the association connected to the games is one of "military strategy", which is unfortunate and very unrealistic. However, it is even more alien to claim that RTS games have anything to do with actual military tactics; they are simluations of something non-existing, forth-order simulacra simulating their own simplified, stylised, conceptually fictional universes. RTT games, on the other hand, generally tries to include or simulate the nitty-gritties (sp?) of real-life military tactics, perhaps with extras -like magic- thrown into the mix - no economics, no production, no stylised rendering of "battles". Here the "word" tactics" really apply, especially in the military sense, unlike in RTSs where using either "strategy" and "tactics", in the military sence, is highly questionable.

As for "RTT can include strategic element if not in the battle moment of the game", a good example if this is the "Total War" series. The battles are purely operational and tactical, and while the non-battle sequences in between are certainly strategic, they are equally certainly not RTS moments in the game. Thus, as a side-point, Total War should perhaps be classified as a RTT and a Strategic game, but assuredly not as a RTS game. The early Close Combat games containes no strategic elements at all, focusing solely on operational tactics. Sid Meier's Gettysburg consisted only of troop movements and battlefield tactics. Etc etc. Mikademus 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, I really do. But the question is not, 'Is this more technically correct?' It's, 'Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?' It doesn't describe live usage, and is sounding more and more like original research as it develops. (I have never heard anything like 'older-historical' used to classify computer games; it sounds like a subgenre title you coined yourself.) -- Perey 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(Many indentations later). Point taken. I will replase and rephrase the "sub-genre" expression. However, the "RTT" denomination is not new, not original by me, just somewhat uncommon, at least in popular use. This article is intended to document the genre and perhaps raise awareness of it to help people avoid miss-classifying things. Too many games are called RTS games, for instance god games are often called that. Even SimCity can be seen called RTS every so often. Mikademus 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Action Adventure" genre is distinguished from "Role-Playing Game" genre despite many similarities. You could say that the relationship between AA and RPG is similar to that between RTS and RTT. Probably the primary reason behind the argument that "RTT" isn't a legitimate genre is due to video game marketing and categorization in online stores and magazines (this contrasts with the distinction between AA and RPG which is often noted in marketing categories), but business marketing shouldn't be used as reasoning for incorrectly propagating a certain title for a genre.

Actually, Action RPGs are generally considered a subgenre of action-adventure games. Bad example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.188.212 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One major distinction between "strategy" games and "tactical" games is the ownership of a base, resource management and collection, etc. (Contrast Age of Empires with Close Combat, for example). The most distinctive feature is the number of units that are controlled at once. Tactical games focus on a small number of units or a squad, anywhere from 2-20 units (approximately), while strategy games can encompass hundreds of units.

Examples of the above can be found in many games, such as Final Fantasy Tactics, Fallout Tactics, MechCommander and MechCommander 2, Close Combat, and others. You may also note that players who are fans of RTS games may not enjoy RTT games, and vice versa. Despite their similar appearance, there are distinct differences in their execution. And finally, Mikademus isn't the only Wiki user who is aware of the RTT genre. There are many other articles that reference the genre specifically and point out the distinction between RTT and RTS.

With various game studios and designers trying to create a unique gaming experience to make their product stand out from the crowd, there will always be deviations from the set genres, and even games that fall into multiple genres or show traits of several but don't seem to fit into any one genre. RTT and RTS, however, are distinct for the reasons outlined above. banzaimonkey 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Simulations

SimCity is a "simulation", not an RTS. Several games in the RTT genre, such as Close Combat, could be considered simulations, but that's another issue entirely. A person calling SimCity an RTS has their genres confused. :P banzaimonkey 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for Full Spectrum Warrior, the fact that your controlling more than yourself makes it more than a standard FPS, yes, but it dosn't have the close association to RTS of RTT. The entry for Full Spectrum Warrior in this article explicitly describes it as a simulation and spends most of its time pointing out the differences it has to the rest of the genre. Yes the game is in real time, yes it involves tactics. The same can be said of any FPS or even Combat Flight Sim. It is marketed as a FPS with elements of tactical control of squads and should be treated as such. I'm removing it.Inane Imp 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please compare FSW with the defenition of RTT provided by the article. As it stands, your argument is very limp: you claim it has more in similar with FPS games, and yet its only similarities are a vaugely first/third person camera, guns, and setting. Look past those wrappings and you'll see a classic RTT game. The differences are pointed out because those are what is relevant; the point of the section FSW is under is to communicate the variety found within the genre.

Futher, the fact that the game was marketed as you describe is not relevant. As the article explains elsewhere, many RTT games are classed in other, more recognisable genres when it comes to marketing and reviewing; it does not and should not affect the interpretation of the actual game, at least not at the level this article is concerned with. --Tom Edwards 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A question on original research: if all reviews, media releases and documents describe a game in one genre (A) - despite a Wikipedian realising it has attributes of another - should not the game be included only in genre A because to place it in genre B would be due to a Wikipedian's original research (his/her intrepretation of the game)? It follows that marketing evidence is important because that is one manner in which the industry (for whatever reason) defines the genres, although it may not be the manner a user wishes to intrepret the game.Inane Imp 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that classifying anything as "simulation" is principally worthless - "simulation" is the widest and vaguest superclass available in the genre jungle, and arguably all computer in any way based on some percievable reality are simulations of something. Another series of RTT games, the Take Command games, call themselves "real-time combat simulators", and another name for the genre sometimes stubled over is "military strategy". Given these alternative denominations, and that you as the player do not actually fire the soldiers' guns when in FSW's first-person mode but rather instruct where to aim, makes it a full-featured RTT game of modern squad combat, and in no way a FPS game. Mikademus 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out gracelessly and accept the revert. As you've both pointed out any defence of my position relies on treating the current definition of RTT as false, a debate which will take a while.

To begin then: something to think about, X-COM: Interceptor, while primarily a Space Combat Sim, shares the RT strategic/RT tactical seperation evident in many RTT games. Given that the combat sequences are tactical in nature, would this not be a RTT game using the current definition?

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, and its ilk, pose a similar problem. By the current definition: Rogue Spear is a tactical wargame that simulates the military tactical aspects of battles. It should therefore be classed as a RTT. What I'm trying to say is this: so far the classification debate has raged by defining RTTs against RTSs leaving it with a definition that excludes the current idea of RTSs (although upcoming games like Company of Heroes are problematic; see The State of the RTS where CoH is classed as a RTT) but allows almost anythihng which is real time and simulates the tactical aspects of battles.

My question is this: where is the distinction between RTTs and real time tactical games, and where (outside the Wikipedian community) has this been defined? Inane Imp 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting discussion! It has been a very long time since I played any of the X-Com (or "UFO" as they're also called) games. IIRC they were tactical turn-based stop-action games? You issued orders and clicked "commit" (or something) and the action unfolded. That would not be RTT in any way. As you yourself say, the Rainbow Six games (as well as Ghost Recon át al) are tactical shooters, and though very tactical and military are also very much, and quite undeniably, first-person shooters. However, you have become aware of that especially as of 2006 computer game genre classifications are becoming problematic: genres are straddled and redefined, games push at the confines of conventional categories. The RTS genre suffers even worse from this. FSW is very much such a game: However, that is isn't a first-person shooter or a tactical shooter is because you never control the solders in the first-hand mode, only issue orders. That it is a miliary simulation, or real-time combat simulator, is obvious from its focus on realism. However, had you actually controlled the soldiers then it would as undeniably have straddled the tactical shooters and RTT genres, and most certainly been categorised with the former genre.

The problem with some genres are with their names rather than their contents of definitions. "Real-time strategy" is the most prominent example: so vague and wide that virtually anything can be and often are classified as a RTS, in spite of the genre really being quite narrow and of well-defined contents. Real-time tactics, obviously named in contrast to RTS, almost by Hegelian antithesis, shares some of the same problem. If the genres initially had been called "real-time production-based wargame" and "real-time realistic tactical military simulation" then we wouldn't have these problems; and if "simulation" wasn't sometimes used as a genre the confusion might abate further.

PS. The IGN link above does not work. Could you provide it again? DS. Mikademus 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First, here is the link again: The State of the RTS (also edited the one above to be correct).

Second, XCOM Interceptor, unlike the rest of the series, was real time tactical as well. I included it as a facetsious example to highlight the necessity of a lower limit on the definiton. The game is a space combat simulation (you fly, and shoot, a spacecraft as part of a flight in real time; hence - if we define tactics as the controlling of different units to achieve battlefield results - its tactical nature). It seems the lower end of the RTT definition you, and other wikipedians, have defined is if the player actually fires the weapon then the game is no longer an RTT. A definition I agree with (my initial disagreement with FSW was an error of fact - I thought you did fire the weapons).

However, the second part of my question stills stands: has any reputable source made such a distinction? If so can it please be linked and this attribute of the definition be added. If this is not the case (ie nobody except Wikipedian's have made this distinction), then does any literature describe FSW (or a game like it) as an RTT? If not then the description of FSW (despite the fact we in this discussion now agree it is in fact an RTT) as an RTT is based on a/or many Wikipedian's intrepretations of primary source material (the game). This would then be original research and does not belong on Wikipedian. If, however, literature is extant that describes FSW (or a game like it) as an RTT then, since there is an absence of literature describing games such as Rogue Spear as an RTT and there is only one pertient difference (that the player actually fires the weapons) it is possible to derive the definition we have already reached without resorting to original research: the definition in this case would already have been created by example, we (the Wikipedian's) are simply ennunciating this definition.

If anybody is not thoroughly confused by what I've just said I commend them. I'm sorry for the format but I was working through the situation in my mind, and my mind is obtuse.

In a nutshell: creating a definition that includes FSW as an RTT when FSW (or a game like it) has never been described as a RTT is original work. If however, FSW (or a game like it) has been described as a RTT then ennunciating this definition is ennunciating somebody elses ideas. Inane Imp 09:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As both Mikademus have suggested on different parts of this page, we are indeed looking at a continuum stretching from stylised RTS through to stylised FPS. Rainbox Six is one of the games that sits in the middle of the band. I said below that defining them would become an issue one day...I didn't think it would be so soon! :-p

I don't think that it is original research when you are looking at something purely factual (if it was, most of Wikipedia would be invalid). There isn't any interpretation going on here: FSW adheres to the given defenition, and on top of that there is an understood reason why it wasn't defined as RTT in the first place.--Tom Edwards 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue is that once the definition was, effectively, 'any RTS in which production of units does not occur during battle'. This has then (logically) been expanded to include FSW; however, this expansion of the definition seemed to have only taken place under Wikipedian auspices. My argument is that this expansion of the definition, unless driven by external documents, is radical intrepretation by Wikipedians. Taking known facts (you do not fire a gun in FSW) and giving them meaning (this means it is a RTT) is intrepretaion unless somebody else has made that intellectual leap before, then we're merely applying somebody elses definition. (In this case my distinction between original and not-original research is the difference between creating a new definition (by adding a new and different example) and applying an old definition (by adding a new example of the same attributes).

That being said, the debate is now academic: I have just found | this a review by IGN desbribing FSW as "a strategy game, not a shooter. Don't think that you'll be going in and shooting the gun off yourself. This is strictly tactical, no action." Pending support, I'd suggest adding this quote to help describe the lower end of the sepctrum for RTTs. I am adding this reference to the FSW section anyway.

And thankyou everybody for a stimulating discussion, its allowed me to develope my views: I'm a little glad I didn't search for the reference until now. Inane Imp 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking at the Characteristics section when you summarise the defenition? Someone still needs to update the 'strapline' bit at the top. Either way, I must disagree with your example. While not directly controlling your units isn't enough on its own, it is one of the characteristics - that is fact. --Tom Edwards 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Source?

This article has no sources of gaming magazines or other industry sources where the term "real-time tactics" is used. Ground Control, MechCommander, and Shogun were all marketed as "real time strategy." I've most often heard the term "tactics" in relation to squad-based (usually turn based) tactical games, like the X-Com series, which none of these games fall undeer. I think someone is trying to be pedantic and create a genre here, unless I can see some source where this genre has been mentioned by a notable game critic.

Also, the screenshots are excessive and go beyond the limits of fair use.

Night Gyr 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that some of the games cited as RTT are questionably or outright incorrectly classified, but the genre is not. MechCommander, Ground Control, and Close Combat (and perhaps other titles with which I'm not familiar) are distinctly tactically-based games. Ad hominem is unnecessary.

"...unless I can see some source where this genre has been mentioned by a notable game critic."

"Notable", of course, is subjective, but if Chris Taylor isn't enough for you, I don't know who would be.

"The first was my realizing that although we call this genre "Real-Time Strategy," it should have been called "Real-Time Tactics" with a dash of strategy thrown in." GameSpy

If you want more examples of "Real-Time Tactics" in use, Google can show you some.

