[Fyron]

See what I mean?

I saw what you meant as soon as I read the post. Yes, that Last post was about semantics (well, the Last sentence was), and, it was directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Don't worry, Fyron knows I'm just poking fun out of him. It's kind of like the national passtime around here

I think that the thing to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as what a strategy game, or any game at all, *ought* to be like.

Noone has said what a strategy game ought to be like. Classifications exist for a reason. The game genres are well defined so that almost all new games can easily be placed in one of them without a second thought. Games are not made so that they have everything they need to fit into a genre, they are just placed in the most relevant one when they are done. There is really not any list of things that a game has to have to be a strategy game (or for any other genre). Both SE4 and Chess are strategy games. What do they have in common? They require similar types of thinking to play them, and pretty much nothing else (turn based is irrelevant, as that is not genre defining). If there was a list, one of these games would not be classified as a strategy game.

That being said, a strategy game ought to require future strategic planning. It ought to have varied choices available. It ought to have depth.