User Tag List

View Poll Results: Wargroove Unit Health:

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1

    0 0%
  • 2

    0 0%
  • 3

    0 0%
  • 4

    0 0%
  • 5

    0 0%
  • 6

    0 0%
  • 7

    0 0%
  • 8

    0 0%
  • 9

    0 0%
  • 10

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Wargroove

  1. #1

    Wargroove

    Here's the thing about Wargroove: it is a total shameless copy of Advance Wars. It looks like Advance Wars. It plays like Advance Wars. It's like someone reskinned Advance Wars. You could accuse this game of being a rip-off and you would be absolutely 100% correct.

    But the other thing about Wargroove is that it's really, really good. Unlike say the barrage of mobile clone cash-ins we had a few years ago, the love that went into Wargroove really shines through. The quality is top notch. To the point where I find it very hard to imagine a real Advance Wars sequel ever being this good. It looks lovely. The animation is superb. The little cut scenes are lovely and it's full of character. And the game plays beautifully. As copies go, I don't think we could wish for more than this.

    So yes, it plays like Advance Wars albeit with a fantasy setting. If you haven't played Advance Wars (how dare you), it is a turn-based strategy war game. It's like Command & Conquer a turn at a time. Like chess only fun. You have your units, each one having different strengths and weaknesses and usually you can build new units and you have to defend your territory while (usually but not always) defeating the enemy commander or taking out their stronghold. Battles can get very tough very quickly and the AI generally seems to play quite well and quite strategically so turns take a lot of thought and this is something I love about it. The maps and battles so far have been really good. The game introduces new units battle by battle and each new addition mixes up the strategies and changes focus. So things so far have been kept really interesting.

    The battles can be very long though and, in the one I'm on now, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose it but it could take another half hour of play to fully reach that conclusion. But things are capable of turning around so I'm seeing it through. And if I lose, I'll try a new strategy next time. But I can see how that commitment to long battles you might lose could frustrate some.

    There is also a multiplayer option, local and online. Me and my eldest played a couple of battles yesterday and they were brilliant. It's a fantastic local multiplayer game. So much fun. I haven't tried online multiplayer.

    And on top of all that, there is an arcade mode, a puzzle mode (I haven't tried it) and also a level editor. So it's a MEATY package. So far, I think it's absolutely brilliant. In fact, I really only have one negative: it is waaaaaay too easy to end your turn early by accident. Be careful!

  2. #2
    Thanks for the review. I'm so torn on spending my cash on either this or New Star Manager.

    Is Nintendo allowed to make another Advance Wars or...?

  3. #3
    I'm guessing there is nothing stopping them making another Advance Wars except maybe they just thought it wouldn't sell. Fire Emblem seems to be a safer bet for them. It must be kind of weird for them having this on the eShop and knowing that it could have been their own game.

  4. #4
    Surely worth buying in the faint hope that we get another AW if Wargroove does well?

    I bought it yesterday but only had a 10 minute look at it. Very nice style so far is all I can say at the moment.

  5. #5
    I like Wargroove, but it gets pretty hard pretty quick. Considering waiting for a patch or two before I really dive into it because there's a few QoL things that could really help it out. Like, making that strong/weak chart understandable. And some kind of mid-level save that doesn't break it too much but will avoid a lot of frustration.

    Seeing people lose a fight after two hours or more and it sounds pretty awful. Kinda want to play at least far enough to unlock the puzzle mode though because that sounds like where it's at (for me).

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by toythatkills View Post
    Seeing people lose a fight after two hours or more and it sounds pretty awful.
    Yeah, I think this is going to really depend on the person. So far, I'm really enjoying the game itself in the sense that I'm not going to see a loss as time wasted but I do get how that could frustrate some who have put in that time and effectively have made no progress.

  7. #7
    Yeah. Problem for me is that I'm not good enough at strategy games like this to always see where I went wrong, beyond really obvious stuff. So I could play for two hours, lose, and have no idea how to replay the battle differently to get a different outcome. Because of that, it will always feel like time wasted because I'm not learning anything.

    For someone else though, they could lose in two hours and know exactly what to do next time, and so there's no problem at all.

  8. #8
    I like these types of games but the lack of upgrading your forces in this one put me off. I prefer Into the Breach.

  9. #9
    Act 1 was a lovely pleasant stroll. Act 2 really ramps up the difficulty.

    It is like advance wars sure but there are some differences that you need to adjust to.

    Healing units is more complicated and capturing properties / bases is more complex as well. I think for the worse so far but it may play out in a more friendly way when I get a little further through.

    Building units give you placement options which I think is an improvement. You can choose one of 4 squares to put them on so there are some extra tactics to think about there.

    Commanders are on the battlefield so I guess more like Fire Emblem in that respect. They don't seem OP so far, well, mine don't. The enemy ones seem to have some strong super powers.

    Scout units are MUCH better, because they are dogs...

    And yes, the missions are very long. I needs an update to help with that, either checkpoints or save points you can return to so you don;t lose all your progress, going back to the point of your mistake would be a game changer here.

  10. #10
    I lost that match I was in the middle of yesterday. It was a really hard mission where the enemy just threw waves at me from the edges of the map. But I came really close. The gap between losing and winning in that kind of mission is really tiny and if I had just managed to hold off a few more units I might have won.

    The only difference from Advance Wars that I feel I miss is that, in that, I think you could combine units to up their health and you can't do that here. But that does push me into other strategies and ways of thinking where I end up with some units that only become useful as a distraction or a blocking method. I notice the AI is pretty good at just staying out of range until they can kick your ass so surrounding them with low health units can sometimes force their hand.

    Yeah, a checkpoint could be good but I feel it would need to be something that is implemented sparingly, maybe a single checkpoint per mission. But I can see one huge difficulty with it - I reckon a lot of the earliest decisions in a battle count for so much that we might not know at checkpoint time that we have essentially lost. We could end up replaying the second half of a battle with no chance of a win.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •