Talk:List of abstract strategy games

Remove some items?
There are several games on this list which do not fit the definition of abstract strategy games, because the games do not have perfect information or include random elements.

I think it may be worthwhile to move the games that do not meet the stricter definition of an abstract strategy game to another page, or to remove them altogether. I'd make the edits myself, but as an anonymous editor, I worry about robots reversing the changes and/or starting an editing war.

Obvious offenders: Stratego (hidden information), Mastermind (hidden information), Brain Chain (which is a trivia game), Spectrangle (because drawing from the bag is random), and Plateau (which has hidden information). A careful examination may reveal others.

Thoughts?

165.125.144.16 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just remove them yourself; hardly anyone ever edits this page or cares about it, and most of the stuff here has been added at random with no explanation, so no one has any right to get upset if you remove some. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I care quite a bit about this page (it is one of only two pages I have bookmarked). I don't think that imperfect information or random elements do not exclude a game from being "abstract strategy", that simply makes it non-combinatorial. If anything, I think a new section should be added for games with imperfect information. NinjaPhil (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Merging "Paper and pencil games" with "'n-in-a-row' games"
I may merge these two sections into a single section called "Paper and pencil and 'n-in-a-row' games." This will simplify the lists, and also then not require the special "†" notation.

I may also get rid of the lead "refimprove" tag. If an entry needs a citation or is dubious then a more specific, or tag can be added, which will make clean-up easier. Please reply if any objections.—LithiumFlash (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Objection. Merging the two secs creates confusion. The suggested merge won't "simplify", it simply makes one less sec, but combining them is illogical since they are unlike elements with overlap. The suggested merge will not eliminate the need for "†" notation, if you strip off that notation, then that info (if a game is strictly paper & pencil, or can be played via paper & pencil) is simply lost. Plus the notation occurs in other section(s), e.g. game Hex in sec "Connection games". This list article is very incomplete, poorly maintained, and redundant to article/game categories. But the suggested merge is not an improvement, quite the opposite. --IHTS (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "†" notation to indicate that a game *can* be played via paper & pencil, is interesting and has some value, but I have no objection if all of those markings are eliminated from the article. ("Can be played via paper & pencil" is not a game category, it is an evaluation per game. It makes the article list harder to maintain, and "can be played via paper & pencil" is not the only kind of game category overlap, so why represent only one? [For example checkers can be won by blocking the opponent from any move, but it is not a "Blockade game". We aren't using special characters to indicate the many other different kinds of overlap.]) A better/more complete categorization system is needed if this article is to be kept. Another idea is to dispense with categorization in this list article altogether. Another idea is to dispense with this list article, which is as mentioned redundant to game article categories. --IHTS (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I just removed the "refimprove" tag. If an entry needs a citation or is dubious then editors can just add a specific or . This will be more precise and make cleanup easier.—LithiumFlash (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Where to put Konane and the L game?
I'm tempted to put Konane in the Capturing games section as it involves the capturing of opponent pieces. But the goal of Konane (the standard version described in the article) is to prevent one's opponent from performing a legal move, therefore it's a type of blockade game, and might be included in the Blockade game section. Which section do all of you prefer it should be added in?

The L game appears to be a blockade game. Should it be added to that section?

Nomad
I don't think it fully meets the notability guidelines, but Kirk Mitchell's game Nomad is an excellent connection-based game, which I encountered due to the Thousand Year Game Competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C800:5660:4B1:C478:FFE7:9D4 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Grid-based Strategy Video Games
I would like to add grid-based strategy video games as a separate category. There are some very good games that utilize a typical turn-based system that is similar to chess, such as The Banner Saga, Endless Legend and Dofus, among others. Please respond to this post if you find this unacceptable, else I shall soon add a list of such games to the page. Thank you.

Modification of Categories
I think the categories would better reflect changes revolving around goals as is done in some other places around the web discussing and categorizing game design.

Things like, Checkmate games, breakthrough, stalemate/blockade, hunt, connection, annihilation, and territory.

Arimaa for example may resemble chess in some ways, but the goal is fundamentally about breakthrough, not mating an opponent's king or king like piece. T0afer (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)