Campaign S-Ranks excessively rely on RNG

[Monty Sigurdson]

So after suffering through all Arcade Runs on Hard I thought I might finally try to S-Rank the campaign because I felt like torturing myself some more. And honestly, it's even worse and unfun than I thought.

After trying the first Caesar mission a bunch of times (btw, I hate Caesar with a passion, oh look he's a dog HURR DURR, it's funny) and failing again and again to S-rank it, I came to realize that you pretty much HAVE to rely on RNG in the harder missions. If the AI doesn't move its units in a certain way, you might as well restart because you can kiss that S-Rank goodbye.

That is so stupid and infuriating. Then I checked out a few guides and they, too, seem to rely on the AI acting a certain way. But like I said, what the AI does is pretty much RNG and there doesn't seem to be a way to get it to do what you want consistently. Worse yet, if the AI does something else, you're boned because you will probably end up losing units that you would have needed later.

Also, who programmed it so that low HP units run away from you in the Caesar mission, making you waste time chasing them down? Are you kidding me with this crap?

So I'm just wondering if I'm missing something here or if the missions and S-rank requirements are really that terribly designed. Like, who playtested and okayed this crap? Did they really think restarting a mission 10 times until the AI moves how you want it to is fun?


Really, Wargroove has got to be the worst game in 2019 for me (yet). Such a letdown with major design missteps at every corner. Never buying another Chucklefish game again unless they patch this travesty.

[Meeky]

S-ranking it is not random, but requires extremely quick and decisive play, as is the standard for S-ranks in wargroove.

Just quoting this for truth.

I S-ranked Caesar's first mission on the first try, mostly because I did the mission quickly and efficiently. I lost some characters, but the game is more pleased with a quick and bloody execution than a long but clean victory.

Generally speaking, I've had S-ranks on missions where I finish the map quickly or can lure the enemy commander into a bad position early on. I've gotten some 2 star and even a 1 star mission when I dawdled too long, expended too much energy trying to preserve units, and generally when I didn't understand the map mechanics very well. I generally am just playing to beat the campaign right now, and will go back to try for S ranks on those missions later. I get the sense that giving them a couple tries will be all I need.

As an aside: I've seen a lot of people talk about how hard it is to S-Rank Caesar's second mission. But it... really isn't. You just produce units to counter the bad guys and that's it. I plan to go back later and try to get the SECRET REWARD for those missions, but I'm not going to do that right now. I just want to beat them for now.

[Monty Sigurdson]

Escrito originalmente por AnemoneMeer (Beta Tester):

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.

That's the part I entirely disagree with. S-ranking requires you to manipulate the AI so that it makes stupid mistakes (or MORE stupid mistakes than usual, I guess), especially on the maps where you have so few units. Exploiting bad AI has nothing to do with expert play or strategic understanding. A good chunk of the campaign maps would be unwinnable for you if the AI was actually competent.

Also, I still believe RNG plays a huge part on a few maps but okay, I suppose we disagree there. The Caesar map for example would be alright if you had 1 Swordsman more at the start so that you could use it to balance out the randomness without having to sacrifice turns or units for it.

Another example for obscure RNG I could name is the map where you fight Sedge with Ermeric in Fog of War. If you do not move your units in a certain way, Sedge will not show himself on the frontline, meaning you can't kill him, meaning you'll get slowed down, meaning no S-rank. I tried the mission several times with slight variations in unit movement (I kept moving aggressively forward in each attempt though), and only when I moved the units up in a certain way did Sedge come to the frontline. I think I had to move one dog to the left and up or sth rather obscure like that. So how am I supposed to know that Sedge would rush at THAT dog like a madman but ignore everything else I do? Guess I need to be an EXPERT at the game and a STRATEGIC GENIUS to figure that one out. Or it's just RNG, who knows...

So the S-rank you get in that mission is not about skill AT ALL, at least from my point of view. If you get a S-rank, you can pat yourself on the back for successfully manipulating the harebrained AI, not for being a good commander.


To go an a tangent, Arcade mode has the same problem, or perhaps even worse. While playing it is also not "required", finishing it on Hard is only possible if you learn to exploit the AI (f. e. by making use of the fact that it never builds wagons). So how is it skillful or strategic play if the opponent doesn't play by the same rules as I do (AI gets double the money but is stupid as a rock and can't build some units in exchange)? Playing Arcade Mode (Hard) feels more like beating down on a training dummy rather than an equal duel. Until you get the map that only has docks, then you have to restart unless you don't value your time.

[Master Knight DH]

Escrito originalmente por Meeky:

I S-ranked Caesar's first mission on the first try, mostly because I did the mission quickly and efficiently. I lost some characters, but the game is more pleased with a quick and bloody execution than a long but clean victory.

See, that's the problem with ranking being determined only by time: it's shallow as sin. You're assuming players shouldn't care about strategy or even about their troops. That tells players to indulge in behaviors that would rightfully ask for mutinies and court-martials. Contrast to rewarding troop care, which can still be speedrun, only it shows some freaking strength with compassion.

I would post an example of what makes full survival satisfying and why it doesn't have to abandon speed, but then my post would be deleted for "shilling" because a false reporter said so and people will agree for whatever arbitrary reasons because they don't care about SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO POINTS.

By the way, if playtesters think the game is fine because they tested it, there were people who had said that with games like Metroid: Other M. I don't want to hear some nonsense about Icarus needing better wings to let him fly higher, because that's no substitute for common sense. And saying "git gud" about RNG S-Ranks is elitism at its finest.

That's the part I entirely disagree with. S-ranking requires you to manipulate the AI so that it makes stupid mistakes (or MORE stupid mistakes than usual, I guess), especially on the maps where you have so few units. Exploiting bad AI has nothing to do with expert play or strategic understanding. A good chunk of the campaign maps would be unwinnable for you if the AI was actually competent.

Ya know. I could point to somebody else's documents and whatnot about AI design, but I don't want to have my post deleted because I was "shilling", whatever sense that would make. But do know that yes, I do agree that there's no excuse for demanding people just exploit AI for its own sake.

[NemesisLeon44]

There is no RNG afaik.