As I mentioned previously, propagating an erroneous genre classification that is used by games retailers or similar entities for the sake of marketing purposes belies the actual classification of a particular game. As you can see on this page, Fallout Tactics is erroneously categorized as a strategy game for marketing purposes. Referring to squad-based tactical RPG as a "strategy" game is gross misclassification.

banzaimonkey 07:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's not Wikipedia's place to correct genre classifications that one or more editors consider erroneous – the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If the supermajority of primary sources (e.g, publisher promotional material) and notable third party sources (e.g., publications and retailers) use a particular genre classification, that is the classification we should use. --Muchness 08:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interview you refer to, Chris Taylor is talking about games like Total Annihilation, which use the collect resources-build units-battle model that is conventionally thought of as RTS and commenting on the lack of real strategy in the genre. He's not separating out "real-time tactics" as a different label with new criteria. I googled before I posted my comment, and couldn't find a single use as a genre label by any game magazine or major website. Use quotes, because the terms are often used near each other, but rarely as a phrase. The only game I found referred to as real time tactics is Commandos 3, which fits the tactical label because it's a squad-level game. Night Gyr 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The RTT genre or term is not conjured form thin air, its been around for over a decade, albeit not as widespread as for instance RTS. I remember it being used heavily in Black Cactus' discussion forum under the development of their game Warrior Kings. Thus, game developers know of and use the term. The debate against this article, above, has a passionate and personal air to it. Mikademus 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that we can verify, or only your own recollection to go on? Night Gyr 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That site is of course gone with Black Cactus, though I might have a copy of a relevant thread stored. Though you sound like the kind of person that would accuse me of forgery. Now, don't act so confrontational and we might all get along better. Anyway, here are a few quick google links for you (just grabbed the top ones):

• An article from 2004 on totalgamein.net called "Tactics Rule" where the author argues why RTT is a genre of its own (google cache since original source returns database error): [1]
• XGR game review of an RTT game: [2]
• Strategy Planet article talking about RTS/RTT games: [3]
• Amazon review of a book about RTS game programming where the author is described as experienced in developing RTS and RTT games: [4]
• A post at Enemy Territory discussing a game similar to RPG and RTT game features: [5]
• An IGN article about definint RTS games explicitly excluding Rome: Total War as an RTS game and by describing RTT as an "emerging genre" (2nd page) represents even the inertia-ridden conservative press' acknowledgement of RTT as a term and genre: [6]

Really, it takes no effort exploring this, just read some RTS fora an you'll easily see that the term is deeply established and in live use as a distinction between two genres and to separate fundamentally different gameplay foci. For instance, here -->[7]<-- is a thread from GameReplay.org's site where fans debate whether the new World in Conflict game from Massive Entertainment is a RTS, RTT or a "Real Time Action" game. Even Massive Entertainment themseslves use the term "RTT"...

You would appear in a better light if you did your own research rather than just whine about what seems to be your personal grudge and expect other people to do your work. Removed "original research" tag. Mikademus 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly whining, I'm just out to make sure that Wikipedia bases its information on what's actually in use rather than any personal biases of its editors. As posted before, I did my own research, and saw most of your hits come up on google. Three are forum threads (which I don't consider reliable, since they're not any sort of expert or authority). One is a passing mention without definition, one is a fansite written by a gamer, not a mainstream critic, and only one of those, the IGN column, actually has any weight.

I'm bothered by this article because even if the terms of the genre are clearly defined (which I haven't seen) for us to apply the label to games which their own makers didn't constitutes original research on our part. If a movie studio releases a comedy, and we feel the need to categorize it as a "screwball sex comedy" without reliance on a critic's opinion about the movie, we're doing our own research and projecting our own opinions to be the truth.

In my case, my personal definition of "tactical" means something entirely different from "you can't build shit" in a game, but this article claims its definition as gospel without citing a source, then applies it to a number of games that their publishers didn't apply it to themselves. Since that position's in dispute, the statements need support, and until we have the word of a critic to support it on all the games that the company didn't call RTT themselves, the tag is going back on. Night Gyr 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You're mightily pompous, you know... Just to clarify that I'm not a gung-ho vanity editor, for the benefit of other readers I'd like to establish some personal credentials, though you (Night Gyr) probably couldn't care less, I've been playing video games since the late 70's and been involved in game development for close to 20 years. Now, with that out of the way; put simply, the term has been in wide --including internally among game developers-- if not popular use for around ten years in the same way as what would properly be called tragicomedies are generally called comedies for reasons of popular simplicity and marketing (which is a less than perfect example but will have to do since I'm dead tired; hopefully you'll try to get the point rather than pound on the obvious but misleading "subgenre" opening). It is not gamers nor developers who missapply terms but rather marketing, who use terms for mass marketability rather than accuracy, something often followed by the game press which most often lives in close symbiosis with "official" marketing. And correspondingly indenpendent media (web pages) tend to use categorical systems better reflecting actual contents and gamers' terminology. Interestingly, there is a long dissatisfaction with the oversimplified vanilla mass-genre system commonly found in the "traditional" press, which you seem to think about, and f.i. the magazine PC Gamer (at least in Sweden) generally nowadays refrain from using "RTS" in favour of simply "strategy" due to (1) the incorrectness of (over-)classifying many games as "RTS" while (2) avoiding to fall into genre multiplication hell. This has nothing -or everything, depending on definition- to do with the "verificability not truth" Wikiprinciple: the term exists, is recognised, and has been for a long time. In fact, as such, it is both verifyable and "true". F.i one of the articles above was from 2003, another from 2004. Wikipedia does not only document some selected individuals' definitions (where you place yourself as one with power to direct the definition of the ones with power to define) or we would need Bill Gate's seal of approval on the Microsoft article, but documents established terminology, concepts, subcultures, etc. You're pounding on the "established" bit, and seems to claim that established means that Electronic Arts use the term. Using Electronic Arts as the example is like Microsoft a marketing machine that angles to the mass market by terming for a common though traditional but erronious denominator, and since when has Wikipedia only covered the least common denominator? Wikipedia is the world's most complete encyclopedia, not the world's most market-reflecting. Further, if you believe the only difference between any strategy game and RTS games in particular and RTT games is that "you can't build shit" then it is your personal cognition, or lack of experience with actual games and gamer communities, that directs your disgruntledness and that myopia makes you simply disqualified from commenting on this article. Further, assuming the autocratic power to determine the suitability of tags over the consensus of the participants is presumtuous and very bad form. The tag should stay removed, at least pending further discussion and consensus, since a basic history has been established and at least some sources have been provided. Now try to be a good wikipedian and please wait for more opinions and consensus here before assuming too much again. Mikademus 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{not verified}} template

The references provided in the article do not adequately substantiate all of the claims in the article. There is no argument that this is an established genre (even Bungie's official Myth website uses the term); however, I'm concerned about passages like the following, which asserts an interpretation/POV without providing supporting references:

Real-time tactics games are often misnomerically denominated as "real-time strategy" (RTS) games. This is due to the prevalence of RTS titles and a popular predisposition to categorize virtually anything militarily angled from a bird's eye view as a "RTS" game (in fact, this goes for many other genres, too; SimCity, for instance, can be seen referred to as RTS, etc., due to the top-down camera angle), as well as due to the widespread confusion of the terms "tactical" and "strategic."

I've also removed a reference because as a forum post it did not meet WP's verifiability standards. --Muchness 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored the totalgaming.net post/article, but moved it to "see also" rather than references. I agree that claiming it as a reference is giving it too high a status. However, the article was fully independent and absolutely not self-published, no-one here is acting in any way but that of good wikipedians! As for tags, the current one is a more suitable one, the "own research" was little short of an outright ad hominem attack. Mikademus 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How is a comment on the article an ad hominem attack? You stated that I was pompous, I said nothing about you as a person. I'm only commenting on the material in the article, not on any editor. As another note, personal credentials mean nothing on wikipedia, since the standards here are for articles to be based on verifiable sources that other users can check to ensure the accuracy of the material. Columns and articles constitutes sources, but "expert opinions" of editors themselves do not, and fall under WP:NOR. Night Gyr 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the forum post again; the See also appendix is intended for links to Wikipedia articles, and the link does not meet WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines so moving it to a refs or external links section is not appropriate. --Muchness 12:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Media references to RTT

Please use this subheading to link to uses of the term RTT in the media. Add your entry to the bottom so we can discuss them by number.

1. Gamasutra - The Future Of The Real-Time Strategy Game
2. The Future of the RTS? It’s already here.
3. Supreme Commander Interview (Chris Taylor)
4. PC Gamer UK (admittedly they only say "tactics", but they are talking about the real-time portion of the game)
5. The State of the RTS (IGN)
6. RPS Advent Game-o-Calendar: December 5th (Rock, Paper Shotgun is written by British games journalism veterans, if you hadn't heard of it already)
7. Worthplaying PC Review - 'Company of Heroes'
8. 50 Greatest Game Innovations Businessweek article (Item #38 on page 6 discuss RTS games and explicitly call RTT a related but distinct genre

Here's a bunch. Not all of them are reliable or go into much depth, though. SharkD (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Businessweek article 50 Greatest Game Innovations which explicitly acknowledge RTT as a unique and distinct genre s\related to but separate from RTS. Businessweek should be considered a very notable source. Miqademus (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mis-use of the term?

Interestingly, the first two items on that list cover an aspect that isn't mentioned in this article: the tactical side of games that are otherwise strategic. At first I thought they were mis-using the term, but now I realise that they have a point. It's not that the tactical elements aren't there, it's just that they are so poor that they amount to tank rushes. We really ought to cover this somehow. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same is true of number six. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging Historical settings

As those of you watching this page will have noticed, it's currently undergoing a hefty refit. One of the changes I'm considering is merging the Ancient and Medieval historical settings, Napoleonic settings and World War II settings into a single 'Historical settings' subheading. While the three are certainly distinct in terms of chronology, at a genre level they are very similar to one another. Any thoughts on this? --Tom Edwards 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the ancient and medieval merger is fine. However, the game styles of Napoleonic and WW2 games tend to be dramatically different, so they would probably be better served remaining as distinct headers, but with a bit more in-depth gameplay discussion. The existing Napoleonic games (SM:Gb, SM:An, Bull Run, Imperial Glory, etc) tend to focus much on regminetal cohesion, classical square-block representations of regiments, etc, while WW2 games like Close Combat or Sudden Strike have a less abstracted interface and smaller scales. Mikademus 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's worth noting, but it isn't enough in my mind to justify seperate headings. This is supposed to be a high-level overview, so we need to keep things simple, and they are all simulating historic tactical conditions, despite the different scales. I just don't feel that it's a worthy distinction to make in this article.

Also, on your recent edit: it's now too specific in the first Characteristic heading. Futuristic RTTs (especially MechCommander) aren't realistic at all, and as the genre becomes more popular there will inevitably be more and more RTW-alikes. I've removed that bit (and replaced your f.i., whatever that stands for: e.g. is the more widely-recognised term). --Tom Edwards 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a few other changes. I've removed the reference to the Warhammer games in Characteristics, as Myth is enough. I've also de-specified your edit to the end of the first para to refer to gameplay mechanics rather than something epoch-specific. On acronyms, I feel that RTS is sensible so long as we clearly define it first. It's certainly silly to type it out every single time! :-) --Tom Edwards 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can do a good merger that will not deminish any of the categories discussed then by all means. About themilitary realism, well, I'd consider Ground Control as well as Mech Commander quite realistic, only speculatively so. Though we can't call neither fantastical nor sci-fi RTT's realistic per se (combat magic and particle projection cannons are rather rare in contemporary warfare) all RTT games are quite realistic given their settings, unlike RTS games where all pretense of any realism at all has been dropped. Mikademus 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The merge is complete. The only problem I ran into was the list of examples - it's too long now. You seem to know more about historical RTT than me...care to trim it down? :-) I'm trying to avoid stuff that doesn't or didn't push the genre forward with its release. --Tom Edwards 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you should really stop ripping on RTSes. Your biases are showing through. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article that isn't grounded in fact. I'd suggest playing some RTTs and seeing for yourself. --Tom Edwards 09:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move my comment like that. It was a response to another comment, not a response to the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)

Oh, sorry. I'm sure you can understand the mistake. :-) --Tom Edwards 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the RTS comparisons into less focusing on RTS games in particular and more to strategy games in general. I tried to improve the NPOV significantly. This article is not to be an instance of the RTT>RTS/RTS>RTT debate. I elaborated on historical games and filled out important information omitted in the merger. To sidestep the issue with long lists I lifted out the lists in their entirety and placed them under a new header where I reinserted many (I hope all) of the excised exemplars. There are some games that lack year of release in the lists and I hope you can help provide these and sort the titles into the list. I hope these changes will be satisfactory to all parties. Mikademus 08:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When discussing archetypes, how can one not mention command and conquer and warcraft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.125.211.140 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

C&C and Warcraft are real-time strategy games (not real-time tactics games) and discussed thoroughly under that article. Mikademus 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact

There used to be a fan-made Java front-end (called "Empire vs. Republic") for the RTS Homeworld that added a strategic layer to the game, whereby players could compete for domination over a playing field spanning an entire galaxy. Additionally, all resourcing operations were disabled in the real-time battle portions of the game so that players could focus on tactical engagements. By this definition, I think this "mod" would fit your ddefinition of a real-time tactics game. SharkD 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more games

Here are some more games that might fit your genre: UFO: Afterlight, UFO: Aftermath, UFO: Aftershock, Brigade E5: Jagged Union, JAZZ: Hired Guns. SharkD 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all the UFO games turn-based? If so they're specimens of the Turn-based Tactics (Tactical Role Playing game) genre. Miqademus 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, these games are real-time-with-pause, like NWN. SharkD 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that Freedom Force and its sequel fit this genre. SharkD 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Force's article is quite bad, it talks only about the fluff and says nothing about the game play. Nonetheless, if you think the games fit, then by all means edit the infoboxes in their articles to reflect their genre(s), and add them to the chronology. Freedom Force would probably need at least a paragraph talking a bit about the game play model and mentioning how it is a RTT title. Anyway, if the games you provided are RTT titles they'd probably deserve a short mentioning in this article too, UFO/X-Com because they were significant games in their days, and Freedom Force because of its innovativeness. I remember playing X-Com (as it was called here), and I do have the memory of it being a stop-action game, though, like Laser Squad and Jagged Alliance, where you issued orders, your and the computers' troops performed their actions, and the game froze and awaited new orders. Am I mistaken? Miqademus 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

