Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Proposition: No Autoresolve For "Large" Battles

TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 34,001
In my opinion autoresolve should only be there to allow people to skip battles with a surefire outcome, like fullstack vs small garrison- type of engagements. It should not be a way to weasel out of fights that might be tricky to fight and cause more casualties.

So my idea is to simply disallow autoresolving battles that involve a certain amount of units, like no AR for battles where both players have more than 14 units as a starter. Other means to gauge the "worthiness" of a battle might be introduced like combined monetary value, level of the lord or veterancy, but I think # of units would probably be the easiest to implement.
Post edited by CA_Will#2514 on
«13

Comments

  • WargolWargol Registered Users Posts: 70
    In other words, you want to penalize people who want to skip big battles, then it's useless. People can mod the game in order to be stronger/invincible anyways.
    Your suggestion will change nothing, except forcing some players to mod out their game.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited March 2017
    Wargol said:

    In other words, you want to penalize people who want to skip big battles, then it's useless. People can mod the game in order to be stronger/invincible anyways.
    Your suggestion will change nothing, except forcing some players to mod out their game.

    "Don't make any laws because some people will break them anyway"

    If that's the sum of your objection then I can safely say: "NEXT!"
  • WargolWargol Registered Users Posts: 70
    "Don't make any laws because some people will break them anyway"
    That's not what i said.

    The "laws" exist in order to make a better gameplay.
    By example, i'm ok with the idea of adjusting units of renown because this change can ameliorate the players experience.
    But your suggestion is just a sanction who doesn't improve the player experience, it doesn't make things more funny.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Yes, that's what you said:

    "Your suggestion will change nothing, except forcing some players to mod out their game."

    I find it better gameplay if the game doesn't give you a cheap way out of fighting battles that might prove overwhelming.
  • WargolWargol Registered Users Posts: 70
    edited March 2017

    Yes, that's what you said:

    "Your suggestion will change nothing, except forcing some players to mod out their game."

    No, it's not the same thing as saying : "Don't make ANY laws because some people will break them anyway".

    You said i'm opposed to ALL the laws, which is not the case. Some laws are good, other are not.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    It's called Reductio ad Absurdum. Your argument was that this rule shouldn't be introduced because people would find a way to break it. Well, this can easily be taken to its absurd conclusion that there shouldn't be any rules at all because any rule might be broken.

    Anyway, the real-time battles are half of the gameplay of this series, so a mechanic that forces people to deal with it is a plus in my opinion. Why give people an easy option to cheat and cheese the game?
  • EgonicEgonic Registered Users Posts: 158
    I have played several what you would consider large battles that have been extremely pointless, for an example in my Bret campaign I received a stack of cheap fodder and then I had Skarsnik with a full stack of high tier units, and my lines pretty much broke on impact. If I had been in that situation again I would have auto resolved since it was very boring and one sided.

    Since your suggestion is really bad and is just trying to reduce my enjoyment from playing, I wouldn't want it in my game. Then again I don't have the personal problem of having to cheat in a single player game, and avoid battles to feel like I am better player.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited March 2017
    Egonic said:

    I have played several what you would consider large battles that have been extremely pointless, for an example in my Bret campaign I received a stack of cheap fodder and then I had Skarsnik with a full stack of high tier units, and my lines pretty much broke on impact. If I had been in that situation again I would have auto resolved since it was very boring and one sided.

    Since your suggestion is really bad and is just trying to reduce my enjoyment from playing, I wouldn't want it in my game. Then again I don't have the personal problem of having to cheat in a single player game, and avoid battles to feel like I am better player.

    It has always paid off for me to play "losing" battles too since I could at least try to weaken the enemy and at try and remove a few key units. I see your objection as further proof that AR needs to go for large battles or at the very least punish the player more harshly. Players have become too complacent.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001

    Egonic said:

    I have played several what you would consider large battles that have been extremely pointless, for an example in my Bret campaign I received a stack of cheap fodder and then I had Skarsnik with a full stack of high tier units, and my lines pretty much broke on impact. If I had been in that situation again I would have auto resolved since it was very boring and one sided.

    Since your suggestion is really bad and is just trying to reduce my enjoyment from playing, I wouldn't want it in my game. Then again I don't have the personal problem of having to cheat in a single player game, and avoid battles to feel like I am better player.

