Strategic game is not the same as a normal game. It means the same thing as tactic game - a game where the strategies and tacts are much more numerous and varied than a normal game - these games have written rules in them and technically diplomacies can be thought of as strategic games, but they're usually not counted.

Use the right word choice (this is oftening problem).

(and by game, here, I mean Warlight game)

Edited 2/19/2016 23:46:34

I'm not saying you're wrong, but then what would you consider a "normal game?"

Basically a game with no written rules, everything that Warlight is capable of doing - it's impossible to cheat in these games.

So you are telling us that "diplomacy" is strategic and that actual strategic games are not? I'm gonna refrain from correcting you on this one and let that job be handed off to someone else.

I remember I joined a 40 player chat game, I viewed all the chat across a period of time, I swear all it was, Was you chatting your own opinion and bashing others.

You sir are someone who thinks he's right all the time and likes to hear his/her opinion on rewind. In reality your opinions are moronic and just makes me think you are an idiot with nothing eles to do but talk whatever is in your mind trying to "fix" an issue.

So you are telling us that "diplomacy" is strategic and that actual strategic games are not? I'm gonna refrain from correcting you on this one and let that job be handed off to someone else.

Strategic and tactic games do not usually refer to diplomacy games - diplomatic games more commonly refers to it. But in the broadest sense of tactic/strategic game, yes, diplomacy is a strategic game.

"actual strategic" games are "normal" or "builtin" games.

I remember I joined a 40 player chat game, I viewed all the chat across a period of time, I swear all it was, Was you chatting your own opinion and bashing others.

You sir are someone who thinks he's right all the time and likes to hear his/her opinion on rewind. In reality your opinions are moronic and just makes me think you are an idiot with nothing eles to do but talk whatever is in your mind trying to "fix" an issue.

This is basically an ungrounded insult. Often folk leave, and their chat messages disappear with them - that leads to a bigger proportion of me talking. And yes, I chat saying my opinions, if the talk is about opinions. I have only ever once bashed someone where they did not insult me first (and I regret the time). I don't think that I'm right all the time - often I change my opinions in a dialog. But I assume that I'm right - it's more likely that I am than not (on undisputed information, anyway). Everyone likes to hear their own opinions said back to them - that's just part of human psychology. And yes, I talk what is in my mind as most folk say what is on their mind - against what you talk, which seems to be what is in your butt. Saying elsewise what you mean is just pretensious. And yes, I try to convince folk of my opinion, when I argue.

Edited 2/20/2016 00:12:47

Or... You go to a debate club and stop ranting your opinion on uninformed idiots on the OT forum.

Diplomacy is not strategic. Never has, Never will be. If you are falling diplomacy's with OP slots strategic than well Lottery games might be named strategic next.. Who knows?

Can't deny Juq sometimes is a bit snobby, but hey, no need to hide your love for diplomacies, Plat. We both know you like 'em.

Diplomacy is not strategic. Never has, Never will be. If you are falling diplomacy's with OP slots strategic than well Lottery games might be named strategic next.. Who knows?

Normal games can be unbalanced, too - or they can be fully balanced. If 6 alts (for lack of association with players) play on https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=29270, with custom scenario to make them each have a triangle, and with the rule of them not being able to attack without public notice, it can turn to be a pretty fun game where you must use your brain - who likes me, who doesn't, who can we risk eliminating? If you disabled private chat in that game, could get pretty interesting.

But anyhow, that's in the broad meaning, as I said - the more commonly used narrower meaning of tactic games is basically ruled games, just not diplomacy.

Edited 2/20/2016 00:40:43

He misused the word strategic here, I think. Strategy in WL refers to 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and sometimes 4v4, where it is the ultimate test of "who is better at who" on a template. This "tactic" gamemode is basically a concept that Juq has that he's trying to bring forth, and not trying to say that his version of strategy is more strategic than the typical version of strategy.

He misused the word strategic here, I think. Strategy in WL refers to 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and sometimes 4v4, where it is the ultimate test of "who is better at who" on a template. This "tactic" gamemode is basically a concept that Juq has that he's trying to bring forth, and not trying to say that his version of strategy is more strategic than the typical version of strategy.

I did not found the strategic gamemode, though I have popularised it (I know it sounds arrogant, but I mean you first heard it since I invited you to one, and I'm the only one I know of that hosts RT open tactic games). And by your meaning of strategic, I would call a duel/team duel.

I call the tactic and strategic gamemodes (in my meaning) their names since they force using other tacts and other strategies, often more tacts at a time, whether it's traps, beelines, pocketing, or deployment limits. Normal gamemode is pretty limited to what tacts and strategies you can do - for example, can you, if you are heavily losing, still win basically by doing a surprise checkmate (I love when that happens in chess), in a normal game? Quite rarely. In short, "strategic" gamemode = a few strategies and tacts; strategic gamemode = loads more strategies and tacts.