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

2

Comments

  • hendo#1695hendo#1695 Registered Users Posts: 3,001
    The deployment phase is becoming the best part of battles for me after that...*shrugs*. I don't want to force anything on players, this is coming from a player who use to never auto resolve-now I think my AR and actual playing battles is 10:1. Sure AR gives the player a leg up (in some cases), but the player should do better in most cases. I really think people autoresolve more because battles are short and repetive.
  • mitthrawnuruodo#4895mitthrawnuruodo#4895 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,974
    edited April 2017
    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.


    So you want to make other players waste their time because YOU lack the willpower to NOT auto-resolve. Pathetic.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2017
    hendo1592 said:

    The deployment phase is becoming the best part of battles for me after that...*shrugs*. I don't want to force anything on players, this is coming from a player who use to never auto resolve-now I think my AR and actual playing battles is 10:1. Sure AR gives the player a leg up (in some cases), but the player should do better in most cases. I really think people autoresolve more because battles are short and repetive.

    I want the game to not punish people who actually play the battles as opposed to being lazy and going AR for a more favourable outcome.

    Why is that so hard to understand?
  • HeroofRome1HeroofRome1 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,622

    hendo1592 said:

    The deployment phase is becoming the best part of battles for me after that...*shrugs*. I don't want to force anything on players, this is coming from a player who use to never auto resolve-now I think my AR and actual playing battles is 10:1. Sure AR gives the player a leg up (in some cases), but the player should do better in most cases. I really think people autoresolve more because battles are short and repetive.

    I want the game to not punish people who actually play the battles as opposed to being lazy and going AR for a more favourable outcome.

    Why is that so hard to understand?
    As some people, like me, may not want to fight big battles.
    Team Rome, Team Byzantium, Team Dwarfs, Team Empire, Team Bretonnia Team Grim, Team elf slayers, Team Belegar.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092

    hendo1592 said:

    The deployment phase is becoming the best part of battles for me after that...*shrugs*. I don't want to force anything on players, this is coming from a player who use to never auto resolve-now I think my AR and actual playing battles is 10:1. Sure AR gives the player a leg up (in some cases), but the player should do better in most cases. I really think people autoresolve more because battles are short and repetive.

    I want the game to not punish people who actually play the battles as opposed to being lazy and going AR for a more favourable outcome.

    Why is that so hard to understand?
    It's not hard to understand your line of reasoning. It's just a stupid idea.
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 597
    I disagree about the removal, I found it useful when you are forced to fight too many battles per turns(like in Attila) or when fighting against many similar armies(like norska).
    I could agree with the addition of penalities for AR battles or more unpredicteble outcome but I still think that it's all just a matter of choice, if you like to play all battles then don't autoresolve.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,520
    Specifically, if you like to play all your battles, you merely never choose autoresolve.

    It would be like I never play out battle mode so there shouldn't be one, and disregarding everyone else who feels and does otherwise.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2017
    So far, no one has proposed anything better, no one wants to give up their cheese, I guess.

    Yeah, gotta' brag about breezing through legendary campaigns with nothing but broken autoresolve, I guess.
  • MorbidlyAbeastMorbidlyAbeast Registered Users Posts: 191

    So far, no one has proposed anything better, no one wants to give up their cheese, I guess.

    Yeah, gotta' brag about breezing through legendary campaigns with nothing but broken autoresolve, I guess.

    There is literally nothing to propose...please tell me this is a troll thread? :confused:

    Do you stand over a lot of your friend's shoulders while they AR through their legendary campaigns and it has infuriated you to no end and now you have decided that you must put an end to such atrocities?

    Why else are you sooooo salty about something you never have to do (try clicking fight battle.....?), and if you just have zero self control and it is you who can't let go of the cheese, well...there are mods for that.

    Sounds like the preachers condemning people because they feel the same inside and they need the "penalty" to be what keeps them from acting on their urges....just don't do it if it offends you.

  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092

    So far, no one has proposed anything better, no one wants to give up their cheese, I guess.

    Yeah, gotta' brag about breezing through legendary campaigns with nothing but broken autoresolve, I guess.

    The better proposal is leave it as is. No sense making problems for the player where no problems exist.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    CA could put a tick box before the campaign to turn off autoreslove, so you won't give in to the temptation of "skipping" battles.
    I will look into making a mod to modify autoreslove in a way that encourages you to fight big battles.
    Personally I think autoreslove is fine though.
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 597

    Yeah, gotta' brag about breezing through legendary campaigns with nothing but broken autoresolve, I guess.

    You've never been the "broken feature" guy, don't start it now.

    So far, no one has proposed anything better, no one wants to give up their cheese, I guess.

    Since during large battles you'll always get more casualities than usual you can hope for more unpredictable victories and casualities in future games, just to induce players to manually fight battles.
    As far seems to me a fair solution between not removing AR and not cheating; you can proove your skills by fighting every single large battle for a better victory or you can still push the AR button to skip it while asking yourself, like the good old Clint Eastwood said, "Do I feel lucky? Do you, punk?"
  • corvus_codex#4567corvus_codex#4567 Junior Member SpainRegistered Users Posts: 3,073
    Why do you want my computer to suffer?
    image
    "I am the harbinger of your demise. I am the nightmare in all mortals. I am the thing you fear the most. I am death..."
    —Valkia the Bloody.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    AR consistently giving you better results than fighting yourself IS a broken feature. It rewards not actually playing the game, so what else should it be called? If you want only the campaign and skip the battles, why even play TW?