UFO: Aftermath, Afterlight, and Aftershock are very recent games, not directly related to X-COM. They are real-time X-COM clones, sharing a similar setting, but still are a part of a different intellectual property and are made by a different company. SharkD 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lengthened the list of games here. SharkD 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The arcade game Lazer Command, by Meadows, was like Atari's Tank, only you control 15 tanks, choosing which to move at any time, while deciding how to approach destroying your opponent's 15 tanks. I believe this puts it squarely in this real-time tactics category, and since it was released in 1976, I believe this makes it the first RTT game, ever. If this category ends up getting folded into real-time strategy, then that would make Lazer Command the first RTS game ever. Links: http://www.arcade-history.com/index.php?page=detail&id=1363 ; http://www.arcadeflyers.com/?page=flyer&id=1752&image=2 .--64.229.26.175 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't decide. The game is kind of weird.SharkD 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be 'weird' to you (probably because it's too far before the time of the games that you remember), but what's the source of your indecision? Is there some aspect of this game that you think might disqualify it from this category? I can't see any.--65.93.205.132 02:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, there's only one type of tank and one type of terrain. SharkD 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and list it anyway. SharkD 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Battalion Wars seem like an RTT title to you? SharkD 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It does. I recategorised it in its article. Feel free to list it here. Miqademus 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this game: Cuban Missile Crisis: The Aftermath? SharkD 18:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First Battalion seems like it might be one, too. You can't really tell from the article, though. SharkD 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Legionnaire may be another. Interestingly, the real-time strategy article claims this as one of their own, too. SharkD 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I recategorised Legionnaire as RTT --it is clearly not an early RTS title-- but in fairness the RTS article does not really claim it, rather it mentions it as a possible ancestor of the genre and acknowledges its RTT nature. Miqademus 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you consider the following games to be real-time tactics games (I'm undecided):

• Armor Alley
• Rescue Raiders
• Super Army War

SharkD 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Any cites for these?

"Borrowed" text

I borrowed some of the text from this article to fill the ressurected turn-based tactics page. I hope you don't mind. SharkD 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category renaming

I'm putting the category Category:Real-time tactical computer games up for renaming to Category:Real-time tactics video games. Check out the category and vote on it. SharkD 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moby Games

There's no love for the tactics genre at Moby Games. SharkD 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

Discussion on this topic has been moved here. SharkD 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article

Here is an interesting article that tries to define Company of Heroes as an RTT game. SharkD 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interview with a Supreme Commander developer who discusses the genre. SharkD 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Are all the screenshots really necessary? If so, we really need a new Myth II shot. It's being used as an example of a fantasy-based game, but the shot seems to show a Civil War mod. Ace of Sevens 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the page, now there is only one representative example image per section, and an additional gallery section at the end of the article. Looks sleeker and better to me. Mikademus 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a civil war mod. Go to www.getmyth.com - I know hosts personally and those pics are fine for you to use

(The Elfoid 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Someone keeps adding these back and it's turned into a bit of an edit war. I don't see how a bunch of screenshots enhance a reader's understanding of the genre, which is the topic of the article. Ace of Sevens 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, one revert is not an edit war. I'm loath to quote wikipolicies since I'm against wikilawyering, but this article is nowhere near edit war territory. Anyway, the gallery doesn't detract from the article body, and is handy for the readers who do like illustrations. It also has descriptive value in itself since info about the RTT game style can be cleaned from them. Since removing them is a bold edit it'd be better if you discussed it on the talk page before, or took it to here in a less confrontational way after. Mikademus 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did discuss it above. How is this fair use, though? Ace of Sevens 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above you refer to was about a previous situation where many screenshots were sprinkled through each section and led to a rehaul of the article, i.e. it applied to a different, earlier layout and situation. Further, this article has been a source of discussion at several fora I frequent and the present form is generally appreciated. Mikademus 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:FUC, it's not enough that the images not detract from the article. They must contribute significantly. Here, they certainly don't. They also don't fall under the clause that says to use as few copyrighted images as possible. Ace of Sevens 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the gallery should be removed. It violates Fair use. CG 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are too many images

I suggest we include one example of every major type of game, and one example for each major generation of technology. The number of images in this article at the moment is absolutely ridiculous and completely unjustifiable. --Tom Edwards 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

--I agree, except I think we should probably add a good shot from World In Conflict, since this game shows "next-gen" pc stuff. --Garion333 2:30, 26 September 2007 (MST)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mark of Chaos - Defending city.jpg

Image:Mark of Chaos - Defending city.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 ensure 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) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medieval Total War - poised for battle.jpg

Image:Medieval Total War - poised for battle.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 ensure 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) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Please note that simply "mentioning the game in the text" is not sufficient rationale for using a non-free image in the article. The important point here is WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if ... its omission would be detrimental to (the reader's) understanding". For each image you need to ask - "if I removed this image, would the reader of the article suddenly struggle to understand something"? and if so, the next question needs to be (WP:NFCC#1) "could that image be adequately replaced with text"? As I said in the edit summary, there is unlikely to be a Wikipedia article that needs 15 non-free images. Black Kite 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many pics? Doubtful.

I question the rush to judgment about the use of copyrighted images. Wikipedia is definitely in a reactive mode right now thanks to the scandals of its leadership and the probelmatic living person's issue. No need to overreact: imagery that well illustrates the breadth of the subject matter, as these images do, is well suited to the subject matter. That said, perhaps there should be an organized effort to secure the blessings of the individual copyright holders. (too often we leave this to individuals, when it should in fact be a group effort). Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Centurion-Defender of Rome.gif

The image Image:Centurion-Defender of Rome.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding illustrations

The article previously had a set of images aptly and visually illustrating the evolution of the genre. Some editors considered it good and some considered them too many. WP has gone through a period of over-reactiveness and have deleted many illustrations from a great number of articels by questioning their fair use. In this case it has left the article worse off. I suggest we add some images relevant for the artcle and pertinant to the section, say perhaps an image per major section. I've moved the main image (the Mediaval II: Total War) to the "characteristics" section, and re-added an image from Centurion: Defender of Rome to the early ancestry section. They both have a note connecting them to the section, a line, and the name of the game. I would like the opinions of other editors on this and the layout. (I also structured the talk page a bit by moving all image-related threads to their own header.) Miqademus (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current number of images (I just added one, BTW) is sufficient. However, I think the first two are too similar. Maybe we should pick one that shows something different, instead. SharkD (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cites

The cites for the intro and first section were severly lacking, and referred only to strategy games with tactical elements, not a whole new genre. Alastairward (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what you think is not being said in the articles. Care to elaborate? SharkD (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, here are a couple of more sources that refer to this as a new genre (subgenre, really). See here and here. Randomran (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SharkD, put simply, "Real Time Strategy Tactics" is not mentioned in the references I removed. There seems to be some synthesis or original research at work here. You can't just make up an argument and then stretch a cite to fit. Make the article fit the cites, not vice-versa.

In addition, the burden of proof is on the editor adding material, not the person who challenges it. If you think the cites are useful, then you are the one who should say what they do say that's of use to the article.Alastairward (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "Real Time Tactics" when you said that above. The first reference cites the fact that the abbreviation "RTT" is in use. The article used to cite this does in fact use the term "RTT". The second article specifically calls real-time tactics games a "sub-genre" that Bungie and Microsoft helped "spawn". The third article is used to support a tangent regarding risk/reward cycles, and doesn't really have much to do with real-time tactics at all. I see no evidence to support the substantially vague claims you made; sufficient "burdon of proof" was supplied when the original citations were made. SharkD (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Shark, let's go through this one cite at a time;

• http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-resources/ ; The acronym RTT is used. It is not defined, stretching to say that this is a cite for RTT is synthesis.
• http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ ; One reference is made to tactics, and that is as a feature of real time strategy, not as a sub genre and certainly not as a genre all by itself. The actual quote was in reference to "the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre" not "Real time tactics."
• http://lostgarden.com/2005/04/practical-definition-of-innovation-in.html ; Is a personal blog, which is not recognised as a good place to cite in wikipedia.

None of these help with any assertion that this is a new or existing subgenre what-so-ever. Simply reverting my edits without reason and without an edit summary is certainly not polite either at the very least. Alastairward (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these genre articles aren't very well-referenced. But the issue is settled if you look at this one, which refers to the "real-time tactical game" as a "subgenre", and abbreviates it as "RTT". I know WP:V encourages us to remove unreferenced statements, but a genre definitely exists here. So we should try to rephrase for accuracy, rather than totally tearing this article apart. Randomran (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're focusing on lapses in terminology instead of the substance of the articles. In the first article, what else could they possibly mean? There's no other three letter acronym it could stand for. The subject of the article also falls in line with what is put forth in this topic. As for the second article, it says, "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. Bullfrog's Myth: The Fallen Lords and Microsoft's Close Combat not only started their own franchises, but proved that real-time strategy could have more than strategy; it could have tactics too." It's silly to argue what is meant here. Again, the substance of the quoted passage falls in line with the topic of the article. SharkD (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So according to Shark, we're focussing on "lapses in terminology instead of the substance of the articles"? That just sounds like you're covering your tracks. Our cites should be (and there's no way you can demand otherwise) explicit. They should not be open to interpretation. If they are, then you're going to have to commit either synthesis or original research to include them in the article and base your case on it. Alastairward (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray, here come the bureaucrats! --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if there is more than one interpretation, we should err on the side of caution and rephrase. But what other logical interpretation is there? How do you read that source? Randomran (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any other interpretation is possible. For instance, in Opticks Isaac Newton refers to the diffraction of light as "inflexion", and later in Method of Fluxions differential calculus as "fluxions", yet they are commonly understood to be the same thing. If you find any evidence to suggest otherwise, please supply it as per WP:BURDEN. SharkD (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SharkD, sorry, that is most certainly not the way it works. The person adding the source has the burden of proof. Here's an idea, actually read what the policy states; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That's you, ok?

Tom Edwards, is that it? No more contribution to make than a quick post and run? Alastairward (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I "ran away"? A little presumptuous, don't you think? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tom, that certainly adds a lot more to the discussion, thank you.

I removed the cite based on a blog, self published material is not suitable for use as a cite. Perhaps the editor who restored it might remember that you can watch pages on wikipedia before sneaking it back in again... Alastairward (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A site's status as "blog" has no bearing on its being reliable. The site has been previously disucssed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Please take the issue up there. SharkD (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not take the issue up there, as it is already part of wikipedia's guidelines, see here. A blog can be used to in reference to itself, nothing more. Alastairward (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you might be missing the part that says "For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." For example, Brian Crecente, Luke Smith, Clive Thompson, et al meet SPS and thus anything written by them anywhere can meet the criteria, whether it be on Joystiq, Kotaku, or random blog #27. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs is right. That said, it might help to know who this guy is and what makes him an expert, and thus why he is reliable in this narrow situation. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He is discussed here. SharkD (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied under the circumstances. That said, maybe the information could be written into a shorter/tighter summary. And, if possible, referenced to another source. Randomran (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To David Fuchs, if the point had been made in the first part (and some sort of cite given for that) perhaps. There is a notice board for such discussion too. Alastairward (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was responding a request for a third opinion, but it looks like everything is settled here. Is that correct? AlekseyFy (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea why it went to 3O. Kind of removes the point of the reliable sources notice board... In any case, there was a simply short circuiting of the usual approach to looking at reliable sources. I'll assume good faith, but it did feel like someone felt that this was their article for a while. Alastairward (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dawn of War II

One to watch, it seems. Company of Heroes was definitely leaning towards RTT and it seems that Relic are now making a further leap. Nobody mentions an absence of resource gathering unfortunately, and singleplayer is still up in the air. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaboom! Jonny Ebbert, lead designer at Relic Entertainment:

We had a big argument. Some people have been saying, "This isn't an RTS, this is an RTT, a real-time tactical game." And then Clint Tasker, one of our QA testers, we were kind of debating, "What is the difference between tactics and strategy?"

And he's like, "Well... tactics is just a manipulation of units, and strategy is this grand army." But then he started kind of breaking down the definitions, "One is like a smaller scale of the other, but it's all relative. There is strategy within tactics, and there is tactics within that strategy."

--Tom Edwards (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the same things said regarding Relic's recent games. I haven't played any of them personally, though. SharkD (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of games

Ok;

• First of all, as examples of the genre/sub-genre, there should be cites demonstrating that they have been labelled as such. Editors suggesting that a company has mislabelled their game without a cite are going against WP:SYNTH.
• Secondly, what do we gain from the inclusion of this list, if a fuller list is replicated elsewhere?
• Thirdly, what is the rationale for subdividing the games like so? What do we (the readers) get from seeing them split up like this? Alastairward (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So that readers don't have to trudge through a gigantic list to find the titles they're looking for. SharkD (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not address what I've asked above. Alastairward (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units

The article above found here is used in the intro paragraph, as part of a definition of the genre. Yet, it only seems address issues within real time strategy games and is not defining (or specifying for that matter) a whole new genre.