    It has always paid off for me to play "losing" battles too since I could at least try to weaken the enemy and at try and remove a few key units. I see your objection as further proof that AR needs to go for large battles or at the very least punish the player more harshly. Players have become too complacent.
    Making TWW a better (more fun) game is always the ends of suggestions being made here, so if there is a real chance that a change makes the game less fun for a signifcant amount of people, CA will not want to take tha risk. In that regard, I think the bigger concern is when playing against armies that are very weak but fulfill the 14 unit criteria, as these can, although not as prevalent anymore, have some very unfun to play against compositions like large amounts or skirmish cav or chariots. I think it should be possible to not have to play those battles if there is no chance of losing those battles.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Then you might as well demand that CA remove all "unfun" units and army builds from enemy armies, so no skirmishers, skirmisher cav and artillery, all things that people like to complain about. I never found that a valid objection. Dealing with battles that are harder to handle than the usual clashing frontlines of infantry is part and parcel of the game. If you're so inflexible that you can only emjoy one type of battle then you shouldn't even be playing RTS games.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    The problem I have with ranged unts in general if they are part of ranged only or ranged mostly armies is that the battles that come from encountering them are too polarized. If you have the means to deal with them (higher range units with possible more dps or faster units), they will be massacred and if you don't have those means, you will have a hard time interacting with them at all. TWW has good ways to for example reward complex interaction like flanking with melee units (leadership, charge bonus, etc.), but not that many for ranged units which int turn imo work best in combination with melee units. This has neither to do with difficulty nor with my alledged inflexibility but with the means of interaction the game provides and with how engaging these make the resulting battles in terms of complexity, rewarding good tactical choices and the like.

    So if you want people to stop complaining about limited/unengaging options of interaction, either include more fun ways to interact or limit the occasions on which these problems become visible. These are of course only my personal reasons as to why I dislike fighting mentioned armies.
  • Rifugio#8346Rifugio#8346 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293

    In my opinion autoresolve should only be there to allow people to skip battles with a surefire outcome, like fullstack vs small garrison- type of engagements. It should not be a way to weasel out of fights that might be tricky to fight and cause more casualties....

    Especially for single player this is a question of choice - if you want to play the all the non-surefire battles play them, if someone else doesn't want to, why would that matter to you?

    I'm intrigued why you think it will make them enjoy the game more by forcing them to play something they really don't feel like playing?
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    This while idea is a perfect example of what not to force on people.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Rifugio said:

    In my opinion autoresolve should only be there to allow people to skip battles with a surefire outcome, like fullstack vs small garrison- type of engagements. It should not be a way to weasel out of fights that might be tricky to fight and cause more casualties....

    Especially for single player this is a question of choice - if you want to play the all the non-surefire battles play them, if someone else doesn't want to, why would that matter to you?

    I'm intrigued why you think it will make them enjoy the game more by forcing them to play something they really don't feel like playing?
    Here's one very easy and compelling reason:

    instead of having to waste time trying to balance AR, CA could instead use that time on more productive things.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    edited March 2017

    Rifugio said:

    In my opinion autoresolve should only be there to allow people to skip battles with a surefire outcome, like fullstack vs small garrison- type of engagements. It should not be a way to weasel out of fights that might be tricky to fight and cause more casualties....

    Especially for single player this is a question of choice - if you want to play the all the non-surefire battles play them, if someone else doesn't want to, why would that matter to you?

    I'm intrigued why you think it will make them enjoy the game more by forcing them to play something they really don't feel like playing?
    Here's one very easy and compelling reason:

    instead of having to waste time trying to balance AR, CA could instead use that time on more productive things.
    So your best idea to solve that (which CA can't apparently do at the same time as other things? ) is with a sandpaper bandaid that's only going to annoy people? Your reason doesn't even attempt to explain why players will enjoy the game more with this idea in it. What a completely pointless thread.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    I think you are taking the autoresolve too seriously. Or your making it too much about gameplay. Not to mention autoresolve is a personal decision. The auto resolve is for nothing more than to skip battles you don't want to play for whatever reasons. Could people use it as a tactic? sure, but it's for nothing more than to estimate wins and loses and to quickly skip a battle. No need to drop limits and incentives on it to force anything, when it's supposed to relieve the player of being forced to fight a battle.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,521
    I don't see it as "weaseling" out of fights to prevent casualties- large battles almost always result in large casualties that you may or may not find acceptable, to which you reload and try again, or just live with the consequences (which an be big and serious).

    If this is a matter of CA needing to devote resources to this and that, then this should just be left to modders. I believe certain values in unit profiles make them more prone to taking casualties in auto-resolve, and that naturally modders can tweak them to whatever preferences.

    There's honestly no point in locking out auto-resolve battles. There's also no real reasoning behind the idea: apparently it's because it allows people to "weasel" out of large battles. Question is why is that considered a problem? Even ratio means 1-2 things- you will lose, or you will take lots of casualties. That's already incentive to make players fight in battle mode if they cared about unit preservation. And if they don't, they should just suffer those results than being forced to go through it manually, sometimes for same outcome.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited March 2017
    If AR gives me consistently a better result than fighting the battle myself (very often the case), then it's an exploit rather than a tool of convenience. That's why I want it locked for large battles. The player should not have an easy way to cheese the game.

