haha I just beat that one.
Best advice is to use the flying units to block the path to the left when you can. It's the only thing that got me through it but ya the mission might be too much for that early in the game.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Wargroove |OT| Advance Wargs
- Thread starter hersheyfan
- Start date
haha I just beat that one.
Best advice is to use the flying units to block the path to the left when you can. It's the only thing that got me through it but ya the mission might be too much for that early in the game.
Last mission (not epilogue) was pretty fun. I find myself appreciating missions without production; I'm forced to utilize my units for maximum benefit, and it's nice change of pace to localize the conflict into a small area, like constantly having to solve a puzzle map every turn.
IDK I can't seem to get into this game. The similarities to Advance Wars make me feel like I should be playing that instead. The fantasy setting is probably the biggest killer for me, at least in Advance Wars the units that were effective/ineffective made a lot of logical sense. But what is a Turtle supposed to be good at? Why can Harpies hit ground forces as well as air, but Witches can't hit ground units and Dragons can't hit air? And to make matters worse, using the in-game strength/weakness indicators is a joke. The icons are tiny as hell and each faction has their own set of unit icons so for each faction you have to memorize which guy in a helmet is the swordsman and which is the pikeman, as well as which guy in a hood is the archer and which is the mage. And all of the unique sprites and models don't matter at all. It would be pretty cool if each faction had bonuses/weaknesses to specific units as well as maybe a unique unit or two to help sell their faction's flavor and lore, but instead all of them are just pallet swaps, and although the effort put into the different sprites is appreciated, it also makes the game even more confusing to figure out which unit is which.
I know it's a personal preference thing but I liked the overall style of Advance Wars a lot better. The battles were a lot snappier because you didn't have to wait until your melee units got into range to attack, and the defender attacked at the same time rather then doing it afterward. It's really weird that you have to hold B for a couple seconds to get it to skip forward, what was wrong with just pressing a button? The sort of cartoony military theme fit the tone of the game well, this one feels like it's trying to combine Fire Emblem's world with Advance Wars' gameplay and it doesn't really work for me. And having so many human units that are able to capture structures and being able to neutralize cities with any unit ruins the dynamic of the original games where your most important units for objectives were also your weakest and most fragile. You had to think "do I need another big unit that'll help clear out the area and hold it or do I need more infantry so I have enough units to actually capture it?" In this game the stand in for Artillery and Anti-Air both can capture structures in addition to your uber powerful commander unit so you almost never have to actually make any concessions on that point.
I think someone mentioned it a while back but the feedback in Advance Wars is so much better. The noise when you're moving your cursor around, the clunking noise when you open up a menu, just everything sounds fitting and satisfying. And the soundtrack is leagues better too. The tracks for Wargroove I get tired of during the first game I hear them, whereas many of the tracks in Days of Ruin I still enjoy listening to despite them being like 1 minute loops. Booting the game up after playing Wargroove just shows how much more polish there is in the game. I understand that the teams likely were working with different scopes and production budgets, but Advance Wars is just on another level in this regard.
My biggest thing I feel when playing Wargroove is that I should just be playing Advance Wars instead. Or that Intelligent Systems should make another one. Or that maybe there should be a playable Advance Wars character in Smash. Seriously, Fire Emblem gets like 7 of them but Advance Wars gets one assist trophy. Feel bad for trashing the game this hard, especially since it's clearly made by a team that is very passionate and has a massive amount of respect for Advance Wars, but this one is a miss for me.
I know it's a personal preference thing but I liked the overall style of Advance Wars a lot better. The battles were a lot snappier because you didn't have to wait until your melee units got into range to attack, and the defender attacked at the same time rather then doing it afterward. It's really weird that you have to hold B for a couple seconds to get it to skip forward, what was wrong with just pressing a button? The sort of cartoony military theme fit the tone of the game well, this one feels like it's trying to combine Fire Emblem's world with Advance Wars' gameplay and it doesn't really work for me. And having so many human units that are able to capture structures and being able to neutralize cities with any unit ruins the dynamic of the original games where your most important units for objectives were also your weakest and most fragile. You had to think "do I need another big unit that'll help clear out the area and hold it or do I need more infantry so I have enough units to actually capture it?" In this game the stand in for Artillery and Anti-Air both can capture structures in addition to your uber powerful commander unit so you almost never have to actually make any concessions on that point.
