Common benchmarks of TTRPG are Advance Wars, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem. You have referenced them has scales against one another; what characteristics set them apart from one another? What features are you considering when you say a game is more like one than another?
There are are several axes that set different subgenres of grid-based tactical RPGs apart, including (but not limited to):
Army composition: mostly generic soldiers with few or no unique “hero” units on the field (Advance Wars); mostly unique “hero” units with few or no generic soldiers (Fire Emblem); or a mix or both (Final Fantasy Tactics)
Scale of engagements: a “zoomed out” approach where a whole city may fit into a single map tile (Advance Wars); a “zoomed in” approach where an entire mission may take place within the halls of a single building (Final Fantasy Tactics); or varying scale on a per-mission basis (Fire Emblem)
Unit complexity: an RPG-like approach where each unit’s stats are fully customisable and may include a list of special abilities as long as your arm (Final Fantasy Tactics); a TCG-like approach where units have limited customisation and few abilities, often determined by equipment choices (Fire Emblem); or a chess-like approach where units have fixed stats and typically exactly one special ability apiece (Advance Wars)
Logistical play: each side’s resources are fixed at the start of the mission, and resource management during play is either absent or limited to simple item drops (Final Fantasy Tactics); logistical play may or may not be present, depending on the mission (Fire Emblem); or capturing and managing resources in the field is a core gameplay element (Advance Wars)
I could keep going, but you probably get the picture!
