Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Ignore him not worth your time .
Wargroove is far from being perfect in a lot of point but you will always have some people
which complain about everything (in every game's forum ) and have ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument .
He's one them .
I've S-ranked like half the missions already, too, and didn't have too much trouble with most of them. However, there are quite a few missions in the game where you only have a few units and any RNG variation in the AI movement can cost you the S-Rank easily.
To be specific: For example, in Caesar 1, you need an enemy Archer unit to move a certain way so you can kill it or you lose too many units too early on. I've followed all guides I've found perfectly yet the Archer does not move for me like it does in the guide videos - meaning I can't kill it, meaning I lose too many units, meaning no S-rank. So please explain to me how this is not complete RNG.
Another example: In the Ermeric mission in the swamp, you need an enemy unit to survive,which also depends on RNG (get the random +5% dmg boost and it dies). If it doesn't survive, you can't move forward quickly enough, meaning you once again get no S-rank.
Explain to me how my arguments are "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" or leave the thread, thanks. If you like Wargroove, fine, but you can't just call any criticism "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥". Besides, I thought these forums exist to give feedback on the game?
Easy cite me one strategy turn per turn game where AI doesn't cheat ?
Respond none .
Even big 4x name like CIV have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ AI , because it would cost more than the entire game to devellop a good AI .
In every turn based in Hard mod you have to exploit AI stupid move or have luck . All .
Like your friend Kai you are clueless about game design , and developement .
Now you claimed having playing 30hours after 5 day but the game is the worst of 2019 .
How do you want me to take you seriously ? Who in his sane mind would play 30Hours in five day of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ game ?
Nobody . You overreact about what you don't like . You act like a child everytime there is a small issue you cry and ou rage .
I don't care if you like or not wargroove but your argument are ♥♥♥♥♥♥ as ♥♥♥♥ . Never had issue to make this mission in Srank by the way .
So yea we are all lucky and you'r just THE unlucky guy .
For ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ god sake i'm French culturaly we love complaining about everything everytime ) and i don't complain as much as you (eventhough i think the game isn't perfect and can improve .
I don't care if the AI cheats in a strategy game or not, that's not even the issue here.
Okay, so how many games have you made? How do you get the right to lecture other people on their understanding of game design? Seems a bit entitled to me.
I just want an AI that acts consistently OR a more lenient S-rank requirement on missions where you have to manipulate an uncooperative AI, is that too much to ask? I think not.
I do. And I think lots of other people do, too, because sometimes you just gotta enjoy a good dumpsterfire. I paid money on this game, I can't refund it, so I at least want to get my money's worth out of it.
Well, boo hoo. I think you're the one overreacting, but okay. You said yourself the game has problems, I'm just pointing them out. You still didn't counter any of my arguments by the way, but OH WELL. Guess I'm the whiny child in here and not you. :)
Srank are tottaly dotable without counting on "luckyplay" .
In reality you are just not good Enough .
And Game is 20$ you clearly don't need to make Srank Quest to make it worth it .....
Campaign is around 15 Hours .... You played at least two time that Amount .
I hightly doubt with how much you hate the game 20$ matter a lot .
My best advice move on . You already said you hate the campaign (even before doing Srank ) why "torture" you for Srank ?
My best advice move on . Try Pvp . And if you don't like Pvp i'm pretty sure you have a lot of more funny things to do .
Anyway have a nice day/week/year .
PS : Issue isn't pointing out problem it's pointing out thing you don't like as problem . When most of the things are basicelly ineherent to the genre/game .
Can't see how I'm not "good enough" when the AI simply doesn't do for me what it does for other players. How this is my fault? If it was my fault, I'd learn to play better instead of complaining. But all I can do here is restart the mission 20 times until that Archer moves how I want it to and that's just stupid.
Stuff like this is also not really a problem with the genre because I can't think of a lot of Advance Wars missions where you start with like 4 or 5 units and nothing else with the enemy vastly outnumbering you and where a single deviation in AI movement can cost you the S-rank or even the mission. It's stupid game design and there's a reason why this wasn't done as often in Advance Wars. (Or maybe there is like 1 mission in a Hard campaign where this happens, in Wargroove it's like every 4th mission).
You're right though, I think I did get my money's worth out of the game by now. I'll wait out the patches they announced and if the game is still bad after that, I'll uninstall it and delete it from my Steam library and move on.
I guess I'm especially salty about Wargroove being so bad because literally ALL the devs had to do was copy/paste Advance Wars and yet they pretty much failed on every level. They couldn't even design a good UI even though they could've just copied Days of Ruin's UI and it would've been fine. No, instead we get "End Turn" as top menu item which really is a noob mistake as far as UI layout goes. But whatever, I could go on and on about how good it could've been - bottom line is it sucks, I hate it and I probably won't play it again.
Have a good day. If you like the game, more power to you, I just can't get past all the flaws.
----------------
S-ranks are not RNG. We spent a lot of time working on a bunch of them, and in fact were able to pull off even faster strats than the ones given, so multiple days were added on to some of them, and on others, we had confirmed absolutes. I can confirm this as Epliogue is set to 40 turns, with our in-house record being 29 turns. Likewise for 7-1, another one I was involved in, where several days were added to my time, and people have still managed to clear under my 13 day time.
S-ranks are meant to show absolute mastery of mechanics, not to be a gate to progression. If you feel that S-ranks are RNG, I would advise using a different strategy or unit composition. I can do the Caesar mission with an S rank very reliably.