I think someone mentioned it a while back but the feedback in Advance Wars is so much better. The noise when you're moving your cursor around, the clunking noise when you open up a menu, just everything sounds fitting and satisfying. And the soundtrack is leagues better too. The tracks for Wargroove I get tired of during the first game I hear them, whereas many of the tracks in Days of Ruin I still enjoy listening to despite them being like 1 minute loops. Booting the game up after playing Wargroove just shows how much more polish there is in the game. I understand that the teams likely were working with different scopes and production budgets, but Advance Wars is just on another level in this regard.
My biggest thing I feel when playing Wargroove is that I should just be playing Advance Wars instead. Or that Intelligent Systems should make another one. Or that maybe there should be a playable Advance Wars character in Smash. Seriously, Fire Emblem gets like 7 of them but Advance Wars gets one assist trophy. Feel bad for trashing the game this hard, especially since it's clearly made by a team that is very passionate and has a massive amount of respect for Advance Wars, but this one is a miss for me.
That's the third chapter, I just pulled it off. I basically wagon-raced Mercia to the exit point while clearing the road just long enough with the harpies. Wagons are crazy good, especially when I pulled a wagon-to-wagon transfer maneuver for extra speed.
Excited to try Puzzle Mode!
Also, just grabbed a patch on the Switch. If I had to guess, it's multiplayer fixes, but who knows?
I disagree with most of your post but this part made me hit the eject button. I can't stop humming the Wargroove soundtrack, and was something I was hit by from the moment I played.
Yeah, I'm getting a bit tired of the same music that plays on your turn. I don't think it changed at all in the 10+ missions I played. And I don't think there's a different theme when you activate your groove. Or at least it's not really noticeable beyond the character animation prompt.
I just gave 3-3 one try but it seemed fair with a wagon run and harpy knight to cover the road.
Now the 3-2 swamp mission before that was bad. Considering speed is the only factor for S I've got a feeling it would be better to just rush like an idiot and slow down the units after say the 2nd wave with your 4 units.
Now the 3-2 swamp mission before that was bad. Considering speed is the only factor for S I've got a feeling it would be better to just rush like an idiot and slow down the units after say the 2nd wave with your 4 units.
I think every commander has a different music, even Mercia and Emeric have different ones
Your alchemists have crazy good range and good matchups against all of the enemy units. They can attack the rangers first without taking a hit. Remember you can position your units in a cross and heal up to 5 units with one heal. Terrain is also important to consider. Forests and mountains give alchemists critical.
After the fourth wave, Emeric will most likely be the last one standing though.
Losing all feedback regarding performance if you use any easy mode does seem pretty limiting. I intend to use easy mode for a while but I do feel like the feedback is poor. Into the Breach has bronze/silver/gold stars based on difficulty level, which motivates me to return to the missions and get the higher value stars.
Yeah, the lack of undo feels really annoying. It makes me want to pencil in my movements before executing, but the game makes no allowance for that. Into the Breach has a single 'big' undo, but you can undo any movement action.
I find it especially annoying to have to commit to attacking during the move turn, because often I'll have to waste an attack shuffling my troops around, and of course there's no option to swap positions with another unit.
I would really like having a fire emblem style show full enemy army's range toggle instead of having to check each unit individually
I'm really enjoying this game. I haven't played Advance Wars in yonks, but this is certainly comparable in terms of gameplay and polish.
I think some people also forget this game is a lot cheaper and offers features we never saw in AW - and as mentioned they DO have the ability to patch QoL changes into the game.
One thing though - you can't play 'multiplayer' maps as single player!? I don't even car about War Room stats but it be nice to be able to just play custom matches... (I guess you could make them...).
Enable local multiplayer maps to be played singlely with up to three CPUs!
I think some people also forget this game is a lot cheaper and offers features we never saw in AW - and as mentioned they DO have the ability to patch QoL changes into the game.
One thing though - you can't play 'multiplayer' maps as single player!? I don't even car about War Room stats but it be nice to be able to just play custom matches... (I guess you could make them...).
Enable local multiplayer maps to be played singlely with up to three CPUs!
I don't think it's fair to compare downloadable games to physical GBA games from 2001. Nowadays you can buy AW1 on Wii U for $8 and Dual Strike for $10.
So, Wargroove broke even over the weekend, we've covered the cost of development and the game is now profitable! we want to thank everyone for their support!
We made a quick blog post last night just running through what our plans are in the short term.
We have a patch going through submission right now that will fix a few bugs we weren't able to nail down in time, but the patch after that will include a number of quality of life fixes, such as:
We made a quick blog post last night just running through what our plans are in the short term.
We have a patch going through submission right now that will fix a few bugs we weren't able to nail down in time, but the patch after that will include a number of quality of life fixes, such as:
- The ability to skip battle scenes more quickly. With various options on how this will work.
