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

When people defend new autoresolve, that Total War is about fighting battle, show them this video

2»

Comments

  • SusaVile#9835SusaVile#9835 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,430

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    NB: In Warhammer 2 Autoresolve did *not* have different outcomes on different campaign difficulties.

    It isn't supposed to. Campaign difficulty is supposed to affect what the AI brings to a fight, not anything that happens within the battle.

    That's the problem with Warhammer 3's autoresolve at the moment. Campaign difficulty, which is not supposed to affect battles except in what the AI brings to them, is having an effect on the autoresolve calculations which is so egregious that battles which are absolutely mind-numbing to play out manually cannot be autoresolved because they cause wildly, incomprehensibly, high casualties *only to the player*.

    Autoresolve scaling on campaign difficulty does not make the campaign more difficult, it only makes it more tedious. It needs to be changed so that campaign difficulty has no effect.. This was designed by someone who doesn't play the game.
    Well, yes and no. It had effect based on the unit buffs that the AI receives, as those were turned down for wh3 basically. Now it does have a difficulty scale, which I agree is not fun. However, to go towards what everyone is talking around here, there needs to be an understanding of how it works in the first place, and it is still directly linked to a unit's value or worth, ammunition, magic, lord, and now, supplies.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • SusaVile#9835SusaVile#9835 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,430

    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    And of course realize that there is no battle at all, it is just numbers being calculated. And the value of those numbers is concerning balance between the units, the lord attributes, magic, etc. One of the biggest causes for issues right now is the fact that it does take into account when it is a minor or major siege battle, and the amount of supplies (and probably the biggest issue with it). And still on this point, balance is at its early stages, it will change drastically the more units are modified or added, magic is modified or added, etc.

    Now, this means that the autoresolve impacts everything: how fast or slow every single faction expands, how eager it is of getting into a fight or siege, what types of units it prefers, etc. For example, changing any values in favor of the Kislev army roster would imply them having an even larger expansion rate, for the sake of the player having a better AR when fighting as them. Or, imagine some changes are done to the Ogre Kingdoms for their AR to become better: they are already powerful in my campaigns, imagine being better than that and running over the map without opposition. Again, it is not just that they become more powerful in battle, it is also that they perceive they are more powerful and want to get into battle (as in, the AI will not retreat as often as it currently is doing against other AI and just keep expanding).

    What we need is 2 different sets of autoresolve: one that is focused on the player, while maintaining the same autoresolve calculations for the AI vs AI fights. Then perhaps we can have a deal here. All that CA would need to do is simply tweak the player bias in order to ensure a more accurate or helpful AR, and that is it. When they want to tweak one faction that is getting too powerful as an AI they can touch the AI autoresolve calculations.

    However, the biggest deal with this is what value to give to the average player? If they do it just right, statistically, 50% of players will get an autoresolve that works better than what their own performance is, and 50% of the players will say autoresolve works worse than their own performance.

    So what does that has to do with that they changed how difficulty is translated to AR and why do they think it should influence AR at all.

    Than again AR isn't influenced by factions its done on unit roles, for your Kislev example you would have to increase the hybrid units values because most of their units are hybrids but that would affect all hybrid units no matter which faction they belong to. You can't buff or nerf a specific faction with AR.
    The "anti player bias" is campaign behavior if its set to passive or defensive the AI won't go for other AIs or players even if AR would show it would win with its armies. For aggressive AIs they will go to war when their balance of power ist higher and/or the diplomatic relations worse enough but even than they would only attack when their AR shows it can take on a specific fight. Thats why on higher difficulties players get declarations of war from factions across the world which will never attack because the diplomatic penalty is so much on players but as long as the balance of power is in their favor no army will come and even if the AI sends one at some point its likely that it will get in trouble with other AIs on its way.
    Also AR doesn't influence what units the AI gets, the AI will build armies based on whats buildings it has in the recruiting province and when that means building an army with crap AR values than it will do so, when it mean that it only has the choice between SE and artillery than it will build a "doomstack" with highest tier SE and highest tier artillery.