I can think of one game series, Command & Conquer, that uses such missions for a large part of each game. Does that mean the series must now be reclassified? Alastairward (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RTT is called a sub-genre of Real-time strategy by many reviews, so I don't think it's that hard to imagine them being discussed in the same article. As for C&C, if all levels within the game were like this then I would consider reclassifying it. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

SharkD is right that overall, there are reliable sources who talk about RTT as a subgenre. As for how individual games are classified, if there's a dispute we should stick with what reliable sources say. I don't think anyone really argues that C&C isn't an RTS, though. Randomran (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing though, if it's something that discusses a mechanism common to both RTS and "RTT", why is it being used to define one over the other? Alastairward (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, because it's a sub-genre? Saying that a first-person perspective is part of the definition of FPS doesn't mean that shooters can't have a first-person perspective. Also, the article doesn't say anywhere that it is about RTS games. The topic of the article is "Fixed unit vs resource collection" in strategy games, and cites RTSs as an example of the latter and RTTs as an example of the former. I don't see how you can't see how the authors are making the distinction. SharkD (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction being made using the logic above. Strategy games are strategy games and "RTT"s... aren't. Isn't that the point of this article? If it doesn't help differentiate between the two, why include it? Alastairward (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A subgenre is something that shares some features of the broader genre, but is distinct in some way. RTTs are still strategy games in the broadest sense, but they're a type of strategy game that only focus on tactics. The reliable sources talk about the subgenre as existing where there is no emphasis on economics, and/or players are dealing with a fixed set of units. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I'm trying to point out is that the intro paragraph should really make an effort to point out that distinction (and perhaps agree if it's a genre or subgenre, last time I checked it was a genre.) As it is, all we know is that it's a sort of strategy game, which it really isn't. Alastairward (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article needs improvement. But it's clearly a subgenre.[8] There's no doubt about that. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Both navboxes in the article, {{VG Strategy}} and {{VideoGameGenre}}, clearly refer to it as a sub-genre, as does Strategy video game. I don't see where the confusion arises from. SharkD (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

SharkD, I always assume good faith but you make it so difficult. The intro paragraph, first line on the article reads "Real-time tactics (RTT) is a video game genre of tactical wargames". You've put a lot of effort into maintaining the status quo in this article, refusing to allow any improvement, perhaps you might put that energy into helping to tidy it. Alastairward (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, SharkD hasn't resisted improvement. You just haven't offered anything except the outright removal of certain statements and sources. That's why, further upthread, I tried to ask you how you read certain sources? Surely we can come up with a "safer" interpretation of certain sources that still helps flesh out this topic, without breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But to get there, you have to explain how you think those sources should be interpreted. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So... improvement can never mean the removal of unsuitable sources? There's also another section above on cites. And I don't ever "interpret" cites, I simply use them when they support what is said plainly and clearly. Is there really no article that says what an "RTT" is? No way to differentiate it from an RTS? Alastairward (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you believed in good faith that the sources were bad. But we've resolved that issue. The source is reliable. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RTT officially adopted on GameTrailers.com

In the Empire: Total War video review gametrailers explicitly describes the game as divided into a turn-based strategy and a real-time tactical mode. Miqademus (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The complete edition of World in Conflict is denominated RTT several times in a review at IGN. Miqademus (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: description of Centurion is slightly incorrect

The article as it now exists describes Centurion: Defender of Rome in this way:

However, though the battles were in real-time they were of small scope and player interaction was limited to deciding the initial troop disposition.

I played this game extensively, and while it was at least 15 years ago, I'm quite certain that you were able to pause battles and direct units to move in different directions (if necessary, I can find an old version of the game and play it to be absolutely certain). This would make it quite similar to the Total War games, albeit much simpler (no terrain effects, movement in only 4 directions, no missile troops).

I've never done any Wikipedia editing, so apologies if this post is incorrect and I'm not sure the proper way of going around fixing the article's text. Any guidance would be appreciated. WikiBCman (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you can, please verify that, since that is very relevant information. Then either add what you want said here and let some other editor merge it into the article, or simply go ahead and do so yourself by editing the relevant section, and if it needs to be cleaned up other editors will do that too. But as said, if you really don't feel confident with editing the article proper, then just post in the discussion here. Miqademus (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just played the game again, and I was correct. You can pause the battle and send troops in one of four directions. It's very simple, but it's pretty much the same kind of game mechanic as Total War. For further confirmation, you can see this gameplay video (battle around 1:30).

My proposed edit would be to change:

"Another predecessor was Bits of Magic's Centurion: Defender of Rome (published for the PC by Electronic Arts in 1990), in which, similar to the recent Rome: Total War game, the game took place on a strategic map interspersed by battle sequences. However, though the battles were in real-time they were of small scope and player interaction was limited to deciding the initial troop disposition."

to:

"Another predecessor was Bits of Magic's Centurion: Defender of Rome (published for the PC by Electronic Arts in 1990), which, in its use of a strategic map interspersed by battle sequences, was similar to the recent Rome: Total War game, but had a much simpler combat system."

Does this sound reasonable? Also, I just remembered today that Sid Meier's Pirates! also had a real-time battle sequence. At least, I'm pretty sure it did (the most recent version changed to turn-based combat, but that's a new development, if I remember correctly). The problem is that I can't get DOSbox to play it properly right now. This would be important, because this game was already up and running (and relatively popular) in 1987. Thoughts? WikiBCman (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just find a cite for the above? Alastairward (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in response. I've been working on other projects. I came across this article, however, that describes the gameplay in Pirates! as "a real-time wargame - several years before these surged in popularity - as you maneuver your scurvy dogs over grassland, hills, and even swamps to approach walled towns, fighting everyone from townspeople armed with farm implements to elite Spanish pikemen and cavalry." Here's the complete article. It sounds to me like Pirates! qualifies as a real-time tactical war-game, and it was released in 1987. My question is: does this count as a legitimate citation? If it does, I will re-write the history section of this article based on this information and ask for feedback as to whether I did it correctly. But I'd like confirmation from a regular wikipedia contributor that this is the kind of citation that the wikipedia community approves.WikiBCman (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed edit to the Centurion section is about right. Perhaps replace the description to something like "but of a small scope and using a very simplistic control system". About references supporting your edit, you only need to substantiate claims that might be taken as opinions or contentious facts, however a concrete element of game input is a point of indisputable material fact and does not need to be substantiated if undeniably, obviously true. I also think you're for the same reason well in the right to discuss Pirates!, but you shouldn't call it an RTT game, but rather as something along the lines of "featuring land battles distinctly of a real-time tactical nature as part of its game play long before the genre became established in its own right". With a link to an article or a video even hard-core deletionists can't complain. Miqademus (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If the cite says "real time wargame", it could qualify as RTT or RTS. If an editor declares it to be an RTT, simply based on their own interpretation of the review and game mechanics, then that represents original research. Alastairward (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on Shogun description because of Fields of Glory.

In 2000, Creative Assembly created Shogun: Total War taking map sizes even further as well as introducing historical and tactical realism on levels until then unheard of in real-time computer games.

This game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Glory had a good library, high degree of historical info and reaslism - in 1993! It was ahead by many years and a real time (pausable) tactical battle simulation. This game is also entirely missing in the whole article - but it was ground-breaking. Lastdingo (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason Fields of Glory had been deleted from the article. I have added it again - it is an important title! Perhaps you can improve it with your better knowledge of the title? Miqademus (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I may very well have removed it before, but I removed it again, as there was no reliable third party source that I could find to support its inclusion. I would add that the section it was removed from has been tagged since August 09 as containing possible original research. Alastairward (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The game is significant and removing it in its entirety from the article detracts from it. If you find the passage problematic, then update it rather than just delete it. Even better, discuss it first. I'll take a wager at what you find contentious and restore it slightly rephrased.Miqademus (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is significant, then we really do need a cite to support its inclusion. Deletion of the material is necessary in that case, as it upsets the balance of the whole article if the information is false. Merely changing the paragraph to say that something can be "recognised" as RTT does not help. It remains problematic because no cite exists to support it, that is the problem. (WP:V as always). Alastairward (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to retain a calm detached voice, and likely failing, you seem to be the metaphorical wall that makes peoples' foreheads bloody. Have you ever even tried copy editing instead of going trigger happy on your deletionist guns? Big words, the world is in danger etc. Filibustering and scaremongering, and you're making the article a worse place. The game is relevant. It is notable. And being an quite early exemplar you will not find quotes saying the exact sentence you're apparently desiring to meet your personal standards of acceptance. I can't help the feeling that you're making a personal stand for some obscure reason. I'll make the assumption that you're actually acting in good but misguided faith and make another attempt. What if you'd do the same rather than edit warring, as you are apparently doing? Miqademus (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, please stop for a second. The wording of the paragraph isn't the problem at all. It's simply the fact that it is completely uncited. You say that it is notable, or recognised as being part of the RTT genre. Shouldn't there be a cite out there to support this? Why should this material be added again to the article without a cite? The burden is on you as the editor adding it? Don't you see how frustrating it is for me? That entry is making a bold claim, without anything to back it up? Alastairward (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

To stop this, as it appears that the Miqademus just won't stop adding this material, I request a third opinion.

My own point of view is this. If the material is important, if its notable to build a picture of the subject material, it should definitely be cited. A citation tag is insufficient in this case, the material should be removed pending cites. Alastairward (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Why is a citation tag insufficient? Although wikipedia requires a source I will have to say leave it for now. I will add the citation tag, if the user wanting to keep it does not add hs source in 1 week, Alastairward you may remove it with no problem. And like you said Alastairward, if the material is important he will find a source. Hope this helps and this settles this. Any questions ask you are mor than welcomed me. House1090 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I had considered it insufficient in this case, as the material added was used to make a significant claim regarding the background to this article subject. As such, I thought that there should be a higher standard applied to it. But I take your advice on board and will return in a week. It should be noted that a lot of the rest of the section is similarly without cites. Alastairward (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Paraphrase: "To stop this, as it appears that the Alastairward just won't stop deleting this material", this is the apparently contentious section:

Fields of Glory was released in 1993 by MicroProse. The game attempted to realistically recreate several of the major battles of Napoleon Bonaparte's Waterloo campaign. Notable not only for its early date, it was a meticulous and ambitious game that focused on large-scale battle flow rather than low-level battlefield tactics, perhaps because of graphical and resource limitations of the day.

Every sentence is a statement of undeniable fact, except for the secondary clause of the last one, which is speculative. For some reason, the above section is problematic while the following one, a few lines down in the article, isn't:

In 1997 Firaxis Games' released Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, a detailed and faithful recreation of some of the most significant battles of the American Civil War that introduced large scale tactical battlefield command using 3D.

I can only guess Alastairward reacts to the words "notable" or "perhaps", in which case a more suitable edit would be to rephrase the section or simply removing the offending words rather than deleting the entire section and thus hide the entity that it treats. Miqademus (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, two things to note. First, I've tagged this article time and again and noted whole sections relying on Original Research, and I've said above, that a lot of the rest of the section is OR too. A lot of this can be scrubbed, but I tagged instead of deleting. Not that its done any good either, the uncited material remains in place.

Secondly, the phrasing is utterly irrelevant. I haven't mentioned anything the phrasing, so stop bringing that up. Its all to do with verfiying the material at hand. Wikipedia doesn't deal in facts, it deals in verifiability. Nothing was produced to say that what you'd entered could be verified. Assuming good faith does not extend to allowing original research to be entered.

Read what I've said above, it's all there. Alastairward (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is such an old debate: deletionists vs inclusionists. The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a "verifiable"/"reputable"/whathaveyou source--a project even analytical philosophy has given up on--but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics. The WP rules and principles are there as an attempt to guarantee a quality floor and prevent tendentious editing, and as a support especially for novice editors. The problem of balancing formal requirements of quality against not alienating skilled or expert editors, or editors that simply have the innate capacity to provide relevant information and create a valuable and good article, have been known and been part of WP almost since its conception. That is the reason for principles such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:BURO (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), the last which f.i. state "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them". What you are doing is in fact obeying the letter rather than the spirit of the law, while you actually think you're contributing to or improving the article. An enormous amount of information on WP are about topics that are incredibly difficult to source, yet are accurate, acceptable and relevant, so applying the myopic OR perspective will in fact reject a majority of WP's articles about which there isn't a since long established corpus of literature, which would obviously be utterly absurd. This is such a situation where the topic is clear but the literature is void. To claim that we can't document such a topic is just as patently absurd as to advocate voiding most of WP's contents. Miqademus (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The basis of Wikipedia is that material is verified, always. That trumps everything.

You yourself said, "The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a "verifiable"/"reputable"/whathaveyou source--a project even analytical philosophy has given up on--but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics."

You can't have accurate information if it's not verified, that's the whole point. Alastairward (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "can't" as it's too strong a word. Nevertheless, from the point of view of Wikipedia there's no difference, as it's a Wikipedia requirement.

Anyway, I think there's enough sourced material in the article now that removing the unsourced material wouldn't hurt the article too much. That said, I could just opt toward leaving it too and not feel harmed. SharkD  Talk  02:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Going from "The purpose of WP is not ultimately to provide an eugenically set of statements each of which has been tagged/cleansed by a source but to provide good, accurate and relevant information on treated topics" to "You can't have accurate information if it's not verified" is not the whole point, it is simple sophistry basically ignoring what you're responding to (that "verification" is not confined to only "printed reputable source") to repeat yourself (a traditional rhetorical technique is to mask mere repetition as arguments in response) and again going by the letter rather then the intent. F.i. you're (a) ignoring that some topics have no corpus, and they are still a subject for WP articles, and (b) implicitly defining the word "verified" as "found in a printed source (preferably one I like and thus authorise as reputable)". About OR, if some category ℛ consists of α, β and γ, and something R possesses α, β and γ, it is not OR by WP standards to speak of R as of ℛ. Or more formally, (Α ≝ Β) ≠ OR. Miqademus (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderfully verbose, and absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. Wikipedia thrives on cited information, nothing else. Alastairward (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

More games?