- The ability to force fast map movement to 'always on'.
- Tooltips and more info for the effective/vulnerable charts.
- In multiplayer, the host will be able to fill open spots with CPU players.
- Display S rank requirements. (Tip for now, it's always based on number of turns.)
- Make it more difficult to accidentally end a turn.
- Multiplayer Lobby improvements
- Various bug fixes
That is great to hear! This game deserves all the success!
These improvements will make the game near perfect!
That's excellent to hear on all fronts, congrats for the success and thanks for the continued support. As I'm currently collecting stars post-final battle, many of these QoL changes will be much appreciated when redoing some battles for higher rankings. The added possibility to use CPUs for online play will also be of great use to me, and I suspect many others, so that's fantastic news.
Regarding the question on the blog post about the difficulty and it affecting 3 stars: in my eyes, the only currently functional difference for an S rank is the flag color on the map, both A and S ranks earning 3 stars. As such, I would prefer it if using the difficulty sliders to have an easier time capped the possible rank at A (hence, 3 stars as far as star collecting go), leaving getting S rank to require using standard difficulty and above. This would make the endgame unlockables much more achievable for more players, and feels like it would make S rank more special compared to A rank, when they currently have little to differentiate them.
Another note: is reworking the damage variance considered at this point (the previous discussion covered the main points: AW only allowed for positive damage variance, unless specified for select COs, whereas here negative variance is possible and frequent)? It's caused me a number of losses due to units not dying when the pre battle info said they would, most notably one after a grueling 1h30 of tedious progress on the final battle, which was *very* aggravating. This mechanic makes sense in Fire Emblem since individual stats affect the damage calculation on a individual basis anyway, but here this removes a huge part of the strategic layer and leaves important decisions to chance, which doesn't feel like it should be in the spirit of the game. (As an aside, I feel like a no variance mode already exists for Puzzle Mode, as I've not experienced variance in there and having it would completely negate its design, since it's supposed to rely on complete predictability and exact to the 1% damage calculations in a number of cases?)
Cheers, and here's to continued success!
Last edited:
Good to hear! Posting these again in case you're not aware. User error or a bug?
Fantastic news, congratulations!
The changes sound brilliant and in line with feedback, look forward to them dropping!
Excellent news! Happy to hear that the game is a success and that we can except continued support. :)
Is there any chance that you guys will add an option to disable being able to see the opponents gold for multiplayer? It would really enhance our fog of war matches. :D
OP
OP
Congratulations, Supernorn, to you and the rest of the Wargroove team! Well deserved success. 👏
Game ain't perfect, but what game is? I'm sure you'll be working hard to fix what issues there are. Cheers!
I know you can't possibly read all comments, but you did a great job with the game overall. Looking forward to see it continue being improved. My biggest wish would be the undo action/turn button, that can really screw over a good run if you accidentally misclick and I screwed up a 3 star rating in a 1 hour mission because of it yesterday, which did annoy me quite a bit.
Congrats!!! Well deserved success. Looking forward to the above improvements and hope to see more QOL improvements such limiting the cursor movement when moving a unit. I continue to select outside of the movement area by accident causing me to have to go back to selecting the unit again. Anyways, enjoying the game a ton. Thanks!
To answer the question at the end of the blog: Yes, people who fidget with the difficulty should be able to earn 3 stars, absolutely. I haven't used the difficulty options nor I plan to, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to both play in a difficulty that's comfortable for them and earn all unlockables (since stuff in the gallery is tied to number of stars). If you really want to "mark" the missions with an asterisk or whatever so "true hardcore gamers" can feel good about beating the game in normal go ahead, but people that just want an easier experience shouldn't suffer for it.
Celeste did it perfectly, in case you want a reference case.
Regarding the 3 star thing in the blog, I personally feel like it is necessary to allow gaining 3 stars on lower difficulties. With the unlockable gallery system being completely tied to the stars, having theoretically 2/3 of the stars locked off on lower difficulties only stands to lessen the enjoyment and perhaps replayability for the lesser players. The solution someone above me suggested with locking S rank off on lower difficulties while allowing you to earn the 3 stars with A ranks seems like a great solution here, allowing everyone to unlock the full gallery on their own terms while allowing the better or improved players to challenge themselves to S ranks.
I don't mind a reward for the better players but putting half the unlockables behind such a wall seems unfortunate, perhaps a special border around the character portret during the match for players that finish the whole campaign with S ranks would be a much subtle reward to shoot for. Perhaps having multiple unlockable borders for either completing, A-ranking or S-ranking the whole campaign, that way they can show their achievement off during online matches as well. I'm just rambling up some bad ideas here, I just think having some subtle cosmetic unlock would be much nicer for everyone involved than having half of your gallery locked for a portion of the players. Allowing lower difficulties to earn stars is a good enough solution here.