    You mix up very different systems, sure they are connected at specific points but thats all and non of the systems give a logical reason to have AR be influence by campaign difficulty to *stars* up players.
    AR values are directly influenced by how much gold, basically, the units are worth, not their roles or perceived prowess in the battle ahead. If you change the value of the units, you will directly change the value of autoresolve. For example, set a basic Boyar with 2 Armoured Kossars vs a Cathay basic lord and 2 Jade warriors. Look at the strength bar on top; now redo the battle, but give 9 Experience to each of your Armoured Kossars. Their value increases, hence the strength too. Now put a Bear cav vs a Sky Junk (1600 gold vs 1500 gold) and the value as for the strength bar is the same, although the battle has nothing to do with that value at all. Once the lord is dead, Sky Junk will route and it is an easy win, but that is not reflected at all because the values cannot perceive this. Another example, try 4 bear cav (4x1600) vs 8 Jade lancers (8x800). Same value, but we all know anti-large cav will win.

    You can watch this video on Combat Prowess by Zerkovich ( to get an idea of where those values come from. Note that the values changed in accordance to the units' XP (which changes gold value), ammunition, etc.
    Dude the whole video is about the army strength bar within a manual battle and how it is affected.
    AR uses a optical similar bar but it is calculated completely different.
    Army strength and AR value aren't the same and aren't connected in any way or form, yet again you mix up game mechanics that are different systems.
    That same army strength bar existed in wh2 and 1 all along, once you were in the start battle screen. Those values are connected, easiest way to do it.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,690
    edited March 2022
    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    NB: In Warhammer 2 Autoresolve did *not* have different outcomes on different campaign difficulties.

    It isn't supposed to. Campaign difficulty is supposed to affect what the AI brings to a fight, not anything that happens within the battle.

    That's the problem with Warhammer 3's autoresolve at the moment. Campaign difficulty, which is not supposed to affect battles except in what the AI brings to them, is having an effect on the autoresolve calculations which is so egregious that battles which are absolutely mind-numbing to play out manually cannot be autoresolved because they cause wildly, incomprehensibly, high casualties *only to the player*.

    Autoresolve scaling on campaign difficulty does not make the campaign more difficult, it only makes it more tedious. It needs to be changed so that campaign difficulty has no effect.. This was designed by someone who doesn't play the game.
    Well, yes and no. It had effect based on the unit buffs that the AI receives, as those were turned down for wh3 basically. Now it does have a difficulty scale, which I agree is not fun. However, to go towards what everyone is talking around here, there needs to be an understanding of how it works in the first place, and it is still directly linked to a unit's value or worth, ammunition, magic, lord, and now, supplies.
    I don't think you're following.

    The AI does not get unit buffs from *campaign* difficulty (except free experience which seems to be gone now). It gets them from *battle* difficulty.

    Warhammer 3's autoresolve is scaling based on *campaign* difficulty which has no effect on units at all. With the same battle difficulty setting, the same battle will inflict 20% more casualties on the player per *campaign* difficulty level, no matter how unrealistic it is for those casualties to actually happen.

    This is not about people understanding how autoresolve works or not, this is autoresolve including a new calculation which is specifically and only designed to **** over the player for something which is not supposed to affect battles at all.

    And if it's not designed to do that and *nobody noticed it was happening* then that's possibly even worse, given how instantly it got noticed by anyone who was familiar with the game (and not corrected prior to release either, since it was mentioned almost immediately by content creators).
  • SusaVile#9835SusaVile#9835 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,430

    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    NB: In Warhammer 2 Autoresolve did *not* have different outcomes on different campaign difficulties.

    It isn't supposed to. Campaign difficulty is supposed to affect what the AI brings to a fight, not anything that happens within the battle.

    That's the problem with Warhammer 3's autoresolve at the moment. Campaign difficulty, which is not supposed to affect battles except in what the AI brings to them, is having an effect on the autoresolve calculations which is so egregious that battles which are absolutely mind-numbing to play out manually cannot be autoresolved because they cause wildly, incomprehensibly, high casualties *only to the player*.

    Autoresolve scaling on campaign difficulty does not make the campaign more difficult, it only makes it more tedious. It needs to be changed so that campaign difficulty has no effect.. This was designed by someone who doesn't play the game.
    Well, yes and no. It had effect based on the unit buffs that the AI receives, as those were turned down for wh3 basically. Now it does have a difficulty scale, which I agree is not fun. However, to go towards what everyone is talking around here, there needs to be an understanding of how it works in the first place, and it is still directly linked to a unit's value or worth, ammunition, magic, lord, and now, supplies.
    I don't think you're following.

