Clarification regarding the autoresolve mechanic and victory type

SusaVile#9835

On a Facebook group that I belong to, there is probably 1 post every day at least, maybe two, regarding a typical close victory that the player lost next to nothing while completely wiping the enemy.

This is my take on explaining the situation, but perhaps I could get some insight from a mod or someone with a bit more knowledge (or any info on where to find the autoresolve details).

"The type of victory or defeat (decisive, heroic, close, phyrric, valiant) has to do with the odds given by the game's calculations. These calculations take into consideration many variables:

- army composition
- each unit in the army and their xp
- available ammunition
- heroes and lords skills, abilities and their xp
- available winds of magic
- etc, etc etc.

It puts everything together and gives you a power rating, a number. It does the same for the enemy army.

After the battle is over, it does exactly the same, and determines  how well you did, comparing your initial power to your after the battle power, and the same for the enemy. Note here: it should be noted that any autoresolve always ends with the enemy being totally wiped out, and this may help determine how well you did (as in, the game always assumes the odds of trying to wipe out the entirety of the enemy army, that sort of thing, but do not quote me on this, I am assuming this part).

Why does this matter? Because the AI never plays its battles. The odds are calculated for the autoresolve mechanism, which in turn is how the AI vs AI fights occur. The control of the player's units during a battle and how effective you are are NOT a factor. This is why you see the AI miss entirely on some odds where you must certainly have a chance, and others where you have no way of winning but it actually gives you some odds.

So, why do the odds "fail" that much? Because it is also part of the game's balance. Each unit has a a value to the game that may not represent what a player would value that certain unit. This is made so that there are less ridiculously overpowered factions. Like, we know that a full Empire stack of greatswords would probably lose to a decent balanced greenskins army, but the game may calculate that differently, so that, in AI vs AI battles, Empire and Greenskins are somewhat balanced out. Clear?

There are of course notions that I have failed here, but this is what I have seen happen from my playthroughs, ever since warhammer 1. In warhammer 1, btw, the victory types were much closer to what we would consider ideal, but the balance was totally off. Ever since they started properly balancing the game, this feature (type of victory or defeat) has lost its meaning, but I prefer balance over simply a bit of wording wrong, and a couple xp points. It is, for all purposes, working as intended, and I concurr with their idea. Sorry for the long post."

Now, anyone can shed some light? Opinions? Thoughts? Details? Ty in advance.

IamNotArobot#8850

You earn different amount of experience dependikg on the fight outcome. Phirryc gives you less if I’m not wrong.

SusaVile#9835

IamNotArobot said:

You earn different amount of experience dependikg on the fight outcome. Phirryc gives you less if I’m not wrong.

Indeed, you earn more XP for decisive and heroic, less for close and phyrric, of course. The issue here is 1 - whether what I have written above is essentially accurate, and 2- whether fixing the decisive/close/phyrric issue creates a larger problem with the overall balance between AI vs AI.

Given that XP is relatively quick to obtain anyways, I would always favor balance over "fixing" that xp issue, but I can be in the minority here...

IamNotArobot#8850

SusaVile said:

IamNotArobot said:

You earn different amount of experience dependikg on the fight outcome. Phirryc gives you less if I’m not wrong.

Indeed, you earn more XP for decisive and heroic, less for close and phyrric, of course. The issue here is 1 - whether what I have written above is essentially accurate, and 2- whether fixing the decisive/close/phyrric issue creates a larger problem with the overall balance between AI vs AI.

Given that XP is relatively quick to obtain anyways, I would always favor balance over "fixing" that xp issue, but I can be in the minority here...

I think AI vs AI in WH2 is an everchangikg thing depending on the new DLC factions and reworks, CA tends to make strong autoresolve factions very passive (Lizardmen) and make factions like the Empire doomstack its way to the top while making them aggressive and favouring them in AI autoresolve. Skaven have that issue, they always lose a lot onf autoresolve just bevause their units are cheap and weak (even if they have like 10k)

Tomb Kings, Vampire Countd, weak AI, hell even Bretonnia can take them. Also the fact of Tomb Kings not having (by error) confederatiok enabled they tend to die asap and never conquer the world like the HE, Gs or Empire.

I would call for a rebalance of autoresolve eve if that means new factions will start to have a major part in the war.

Maybe we should have the option to use military ally army when they fight alone, it would be more logical.

IamNotArobot#8850

Victory type is a vestige of anotr era it should be removed/reworked.

SusaVile#9835

IamNotArobot said:

Maybe we should have the option to use military ally army when they fight alone, it would be more logical.

You mean, fight the armies of our military allies for the AI? Would love to take the helm haha:)

IamNotArobot#8850

SusaVile said:

IamNotArobot said:

Maybe we should have the option to use military ally army when they fight alone, it would be more logical.

You mean, fight the armies of our military allies for the AI? Would love to take the helm haha:)

yes.