Talk:Real-time tactics

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."  Azure Fury  (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.  Azure Fury   (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.  Azure Fury   (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.":

Googling also shows that most sources refer to Sudden Strike as "strategy" or "real time strategy."  Azure Fury  (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.  Azure Fury   (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 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.  Azure Fury  (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.  Azure Fury  (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.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre questions
Here are some hypothetical questions regarding genres in general:


 * 1) Source A 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 "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.  Azure Fury   (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)


 * We can't be robotic about this stuff. Sometimes all the sources say the same thing. But sometimes the sources conflict, and some outright make mistakes. So we use some kind of basis to figure out which sources we trust. One thing we can't do is make the sources say something that they don't (e.g.: that games never referred to as RTT are somehow RTT). But what's reasonable is to look at alternative names for RTT (e.g.: a source that says "the real-time tactical genre is sometimes also called the tactical wargame genre" -- I'd say "fixed unit subgenre" qualifies as outlining the same subgenre as RTT), and keep those games under the same heading as RTT. For everything else, there has to be some give and take. Sometimes we have to look across the sources to what the heck an RTT is, and say that it makes source X right to call it RTT, and source Y wrong. Usually that's better than being really liberal (any source that mentions RTT makes that game into an RTT) or conservative (anything ambiguous is excluded). ... all that aside, this article shouldn't really be about individual games anyway. It should be about the subgenre. The only time you really need to mention individual games is if you're talking about the history. If you can't find a source that explains why the game was important to the genre's development, then you probably don't need to mention it at all. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, but Wikipedia's policy on original research says, "If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."
 * If there aren't many reliable sources talking about this topic, then Wikipedia should not cover it in excessive depth, if at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  So just because a few people have claimed this is a subgenre, doesn't necessarily mean we should cover it as so on Wikipedia.  I think most of the obvious original research has been removed.  There is nothing preventing the information from being re-inserted once reliable sources for it are found.  Indeed, secondary sources as you mention would do this article a great service in the future.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anon, "But what's reasonable is to look at alternative names for RTT ... and keep those games under the same heading as RTT", is a blatant plea to use original research. As AzureFury quite rightly says, if the sources aren't there, just don't say it. Alastairward (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are putting words into my mouth. No one is saying that we should add unsourced information or read into the source something that is not there. I'm talking about merging two related topics. If we had an article on "hot" and an article on "warm", and a source that says "hot = warm", we'd put it all under the same heading. We just wouldn't insert our own thoughts. But we'd certainly summarize all the scholarship on hotness and warmth under one heading. It would be absurd to have separate articles for "real-time tactics", for "real-time tactical wargame", and "fixed unit tactical subgenre of RTS". We'd keep it all under one article, no matter what we decide to call it, because we'd be able to find scholarship that equates all those things together, and demonstrates that it's important. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we merge other articles into this one, or this article into Real-time Strategy?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this article is already the product of a merger of ideas. It's not simply a collection of quotes from any reliable article that mentioned "real-time tactics". It's about a subgenre of strategy game that happens to be in real-time and happens to emphasize tactics with a fixed number of units, rather than bigger strategic issues of where to fight. And the sources support that's what it is. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the definition of WP:SYNTH to me.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something we do even in some of our featured articles. Also sounds like you're not here to build a consensus. In which case, why are you here? Homieclown23 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh, no, that's not something we do in featured articles. See that would be allowing original research, and the policy is called "no original research."  Pretty unambiguous!  You seem to imply that "build a consensus" means "allow people to do whatever they want with an article that they claim ownership of."  Wikipedia is maintained by adherence to guidelines and policies.  Wikipedia is not anarchy.  It is true that if editors can agree that a rule would interfere with the improvement of the encyclopedia, they can ignore it, but I don't think that is applicable here.  Again, I've only ever seen one source ever specifically mention Real-time Tactics as a genre or subgenre.  That really says something about the notability of the topic.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Real-time tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231194439/http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-resources/ to http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-resources/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030014041/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/ to http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412124256/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/rometotalwar/review.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/rometotalwar/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

More games
Should Sydicate be added to the Futuristic section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.79.141 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)