    The AI does not get unit buffs from *campaign* difficulty (except free experience which seems to be gone now). It gets them from *battle* difficulty.

    Warhammer 3's autoresolve is scaling based on *campaign* difficulty which has no effect on units at all. With the same battle difficulty setting, the same battle will inflict 20% more casualties on the player per *campaign* difficulty level, no matter how unrealistic it is for those casualties to actually happen.

    This is not about people understanding how autoresolve works or not, this is autoresolve including a new calculation which is specifically and only designed to **** over the player for something which is not supposed to affect battles at all.

    And if it's not designed to do that and *nobody noticed it was happening* then that's possibly even worse, given how instantly it got noticed by anyone who was familiar with the game (and not corrected prior to release either, since it was mentioned almost immediately by content creators).
    And you are not following me: ADDING to how the autoresolve worked previously, there is now a campaign buff or nerf to the autoresolve values based on your chosen difficulty setting, which is what you were mentioning. Should this value be removed entirely, we would still see people (as in WH2) speak about the autoresolve values.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,690
    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    NB: In Warhammer 2 Autoresolve did *not* have different outcomes on different campaign difficulties.

    It isn't supposed to. Campaign difficulty is supposed to affect what the AI brings to a fight, not anything that happens within the battle.

    That's the problem with Warhammer 3's autoresolve at the moment. Campaign difficulty, which is not supposed to affect battles except in what the AI brings to them, is having an effect on the autoresolve calculations which is so egregious that battles which are absolutely mind-numbing to play out manually cannot be autoresolved because they cause wildly, incomprehensibly, high casualties *only to the player*.

    Autoresolve scaling on campaign difficulty does not make the campaign more difficult, it only makes it more tedious. It needs to be changed so that campaign difficulty has no effect.. This was designed by someone who doesn't play the game.
    Well, yes and no. It had effect based on the unit buffs that the AI receives, as those were turned down for wh3 basically. Now it does have a difficulty scale, which I agree is not fun. However, to go towards what everyone is talking around here, there needs to be an understanding of how it works in the first place, and it is still directly linked to a unit's value or worth, ammunition, magic, lord, and now, supplies.
    I don't think you're following.

    The AI does not get unit buffs from *campaign* difficulty (except free experience which seems to be gone now). It gets them from *battle* difficulty.

    Warhammer 3's autoresolve is scaling based on *campaign* difficulty which has no effect on units at all. With the same battle difficulty setting, the same battle will inflict 20% more casualties on the player per *campaign* difficulty level, no matter how unrealistic it is for those casualties to actually happen.

    This is not about people understanding how autoresolve works or not, this is autoresolve including a new calculation which is specifically and only designed to **** over the player for something which is not supposed to affect battles at all.

    And if it's not designed to do that and *nobody noticed it was happening* then that's possibly even worse, given how instantly it got noticed by anyone who was familiar with the game (and not corrected prior to release either, since it was mentioned almost immediately by content creators).
    And you are not following me: ADDING to how the autoresolve worked previously, there is now a campaign buff or nerf to the autoresolve values based on your chosen difficulty setting, which is what you were mentioning. Should this value be removed entirely, we would still see people (as in WH2) speak about the autoresolve values.
    Right, and only someone who has never played a Total War game would think that is a good idea.

    It is indefensible, it is inexcusable, it is an absolute waste of the player's time *and has no actual effect on difficulty*.
  • SnakeMajinSnakeMajin Registered Users Posts: 601
    I do think AR shouldn't scale on difficulty, I'd even argue it does the opposite of bringing more difficulty.

    Relying on AR usually implies accepting to end up these battles with more casualties than you'd have otherwise. So a player that pushes AR more than he plays manually actually faces more challenge. Because he may need to replenish or recruit when he otherwise would not.

    But in VH and Legendary, the AR is apparently (I admit I never tried it) so ridiculous you don't have a choice but to play manually. So you end up having an easier campaign with better battle outcomes because of how AR currently works. So not only it does the opposite of bringing challenge, it also takes a huge toll of one's time.

