I really liked Wargroove but I wish it wasn’t so balanced lmao. Yeah I know Advance Wars was a mess and half the COs were useless and half were unfair but they were interesting and fun and I just wanted this for the story campaign and couldn’t give a toss about multiplayer balance.
I understand why you would want every character to be viable but the end result is that every army is the same other than their hero ability and even the hero units have the exact same stats! Give me my weird bonuses. Give me the guy whose armies are stronger on roads, who captures faster, whose artillery units are all rubbish!
And the hero units are also all based off of different ingame units. They look like they were made with being super versions of all the different units in mind. There’s even a dog commander, but they all just behave like a super version of the basic infantry in the end regardless of theme. It’s sad.
Maybe they could have had armies/heroes work differently for the singleplayer and multiplayer portions or a toggle for multiplayer for the more balanced verison of the rules or something? I know that’s asking for quite a bit of extra work for them when what is there is needed for multiplayer to work and it works fine for the story mode. But as much as I like Wargroove and think things like the different critical hit criterial for every unit was a really cool addition to the Advance Wars formula it also felt lacking in the spirit of it without all the wacky ways commanders affect their armies and having to deal with them all in different missions.
Also the criteria for unlocking the final mission was obnoxious and I just downloaded a 100% save file to be able to play it.
