I believe in that case you append it with a year number like so (VideoGame/Warlords2003).
TV Tropes Pantheon Group Members Database
TheScrappy and ButtMonkey of the Pantheon Thread
I would like to propose a split of Turn-Based Strategy games by these two categories, which are yet to be named properly.
- Type-A:Your units are permanent heroes who level up and stay with you throughout the game, and often permanently die if you lose them in combat.
- Examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, X-COM
- Type-B: Your army is pretty disposable and you’re expected to take losses (and build replacements), and the game is more about controlling the map’s resources through tactical, chess-like trades
- Examples: Civilization, Advance Wars
I believe it's easier that way overall, right?
Edited by nightelf37 TV Tropes Pantheon Group Members Database
The examples are split into Eastern & Western style, but the description doesn't even mention the difference (assuming there is a meaningful one).
The Keenest Of Them All
Is this just for turn-based computer/video games and not turn-based board games?
Watch out where you step, or we'll be afoot. Hide / Show Replies
Chess and Stratego were once mentioned on the Turn-Based Tactics page, where they belong, but both and other boardgames were removed from there :/
Risk, on the other hand, should at least be mentioned here, IMHO.
This page is suffering from internal conflict - it hasn't decided whether it wants to describe "classical" Grand Strategy games or JRP Gs and their derivatives. Besides the fact that the article seems to switch between describing either of these with each paragraph, the examples list below it is the perfect illustration for how the two "halves" of this coin have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
In essence what we get is an article on "football", trying to simultaneously describe both Soccer and American Football while pretending that they are almost identical but with slight cultural differences - which is obviously untrue. That's why there's one page for each, despite both games being called "football" by their respective fans.
I've never understood why the "Eastern" variants were called "strategy games" in the first place, but I can't argue with (nor change) semantics; and yet some solution has to be found here.
Our future is a madhouse
Uh... What the blip do you call "Console style" and "PC style"? Because it's not obvious from the lists at all.
...And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense - R.W.Wood Hide / Show Replies
I took the liberty of writing it out, since it's a major misnomer. There have been many arguments about the appropriateness of the term "console-style RPG"; this wiki uses Eastern RPG instead. But at least the Trope Maker for that, Dragon Quest, started on the NES/Famicom, and imitators like Phantasy Star and Final Fantasy were largely born on consoles and helped distance the genre from its roots in Western computer games like Ultima and Wizardry. But many older Japanese turn-based strategy games by companies such as Koei (Nobunaga's Ambition, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, etc.) and System Soft (Daisenryaku, Master of Monsters) started out on the PC 88 and similar computers.
Edited by Prfnoff
There's bunch of Paradox Interactive/Entertaiment titles (Europa Universalis, Crusader King, etc.) listed under Campaign-level. They aren't really turn-based. Any reason why they're included?
[-TallDarkAndBishoujo-]
Using italics is just fine since they no longer cause problems with the indexes.
and that's how Equestria was made!
There is a turn-based strategy game called Warlords (I loved it when I was a kid!) but the page Warlords is an unrelated game with the same name that doesn't belong here. How are such cases typically handled?
Hide / Show Replies