    When you've got your relatives and home to take care of, you don't have time to play tons of meaningless battles. You need a sense of progression.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    NB: In Warhammer 2 Autoresolve did *not* have different outcomes on different campaign difficulties.

    It isn't supposed to. Campaign difficulty is supposed to affect what the AI brings to a fight, not anything that happens within the battle.

    That's the problem with Warhammer 3's autoresolve at the moment. Campaign difficulty, which is not supposed to affect battles except in what the AI brings to them, is having an effect on the autoresolve calculations which is so egregious that battles which are absolutely mind-numbing to play out manually cannot be autoresolved because they cause wildly, incomprehensibly, high casualties *only to the player*.

    Autoresolve scaling on campaign difficulty does not make the campaign more difficult, it only makes it more tedious. It needs to be changed so that campaign difficulty has no effect.. This was designed by someone who doesn't play the game.
    Well, yes and no. It had effect based on the unit buffs that the AI receives, as those were turned down for wh3 basically. Now it does have a difficulty scale, which I agree is not fun. However, to go towards what everyone is talking around here, there needs to be an understanding of how it works in the first place, and it is still directly linked to a unit's value or worth, ammunition, magic, lord, and now, supplies.
    No dude, just no. Army strength and AR are two different things, thats why in game 1 and 2 the bar mostly changed from "in favor of AI" to "in favor of player" when you went into battles and thats why they got rid of it because people got confused by that and mistook them for being the same because they had similar optics.
    The army strenght is used to determine a winner based on "army loss" but in AR no battle takes place so these values aren't used. AR uses modifiers to unit roles and stats and matched up different unit typs in order to calculate an outcome. Unit stats from buffs are included in both equations but to a different degree because the base they are applied to is completly different.
    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    SusaVile said:

    First you guys need to realize what AR is all about, and then start talking about it.

    Autoresolve is what the AI does vs the AI. You can wish to autoresolve a battle, which is in essence saying, "if this battle was between 2 AI's, what would be the outcome?" and it has difficulty layers to it, so a better outcome on easier than on legendary.

    And of course realize that there is no battle at all, it is just numbers being calculated. And the value of those numbers is concerning balance between the units, the lord attributes, magic, etc. One of the biggest causes for issues right now is the fact that it does take into account when it is a minor or major siege battle, and the amount of supplies (and probably the biggest issue with it). And still on this point, balance is at its early stages, it will change drastically the more units are modified or added, magic is modified or added, etc.

    Now, this means that the autoresolve impacts everything: how fast or slow every single faction expands, how eager it is of getting into a fight or siege, what types of units it prefers, etc. For example, changing any values in favor of the Kislev army roster would imply them having an even larger expansion rate, for the sake of the player having a better AR when fighting as them. Or, imagine some changes are done to the Ogre Kingdoms for their AR to become better: they are already powerful in my campaigns, imagine being better than that and running over the map without opposition. Again, it is not just that they become more powerful in battle, it is also that they perceive they are more powerful and want to get into battle (as in, the AI will not retreat as often as it currently is doing against other AI and just keep expanding).

    What we need is 2 different sets of autoresolve: one that is focused on the player, while maintaining the same autoresolve calculations for the AI vs AI fights. Then perhaps we can have a deal here. All that CA would need to do is simply tweak the player bias in order to ensure a more accurate or helpful AR, and that is it. When they want to tweak one faction that is getting too powerful as an AI they can touch the AI autoresolve calculations.

    However, the biggest deal with this is what value to give to the average player? If they do it just right, statistically, 50% of players will get an autoresolve that works better than what their own performance is, and 50% of the players will say autoresolve works worse than their own performance.

    So what does that has to do with that they changed how difficulty is translated to AR and why do they think it should influence AR at all.

    Than again AR isn't influenced by factions its done on unit roles, for your Kislev example you would have to increase the hybrid units values because most of their units are hybrids but that would affect all hybrid units no matter which faction they belong to. You can't buff or nerf a specific faction with AR.
    The "anti player bias" is campaign behavior if its set to passive or defensive the AI won't go for other AIs or players even if AR would show it would win with its armies. For aggressive AIs they will go to war when their balance of power ist higher and/or the diplomatic relations worse enough but even than they would only attack when their AR shows it can take on a specific fight. Thats why on higher difficulties players get declarations of war from factions across the world which will never attack because the diplomatic penalty is so much on players but as long as the balance of power is in their favor no army will come and even if the AI sends one at some point its likely that it will get in trouble with other AIs on its way.
    Also AR doesn't influence what units the AI gets, the AI will build armies based on whats buildings it has in the recruiting province and when that means building an army with crap AR values than it will do so, when it mean that it only has the choice between SE and artillery than it will build a "doomstack" with highest tier SE and highest tier artillery.