Okay, first of all, I don't think ALL of the S-ranks are RNG, it's my fault I didn't make that clear before so I'll do so now. But the ones in the missions where you only have limited troops certainly are, at least to an extent. You're supposed to use your Commander for tanking (I dare anyone to S-rank these missions otherwise) and if the enemy gets a lot of lucky hits, that alone can ruin the mission. Probably won't happen, but it can. Similarly, if you get lucky/unlucky hits at the wrong time, that can tank the mission as well because you don't have enough units in these misions to play around the randomness. This has happened to me multiple times. Guess I'm just the unluckiest person in the world?
Any strategy guide I've seen for the Caesar mission 1 has you free the captives in the right cell, yet if you want to do that you need to bait out the Archer in the right way, which I cannot seem to do, for no fault of my own (as described above). I don't think it has something to do with "mastery of the game" when the AI doesn't do for me what it does for other people, even when I copy their turns exactly.
Also it has nothing to do with "mastery of the game" when I need to learn the map by heart to even have a chance. At that point it's no longer about strategy. For example, I don't even know why Caesar 1 needs to have Fog of War, that just forces you to google a map with the enemy placement before you play or you have no chance. How fun. How strategic.
Other missions are even worse about this, for example in the Ermeric swamp mission you have to know which enemies spawn where or you get caught with your pants down. So you still have to google a detailed map before you even attempt the S-rank. That's dumb, that's not strategy. Guess why Advance Wars had no missions where units just spawned in at random points of the map? At least I can't think of any...
Well, anyway, I guess we don't see eye to eye here and that's fine. Wargroove still seems to have been a success for the dev team and that's okay I suppose.
I still hate it.
Yes, the Caesar missions are absurdly hard relative to their positions in the story, and as such have S-rank requirements that are kinda nuts. We know. It's actually intended, as the Caesar missions are very much meant to test everything a player has learned up to this point, and are deliberately harder than the missions around and even after them. I hate fog of war personally, and as such, don't really enjoy the fog missions, but I've personally pulled under the S-rank time with good strategy and fast play.
For the Emeric mission, I actually came in under the current S-rank time on my first try iirc. Trick to it is to play really aggressive and crit fish. I often outright left enemies behind me for a time while I advanced.
Again, S-ranks don't actually do anything besides give you a shiny medal and a golden flag. You don't need to get them, and they're meant to be extremely demanding as a result. Most players will struggle to get them, and I doubt many are getting the achievement they're tied to without seriously putting in the hours, and that's how it's meant to be. You don't need them. They don't give extra stars (A rank is max stars). They serve no purpose but a badge of pride.
The word censured by hearts was a synonym to awfull . You enjoyed the game it's different .
Please do not make up rules to make excuses either to support bad design or to censor me, or perhaps both. I would expect that from somebody who looks like this:
https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/pitbullsheep.jpg
And if my "shilling" is arbitrarily "against the rules" anyway, then I'm in my every damn right to call out the rules for its own sake after bureaucracy's already very, VERY long track record of shunning creativity even without that load, let alone some active biases. Tackle my active argument or you'll only prove you're just dodging the subject.
-
Now for Monty's post, though he's making points I agree with anyway.
"Also it has nothing to do with "mastery of the game" when I need to learn the map by heart to even have a chance. At that point it's no longer about strategy. For example, I don't even know why Caesar 1 needs to have Fog of War, that just forces you to google a map with the enemy placement before you play or you have no chance. How fun. How strategic. "
To be fair, Fog of War does hide which units get built, which does have interaction unit when sound gets involved and you have to guess what the AI is sending your way. Of course, the problem is, as you say, when there's hidden predeployed units in the first place, and ye Gods does that get abused.
"Other missions are even worse about this, for example in the Ermeric swamp mission you have to know which enemies spawn where or you get caught with your pants down. So you still have to google a detailed map before you even attempt the S-rank. That's dumb, that's not strategy. Guess why Advance Wars had no missions where units just spawned in at random points of the map? At least I can't think of any..."
C24 in Days of Ruin, but thank you anyway, because this is why I don't like C24's design. The "strategy" boils down to some cheap memorization of the reinforcements. Memorization isn't strategy, it just tells players to waste brain cells, because God forbid working mnemonics that don't rely on the level itself could be treated as good game design. (Also, C6 in the same game has this problem too, although it has bigger concerns of arbitrarily butchering your Power simply for being the David in the David VS Goliath scenario.)
Other than that, thankfully nothing else comes to mind.
But yeah, thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking Fake Difficulty is exactly that: artificial means of making the game hard without any sense of respect to a quickstudy.
Because you don't own the game. Caesar 1 is a pre-deployed map where neither side has production, and the player is exploring a castle in fog, freeing prisoners (which adds to their army size). The S-rank requirement is very tight if you go for all of the prisoners to maximize your army, but you can shave off turns by not doing so. There are no additional spawns besides those already on the map, and the map is an L shaped hallway with a central room on the inside of the L. None of the units on the map before the central room have any hope of winning vs Caesar in direct combat, so the map is about properly using your commander and dogs to scout, and moving in such a way that you never have to stop advancing. Expert level play results in turn times of 13-14, which is within the expert margin, and there is even the possibility of a 12 day clear if RNG does align, but we set the S-rank several turns beyond that theoretical 12 turn clear.
S-ranking it is not random, but requires extremely quick and decisive play, as is the standard for S-ranks in wargroove. Caesar's missions are especially difficult for spoilers reasons as well, and you are not meant to get the S-rank on the first try without being an expert at these sorts of games, as you will be coming back to them later anyway.