Talk:Super Conflict

Removal of editors contributions
The following has been removed from this page:

==Troop listings==

===Blue Forces===

Troop listing (blue forces): 1) Infantry - Generally useless in fights, use them to hold cities/airports 2) Commando - Effective against other commandos or medium tanks; better on offensive then defensive 3) M55 Sheridan / T55 - The 'infantry' version of tanks 4) M60A3 Medium Tank / T62 - Decent. Can do well attacking any land unit as long as it has a terrain advantage 5) M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank / T80 - The behemoth of the battlefield. Keep it safe, it will save your army 6) F5E Tiger / MIG 21 - The 'infantry' version of fighters, good against bombers but not much else 7) F14 Tomcat / MIG 23 - Slightly better fighter, with 6 attacks available instead of 4, good against bombers and weak fighters 8) F15C / MIG 25 - Dominates helicopters or bombers. Decent vs. fighters 9) F/A18 Hornet / MIG 29 - Strongest Attacking Fighter, but has less strength than some weaker fighters 10) A6E Intruder / Su 22 - Light bomber, catch troops in bad terrain to be really effective 11) A10 Thunderbolt / Su 25 - Tank buster; use terrain variables to make the most of your attacks, also effective against battleships and submarines 12) AH10 Cobra - Light chopper, better used vs. grunts than tanks 13) AH64 Apache - Great ground attack unit. Protect it from fighters and use it vs. any ground unit, including SAM sites! 14) Destroyer - Weak naval unit. Use vs. Carriers only 15) Cruiser - Great vs. Aircraft. Will crumble vs. most any other naval unit 16) Submarine - Decent vs. all ships. Great defense, too 17) Battleship - The M1A1 of the sea. Use against any naval unit or catch enemy ground units on the coast for domination 18) Carrier - Perhaps most valuable naval unit. Can not attack but it's a mobil airport 19) Flag Tank - Good vs. opposing flag tank. Not very good against other units 20) Flag Ship - Keep it as far away as possible from the battles

I would be interested in editors opinions on these deletions. Ikip (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored it, but request that a source (in-line citation) be added. Content should be kept unless if there is a consensus against it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clearly game guide material, full of someone's personal analysis of the units and their performance in game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What analysis? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What source? Deor (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As Doctorfluffy says, it's game-guide material in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. If the opinions about performance ("better on offensive then defensive," "better used vs. grunts than tanks," etc.) aren't sufficiently clear-cut, the imperative constructions {"use terrain variables to make the most of your attacks," "keep it safe, it will save your army") are incontrovertably guide material. Even if a source could be found that makes precisely these statements, the material would still violate WP:NOT. Deor (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was the whole article; however, so long as it is balanced by other out of universe content is it okay. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this information, then? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They were correctly removed in-line with the video game guideline. I'm failing to see why what should be uncontroversial clean-up has caused concern and how it warranted being labelled disruptive in the edit history. Someoneanother 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In any event, has anyone looked for published strategy books or through reviews of the game? One small section in a larger article that helps illustrates the structure and nature of the game can be referenced in primary sources when the rest of the article is sourced through secondary sources. Also, are we allowed to use images a la here, i.e. is that fair use? On the flip side, I don't know how to transwiki, but perhaps the disputed list could at least go to the StrategyWiki page? Finally, does anyone have this issue of Nintendo Power? It seems that some issues of that magazine from this search may have some coverage. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of transwikiing, you could just copy+paste it over, I'd assume. I wouldn't advise you to touch that image, though. SW doesn't seem to provide any sort of rationale for its use; I'd advise you to look to official sources before all else. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're ever searching for information on an obscure game, hit allgame first. The Amiga Magazine Rack has a single scathing review of it available, since multiformat magazines have been scanned as well. Someoneanother 08:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody—I have the issue (#50) of Nintendo Power that you asked about. Super Conflict is covered on page 42, but it's in the "Classified Information" section of the magazine, which is dedicated to cheat codes and strategies (i.e., almost always not useful for Wikipedia). In this case, it discusses a method to avoid damage through certain option settings and repeatedly hitting the R button when attacked. Nothing really useful for this article. Issue 46 has a little more information. Pages 20–23 cover the game, but most of it is strategy information, as was the case for most NP coverage back then. I should be able to create a stub Gameplay section out of it, but there's not too much there.  Pagra shtak  16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I created the Gameplay section. That's about all that can be mined from NP.  Pagra shtak  16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)