    You mix up very different systems, sure they are connected at specific points but thats all and non of the systems give a logical reason to have AR be influence by campaign difficulty to *stars* up players.
    AR values are directly influenced by how much gold, basically, the units are worth, not their roles or perceived prowess in the battle ahead. If you change the value of the units, you will directly change the value of autoresolve. For example, set a basic Boyar with 2 Armoured Kossars vs a Cathay basic lord and 2 Jade warriors. Look at the strength bar on top; now redo the battle, but give 9 Experience to each of your Armoured Kossars. Their value increases, hence the strength too. Now put a Bear cav vs a Sky Junk (1600 gold vs 1500 gold) and the value as for the strength bar is the same, although the battle has nothing to do with that value at all. Once the lord is dead, Sky Junk will route and it is an easy win, but that is not reflected at all because the values cannot perceive this. Another example, try 4 bear cav (4x1600) vs 8 Jade lancers (8x800). Same value, but we all know anti-large cav will win.

    You can watch this video on Combat Prowess by Zerkovich ( to get an idea of where those values come from. Note that the values changed in accordance to the units' XP (which changes gold value), ammunition, etc.
    Dude the whole video is about the army strength bar within a manual battle and how it is affected.
    AR uses a optical similar bar but it is calculated completely different.
    Army strength and AR value aren't the same and aren't connected in any way or form, yet again you mix up game mechanics that are different systems.
    That same army strength bar existed in wh2 and 1 all along, once you were in the start battle screen. Those values are connected, easiest way to do it.
    Once you are in the battle screen you are on a completly different topic. AR and army strength aren't connected they share a part of their calculations but thats all. What you are saying is that force (F=m*a) and energy (E = mc2) are the same because they both have mass (m) in their formula.

    Instead of telling others "you need to understand what AR does first" you should look into what AR does, where it is connected and where not. You are mix and match campaign behavior, AI personalities, battle rules, unit stats, building chains and recruitment and call all that AR while actually ignoring AR.
  • Grimmtoof#7597Grimmtoof#7597 Registered Users Posts: 24
    Personally I like to play battles that are either fun, interesting or important. Early on I'll happily fight every battle myself and big quest battles or grand confrontation between two full armies can also be satisfying. But for example I've I'm mopping up my enemies minor settlements with a high end army I don't want to have to re-fight the same battle over and over again just to avoid losing a good chunk of my army each turn. It just gets boring and frustrating.
  • hillbillymachinegunhillbillymachinegun Registered Users Posts: 465
    I think it depends a lot on context. What faction are you playing as? What difficulty level are you playing at? Autoresolve varies from mostly acceptable to downright ridiculous depending on the answers to those questions.

    Playing on normal difficulty for most factions, it's usually not too egregious.
  • Artjuh90#8868Artjuh90#8868 Registered Users Posts: 1,697
    The only good thing is about the bad AR is that you fight the battles more which could be interesting if: more then 20% are actually interesting field battles and the AI isn't goddamn ****. By making the AR just unfair and forcing the battles is not the right way to push people to less AR and more fighting. not the mention the lack of units in the monogods roster doesn't help either
  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    It felt fair enough on Hard. It should be like that on VH/L.

    On VH it's wayyyyy too punishing. Losing 1/3 of my Celestial Guards + Sentinels army to an Ogre camp with 12 units, most of which are normal Bulls or Gnoblars? Come on now. Tzeentch was even worse as even armies with basic Blue Horrors and Forsaken would cause incredible casualties to my endgame armies.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,686

    I think it depends a lot on context. What faction are you playing as? What difficulty level are you playing at? Autoresolve varies from mostly acceptable to downright ridiculous depending on the answers to those questions.

    Playing on normal difficulty for most factions, it's usually not too egregious.

