I am not a fan at all of the rankings being based solely on how fast you complete the battles. Losing troops has nothing to do with the ranking, it appears. It should be a mixture of time taken, troop losses, and map/building control. It's really disappointing that the game makes you basically rush rush just to get the best scores. Is there any chance that the mission rankings could be based on a multitude of factors, and not just speed? I don't always want to have to play so fast that I get no enjoyment out of the missions. That's no fun. Strategy, tactics, keeping troops alive, and having multiple paths to victory for a good ranking would be much more fun. Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading, and I hope you will consider.
From what I understand it works like Advanced Wars ranking. After the mission it shows number of turns, number of units defeated, and number of units lost. Those correspond to the AW rankings of speed, power, and technique respectively. If it works the same, you do need to beat the missions in a certain number of turns for a maximum speed score, but you also need to not lose units and make good attacks.
Unfortunately, currently it is based solely on how fast you complete the mission. This is directly from The Wargroove site where Chucklefish comments on their upcoming patches: "Display S rank requirements. (Tip for now, it’s always based on number of turns.)" I can believe it, too. I played mission 3 a few times, and lost zero units, but took 14 turns. I got an A score. Then I played again and lost two units, but beat it in 11 turns. I got an S score. Pretty silly scoring mechanism. I am very glad that Chucklefish is reworking it. I look forward to the changes.
Going for gold flag S rank let alone 3 stars for every mission is beyond me I think. It's not just how fast but also the way you need to play that is, aggressively. A thought process I definitely didn't have going into this and not one I'm good at. You need to willing to purposely sacrifice units to bait enemy units. The commander needs to be killed as it's generally faster than going for the stronghold if it's a possible goal. You can't take your time and recruiting too many units, taking over too many structures, or killing to many units. If you do you can scare off the enemy including the commander and waste turns chasing after them.
Yep, the game allows for NO tactics except for moving as quickly as you can, and being super aggressive. Not the game I thought I was going to be playing, either. Developers need to design games where players can stop and smell the roses, as they say. Let us build our mighty force and play a tactical game of combat. We're not playing Starcraft here.
Hah.. the Starcraft reference is funny. But that's how games kind of work. You HAVE to be aggressive or you are out paced. The counter to aggression can be defense, but it is also valid to feign aggression to get your opponent to over commit on defense. Smash Bros is the same. Even chess is strongly focused on aggression. If you're responding rather than dictating, you're probably losing. The campaign is meant to be difficult, and it wouldn't be if you could "stop and smell the roses" If you want more careful, strategic play, you might want to play against a friend, on a bigger map. Or play something like Civilization or Sim City..?
As a counter to that, in advance wars you had to do some silly manipulation to get S-ranks in certain cases. For example spamming low-cost units to decrease your % units lost, or waiting to kill enemies so you could kill a bunch all at once. This is refreshingly straightforward.
I also find that the ranking seems very heavily dependent on number of turns which isn't suited to my play style. I'd prefer if it focused more on units defeated/lost ratio. However, if it is turn based I'd really appreciate a par or something so you have a better idea of how long you're expected to take.
The more I think about it, the more I think raw turns is the best metric for ranking. It represents a strategy that optimizes the completion of the objective, and sometimes sacrifices are going to be part of that strategy. If losing your queen means taking the king, you do it, regardless of the strength of the piece you are losing. It isn't like the game requires you to get S rank to progress. Some missions I deliberately take my time and try to win on all fronts before making a huge push in. It's fun, I end up C or D rank, and I move on. Other times I'll see about completing a mission ASAP. It's a bit disingenuous to say there are no tactics involved in moving as quickly as possible. In fact, it's probably the most tactically intense to spring for the objective quickly, as you need to maximize the use of the few units you have. You also need to make the best unit choices for the situation. Build your mighty force. Take your time. Enjoy yourself. Just don't expect the blue ribbon simply for participating.
You'll probably enjoy PvP far more than the solo campaign, from the sounds of it. I know I do, and it's for those exact reasons.
would be cool if they had it set up so instead of straight beat in 10 turns to get S it was more like a combination. If you have 0 lost units you can get S with 15 or less turns. if you have 1-2 lost units you have to win in 13 turns or less to get S. if you have 3-5 lost units you have to win in under ten turns to get S. Something like that to accommodate both playstyles.
I honestly was enjoying the campaign a lot less until I found out it was based on turns only. Knowing when to fodder/sacrifice units (and generally being aggressive) is part of the strategy/fun with this type of game. Trying too hard to keep every unit alive feels very unnatural. It would also otherwise teach players really bad habits when it comes to multiplayer. Capturing/objectives comes first over anything else (mostly), so a primary focus on keeping units alive won't win you games.
I'm OK with S-ranking being based on turn limit. It really shouldn't in theory be teaching you about being aggressive but about being efficient. If you're extremely efficient, you'll roll all over A.I. because it's easy to bait them into certain inefficient behaviors. I'd very much agree it's not how you should be playing PvP though in my experience early game speed is pretty crucial in PvP. Failing to capture even one property on schedule can set back your economy almost exponentially.
I dunno, I think I liked the way Advance Wars judged you on the combination of power (how much % damage you amass/turn), technique (units produced to units lost) and speed over strictly speed. Sure, speed is important, but there have been several games where I methodically trashed the enemy with zero losses in probably several days later than it should've taken and still maybe scored around a B? Most of my games are pretty quick and I generally score roughly A and S ranks, I just think Wargroove should reward more of the tactical aspect of it. In Advance Wars I may be a day or two late, but the amount of damage I was able to deal to the enemy while preserving my own units would get me an S Rank after most games. With that being said, I don't think Wargroove's ranking system to be that much of an issue. I actually find it more challenging to try and deal max damage with minimal losses while still trying to win in the set amount of turns. I think I just prefer AW because I'm used to it.
I disagree with OP and I really like the fact that it is based solely on speed. "Power" in Advance Wars was ridiculous because suddenly you find yourself trying to artificially engineer a single turn during which you manage to kill as many enemy units as possible rather than simply following an actually coherent strategy. "Technique" was also ridiculous, because suddenly you find yourself spamming infantry in every barracks rather than just buying what you actually need only to keep the kill to death ratio in your favor. Speed is a great metric because it is about efficiently reaching your goal, while the other stuff is completely stupid and annoying nonsense. This reminds me of the following quote: “The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him.” ― Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings
