About auto resolving battles
I think it should be like this: a fair calculation and no luck envolved. If you lose a easy battle in auto-resolve you will load right after so it's kind pointless to have luck, or you can auto-resolve many times until you win and this is a bad way to exploit the game. Before you auto-resolve the battle you know exactly what will happen, so you decide if you are willing to fight or not.
What do you guys think?
Re: About auto resolving battles
Pompei would love this option. He auto-resolved the battle of Pharsalus and lost his life. Too bad he forgot to save the game before battle.
Campidoctor
Re: About auto resolving battles
Hmm...... I say your game your play
Exploit or not, its your own game
Its easy to make war with others, its never been easy when we need a peace.
My holy damn simple tactic; Strike First, Strike HARD and SHOW NO MERCY.
Biarchus
Re: About auto resolving battles
Pointless. You already can see the balance of the two armies before a fight. On very hard difficulty, you only get one quicksave anyway. Besides even CA themselves encourage you to exploit the game. "It is always wise to save the game before an important battle." I wonder why...
Re: About auto resolving battles
That's not a exploit, on very hard the lost of a entire stack often means the lost of the campaign, there is no point to keep playing a campaign that you know you are going to lose.
Praeses
Re: About auto resolving battles
Leave the loading to casuals, its a matter of preference. I personally semi-role play so never reload after a battle.
Let me out of my mind
Re: About auto resolving battles
They should remove some of the weight against the player in autoresolving. The worst was Naval battles in Shogun, where they were so boring to play but you would lose if you autoresolve even with 3/4 the power balance.
Autoresolve should be a fair computer battle, not weighted against the player.
As for the reloading, I tend not to do that.
The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...
Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
Re: About auto resolving battles
Happened to me today on Napoleon. I won against a enemy siege, so after that I send my army to destroy the rest of the enemy troops... the simulation manage to lost with 1400 man against 300 of them. I didn't save because I never would thought it was necessary, I destroyed the majority of their troops right before.
This is what happens when a system is based on pure luck.
Let me out of my mind
Re: About auto resolving battles
The problem is that it isn't luck. The auto-resolve actually works against you. It artificially boosts the enemy because you aren't commanding personally.Originally Posted by Nowascki
Happened to me today on Napoleon. I won against a enemy siege, so after that I send my army to destroy the rest of the enemy troops... the simulation manage to lost with 1400 man against 300 of them. I didn't save because I never would thought it was necessary, I destroyed the majority of their troops right before.
This is what happens when a system is based on pure luck.
The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...
Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
Tribunus
Re: About auto resolving battles
What?Happened to me today on Napoleon. I won against a enemy siege, so after that I send my army to destroy the rest of the enemy troops... the simulation manage to lost with 1400 man against 300 of them. I didn't save because I never would thought it was necessary, I destroyed the majority of their troops right before.
This is what happens when a system is based on pure luck.
You're clearly still angry about losing that battle. The auto-resolve isn't based on luck at all. It's all calculated. This is a computer we're talking about, it doesn't understand luck. CA didn't programme some guy into the game who just sits around in his underwear eating chips and every now and then changes the outcome of a battle
Re: About auto resolving battles
It works much better on newests total wars, back in Rome you had to fight all battles because the auto battle was always lose.
Tiro
Re: About auto resolving battles
I imagined how this guy in the game would be
To me it doesn't matter. I just autoresolve battles when I see it's very very very very easy. I like the taste of a fight!
Re: About auto resolving battles
I like the taste of Ice-Cream.I imagined how this guy in the game would be
To me it doesn't matter. I just autoresolve battles when I see it's very very very very easy. I like the taste of a fight!
(and raisins)
falnk with cavlary. stay a way from muder hoels.
Re: About auto resolving battles
It is a random calculation that can result in many ways, I call it luck. And why this method is better than actually telling the player what is gonna to happen and let he decide if he wants to play or not? To make suspense? Please.What?
You're clearly still angry about losing that battle. The auto-resolve isn't based on luck at all. It's all calculated. This is a computer we're talking about, it doesn't understand luck. CA didn't programme some guy into the game who just sits around in his underwear eating chips and every now and then changes the outcome of a battle
Praepositus
Re: About auto resolving battles
Because that doesn't make sense? You don't know what's going to happen when you go and play it yourself, either, even though you have a pretty good hunch. When you autoresolve, you take a risk of losing, just like in any battle. Even if the odds are heavily in your favor, it's possible to lose.
"Rajadharma! The Duty of Kings. Know you: Kingship is a Trust. The King is the most exalted and conscientious servant of the people."
Senator
Re: About auto resolving battles
The autoresolve in Empire and Napoleon isn't working at ALL. I have tried both vanilla and normal and it's so stupid when you have an army of 6500 men lose 3000 to an enemy army consisting of 1 unit of line infantry and 1 unit of artillery. Shogun 2 is sort of fair, even though it seems to really think that archers>all. Ship Battles..it's not enough that naval in Shogun2 is goddamn atrociously boring, you -cannot- autores because you will lose.
Senator
Re: About auto resolving battles
I'd like to point out naval auto resolves always think ships are one shot one kill.
Re: About auto resolving battles
So in other words, auto-resolve already shows whether or not you would win or lose, eliminates the feeling of uncertainty, and thus the only time you would ever choose auto-resolve is if you know you'd win? Sounds boring.
The auto-resolve in Shogun2 was much improved- you still had a chance of winning but risk losing a lot of men.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