    And if people say "why care if other people do it", with that justification you might as well have the player get 1,000,000 income per turn and then just say "yeah, just don't spend all that money yourself, why do you care if other people turn the game into a joke?". Exploits and cheese should be removed or reduced in impact, that's just good game design.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    I have to agree with @Ephraim_Dalton in that I think autoresolve is too good still which at least for me does affect how much I enjoy the game on some occasions. The fact that autoresolve can put you in a situation where you have to choose between doing well in your campaign and enjoying a fight (which are the biggest selling point of TW games) is a bad thing and should be addressed imo. Imo autoresolve should not be able to contest what the player can do but rather be a tool to not have to play battles that are so onesided that you could let the battle play out without any input and still easily win.
    I hope I could show where I am coming from. If that is not how other people think than I of course have to acknowledge that.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    There are better ways to solving the problems with autoresolve than getting rid of option to use it.
  • thebiglezthebiglez Registered Users Posts: 714
    what about people who cant run these large battles because their computer is to bad?
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    thebiglez said:

    what about people who cant run these large battles because their computer is to bad?

    ... Seriously?
    Upgrade that potato or stop buying games it can't run. Minimum requirements are included for a reason. If their computer can't handle it that's their fault. Don't make excuses for others shortsightedness.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    There are better ways to solving the problems with autoresolve than getting rid of option to use it.

    The only other way is making AR super-punishing but that will affect all AR'd battles. In Med2/R1 fighting with a fullstack against a bunch a depleted peasants could kill off a good portion of your army.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,521
    edited March 2017
    If the way auto-resolve works is an issue you fix the issue, you don't just selectively disable it in some circumstances but not another. You then just limit what scenarios you get that lame result.

    There are already mods that alter the characteristics of auto-resolve, one of them "disables" it by simply upping the odds massively in the AI's favour. I'm confident that with the right amount of tweaking you can get a similar outcome where more equal ratios means less desirable results, encouraging players to fight battles manually. For those that still don't care or just about to win a campaign, they can just throw their men away.

    Which brings back to my previous point, there isn't any good reason to lock it out. If I'm stuck and a good army is bearing down on me and I'm in no mood to fight, and in no way to win, I shouldn't be FORCED to play it all out.

    We also need to remember the point of fighting battles at all: besides the enjoyment of tactical command, it also just means units gain experience and characters level up. You'll get neither when a battle is forced. This is why I don't really like Quest battles- you have to fight them even if you got the odds massively stacked in your favour. It's a waste of time to load in and out and win it with blindfold on or otherwise AFK making dinner. People will just do that if forced to fight battles they've no confidence in winning.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,709
    edited March 2017
    daelin4 said:

    ... This is why I don't really like Quest battles- you have to fight them even if you got the odds massively stacked in your favour. It's a waste of time to load in and out and win it with blindfold on or otherwise AFK making dinner....

    Agree. And, especially if you are playing the faction again. Having to fight the same quest battle more than once when having an overwhelming force is very irritating - to put it politely.

    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • Rifugio#8346Rifugio#8346 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293

    Rifugio said:

    In my opinion autoresolve should only be there to allow people to skip battles with a surefire outcome, like fullstack vs small garrison- type of engagements. It should not be a way to weasel out of fights that might be tricky to fight and cause more casualties....

    Especially for single player this is a question of choice - if you want to play the all the non-surefire battles play them, if someone else doesn't want to, why would that matter to you?

    I'm intrigued why you think it will make them enjoy the game more by forcing them to play something they really don't feel like playing?
    Here's one very easy and compelling reason:

    instead of having to waste time trying to balance AR, CA could instead use that time on more productive things.
    It's not a waste of time to work on a feature that many of the people buying your game use, and expect to be there, so that reason is not compelling for me, and I doubt CA would find it that compelling either...
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    So people think it's good that the game punishes you for playing battles yourself when the AR would have given you a much more favourable, quicker and easier outcome?

    Really?
  • HeroofRome1HeroofRome1 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,622
    edited April 2017

    So people think it's good that the game punishes you for playing battles yourself when the AR would have given you a much more favourable, quicker and easier outcome?

    Really?

    Tacking off a feature for everyone because of your opinion, however right it may be, is never good, at least in my book.
    Team Rome, Team Byzantium, Team Dwarfs, Team Empire, Team Bretonnia Team Grim, Team elf slayers, Team Belegar.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,455
    The auto resolve on Newer Total War Games can be really OP(unlike in the Classic Total War Games) but CA was putting some work on it lately and had made the auto resolve little more costly.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,521

    So people think it's good that the game punishes you for playing battles yourself when the AR would have given you a much more favourable, quicker and easier outcome?

    Really?

    No, not really. But I think you're just trying to be combative with loaded questions. Your idea not being a good one doesn't mean people like being stupid or not having to play the game the way you want it.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
Sign In or Register to comment.