Stormrise

It's is an RTS released last year on various consoles. Here are some quotes:

"In terms of gameplay, Stormrise is far from a traditional RTS. It's not so much about building a base and commanding armies as it is jumping from node to node with small groups of soldiers." (Reviewer quote) [9]

"In some ways, Stormrise is more of a real-time tactics game than an RTS. So, technically we haven't improved on the PC control scheme at all, but instead changed the rules to create an interface and experience that can be enjoyed on all platforms." (Developer quote) [10]

It seems the control scheme of most consoles is too limited to do a full-blown RTS. SharkD  Talk  06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Fox Command

Quote:

"Single player game play is an interesting hybrid of real-time tactics, turn-based strategy and dog-fights. ... The game is broken up into a series of planets. When you arrive on a planet you are presented with a map that shows your mothership, the Arwings of whatever pilots you happen to have and the enemy partially shrouded in a fog of war. ... After clearing some of the fog, you get to move trace routes for your available Arwings. Then the game takes over at automatically moves your units and enemy units. If you run into any bad guys you go into dog fight mode. ... Once you defeat your enemies in a dog fight you jump back into the turn-based game until you run out of turns or destroy the enemy base." [11]

Not sure exactly what to make of this game. SharkD  Talk  08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there scope to mention them as hybrids of sorts? Or is that needlessly over categorising them? Alastairward (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to consider each game on an individual basis, rather than simply slapping a "hybrid" label on them without any sort of verification. SharkD  Talk  02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do later reviews trump older ones? If a change is made, a re-review or the like? Alastairward (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What? SharkD  Talk  03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If a game is rereviewed and a magazine or website makes use of the newer terminology? Alastairward (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unviable to try to make a rule of it. There is nothing saying that newer is always, automatically or necessarily better or more correct, or the other way around. It is better to bring up questions for discussion than try to formulate stable rules from unstable and changeable contexts. Miqademus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. Alastairward (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to phrase yourself much more clearly. What question? The incomplete sentence that is a statement turned into question-form by an "if" and a question mark? I interpreted it as "if a game is reviewed several times, should we always use the word of the newest review to define how to classify the game?". The answer to that is: no. A review in itself is not definitive or necessarily even relevant. And the recentness of a review has no necessary bearing on its relevance. Miqademus (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An answer, thank you. Also, if you'd read through the section, the sentence starting "if" was to add to and clarify what I'd said before. Alastairward (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The way you keep outdenting your own comments affects me in similar way AS PEOPLE WHO TYPE MESSAGES IN ALLCAPS. SharkD  Talk  03:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why that even merits mentioning. It makes it easier to keep an eye on each individual comment. Alastairward (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More like, it makes it easier to keep an eye on your comment. SharkD  Talk  18:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ShardD: wanton changing of indentation disrupts the flow of conversation. I also agree with him about "keeping track": why would we be more interest in your comments than in anyone else's? Finally, I did provide a clear answer. Please re-read my comment above. Miqademus (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang, on I'm thrown here. Do you mean the conversation should continually outdent to the right until it's completely finished? Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Indented copy to indicate conversation level. -Miq) Hang, on I'm thrown here. Do you mean the conversation should continually outdent to the right until it's completely finished? Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes, at least until it is impractical to continue. You seem to want to reset the indentation at your posts. Please stop doing that, it especially makes nested conversations impossible to follow. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, Company of Heroes (series)

Two very similar game series by the same developer where terms get thrown around a lot. As I understand them, some base building and unit production is involved.

"Dawn of War II isn't like most RTS games, and that's on purpose. The developers look at it more like an RTT (Real Time Tactical) game instead. The single player is a unique blend of RTS/RTT/RPG (try saying that three times fast!)."[12]

"What we're seeing now with games like Relic's highly successful Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series and its latest title, Company of Heroes, is a fresh approach that is delivering an immersive and fun game experience. These games are also redefining the genre by shifting the focus from 'real-time strategy' to 'real-time tactics.'"[13]

"The tongue-in-cheek space opera setting of Warhammer 40K and a real-time tactics formula developed by Relic were always meant for each other. This game is one strong contender."[14]

"With Dawn of War II, Relic aims to take things to a whole new level, effectively blending elements from RPG and RTS (or rather, RTT - Real Time Tactical) genres. It uses a similar cover system to that found in Company of Heroes, along with an updated Essence graphics engine, but adds even more destructible cover."[15]

"Even less of a traditional RTS than the multiplayer portion, it's almost easier to think of Dawn of War II's single-player like a cross between an action-RPG and a real-time tactical game. Each unit commander has a range of special abilities, in addition to the attached squadmates themselves. Rather than requiring some grand goal of map-wide domination, the emphasis is on the tackling of small-scale tactical situations--and in co-op, on the real-time collaboration between players."[16]

"Imagine a mix of RPG, real-time tactical and strategy titles, all rolled into a game about bad-ass Space Marines--and then add Diablo-esque loot on top of it all. That is the Dawn of War II campaign, in a somewhat vague nutshell. It's the kind of campaign where you spend 20% of the time just staring at the screen, stroking your imaginary beard, considering stat-point options and loot loadouts--then launch into a mission and crush Ork skulls to gain that next "blue" item."[17]

"With Dawn of War II, Relic aims to take things to a whole new level, effectively blending elements from RPG and RTS (or rather, RTT - Real Time Tactical) genres. It uses a similar cover system to that found in Company of Heroes, along with an updated Essence graphics engine, but adds even more destructible cover."[18]

Again, I haven't played these games personally. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DropTeam: Mechanized Combat in the Far Future

Quote:

"DropTeam is a multiplayer capable, real-time, tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future. ... You will use Dropships to land fighting vehicles and other deployable assets like sensors, mines and automated turrets on planetary surfaces."[19]

"First off, Drop Team, the real-time tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future, is now in the midst of public multiplayer beta testing which is reportedly “running very well.” The development team has recently released two auto-updates for the game providing a few tweaks and fixes. If the latest version “holds up for a few more days” they will most likely forward the game to gold status. The developers also sent word that they’re currently devoting most of their efforts towards finishing the single player campaign in addition to “some more spit and polish.”"[20]

This game is sort of like Allegiance in that most players pilot individual vehicles, but one player is given the overhead commander role and issues orders. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Alliances

"Dark Sky Entertainment unleashes Star Alliances, a "Massively Multiplayer Online Real Time Tactical" (MMORTT). See, new genres being created every day. Let's see here... Interstellar war, takes place in a galaxy with hundreds of environments, 8 planet types, 5 planet sizes, 100+ star systems. If you get mail in the game you can have it forward to SMS / Email. Tee hee, that could be a fun new way to spam peeps."[21]

Is it an MMO version of games like Sins of a Solar Empire and Sword of the Stars? SharkD  Talk  04:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

League of Legends: Clash of Fates

"League of Legends does not copy this formula. Rather, it manages to build upon the established rules in DotA to create a unique game that looks like it'll sit quite comfortably in it's own unique category. It's a little bit RTT (real-time tactical) with a dash of MMO-style PvP combat thrown in for good measure."[22]

An online "session-based multiplayer battle arena game". SharkD  Talk  06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Burning Sea

"Due to the intricate construction and historical function of these boats, there are numerous strategic ways players can use the ship's features to take advantage of the game's real-time tactical naval combat system, dynamic trading economy and global player vs. player gameplay."[23]

"In this massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) players strive to be the most cunning pirate, trading merchant, navy officer, or privateer on 18th century high seas. Pirates of the Burning Sea lets the player enjoy tactics, strategic adventure and swashbuckling action on the PC. This nautical fantasy developed by Flying Lab Software also features real-time tactical naval combat and movie-quality surround sound."[24]

Another MMO. SharkD  Talk  07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Cortex Command

"We just noticed, thanks to TIGSource, that there’s a new build of the excellent bunker-building, side-scrolling, robot-smashing, real-time tactical base-managing shooter, Cortex Command. ... Imagine if Worms was an unfinished RTS designed by an artistically-inspired robo-festishist. You’d be in the right kind of ballpark."[25]

Huh, what? SharkD  Talk  07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Invizimals

"When in battle—which was described as 'real-time tactical combat by the developer—the PSP's face buttons trigger attacks that you carry out by performing some kind of motion. Examples that were shown including blowing into the camera to trigger an ice storm, waving your arm in front of the camera to send blasts of fire, and casting a shadow on the playing field to cause a lightning storm. The fighting looked fast and intense, as the player had to constantly cast spells and throw attacks to keep the other creature at bay. The PSP can be moved at any time, allowing you to view the action from any angle."[26]

The article doesn't go into any further depth regarding combat. SharkD  Talk  07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Video Games Portal's Assessment Classification

The "C" class (for Video Games Articles, NOT Strategy Games Articles) was set at a time when the article was less edited and less sourced, quite a long time ago, 2 years or something. As per the portals' assessment scale, the article should be reclassified as "B". Opinions? Miqademus (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article fails on the first B-class criteria: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged." To a lesser extent it also fails the fourth criteria: "The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously."

The entire "Brief history and background" section is unsourced bar the very last part about Russian development, cited to the interview. Another source is used for the first paragraph of the "Establishing the genre: the late-nineties rise in popularity" subsection, but this attributes statements to the actual Fields of Glory game, which does not cover what's being asserted. There's weasel words present, laundry lists of games which lack citations instead of flowing prose which has been cited, ref #21 is a statement rather than a source. Although not major there are some instances of non-neutral wording such as "Ground Control's (2000) setting allowed innovative use of air units.", "The very influential video game Myth: The Fallen Lords (1997)" and "gaining much attention for its luscious visuals". Unqualified statements such as those drag the article down. There's a lot of work to be done here before it reaches B class, with sourcing being the main obstacle. Someoneanother 02:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and re-rated it C-class for the Strategy Game Project. At one time there was a problem due to the massive gap between Start and B, but that was remedied with the arrival of C-class. The sourcing issue along with original research means the article is does not pass all the B-class criteria. Someoneanother 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to prune away the old article tags

Since the article is generally sources, and there are section-tags placed in the article, the article-wide source tag at the top should be removed. I also think the "personal essay" tag has served its function. Miqademus (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be prudent to address the tags rather than dismiss them. Alastairward (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to stop performing controversial edits and purges without prior discussion

Alastairward, I kindly ask you to stop purging material without prior discussion. The more central the material, the more important it is to discuss beforehand and establish consensus. You have many times removed material without any discussion or consideration of other editors at all. You recently purged the "Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat" game, claiming it is a "strategy" game. (1) This particular game is one of the central titles of the genre, and recognised as such. (2) "Strategy" is a supergenre of which RTS, RTT, TBT, TBS and other genres are subtypes. To reiterate, please ask for opinions before doing drastic and controversial edits. Thank you. Miqademus (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed and tagged this article before and given what I feel are good reasons to remove the material. If you feel I am breaching wikiquette, please feel free to report me for it.

You might do well to provide cites to counter the removal of material, instead of providing OR by way of reply.

Without any real basis for doing the contrary, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit as I see fit. Calling for a topic wide ban for me is a little unfriendly. Alastairward (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)draconian

The "I see no reason why I shouldn't edit as I see fit" is probably the root cause of the problem here; a problem which, along with much of the aggravation you seem to be raising from other editors, could probably be resolved or at least mitigated if you took to discussing what you see as problematic and seeking consensus before taking action, instead of being autocratic and in such draconian ways and extents. Miqademus (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit: the wikiquette referred to above, can be read at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Alastairward. Editors are invited to discuss or comment. Miqademus (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert regarding me concerned another article. In the end it was moved to the original research notice board here. Another user disagreed with my removal of uncited material, and in the end the discussion moved in favour of my sentiments. You might want to read that one Miqademus.

And yes, editors are free to edit as they see fit, the whole point of Wikipedia. Trying to stop me from editing this article at all might be seen as ownership. Alastairward (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward, this is not about ownership, this is about your extreme tendency to (1) unilateral actions, (2) ignoring other editors, and (3) espousing what seem like an almost militant disinterest in establishing or working toward a consensus. Miqademus (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that tongue in cheek of course.

(1) Unilateral actions? So, I have to ask before I'm allowed to edit, but you can revert at will?

(2) Ignoring other editors? (diff third opinion offered and promptly ignored)

(3) Espousing an almost militant disinterest in working towards consensus? (diff reverted, requested to go to talk, but nothing appeared on the talk page)

Alastairward (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I indented your post for you to keep the conversation track going, as per normal WP discussion style.
(1) Yes, I have reverted some of your unilateral and excessive edits. You need to realise there is a distinction between your draconian edits and my restoration and requests for discussion and consensus. (2) You have an established tendency to ignore or autocratically overrule other editors, and you use the "third opinion" option as a weapon, seemingly without understanding its intention. (3) "Request to go to talk" can also mean an invitation for the reader to initiate a discussion. Miqademus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited material within this article

In relation to the sections above, these are three bits of information that were lacking cites since Aug 2009. Is there any reason they can stay? Was anything done to address the tags?