    The context is that they tied it to campaign difficulty which doesn't make any sense at all because AR shouldn't be influenced by that. Also from forum observation the comments are that E/N is fine, H has mixed comments and VH/L is just *stars* up. There is no justification for arbitrarily adding casualties to an army just because the campaign difficulty goes up.

    This is how AR looks like on L:






    AR would kill 6 units and by the way both armies were full when the turn started the casualties came from using AR with both armies against a similiar army before that. Because I used AR for the first one I had to fight this to not lose 6 units.



    Thats the army strength, so a certain someone can see it isn't related to AR results.



    This is the end battle screen after fighting the snorefest manually.
  • Mr_Finley7#4571Mr_Finley7#4571 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,417

    To be fair very few people defend it. There's one so far in this thread, I don't imagine we'll see many more. It's quite bad.

    Considering disagrees, lots of people do. I guess people love playing battles that they would manually with 0 casualties all the time.
    Good news. Disagrees are wholly valueless.

    To be fair very few people defend it. There's one so far in this thread, I don't imagine we'll see many more. It's quite bad.

    Considering disagrees, lots of people do. I guess people love playing battles that they would manually with 0 casualties all the time.
    Good news. Disagrees are wholly valueless.
    Lol by that logic so are agrees, which people cite all the time
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    I've never not fought my battles on legendary... no matter how good or bad Auto Resolve is it will always chip away at your forces to an unacceptable degree.

    Personally I like AR on legendary it actually has improved the # of closely matched battles that I engaged in and its improved my game experience.
  • endurstonehelm#6102endurstonehelm#6102 Registered Users Posts: 4,260
    The biggest issue is that the AR difficulty is based on campaign difficulty, not battle difficulty. That needs to be fixed.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,788
    Stay on topic folks, such as it is, and keep the personal comments/remarks out of the conversation.
    "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.

  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,790

    To be fair very few people defend it. There's one so far in this thread, I don't imagine we'll see many more. It's quite bad.

    Considering disagrees, lots of people do. I guess people love playing battles that they would manually with 0 casualties all the time.
    Good news. Disagrees are wholly valueless.

    To be fair very few people defend it. There's one so far in this thread, I don't imagine we'll see many more. It's quite bad.

    Considering disagrees, lots of people do. I guess people love playing battles that they would manually with 0 casualties all the time.
    Good news. Disagrees are wholly valueless.
    Lol by that logic so are agrees, which people cite all the time
    Yes, because in that quote I definitely said agrees have value. I definitely said that. Yes.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    OdTengri said:

    I've never not fought my battles on legendary... no matter how good or bad Auto Resolve is it will always chip away at your forces to an unacceptable degree.

    Personally I like AR on legendary it actually has improved the # of closely matched battles that I engaged in and its improved my game experience.

    Aside from contradicting yourself when you write you never use AR in the first sentence and than write AR has improved your game experience in the second how did it change anything for you if the first one might be true. If I go with "you never use it" than the *stars* up AR only would have a psychological impact by falsely displaying a closely matched battle when in reality its a one sided mop up like in the pictures I posted. Its the same thing as when lower difficulty players claim "AR too strong" because they dislike it when AR shows them that their manual battles have poorer results than going afk and doing nothing. When you need AR to give you false feedback about your performance to feel better than that isn't a problem that can be solved by game devs.

    You aren't forced to use AR so when you really never use it, than no matter what the result would be it won't affect your gameplay experience. For me who used AR a lot even on L/VH, because I value the time save more than any ingame losses and risks that comes from that, the new AR is ruining my gameplay experience massively because I don't enjoy the fights I'm force to do which even leads to not enjoying the fights that I would have normally enjoyed without the constant boring chores. There is nothing I gain from winning a battle I know I can't lose when I see the enemy unit composition not matter how good or bad the AR rating for that matchup is.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    OdTengri said:

    I've never not fought my battles on legendary... no matter how good or bad Auto Resolve is it will always chip away at your forces to an unacceptable degree.

    Personally I like AR on legendary it actually has improved the # of closely matched battles that I engaged in and its improved my game experience.

    Aside from contradicting yourself when you write you never use AR in the first sentence and than write AR has improved your game experience in the second how did it change anything for you if the first one might be true.
    Well I'm not contradicting myself your just not considering how much AR effects AI behavior on what battles it will and wont engage in. I don't auto resolve battles but now the AI will willingly engage it some rather pitched battles as opposed to run away until it can regroup with overwhelming force.

