Game Genre Map - Omega War

Stage 1 research-scope review - staged cycle: game-genre-map - page created 2026-06-12

alignment_status: review - Stage 1 of 3 (research scope approval).
This page proposes the research questions, evidence plan, assumptions, working packet path, canonical output path, and post-approval route for /game-genre-map. It does not yet map the genre, decide feature priority, or create the canonical artifact.

1. Proposed Cycle Summary

Section feedback notes

Purpose: convert Omega War's approved fantasy, audience, first front, and roster into a genre map that tells the project which conventions to keep, bend, reject, or prototype first.

Primary lens: the project is an RTS/tactics/deck-builder/operational-campaign hybrid, not a generic strategy game. The map should compare conventions by player job: tactical battle feel, deck identity, base/deployment pacing, operational persistence, onboarding, and browser-first delivery.

Immediate downstream use: feed the tactical vertical-slice design spec. The map should clarify what must be proven in the first playable battle before durable architecture or broader campaign systems are promoted.

1.1 Inputs already approved

research/idea-brief.md - browser-first Three.js RTS/tactics hybrid, single-player first, tactical vertical slice before the strategic war map.
research/game-audience.md - primary campaign wargamers; secondary deck/division tacticians; tertiary alt-history narrative audience.
research/game-fantasy.md - "theater commander of the war history refused to fight"; one war remembered across strategic and tactical layers.
research/arsenal-1945.md and research/divisions-1945.md - historical/roster constraints for the 1945-46 premise.
research/proposed-divisions-and-decks-roster.md - first slice: UK 11th Armoured vs Soviet 2nd Guards Tank Army; base-game Central Germany roster.

2. Research Questions

Section feedback notes

ID	Question	Expected decision output
GMQ1	Which genre families does Omega War belong to, and what player promises does each family imply?	Genre-family map with primary/secondary/tertiary labels and a short "inherit / adapt / avoid" stance.
GMQ2	Which tactical-layer conventions are load-bearing for the first slice: cover, suppression, capture points, base building, resources, phase escalation, and command-post unlocks?	First-slice convention table with must-have, prototype, and defer rows.
GMQ3	How should deck-building and division identity interact with in-battle base construction?	Rules-of-thumb for deck roster, build order, deployment bands, counterplay, and avoiding homogenized decks.
GMQ4	What operational-campaign conventions should shape the later war map without bloating the first tactical prototype?	Strategic-layer handoff requirements, auto-resolve fairness principles, persistence surfaces, and deferrals.
GMQ5	What browser-first and solo-dev constraints change the genre map?	Scope controls for unit count, session length, save model, onboarding, camera readability, asset fidelity, and performance proof.
GMQ6	Which comparable failures are anti-patterns Omega War must actively avoid?	Anti-pattern list covering AI quality, saveless long missions, campaign UI friction, layer divorce, onboarding cliffs, and multiplayer-first priorities.

Gate - GMQ1 Scope required

Approve these research questions as the Stage-2 scope for /game-genre-map?

Approve as proposed Approve with additions in notes Narrow the scope before research Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Gate - GMQ2 Deliverable Shape required

What shape should the Stage-2 working packet emphasize?

Decision map first: conventions, anti-patterns, and slice requirements Comparable teardown first: one page per genre/reference title Prototype brief first: convert findings directly into first-slice tests Hybrid, but keep the final artifact decision-map oriented

Additional notes (optional)

3. Evidence Coverage

Section feedback notes

Source category	Examples to inspect	Use
Tactical RTS / RTT	Company of Heroes 1-3, World in Conflict, Men of War / Gates of Hell where relevant	Cover, suppression, capture points, base/build pacing, mission length, tactical spectacle, AI and save complaints.
Deck/division wargames	Wargame: Red Dragon, WARNO, Steel Division 2, Broken Arrow	Deck identity, phase timing, activation/card constraints, division asymmetry, onboarding and balance risk.
Operational campaign layers	WARNO Army General, Steel Division 2 Army General, Wargame campaigns, EndWar campaign structure	Map-battle handoff, auto-resolve incentives, persistence, front ownership, UI friction, battle fatigue.
Browser/low-friction strategy precedents	OpenFront, historical Flash-era strategy, web-to-Steam examples already captured in audience research	What browser delivery can and cannot promise for a deep RTS; session and onboarding implications.
Approved internal artifacts	Idea brief, audience, fantasy, arsenal, divisions, roster	Guardrails; avoid re-litigating approved premise and roster decisions.

Gate - GMQ3 Evidence Categories required

Approve these evidence categories for Stage 2?

Approve all five categories Remove browser precedents from this pass Approve with added source category in notes Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

Gate - GMQ4 Coverage Depth required

How deep should the Stage-2 sweep go?

Targeted decision sweep: enough evidence to answer GMQ1-GMQ6 Exhaustive comparable sweep across all listed families Internal artifacts first, external evidence only for gaps Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

4. Assumptions and Constraints

Section feedback notes

G-A1: first output should serve the tactical vertical slice, not a full campaign spec.
G-A2: the first battle should prove deck x base-building x deployment-band fun before durable architecture expands.
G-A3: browser-first remains a wedge and constraint; desktop fallback is allowed but should not drive first-slice design unless performance evidence forces it.
G-A4: single-player and pausable/mid-battle-save expectations matter more than multiplayer ladder convention.
G-A5: genre evidence can recommend prototypes and deferrals, but cannot overrule approved premise/roster artifacts without an explicit revision cycle.

Gate - GMQ5 Assumptions required

Accept these assumptions and constraints for the research pass?

Accept all assumptions Revise assumptions in notes Need clarification

Additional notes (optional)

5. Outputs, Paths, and Route

Section feedback notes

Stage	Path	Purpose
Stage 2 working packet	`research/_working/preliminary-game-genre-map.md`	Non-canonical evidence notes, source log, decision map draft, and unresolved gaps.
Stage 2 review page	`alignment/game-genre-map-omega-war.html`	Converts the working packet into approval gates.
Stage 3 canonical artifact	`research/game-genre-map.md`	Approved genre map and prototype implications.
Stage 3 glossary updates	`research/glossary.md`	Only if the Stage-2 artifact proposes and the user approves new terms.

Gate - GMQ6 Working Packet Path required

Approve the Stage-2 working packet path?

Approve research/_working/preliminary-game-genre-map.md Use a different path (describe in notes)

Additional notes (optional)

Gate - GMQ7 Canonical Path required

Approve the proposed Stage-3 canonical path?

Approve research/game-genre-map.md Use a different path (describe in notes) Do not write a canonical artifact yet

Additional notes (optional)

Gate - GMQ8 Route After Approval required

After a confirmed genre map, what should the next project route be?

Continue to tactical vertical-slice design spec Run Three.js performance/prototype spike first Draft unit/division data schema first Choose another route in notes

Additional notes (optional)

6. Compile Approval YAML

Answer all required gates above, add optional section feedback, then compile and copy the YAML into the next execution message.