I don't mind a reward for the better players but putting half the unlockables behind such a wall seems unfortunate, perhaps a special border around the character portret during the match for players that finish the whole campaign with S ranks would be a much subtle reward to shoot for. Perhaps having multiple unlockable borders for either completing, A-ranking or S-ranking the whole campaign, that way they can show their achievement off during online matches as well. I'm just rambling up some bad ideas here, I just think having some subtle cosmetic unlock would be much nicer for everyone involved than having half of your gallery locked for a portion of the players. Allowing lower difficulties to earn stars is a good enough solution here.
Hey Supernorn I know you're probably swamped now but depending on how easy it is what would actually be a major improvement for me and I hope others wouldn't just be faster skipping of battle scenes but the ability to set them to play at, say, 150% or 200% speed so we still get to see the fun animation but slightly faster
Otherwise I'm loving the game so far!
One element i notice, is that units take too long moving off panel and into the panel of there opponents. There should be an overall speeding up of the movment in between entering and attacking in the fight animations.
Anyone got tips on finishing missions quicker? I feel like with enemy units spawning every turn, I just fall into a rut of out spending the enemy slowly over various turns, and that's killing some of my enjoyment.
If you can, the best way is often to trap their commander, they play too agressive. Trebuchets and pikemen I think are pretty reliable for that.
The early side mission where you fight skedge I rushed the middle island, he played agro and I trapped him with the groove that spawns plants, then bombarded him and got him stuck in woods. Commanders have shit movement, easy to trap.
Whenever I can I'm very aggressive about expansion. Unless a wagon is there by default, that's usually my first purchase so I can ferry units to the farthest neutral towns, capture them and then work their way back to my base while capturing towns on the way, also make sure you have enough swordsmen to capture most neutral towns in 1-2 turns. That gives me enough funds quickly to start recruiting knights (or the knight equivalent), which are pretty fast and from there I recruit units as I need them, but I feel like that's a very efficient quick-finish strategy.
Is there a toggle to see all enemy ranges and/or a select few at once like in Fire Emblem? I use that feature in FE every match so am finding the adjustment to viewing a single enemy's range at a time a bit difficult :/
Excellent game either way. Only an hour in but thoroughly enjoying myself
Excellent game either way. Only an hour in but thoroughly enjoying myself
This is possible. Go to setup a local multiplayer match. After selecting the CO for a player there is a screen for that player with other options like color, etc. One of these options, I cant remember the name, let's you switch between human and AI players. I did a 4 player free for all that I won by rushing all the resource points and overwhelming with dragons!
I find being aggressive has helped me get 3 stars faster. I've had to redo some of the missions. I've only finished the first 2 acts but I find the wagon super useful. That first forest stage in act 2 was a bitch the first time because I took forever to clear it. Then I built a wagon and bum rushed the commander and that gave me a 3 star.
I don't know if playing so aggressively will work in other chapters though.
Celeste's implementation of difficulty is not perfect, imo.
Having a whole campaign 'tarred' as assist mode only is a real shame. They could have allowed individual collections or progressions as 'assist mode enabled', and allowed the player to challenge themselves to remove the marker. This could work in Wargroove by allowing players to repeat the levels again on normal difficulty. Into the Breach marks its challenge trophies in different colours based on the difficulty chosen, so players can return the game on a later difficulty, or recognise that one particular trophy had to be done that way.
About the 3 stars and the difficulty... I think the difficulty of this game is just right on normal settings and I appreciate being able to make it harder or easier for people who want to tailor their experience within the game.
But I disagree with giving 3 stars in lower difficulty settings because leaving as it is right now helps the game to have more replayability for those who beat the campaign and I think that the unlockables should be something cool to earn that requires a certain amount of skill, encouraging players to hone their skills in the game.
But I disagree with giving 3 stars in lower difficulty settings because leaving as it is right now helps the game to have more replayability for those who beat the campaign and I think that the unlockables should be something cool to earn that requires a certain amount of skill, encouraging players to hone their skills in the game.
There's a few things regarding timers in quickplay that we're looking into at the moment.
I feel like having some skins or medal unlocked for beating normal(or above) at 3 stars would be suitable. It'll be unfortunate for those who can't get all the 3 stars for the true ending. But there's always Youtube for them I guess
Dope, I didn't know we had a Chucklefish dev here. Just wanna say, props to your team. You guys made a great product and it shows that you guys poured a lot of love into it.