• "As suggested by the genre's name, also fundamental to real-time tactics is real-time gameplay. The genre has its roots in tactical and miniature wargaming"

• Conveys the general idea without mentioning Real-time tactics: "Skirmish wargaming is nothing new. In fact, one might reasonably hold that miniatures wargaming began as a skirmish wargame with H.G.Wells' penchant for tin soldiery on the living room rug. Skirmish wargames are tactical games; the figures are a 1:1 representation of their real-world counterparts. The entire premise is to represent battles at their most intimate, individual level. The scale has a definite attraction as the rules bring home the immediacy of combat, usually resulting in a tactical wargame more heart-pounding than cerebral."[27] SharkD  Talk  17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Though popular as table-top games, tactical wargames were relatively late in coming to computers, largely due to game mechanics calling for large numbers of units and individual soldiers, as well as advanced rules that would have required hardware capacities and interface designs beyond the capabilities of older hardware and software. Since most established rule sets were for turn-based table-top games, the conceptual leap to translate these categories to real-time was also a problem that required time to overcome."

• Closely related: "Your processor has to work hard to run a real-time game. The screen needs constant refreshing, sounds must be processed, and decisions on unit placement, movement, and construction must be made on the fly. There is no pause while the processor takes its turn in real-time strategy. That takes a lot of processor power. On the other hand, turn-based games are significantly easier for the computer to manage. If for no other reason than the computer can order its actions, place them in a liner queue so to speak."[28] SharkD  Talk  18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Full Spectrum Warrior series (2004–) (by Pandemic Studios) is set in a fictional country for all practical purposes identical to Iraq. The games revolve around a maximum of two fireteams of four soldiers each and offers engagements at a far more intimate level than the Total War series, and indeed the genre at large, and also emphasise story more than most real-time tactics titles. Despite a visual appearance similar to first person shooters the player does not directly control any character, instead only issuing orders to his troops and as such qualifies as a real-time tactical game"

• We can cite the game if you wish. The passage above is a decription of the game. Also, given the definition of RTT the FSW is a game of the kind. I think this was discussed in depth above. Nonetheless, it is easy to see how what appears to be a first-person shooter isn't a tactical wargame, so I can understand that you would want to ask about this title. That is in fact part of why that game is notable, since it breaks the normal god camera perspective. Miqademus (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Mentions the shooter/RTT confusion: "Probably the most least accessible of the group is Full Spectrum Warrior. This oddball mix of squad-based strategy and shooter is actually classified as a real-time tactics action/war game. It wasn’t that it turned out poorly; it’s just that it brought a lot of innovative features to the table, and up until that point they hadn’t been done before in other shooters. ... Players now have more precise control over their squad-mates and can now split the unit into two different teams for an even more detailed plan of attack."[29] SharkD  Talk  18:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up a discussion in the talk page. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See, that's why the essay tag was put in place. What's being taken from the cites doesn't come straight from them, its all a little bit of a stretch. Perhaps logical, but a stretch still. Alastairward (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One-man crusade against RTT

User Alastaiward seems to be on a one-man crusade hell-bent on disassembling the RTT genre by himself, or at least its presence here in Wikipedia. Apparently, he is going through all RTT articles he can, looking at a review or two, and if the review or whatever doesn't explicitly say "rtt", or if it says "rts", then he reclassifies articles and games, or adding {{fact}} tags after every mention of "rtt" in preparation for "justifiably" remove or change the classification later. There has been tendentious editing before, where f.i. he has changed [[real-time tactics]] to [[real-time]] [[real-time strategy|tactics]] (or if it was [[real-time strategy|real-time tactics]], I can't bother searching for it) now), selectively fact-marked RTT while leaving other denominations unquestioned (in the given example not questioning the "third-person shooter" classification), which combined with his previous refutation of RTT as a genre seems to indicate a personal agenda against the genre, bizarre as such may seem. He seems incapable of understanding the genre classification debate with all the confusion of "RTS" and "RTT" that principally happened between circa 2004 and 2008, and that RTT is since years now a stable and recognised genre, but literature or sources from earlier times will of course not reflect future (our present) situation (time machines didn't exist then and if they did certainly weren't used to resolve future computer game genre classifications).

What is the proper procedure to handle an editor like this--an editor without any common sense or capacity to reason beyond details, but with inexhaustible amounts of time, boneheaded determination and myopia, that will wage war of attrition and wikilawyering to push his agenda, and apparently punishing editors that stand up to him? Miqademus (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you (and other editors) before, create a wikiquette alert for a start. Although it would be much more productive if you cited the material that has been tagged. Alastairward (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you see no problem with that so many editors are upset with you? Can you in no way see that it might indicate a fundamental problem with your editing? And do you not see that most users prefer not to go through the rigmarole of starting WP processes against other users, something which in no way vindicates your position? I don't think the attitude "If you don't like what I'm doing, sue me and let the law decide" is a productive approach, and it is certainly not the way Wikipedia functions or thrives. Miqademus (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Time Tactics is a subgenre of (Real Time) Strategy. So if a game is described as strategic it can still be a (Real Time) Tactic game. As said by Miqademus the RTT genre-type was introduced quite late so the old reviews just clarify everything as Strategy (and strategy doesn't exclude RTT because it's a specialism of RTS).

RTT games are games where you only have some predefined resources and no huge base building. The tactic is important and not that you have 100 tanks more and can rush the enemy base (like in most RTS') ;) --217.234.189.115 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, the only person who seems to be upset is you. That you balk when you ask how to report me and I tell you how, suggests that you don't really think there is anything wrong other than that I don't edit as you please.

Wikipedia thrives on many things, including the dispute resolution process, that you have already shown distain for (see Fields of Glory. If I have done the myriad terrible things that you say, surely it should be easy to report me and have me banned from editing (as you suggested should be done). Alastairward (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you actually believe what you write? And can you seriously not see how many are upset with you? And further, I can't see how you think anyone or anything would benefit from your litigious and "make my day" attitude. Miqademus (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, are you for real? How is it possible that you can in any way perceive my replies as "backing down from everything I've said"?
Well, since you asked for suggestions, I will in good fate provide some constructive suggestions to try to make something good from this Kafkaesque situation: (1) Read the common sense article a few times. Then sleep on it for one night. Read it again. (2) Mediate on what constitutes evident and/or contentious information: this will make you a better editor, which should be one of the goals of all wikipedians. (3) Realise that Wikipedia is for people with a wide interest in their topics, not pedantic robots, and what seems like irrelevant information for you might still be worthwhile or even central to other readers. (4) If you find things in articles YOU disapprove of, voice your concerns in the discussion page and see if others agree with you, or more importantly, how they disagree with you. Assume there might be as much relevance in their position as there is in yours. This way you will be able to create a discussion that might lead to mutual understanding, consensus and actual improvements of the topic at hand. (5) Finally, and this is just as important in real life as in wikipedia: if people react negatively or become angry, do not immediately assume the fault is with them, or only with them. Reflect on your own behaviour and if you could have contributed to a negative situation yourself. Unlike you, in many of your replies, I am not being condescending here, I genuinely believe this techniques can help you! Miqademus (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Small rephrase of my old previous discussion text to make it more clear: Real Time Tactics is like Real Time Strategy a subgenre of Strategy. So if a game is described as strategic it can still be a (Real Time) Tactic game. As said by Miqademus the RTT genre-type was introduced quite late so the old reviews just clarify everything as Strategy (and strategy doesn't exclude RTT, RTTs can also be described as strategic).

RTT games are games where you only have some predefined resources and no huge base building. The tactic is important and not that you have 100 tanks more and can rush the enemy base (like in most RTS') Wink --217.234.189.115 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, please outline what you beleive should not be done out of my edit history, explain why the edits were wrong and give me a solution. All I can see is that you're now backing down from everything you said before.

To the anonymous editor, please don't merge other user's comments with your own on a talk page. Alastairward (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And now I have to tell you Miqademus to stop messing with my talk page comments, thanks.

I placed the comments next to that which they were in response to. As it is now, a reader must read everything in its entirety, all the way to the bottom, then puzzle together the order and chronology of the comments, resolving both conflicting chronology, indentation and order of posts. Hardly helpful. Remember, this ISN'T just a discussion between you and me - it is as much for the benefit of other readers, and shuffling around the replies and wrecking the flow and proximal relation of comments and replies is extraordinarily unhelpful. Miqademus (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited where I feel it was a) necessary and b) helpful. A fact tag is a very simple thing to address, you verify the material that is there.

Demanding on one talk page that I should be banned from editing any article, then suggesting you're trying to help is a bit counterintuitive. Alastairward (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

After having tried to discuss and reason with you for quite some time by now, I have very little doubt and am not surprised in the least that you find it counter-intuitive. Sigh. Would you agree with that the suggestions I provided above would make for a better editing environment for all of us? Miqademus (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Miqademus. This is beginning to seem like one man's personal crusade. SharkD  Talk 

Oh dear, so it all becomes quite personal now. I have simply pointed out that unverified material can be challeneged and removed, that is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. Shouldn't you be fetching cites rather than trying to bluff me? Alastairward (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "personal", that's an interesting way for you to put it: others are bluffing you; others should be fetching for you. Oh dear indeed. Do you remember one of the hints I gave above for successful interpersonal communication? To try to see that there are other people than you; that the world doesn't hinge on you; that you're not the one that's automatically in the right; that you are not special and the centre of creation; and most importantly: you do not own wikipedia--that is, you can't do whatever you want without a consensus, especially when contested. Miqademus (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but nobody asked you to fetch them for me, cites are for the articles, that's why we edit Wikipedia. So you refuse to cite the materials because I suggested it?

Miqademus, you equally do not own articles and your demand that your OR stay in place simply does not need to be heeded. Alastairward (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if RTT is a subgenre of RTS, there is still enough info here to split it into its own article. It also seems well cited enough to hold its own, though the references need those "this clearly proves it's an RTT game!" notes removed. Also, the laundry lists of games should be cut, they don't belong in an article, but rather a list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm, that's the problem. Miqademus is being terribly unhelpful and characterising my edits (as they say above) as an attempt to trash the whole idea of RTT as a topic on Wikipedia. That is utter rubbish and not reflected in any edit I have made.

All I've done is edit some other articles that may not be related to RTT, to ask that their link to this topic be verified. Miqademus finds this troubling and has met every request for verification with adamant calls for me to desist and has asked for me to be banned from editing Wikipedia at all. Alastairward (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(I indented the above reply as per regular WP conversation style) User Alastairward, that is tendentious if not intentional untruth. Your edits have been excessive and controversial. You have ignored other editors, failed to seek consensus, and taken invitations to discussion and compromise as an avenue for starting and escalating conflict. Your purges for lacking cites tend to be of uncontroversial and evident facts of the kind that generally need not be cited, that is, uncontroversial and from primary sources self-evident data of summary type that contains no opinions, no analytic or synthetic conclusions, no statistics and no references to research. Your edits and treatment of other editors constantly push your interpretation of guidelines regardless of the opinions of other editors or consensus. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(In reply to the "my OR doesn't not need to be heeded" I missed, above) Alastairward, the first strawman: it is only you that define the implied information as OR. The second one: it is not my information, it the information of many editors of this page. You are putting yourself above collected collaboration and consensus. Miqademus (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, your verbose reply does nothing to address the issue. The lack of cites isn't a strawman, the problem is the same as it has always been. Find cites, or the articles will need to be edited or remain tagged. Alastairward (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're disputing the fact that games are classified as real-time tactics, due to the tenuous definition of what is or isn't a real time tactics game. I think what needs to be done here is establish, separately from the article, a set of ground rules for classifying a game as real-time tactics rather than simply real-time strategy. If that can be agreed on by both parties, there won't be a need for edit warring.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums up the tone of the discussions on this Talk page before Alastairward's appearance. SharkD  Talk  05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The ground rules are pretty simple WP:V. That's it. If there's a cite, use it, if not fact tag it or remove it. The videogames project is no more or less exempt from the rules about verifiability. Alastairward (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(Indented above reply as per normal WP conversation style)
Zxcvbnm, yep, as SharkD said, that's basically the state of the article before Alastairward. Reflecting the surrounding world's (gamers and press) increasing usage of the genre denomination, it had been steadily improving with relevant information, good coverage and more (and better) references. The RTT genre, its hallmarks, and criteria for recognising games of the kind are widely recognised and used in the industry, which is established and substantiated by sources in the article. The article has been recognised and is considered of high importance in the strategy and video game portals. Basically, this entire debacle has been unnecessary since the article was already in a relatively good state, improving on its own, and the information the conflict has been centred around are non-controversial, non-syntetic, non-analytic, and immediately evident from primary sources for any lay reader; basically information of the kind like "Star Wars IV is a science-fiction film by George Lucas". Miqademus (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undenting my replies, since they are mine). It seems we're done here then. All we can do now is look at each article one by one, cite and tag where necessary. Miqademus et al have dug themselves into a hole and there just doesn't seem to be any way change that.

The article mentioned little to nothing about the citations before, I asked for related articles to be treated as any other article and received some very unhelpful replied.

