Combat fatigue

[philipjd]

Combat fatigue...

Being honest, I've given up on a number of campaigns, not because I've won or lost, but because it reaches a stage where I've had to fight so many combats each turn, and over turn ends, that the campaign just gets bogged down in field combats.

'But thats the point of the game' I hear you say, true, but so is the winning/losing aspect and that depends upon the turn progression, which if it becomes too slow then the interest level drops, even resorting to the autoresolve function to the detriment of my generals and armies (auto resolve is appalling at fighting).

Who else does so, or if not...?

[Ichon]

I play until it is obvious that if I fight every battle I would win the campaign no problem. Usually that means most campaigns are less than 100 turns. A few campaigns go to 150 or so... I've only had 3 campaigns last past 200 turns.

[strife1013]

auto resolve

[Alpha Zeke]

I use auto resolve always. I trust my generals to make the good decisions. I only auto battles that need heroic victories or they look amazingly fun.

Or I pick one general and only fight his battles.

[Clackdor]

I use auto resolve always. I trust my generals to make the good decisions. I only auto battles that need heroic victories or they look amazingly fun.

Or I pick one general and only fight his battles.

This is me, too.

[RabidSheepLegion]

i've never finished a campaign to be honest, like switching to a different faction lol I am more of a defensive player tho, so that is why I edit when my game ends so I have lots more turns (1500 turns lol ) Like to have plenty of time to fool around with the last technology you can get. Love the monster bombards and basilisks

[Meneth]

I play most battles, but I auto-resolve when I have great (more than 3:1) against the defenders in a siege. Auto-resolve only loses a few soldiers with odds like that, while doing it manually I'd lose much more due to the towers.

[Ishan]

Auto-resolve only loses a few soldiers with odds like that, while doing it manually I'd lose much more due to the towers.

LOL same with me.

Has anyone actually beaten the this score.
I think it's impossible coz for it we have to set the battle time to unlimited but even then the chances are pretty thin.

[Shoryn]

LOL same with me.

Has anyone actually beaten the this score.
I think it's impossible coz for it we have to set the battle time to unlimited but even then the chances are pretty thin.

Same here too Why play a long and uninteresting siege battle risking many casualties when you can autoresolve and lose 41 men in 1000 vs 300.

Other than that I must say I play 95% of my battles.

[RabidSheepLegion]

beat what score? auto-resolve sieges to manual ones? unlimited ammo, grand bombards and gunpowder units, just scare the crap outta them into the square and just shoot till they die

[Meneth]

beat what score? auto-resolve sieges to manual ones? unlimited ammo, grand bombards and gunpowder units, just scare the crap outta them into the square and just shoot till they die

Auto-resolve sieges against tiny armies.
Sure, with bombards one might be able to beat it, but then again, I've had auto-resolve give me 1-5 casualties several times.

[RabidSheepLegion]

lol damn, so you're basically saying, someone needs to finish a battle with NO casualties?

I'll try it later tonight on custom lol

[Meneth]

lol damn, so you're basically saying, someone needs to finish a battle with NO casualties?

I'll try it later tonight on custom lol

Yes, pretty much.
Good luck. Maybe try fighting an all-infantry army, using monster bombards and horse archers?
But then again, some of the horse archers would probably die... from friendly fire.

[Paladin94610]

Yes, pretty much.
Good luck. Maybe try fighting an all-infantry army, using monster bombards and horse archers?
But then again, some of the horse archers would probably die... from friendly fire.

Hey, I had a battle, I had a general and the rebels had a peasant crossbowmen. I took the charge, deep into their line, all peasants flying in the air. VICTORY!! and no casualties for me and the enemy all dead. I had more than 10 battles with such 0 casualty victory in my M2TW exp. both in vanilla, kingdoms and inSS.

[RabidSheepLegion]

bombards and jannisary musketeers

[barcamartin]

I know what you mean. The AI can spam armies at such a rate, that even if you crush them time and again, there'll pretty much be massive armies to fight (of varying quality..) until they're last settlement has fallen.

I think is is better in 6.3 though. The AI sends more varied stacks (sometimes..) making the battles more induvidual and special, although they can still be a grind.

[Krator15]

Just to add my 2 cents

I sometimes play E/E when I feel like destroying everything in existance as quickly as possible (surprisingly fun =P), and several times I've autoresolved with 0 casualties, while destroying almost entire armies

Never taken any screenshots cause I didnt think it was particularly rare

[RabidSheepLegion]

Just to add my 2 cents

I sometimes play E/E when I feel like destroying everything in existance as quickly as possible (surprisingly fun =P), and several times I've autoresolved with 0 casualties, while destroying almost entire armies

Never taken any screenshots cause I didnt think it was particularly rare

lol do it man! lol Oh, mention if it was auto resolved or not too

[Chees3]

I always auto resolve any siege assaults since those are very boring.

[barcamartin]

On VH/VH though, you NEVER (in my experience at least) win an offensive siege battle with reasonably even odds, by autoresolving. You need at least 3:1 in your favor to succeed. That's why I usually fight all these siege battles, and they are a drag. Instead of actually getting better at them, I tend to get worse since I become sloppy with details and attention, which means your troops often choose tactics and actions of their own, or at least tend to march straight into the enemies jaws. :/