    However, I've thought about increasing the "uncertainty" (the dithered part of the bar) of AR results for larger battles exponentially myself and agree that that would be an even better solution.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    I don't think increasing uncertainty would help, it would just incentivise safescumming as far as I can tell.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Then just lock the seeds for the turn. Works for XCom.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,520
    Just make a mod that modifies AR chances to suit your preferences. Difficulty level seems to adjust it accordingly.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • PericvsPericvs Registered Users Posts: 91

    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?

    I see where your problem lies:

    I have not once seen an AR that works better for me than playing manually. It might be an exploit to you because you are terrible at the game, but for the rest of us who know how to play its a means to not waste time on something trivial or the annoyance to having to play a battle with pauses and slowmotion because you have to control 50 units.
  • PericvsPericvs Registered Users Posts: 91
    Pericvs said:

    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?

    I see where your problem lies:

    I have not once seen an AR that works better for me than playing manually. It might be an exploit to you because you are terrible at the game, but for the rest of us who know how to play its a means to not waste time on something trivial or the annoyance to having to play a battle with pauses and slowmotion because you have to control 50 units.
    Edit: Let me correct myself I may take more casualties when I have to fight a full skirmisher norscan stack manually (if I'm an idiot and didn't go to norsca with some light cav and fliers). If the game ever forces me to fight those I will surely drop this franchise.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited June 2017
    Pericvs said:

    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?

    I see where your problem lies:

    I have not once seen an AR that works better for me than playing manually. It might be an exploit to you because you are terrible at the game, but for the rest of us who know how to play its a means to not waste time on something trivial or the annoyance to having to play a battle with pauses and slowmotion because you have to control 50 units.
    LOLOLOLOL!

    If AR always gives you worse results than fighting your battles yourself, your skillful 1337 majesty, then you shouldn't have any objection to getting it removed completely! You might be skillful on a TW battlefield, but you suck at arguing. I mean, if I suck at the game, shouldn't I pledge for more cheese instead of less? You don't make sense.

    BTW, I've seen some other games, like Pike and Shot, remove the option to AR in battles that are sufficiently large, so it's not like I'm the only one here hating the lazy cheese.

  • BillyRuffian#6250BillyRuffian#6250 Moderator UKRegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 40,861
    Some off-topic and/or bickering posts removed.

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • coffeecake13#9393coffeecake13#9393 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 484

    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.

    As silly as it sounds, there are people that play this game and ONLY autoresolve battles. That is their style and more power to them. I disagree with your proposition. This should be the player's decision and to take that away is really unnecessary. Every player should play the game the way they want to play it.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    kilijan 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.

    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.

    As silly as it sounds, there are people that play this game and ONLY autoresolve battles. That is their style and more power to them. I disagree with your proposition. This should be the player's decision and to take that away is really unnecessary. Every player should play the game the way they want to play it.
    Yes, that sounds silly. So silly in fact that I think that handful of people who play like that (although there're much, MUCH better games for this sort of thing) are completely negligible.

    TW has been an RTS/TBS mix from the beginning and earler titles had pretty unforgiving AR making this playstyle impossible. That's something I want back (one of the few things, actually).
  • Ol_Nessie#9894Ol_Nessie#9894 Registered Users Posts: 4,310
    At the end of the day, all your proposal would do is force people to play a certain way, which is categorically counter to the spirit of the game. It's a SANDBOX game, you have the freedom to play it however you want. Don't want to AR big battles? Then don't do it in your campaign; don't force other people to play it like that. What possible side effect do those players auto-resolving big battles have on YOUR enjoyment of the game?
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Thanks for the bump. Keep the topic on top so that CA has more chance of seeing it and putting it in.
  • Ol_Nessie#9894Ol_Nessie#9894 Registered Users Posts: 4,310
    ;) NP, and when that happens, I'll climb in my rocketship and fly to the moon made of green cheese! :p
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    I'm not discussing my proposition any more since I made my opinion more than clear. But every glib reply still gives me the chance of putting this proposition back on top.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    lol

    Guys really?

    Since ChaosDragonBorn is taking forever with the mod or completely forgot about it, here is a mod that might do what you are looking for.

    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=756353521&searchtext=auto
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    I already know that mod, but if affects all AR, even 20:1 battles, so it's not optimal.
  • daelin4#9896daelin4#9896 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,520
    The biggest problem with your proposal is that it basically relies on number of units, and/or a "surefire outcome", of which can range from 20 units versus one, but also 20 units on both sides but one side has its units severely depleted. A "surefire" outcome can range from being outnumbered in terms of troops (which relies on unit size, of which proportions vary a bit depending on selection), and number of units in general. The latter is not a great gauge of strength since 20 goblin spearmen are going to get reamed by as few as five Ironbreakers, and certainly if there were more.
    In other words, your idea is basically you can't autopresolve bceayuse that army has as many Goblin Spearmen as you have 20 Ironbreakers, so you have to play that battle despite having an even greater surefire outcome than 10 Goblin Spearmen units against a high level LL and a few Ironbreakers.

    Your problem then creates more problems just to resolve...well, what isn't really a big problem in the first place. After all, the more even the AR outcome prediction the more likely someone will try battle mode especially if they figure out the AR route didn't work out. Students should learn why going one direction is the wrong way, not simply not allowed to know. And unlike real life, there are far less ramifications when players aren't "sheltered" from certain actions.
    You might as well change the game where it is never possible for Orcs to have diplomatic relations with anyone because hey that's the lore guys.

    As already said, there are mods that inflate the AR odds to induce players to try playing out battle mode themselves. That is far more effective than simply greying out the button since it still gives players the option to play foolishly.

    The more replies on this thread, the more exposure of how bad this idea is. Sorry, but that's just what it is, not a good idea.

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