It's not listed under GameFAQS - IGN has Strategic RPGs, but Gamespot doesn't.

Of course, VGChartz doesn't, either.

I'd go so far as to say that the body of gamers using the term are just wrong. SRPGs do exist, but the vast majority of modern TBSes are in fact role-playing games, so the distinction is largely meaningless.

Strategy RPG games IMO are the ones where "traditionally" the movement was grid based. VC ishas a different take on it but essentially you are limited by action points (grid) ). IMHO battle mechanics defined if it was a TACTICS game.

There have been several unique takes on the grid based game (ARC the lad, VC, e.g.) but the essence is the same. Movement is restricted and each unit has unique strengths and weaknesses.

As far as a story to tie-in everything is concerned that is where RPG part of the SRG comes in.

I believe my inclusion of XCOM sparked this debate. I mentioned it as a hybrid strategy/ SRPG game since once you get your soldiers (they are available for hire like FF:tactics or Tactics Ogre) they stay with you and level up until they die. It also has perma death. The soldiers typically don't have  a background story (just like FF:Tactics and tactics:ogre) but each one of them has a personality. Personality is defined by the attributes each one has. To me the addition of certain attributes such as Fear which determined how often a soldier would freeze up when faced with an enemy defined their personality.

The reason why I called it a hybrid strategy/SRPG is because (to my knowledge) up till that point TBS games did not incorporate RPG elements that extensively.

SRPG is an RPG game which plays like a chess game and rules determine how far you can move your soldier.  I think this definition is the one ALL "tactics" games have in common.

Actually it was more of your mentioning of games like Advance Wars.  I have no experience with XCOM.

The debate is basically this:

Khuutra:  "Every game where you play a character through a story is an RPG."

Me:  "That's not the way the genres are used."

NIS has made a lot of gridless systems such as the one in Makai Kingdom.

Now, now. Just because that's the way our chat last night went.

The debate proper goes like this:

Me: All SRPGs are TBSes with role-playing elements.

WoW: All SRPGs are TBSes with one specific gameplay feature.

Me: All SRPGs are TBSes with role-playing elements.

WoW: All SRPGs are TBSes with one specific gameplay feature.

Me: All SRPGs are TBSes with role-playing elements.

WoW: All SRPGs are TBSes with one specific gameplay feature.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Clearly.

Dragon Force for the Sega Saturn

I always thought of "SRPGs" as those games made in Japan (can't think of any western game that fits the following description) that give you a bunch of characters which will interact between battles that happen in a grid and the rules are defined by common "JRPG" aspects - items, levelling, spells/abilities. and, in these moments that you are not fighting, you will also "manage" your army. examples in this genre are: Fire Emblem, Luminous Arc, FF Tactics, Jeanne D'arc.

so even though the name Strategy RPG is generic and you could say that most RPG games have a strategic component too, I'm happy with MY description and it allows me to separate games in genres in a nice way. with that said, I don't include Advance Wars in the genre.

feel free to disagree, but I'm absolutely not going to discuss haha it's enough to watch Khuutra and Words of Wisdom arguing without even knowing if they agree or disagree