    You aren't forced to use AR so when you really never use it, than no matter what the result would be it won't affect your gameplay experience.

    Again this is just completely wrong, its as if you've never played the game. AR changes how the AI calculates its decisions about what battles it will choose to engage in.

    For me who used AR a lot even on L/VH, because I value the time save more than any ingame losses and risks that comes from that, the new AR is ruining my gameplay experience massively because I don't enjoy the fights I'm force to do which even leads to not enjoying the fights that I would have normally enjoyed without the constant boring chores

    I'd rather resolve "Mop up" battles manually that play benny hill with the AI. That's the "Chore" I dislike the most while playing the game.

    Right now I love the fact that the AI will start a battle with one of my garrisons thinking it has overwhelming force when in reality its an even match up and phyric victory is possible if I play my cards right. Its much better to actually be able to rely on my garrisons to a certain extent than have to derail my current plans with my ONE army just to resolve some minor siege.

    While I will admit that the AI is "Drunk" the simple reality is that I've engaged in more and more meaningful battles with the AI as it currently is.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    @GettoGecko

    Since you seem so willing to skip the battle portion of the game maybe you should just lower the battle difficulty while keeping the strategic layer high.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    OdTengri said:

    @GettoGecko

    Since you seem so willing to skip the battle portion of the game maybe you should just lower the battle difficulty while keeping the strategic layer high.

    If that would be an option I would gladly do that but the AR modifiers are bound to the campaign difficulty not the battle difficulty. But without the high campaign difficulty and the amount of armies that comes from that the game feels empty and boring to me so turning that down results in me losing interessed in a campaign. I used to do that for achievement runs but sometimes I abbandoned that and restarted on proper settings because an achievement isn't worth it when getting it fells like work even if the work is only spamming end turn and clicking AR.
    OdTengri said:

    OdTengri said:

    I've never not fought my battles on legendary... no matter how good or bad Auto Resolve is it will always chip away at your forces to an unacceptable degree.

    Personally I like AR on legendary it actually has improved the # of closely matched battles that I engaged in and its improved my game experience.

    Aside from contradicting yourself when you write you never use AR in the first sentence and than write AR has improved your game experience in the second how did it change anything for you if the first one might be true.
    Well I'm not contradicting myself your just not considering how much AR effects AI behavior on what battles it will and wont engage in. I don't auto resolve battles but now the AI will willingly engage it some rather pitched battles as opposed to run away until it can regroup with overwhelming force.

    You aren't forced to use AR so when you really never use it, than no matter what the result would be it won't affect your gameplay experience.

    Again this is just completely wrong, its as if you've never played the game. AR changes how the AI calculates its decisions about what battles it will choose to engage in.

    For me who used AR a lot even on L/VH, because I value the time save more than any ingame losses and risks that comes from that, the new AR is ruining my gameplay experience massively because I don't enjoy the fights I'm force to do which even leads to not enjoying the fights that I would have normally enjoyed without the constant boring chores

    I'd rather resolve "Mop up" battles manually that play benny hill with the AI. That's the "Chore" I dislike the most while playing the game.

    Right now I love the fact that the AI will start a battle with one of my garrisons thinking it has overwhelming force when in reality its an even match up and phyric victory is possible if I play my cards right. Its much better to actually be able to rely on my garrisons to a certain extent than have to derail my current plans with my ONE army just to resolve some minor siege.

    While I will admit that the AI is "Drunk" the simple reality is that I've engaged in more and more meaningful battles with the AI as it currently is.
    I'm well aware that the AI picks its fight based on what it expects from the outcome but we have a different stand on how that feels in game 3. I take you by your word that for you it feels like you have more meaningful battles and that you like the defenses but for me its the opposite.
    Because the AI thinks it has a chance it feels like I don't get meaningful battles because the forces it brings are rarely any challenge. God knows how often I already ranted here about the new defenses, I hate them, they aren't a challenge at all, I can beat 3 or 4 armies with the garrisons and that shouldn't be possible. Each time I win over these massive forces I feel bad because its so obvious that the AI can't handle the maps and towers and it feels just wrong seeing them getting shoot to pieces. Since there is only room for 40 entities on the map the challenge doesn't really get any higher than that and the remaining troops slowly joining the battle are free kills for the towers. So as long as you can beat the initial 40 units the battle is won just by the towers and it really doesn't matter how much more armies the AI had piled up. It just feels totally wrong to see these armies get wasted because of a mechanic I as a player aren't involved in. Its not me that wins these battles its the towers and all I do is stalling and buying time for them to finish their job, I become the backround actor in my own battle and that is *stars* up.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231


    Because the AI thinks it has a chance it feels like I don't get meaningful battles because the forces it brings are rarely any challenge.

