Is it a good idea to let the computer decide the battle?

[Blanchflower]

OK, as I am a newbie, I want to know whether it is a good idea to let the computer decide the outcome of a battle or is it better to manually play the battle? Letting the computer decide the battle seems much faster.

What is your opinion?

Thanks!

[The Kybrothilian]

It might be faster, but if you fight the battle yourself, there's a much better chance you'll win it.

[SavageFeat]

auto-resolve is faster but at a major cost, you will find yourself losing battles you could have won and if you fight them personally winning battles you would have lost with good casulties, but sometimes the moral of your units just you over

[florin87]

for field battles it's a good idea if: the odds are larger than or approximately 1:1-1,5:1 in your favor, and most of your army is not comprised of horse archers, skirmishers or slingers. but victory is not guaranteed. also don't do it unless you are not fighting rome, the enemy has no chariots.

you might still win if the odds are lower, but if half your army is horse archers you will generally lose, because they are bugged in auto-resolve.

i generally use it for small battles and fighting rebels because if you auto-resolve you'll have suffer far more casualties, then fighting the battle manually.

dunring sieges only use it if: the enemy has no chariots, your army outnumbers the enemy but will get trashed if you fight the siege manually (like all-archer army against spartites) as the ai will only count the numbers on both sides and the unit type (ranged beats infantry) OR if you really really suck at sieges.

[CHIPS]

Unless you really hate battles there is very little reason to auto resolve. Sure it saves time but battles are the funnest part of the game. The campaign map is pretty boring relatively.

[Bringer Of Storms]

I only auto resolve seige assaults, I just can't be bothered. On the other hand, in these field battles, if were to auto resolve, I would have lost.