I've outlined my stance, given options for moving forward, each one has been rejected. Alastairward (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, reset the indentation to your heart's desire and make it more difficult for any reader to follow the conversation. Well, indentation would only help other editors, so it is totally unimportant anyway...
So basically you're saying that you've listened and learned nothing from the discussion here, persist that all other editors are wrong, disagree with the comments given by the admin, and will not cooperate in the slightest. That's just super.
There is no hole being dug. I will repeat what was said above for your benefit: The information you tagged should not be, because they do not fall under WP:V; they have all been non-controversial, non-synthetic, non-analytic, and immediately evident from primary sources for any lay reader; basically information of the kind like "Star Wars IV is a science-fiction film by George Lucas". As Zxcvbnm said, if there are clear demarcations for RTT versus RTS games, which the article establish, the categorisation of exemplars is trivial and uncontroversial. Miqademus (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Very basic rebuttal, if it goes against WP:V, it doesn't matter how trivial or uncontroverial you think the matter is, it will be overruled. Alastairward (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then, let's argue this Alastairward style: Very naïve reply. It doesn't go against WP:V. Miqademus (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, the term 'RTT' is being applied to games which were released before the genre was recognized and became part of the gaming press' vocabulary, yes? If that's the case then they certainly should be sourced IMO, otherwise we're stating that something is XYZ because it is, which is surely original research. If it truly is an early part of the genre then at some point modern sources are going to identify it as such, until then if sources say it's RTS then that's what the article should say. Someoneanother 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someoneanother, thanks for dropping by. Yes, that's pretty much the jist of my argument. The counter arguments have been seemingly based on opinion only. That a game seems to be of the RTT genre, so its article is edited accordingly. Alastairward (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to collapse the entire page's indentations? It's just something else to be argued about. Someoneanother 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think its meant to be a jibe at my expense, by the same people who would accuse me of incivility. Alastairward (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, people, I think the point has been made, now it is impossible to understand the flow on conversation at all in the entire talk page. *grumble* So please editors, use indentations as it was intended and to help readers follow the flow, not to emphasise your own replies. Alistairward, take your personal opinions and feelings from the article talk page, please. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to automatically undo the de-indentation. Miqademus (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this formatting change (diff), as the comments above indicate this is not a productive or welcome change. As a courtesy to others, please consider proposing the change on the talk page before overhauling an entire talk page to a non-standard format. --Muchness (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, it was not me who took away the indentations. Check the edit history of the page before making baseless personal accusations. Alastairward (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward, I know it wasn't you and I never said it was you. All "baseless personal accusations" were of your own makings/projection, and you in fact just made one against me. Please do not escalate this non-issue, or take it to user talk pages. Miqademus (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What were you warning me about then? The "non-issue" of indentations was escalated by SharkD, who amended everyone's contributions, please check the diff. Alastairward (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Interesting feature on Rock, Paper, Shotgun that discusses the difficulties inherent of gaming terminology and attempting to define genres. Mentions RTT as well as us:

"Real-time Strategy: A genre involving tactically maneuvering troops around a battlefield. Differs from turn-based strategy games by being played in real-time. No, really. It was formalized with Dune 2 and then popularised with Westwood’s Command and Conquer then really popularised in Korea with Starcraft. As Westwood’s game suggests, the genre generally involves commanding (By dragging a box over your unit with a mouse) and conquering (by right clicking on your opponents). Particularly anal people will note that the vast majority of RTS games are actually real-time tactical games, but they are – as their name suggests – particularly anal."[30]

SharkD  Talk  03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it might fit into the article. Perhaps as an aside if the source can be deemed reliable.

With regards using as a cite for categorising games, I'm not sure what use it would be unless it specified the games themselves. Alastairward (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

I added more sources to Chronology of real-time tactics video games. You might want to take a look at them and see if they can be used here. SharkD  Talk  01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of RTW's historical accuracy

Why is RTW the only game with a criticism listed in the entire list of games based on history? The only references are a site describing a mod (Rome Total Realism) which is essentially promotional (not WP:RS) and some random guy's blog on About.com (again not a WP:RS). This is trivially WP:UNDO, and I bet a quick google search of the other games would reveal equally reliable and numerical sources criticising them for their "historical accuracy." These are games, not simulations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

UGO Networks is reliable per WP:VG/RS. You might want to start a discussion there regarding About.com. As for why it's mentioned - probably because it's the most popular of all the games. SharkD  Talk  04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The game is notable, yes, but this supposed "criticism"? Do we have any reliable sources outside a promotion for the mod that establishes notability? Further, no other game in the list has any criticisms mentioned. The list is being used as a WP:COATRACK to mention this mod. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the undo of the undo since it is better to discuss here than to start edit warring. Though I have no strong opinion on the topic, my personal thoughts are that TW is a series based on realism, and that R:TW, which was intended to be the most realistic game of the series in the most tactical of the classical eras, is remarkable for actually turning away from realism, and was heavily criticised for it. Since RTT is a more "realistic" (or at least "believable") anchored genre this is relevant. However, I think that how the criticism is integrated into the section, not to mention the article as a whole, definitely needs work. Miqademus (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"The list is being used as a WP:COATRACK to mention this mod." Why do you say that? Nowhere is the mod mentioned in the article. SharkD  Talk  13:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, "I editted warred because it's better to discuss here than to start edit warring." Whatever, I'll start an RFC if you wanna play this like a vote. Your personal opinions don't really matter here. Do we have any sources establishing this "heavy criticism" of the game outside of the RTR development crew and their advertisers? I don't see that RTW has any more inaccuracies than any other game in the series. Regarding WP:COATRACK, including the sources which are simply promotions for the mod is a way to include a non-notable mod into an article, by piggybacking on the mention of a notable game. A mention of RTR is perhaps appropriate on the page for Rome Total War, but this is really not the place to discuss such specific about RTW. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, where does it say "heavy criticism"? Please read the article first before you go around cutting at it with a hacksaw. SharkD  Talk  17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread regarding About.com on the Talk page of WP:VG/RS. SharkD  Talk  17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point entirely. Anyway, I believe the assumption on Wikipedia is that we don't include criticisms until they are notable, which means significant, which means more than one developing team's (and their sponsor's) opinions. See the RFC below. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC

A dispute has arisen about this edit which removes a supposed criticism of Rome Total War. Two sources have been provided for the claim that RTW was "heavily criticised" for being historically inaccurate. Both of them are promoting a specific mod for the game called "Rome Total Realism." I believe this gives WP:UNDO wait to a criticism essentially made by one small group of developers, especially when compared to other games in the list. Should this supposed criticism be included in the article in a simple list of Real-time Tactical games about history or should it be left to the game's actual page, Rome Total War? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If not clear from the prompt, I oppose inclusion of the disputed text. It gives WP:UNDO weight to a criticism made only by the mod's developer's and users. Further, this article isn't even about Rome Total War, it's about Real-time tactics, we shouldn't be going into depth about supposed issues with this particular game. No criticisms for other games are made here. Keep in mind that a lot of these games recieved worse reviews than RTW. So why is this supposed criticism even mentioned? People looking to read up on Rome Total War are going to go to that article, not here (now that I look at the article, this supposed criticism isn't even listed there!). We've indirectly referenced the article by mentioning the Total War series, so I think we should just leave it at that, and keep this list as a list.

I suspect a little WP:OWN is going on here per comments in the section below. I see a couple editors making massive revisions and reversion, as well as thinly veiled personal attacks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"violating realism" is an unnecessarily heavy term. I would prefer a citation to a broader piece rather than a shorter Total Realism related news snippet. For example, from the GameSpot review of RTW - "There's one common theme, however: the vast majority of Total War mods are attempts to fix historical inaccuracies Creative Assembly introduced into Rome: Total War and its successors to give the games more popular appeal. One of the most sweeping and successful of these revisionist mods is Rome Total Realism." - tells the reason why liberties were taken with historical fact, and mentions the specific mod too. The other games in the list need equal treatment. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Which page is that quote on in the source you provided? I couldn't find it. That source does say this, however:

Rome: Total War is the third Total War game from England's Creative Assembly, and, to make a long story short, it's the best one yet. It was naturally expected to build on its illustrious predecessors, which featured epic-scale real-time battles and impressive attention to historical realism and detail.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Marasmusine is actually referring to this article. If you look closer, it is Part 2 of a broader feature series on PC games mods. There are 13 parts in total. Not "news" snippets in any case. SharkD  Talk  22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the title of the article is, "Rome: Total War Game Mod." Not a WP:RS per this quote:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, nowhere did the article say "heavily criticised". That part was made up by the initiator of this RFC. Secondly, I don't think there are any special rules on Wikipedia regarding "criticisms" as opposed to other sorts of claims. I.e. I don't see what difference it makes whether it's a "criticism" or not. SharkD  Talk  22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heavily" is implied by the fact that it is so notable that we need to mention it in an article that is not about Rome Total War. And there are all kinds of special rules on Wikipedia regarding criticisms, I don't know what site you've been editting. WP:UNDUE was created specifically for this sort of thing. If we created an entire section on RTW, perhaps a sentence would be appropriate to criticize it. But the only mention is a criticism. Why mention it at all? We have sources actually praising it for its historical accuracy. The result is a controversy and we don't take sides in Wikipedia. Hence, since the sources are conflicted on the historical accuracy of RTW, we need to leave out the debate entirely unless we want to cover it in full. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You've changed the passage to read: "Developers of a mod entitled Rome: Total Realism disputed the historical accuracy." This isn't supported by the cite either. The cite explicitly makes the point that revisions in terms of historical accuracy are common to nearly all mods of R:TW. SharkD  Talk  23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean that promotional cite that is not a reliable source? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very passive-aggressive when somebody comes here as a fanboy and systematically changes things only to fit his own personal views. SharkD  Talk  00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks? No response to my comments on policy? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a particular issue with regard to UGO Networks, then please take it to WP:VG/RS. This site has been already vetted as a good source. Calling it "extremist" and "promotional in nature" just because it doesn't completely align with your views is not appropriate. SharkD  Talk  09:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Support exclusion. I was just adding review scores for Rome: Total War#Reception and did not encounter any notable reviewer claims of historical inaccuracy. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre classification -Blitzkreig II

Blitzkrieg II being somewhat verbosely called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level" rather than "real-time strategy" in a review.

• "Verbosely", weasel word, the opinion of an editor.
• "Rather than", again, editor opinion. In the cite given, the genre is listed as strategy and the description "real time simulator of WWII battles" being just that, a description, not a genre classification.
• "Strategy", its strategy, not RTT, why is it even in this article?

This article was recently classified as a C for the Video Games Portal, citing weasel words, unqualified language and lack of citations. The article is stagnating. Despite other editor's efforts to address these problems, the usual suspects just revert every effort and the article sits there. If there is a genuine will to push this article forward, it will not come from instant reverts and attack sections on the talk page such as this. Alastairward (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that source does not say in any way that the game is "Real-time Tactical." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The review also says, "Blitzkrieg 2 is the sequel to the highly acclaimed tactical game of WWII from CDV. In this game you will command the forces of Germany, the United States and the Soviet Union is the vast and diverse actions they fought during the World War Two years." As for whether this amounts to a genre classification, I would just like to point out that the article is rather clear regarding these sorts of things being rather indeterminate. Also, I object to the "usual suspects" remark. I don't think insults are necessary here. SharkD  Talk  21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough. You are deciding that what they meant was a genre classification. That is not clear and is trivially against policy. Statements made in the article must be directly supported by the sources. When the genre classification says "strategy" that is how we label it. Also, you're hardly in a position to comment about insults. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

With regards Blitzkrieg II, it reads a lot better now thanks, but there could still be some trimming done. Taking that sentence; "Games of the genre have also been described as "real-time combat simulators" and "military strategy" games, with Blitzkrieg II being called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level"

• Games of the genre? Which ones? Links? Cites?
• "Blitzkrieg II being called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level"". Again, that's a description of that one game in particular, with close reference to the mechanics of gameplay. It's not a genre or type, just a review.

The "usual suspects" remark BTW is in reference to the edit history of the article, which is free for all to see. Alastairward (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the game is classified as such it's worth mentioning as something that comes close to defining a genre. SharkD  Talk  00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, look back at the classification review of this article and the mention of unqualified remarks. How is this "defining a genre"? Is every "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level" an RTT? When tactics and strategy were already mentioned, the description of the game mechanics confuses things. Alastairward (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the comment in question is to emphasize that descriptions and terminology vary. As for whether a genre in general is defined by its gameplay characteristics, I don't think that's entirely relevant to the article in its current state. If I were required to answer, then I would say that, yes, gameplay mechanics definitely make good candidates. Further, in the case of a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level", I would say it is more relevant than not. SharkD  Talk  02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the definition of original research: when an editor interprets the sources. We are only allowed to say statements that are directly supported by the sources. We can't interpret game mechanics and then put our label on the game based on those mechanics. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a problem with the articles that come under the RTT remit. A certain editor is changing game articles to fit with edit summaries that go along the lines of "it's got this game mechanic and another game mechanic, ergo its RTT." Asking someone to take the word of an editor that in this case its important, is why this article had (and I'm not sure why it doesn't still) an essay tag.

In any case, why does this game deserve such treatment and no other? Why not pull out a brief review or description of each game listed and say why its RTT? Alastairward (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are applying equal "interpretation" when you say a game can't be RTT because four more articles call it "real-time strategy" than "real-time tactics". And, to say that these sorts of comments do not amount to an attempt at classification or genrification also amounts to original research. Or do you have some sources that say otherwise? Could you be correct? Maybe. But please provide some evidence. SharkD  Talk  09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources listing Blitzkrieg II as real-time strategy or "strategy.": [31][32][33][34]

Googling also shows that most sources refer to Sudden Strike as "strategy" or "real time strategy." [35][36][37][38][39] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been some very selective use of sources in the related RTT games articles. Miqademus, an editor with frequent reverts to this page, roundly rejects their use in favour of his/her own analysis. It makes it very frustrating to edit here if you're not one of the "owners" of this article. Alastairward (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Over the next few days I'm going to go through every statement in the article and make sure it is directly supported by the source. If it's not, it's gone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

One observation: you're basing your justification on the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive. This is also original research, and needs to be supported by reliable sources. And, as I said earlier, there are a number of reliable source cited on Chronology of real-time tactics video games that haven't been migrated over here yet. If you'll look you'll see a number for Blitzkrieg and Sudden Strike. SharkD  Talk  10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An observation about your observation, what is original research is what appears on the pages of Wikipedia. Any ideas that an editor has are ok, as long as they're supported with cites when applied to an article. Suggesting that an editor is performing OR in their own head is utterly irrelevant to the article.

Also, each article on Wikipedia should be capable of standing on its own. We shouldn't have to hunt for citations in other articles. Alastairward (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss changes before implementing them, please?

Let's please discuss individual changes/issues on the Talk page while the article is undergoing RfC, please? These sorts of contentions edits while the article is undergoing discussion aren't very constructive. What are your changes, and why do you want to change them? In addition it may be helpful to place each one in its own section. SharkD  Talk  09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I had such a request from another editor (see above) and they simply used it as an excuse to revert and then add a statement to the talk page that basically asked me not to edit again. I don't think that really helped. Why not take a look at WP:BRD, someone was bold enough to change the article and add new information, revert and discuss that first. Alastairward (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I see it. It looks to me as if the editor actually thanked you[40] for bringing the issue to the Talk page. SharkD  Talk  10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I can detect irony, Miqademus was very unhappy that I was daring enough to edit an article that they appear to own. Discussion with that particular editor was largely irrelevant in any case, he/she was quite happy to ignore discussion and third opinions and revert anything I tried to do with any RTT related articles. Alastairward (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Information in articles needs to be directly supported, literally, not implicitly, by the sources. And I do not need your permission to edit the article. Find some reliable sources that actually refer to RTT as a genre of subgenre. I'm considering nominating this article for deletion as it is. Oh, and FYI, it's especially contentious and disruptive for you to remove tags when so many statements in the article are disputed for good reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC again

Material is being removed based on "lack of reliable sources", but this is based on the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive, which also requires reliable sourcing. SharkD  Talk  10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're asking for an RFC on your opinion of other editor's opinions? It might help if you had a diff at least. Alastairward (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And any opinions that appear in the article have been sourced. SharkD  Talk  11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury provides valid arguments and supports his removals. However, he fails to recognise that media covering video game industry does not have a clear consensus governing sub-genres or secondary genres of games. Articles do not use precise, wikipediaic terms when describing games. Google hits do not illustrate reviewer opinions. For example, [http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ GameSpy Strategy vs. Tactics section] does not say "RTT", but it is really obvious they do mean it (see reply in sources below).

I believe AzureFury should express his views in sectioned talk, as proposed before in "Discuss changes before implementing them, please?" SharkD can then reply before changes are already made. Most importantly, this gives outside opinion on the matter.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Shark's comment that "the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive... also requires reliable sourcing." This is simply not true. *I* am not making any claims in the article. I am deleting material. Deleting material does not require reliable sources at all. Including material does. The burden of evidence lies on you to establish that the statements present or being added to the article are explicitly supported by reliable sources. It's as simple as that. Anything that you infer or make up is by defintion original research and will be removed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You think that personal opinion doesn't matter at all. However, personal opinion as motivation behind changes matters a lot here on Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Motivation, perhaps. But it is not enough for justification. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Support keeping sources and removal only upon concensus. I support inclusion of sources that do not directly specify RTT as a "genre" or "sub-genre". Most every reviewer is going to define games in broader, precise terms ("This game is real-time strategy...") and weaker sub-genric terms (".. with tactical unit control elements."). Do not expect the reviewer to say "This game's genre is tactical war game and sub-genre is real-time tactics" -- nobody would read his articles. RTT is essentially defined by small-scale tactics separated from large-scale strategy; if the reviewer identifies this, then it is a pretty good indication that he considers the game under RTT flag. And "sub-genre", surely, is most descriptive term to use for WP.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on the WP:VG talk page I broadly disagree with this. To make a claim that Game X was important to RTT genre one must have a source which makes that claim explicitly; this is obviously not possible if the genre is not mentioned. Trying to make it fit using a rationale such as "RTT is essentially defined by small-scale tactics separated from large-scale strategy; if the reviewer identifies this, then it is a pretty good indication that he considers the game under RTT flag" is original research. I'll happily chip in on specific cases should they posted here. bridies (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my statements are pretty much OR. As pointed out by you, I am synthesizing sources - i.e. if A said "RTT is unit tactical combat" and B said "unit tactical combat is used" then B is talking about RTT. I should not have done that and I stand corrected.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite correct. At worst the article bends things a bit in cases where Article 1 says, "Real-time tactics games A, B and C have features X, Y and Z", and Article 2 says, "Z-type games A, B and C have features X and Y." SharkD  Talk 

"Do not expect the reviewer to say 'This game's genre is tactical war game and sub-genre is real-time tactics' -- nobody would read his articles." This raises the problem of sources being influenced by their readers and not being reliable. I.e. they may just be saying something because they think their readers will like it. Or, for that matter, the Bible or any other foreign work since they were not written in English. SharkD  Talk  03:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but it doesn't change our policy on original research. If this topic is so notable that it deserves to be mentioned in this encyclopedia, some reliable sources must have talked about it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My issue is with AzureFury's individual deletions from the article. I'll go through them one by one:

1. Remove Blitzkrieg II - more sources call this game "strategy" not "tactical" [41]

Saying that because more sources call a game "strategy" the game is then not RTT is a perfect example of synthesis IMO. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivially untrue. Deletion can never be synthesis as it makes no claims in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose deletion: The source says While A&A will be a true RTS, rather than the real-time tactical gameplay along the lines of Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike which supports the statement. The rationale more sources call this game "strategy" not "tactical" is vague and speculative and is at most a WP:UNDUE consideration. This would be negated by saying "GameSpy said that..." but I wouldn't agree it is necessary. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Delete mention of Rome Total Realism, personal attacks are not a substitute for reliable sources [42]

This is a clear indication of bias in my opinion. Calling two sites considered reliable by the project as guilty of "personal attacks" should make it clear where it is AzureFury coming from when deleting things from this article. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You defend your personal attacks with a personal attack? Ad hominen, again. Attack the argument, not the man. Find reliable sources criticising RTW's historical accuracy that are not promotions for RTR and then we can discuss whether or not it would be proper weight to include it in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. The claims are supported by reliable sources. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let me go looking for some sources praising RTW's historical accuracy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Gamespy review praises RTW several times for historical accuracy.
2. Game Revolution says the focus is on historical accuracy, and "If it's good enough for the history channel, it's good enough for you."
3. Gamezone recommends RTW for history fans.
4. Thunderbolt says RTW is "accurate and grounded".
5. Arm chair general says RTW has "unprecedented depth, style and historical substance".
6. Games Radar, "Rome doesn’t disappoint in fanatical attention to historical accuracy."

Again, this is a WP:UNDUE consideration. If you want to add those sources, then do so. bridies (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I want to remove this debate about RTW's historical accuracy entirely. Leave it to the game's article, rather than try to cover it in one sentence in a list. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I might agree it would be better covered in the game's own article. On the other hand it's not like the article is overflowing with (valid, cited) content. I think it would depend on how prominent a game RTW is within the genre (and thus how much space it warrants within this article), which I'm not really able to comment upon. bridies (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that it's the most successful series, commercially. Combat Mission or Close Combat may be better known among wargaming "grognards", or not. Some series such as ALTAR Interactive's UFO series and Apeiron's Brigade E5 and 7.62mm derive from turn-based equivalents such as X-COM or Jagged Alliance. SharkD  Talk  04:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but when the only sentence that ever refers to the game criticizes it, we give that criticism WP:UNDUE weight. Therefore, we either devote a small section to discuss RTW or we leave this debate to the game's article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Delete ref, source at no point refers to RTT as a genre or subgenre, but actually as an attribute of the subgenres Real-time and Turn-based [43], Delete supposed different name which is not supported by source, no connection is made between "Real-time tactics" and "fixed-unit real-time sub-genre." [44], Mark Walker never refers to RTT as a genre or subgenre [45]

The actual quote from the article is: "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. ... By and large real-time strategy games are long on strategy and short on tactics. ... Of course there are exceptions. Most real-time exceptions come from the fixed-unit side of real-time gaming. Games like Close Combat, Ground Control, and Shogun are good examples of real-time games that reward sound tactics." The specific term "real-time tactics" is not used. But I don't think there's much cause for confusion about which sub-genre is being talked about here. This piece cited by the article makes a clear link between RTT and "fixed-unit real-time gaming". SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get WP:OR. This is not a debate. This isn't a matter of whether or not I or anyone else finds your argument convincing. Your statements have to have been made by the sources, not implied by the sources. This is true of every article on Wikipedia, even one in the boondocks such as this. You may see stuff like this slip through into articles all the time. But that's only because rules on Wikipedia typically don't get applied strictly when only a few editors are editting a non-controversial topic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate interpretation of what the article is saying? SharkD  Talk  04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with AzureFury here. The article places the genre divide between "real time" and "turn based" and possibly also "wargaming" and otherwise. There are parts where he discusses the difference between "tactics" and "strategy" but it is not at all clear that the author is drawing genre distinctions and indeed seems to be limited to gameplay elements or "attributes" if you will. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree he doesn't discuss the genre distinction at length - and doesn't make one at all for turn-based games that are "tactical" - I think he's placed significant emphasis on the distinction by mentioning the genre and providing examples. I also disagree that focusing upon the lapse in terminology, WRT the article calling them "fixed-unit real-time" instead of RTT, is very productive in this case. SharkD  Talk  15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR is a lot more constraining than you realize. Technically, we're not even allowed to include syllogisms in the article. There was a huge debate about modifying WP:OR so that if a source states A, which mathematically implies B, we would be allowed to include B in the article using the source that stated A. The proposal was rejected. They used an example I brought up, actually, during part of that debate here (search for "Turk"). The point being here, you feel that your inferrance is obvious and justified. I'm saying that it's still original research, and I do think different conclusions could be drawn from the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, is there any disagreement that he is referring to real time tactics when he says "the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre"? It raises such issues as being able to cite Isaac Newton for his work on differential calculus simply because he referred to it as "the method of fluxions and fluents" instead of the current, approved term. SharkD  Talk  04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source at some point made the connection between differential calculus and "the method of fluxions and fluents." If this connection was only made by an editor, it would be WP:OR and against policy. You might consider posting this at the no original research noticeboard if you're unconvinced by my understanding of policy. They'll probably tell you the exact same thing I'm telling you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And, as I already pointed out, the point-counterpoint article draws the connection between "fixed-unit real-time gaming" and RTT. SharkD  Talk  18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

4. The following examples are not "efforts to distinguish RTT games from conventional perceptions of the RTS" [46]

Using words like "in the classic sense" and "true RTS" are a pretty clear indication IMO that there are conventions held by people somewhere that are being ignored. Rewording "from conventional perceptions of the RTS" to just "from RTS games" might be OK though.

That's exactly what it is. Your opinion. See above comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I asked earlier, do you have an alternate opinion of what is being said here? SharkD  Talk  04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support removal per AzureFury. Adding in one's own statements commenting on the sources is original research. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested earlier to rephrase the sentence to "efforts to distinguish their games from RTSs". Statements like, "While A&A will be a true RTS, rather than the real-time tactical gameplay along the lines Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike", and "Close Combat was never an RTS in the classic sense since resource gathering and other typical factors played no part in the game" seem to support this. SharkD  Talk  14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

5. This quote is attributed to one member of the team. He lacks notability and thus we can't include his opinion. [47]

This could be reworded to "According to one developer..." It's important as a window into development and publishing. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is missing the point. We don't quote Bob Developer on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTABILITY. If he was the lead developer, maybe it could be justified considering the low level of notability on this topic in general. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NOTABILITY. The policy is in respect to whether a topic is deserving of an article. When it comes to inclusion within an existing article, WP:VERIFIABILITY is the relevant policy. SharkD  Talk  04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY is not applicable here. The relevant question is whether he is reliable per WP:SPS as an "authority" or whether the game he is connected to is important enough to the genre/article as to warrant using primary sources connected to it. I don't have time to read further, maybe later. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be thinking of the wrong policy, but I know that we don't insert the statements of just some guy into Wikipedia. He has to be notable, or an expert. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He has to be reliable, not notable, unless an article were created specifically about him, in which case he would have to be notable, but could be totally unreliable. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Random bit of uncited original research. [48]

Not OR since it's attributed to the developer. But it was never referenced properly either. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The notability problem remains. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre questions

Here are some hypothetical questions regarding genres in general:

1. Source A[49] says, "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. ... By and large real-time strategy games are long on strategy and short on tactics. ... Of course there are exceptions. Most real-time exceptions come from the fixed-unit side of real-time gaming. Games like Close Combat, Ground Control, and Shogun are good examples of real-time games that reward sound tactics." Source B[50] "Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units" links fixed units (and related features) with RTT. Can both sources now be used with respect to RTT titles?
2. What if an article were to say something like, "Game XXXX has all that fans could expect in terms of role-playing gameplay." Is it calling the game a role-playing game?
3. Does a mere mention of the name of the sub-genre constitute it as being distinct from its parent genre? SharkD  Talk  07:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1 is the definition of WP:SYNTH.

2 would not be necessary as we could find some source explicitly calling the game an RPG. Further, this is not a good example as many sources use the word "tactics" and "strategy" interchangeably. There is no analogous situation for RPGs.

3 So far I have only seen one source to ever refer to RTT as a subgenre, explicitly. That makes me question the topic's notability. Perhaps the whole article should be merged into Real-time Strategy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to look at that vg portal classification again. A "C". Reasons have been listed for that grade, why not address those instead of some made up issues. Alastairward (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)