    The AI does definitely send more armies into fights it can't win but with its ability to spam armies I don't find this to be problem. Take the "virgin autoresolve vs chad one click" that was posted... yeah the AI is drunk but it also can field multiple armies and when its sends its weaker armies to attack my settlements I can actually engage in those battles with my garrison as opposed to just sit there wasting playing benny hill with multiple poor quality armies that can beat my garrisons but not my main stack.

    God knows how often I already ranted here about the new defenses, I hate them, they aren't a challenge at all, I can beat 3 or 4 armies with the garrisons and that shouldn't be possible. Each time I win over these massive forces I feel bad because its so obvious that the AI can't handle the maps and towers and it feels just wrong seeing them getting shoot to pieces.

    BS... no way a garrison can beat 3-4 armies attacking a settlement at the same time with just the garrison.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    OdTengri said:


    Because the AI thinks it has a chance it feels like I don't get meaningful battles because the forces it brings are rarely any challenge.

    The AI does definitely send more armies into fights it can't win but with its ability to spam armies I don't find this to be problem. Take the "virgin autoresolve vs chad one click" that was posted... yeah the AI is drunk but it also can field multiple armies and when its sends its weaker armies to attack my settlements I can actually engage in those battles with my garrison as opposed to just sit there wasting playing benny hill with multiple poor quality armies that can beat my garrisons but not my main stack.

    God knows how often I already ranted here about the new defenses, I hate them, they aren't a challenge at all, I can beat 3 or 4 armies with the garrisons and that shouldn't be possible. Each time I win over these massive forces I feel bad because its so obvious that the AI can't handle the maps and towers and it feels just wrong seeing them getting shoot to pieces.

    BS... no way a garrison can beat 3-4 armies attacking a settlement at the same time with just the garrison.
    Multiple armies is only an advantage if they are used together but because the AI expect them to be stronger than they are the rarely protect each other. The largest attack from a single faction I faced so far was a wave of 8 or 10 over a couple of turns but because they went in unprotected I just hide my main army while the second stayed in town and than picked up two armies per turn and repeated that until it was done, it would have been a thread if the AI would have gotten the impression that it had to stack its armies but so it was more like a useless sacrifice to and a waste of turns for me. In my Kislev campaign I probably had the highest number of armies within my territory around 12-15 from various factions with 2-4 armies each but even than they only stacked together when sieging or when some of their armies were half beaten or only half size. While in theory the larger single faction attack should have been more challenging it actually wasn't because I could use AR for the first army per turn and fought the second manually so that my troups could replenish while more of their armies went in to get picked up. The multi faction stuff with Kislev was much more annoying because I had to fight each battle manually to keep the casualty rate low so that the AI won't gang up on me and the ammount of factions and heroes also often discovered the ambush which meant that the AI went to the borders to plunder instead of comming near to get beaten. Not combining its forces because the AI don't view its lined up armies as endangered because of the AR makes it a lot easier to pick them up than in TWW2.

    For the minor settlements, just chose one place which is easy to defend and where you can place a tower so that range troops wouldn't go for it but rather your units, place all your troops there and save your supplies. Just let the AI come in and build a tier 4 tower once you reach the 2000 supplies, from there on just keep your troops on the point and add tier 1 towers. For sieges, you want troops on the walls so that the towers there fire initially and on the troops that will spawn later, block the way to the victory points but leave a more or less easy way to enter the city for the AI because it will prioritise to get to the victory point and wander in your streets instead of fighting the troops on the wall. Aside from that its basically the same, get tier 4 first, let the AI wander around while defending one choke point and slowly adding tier 1. When the initial 40s are beaten you can recapture areas to add more towers. In most cases (depending on the layout) minor settlements are easier to defend than sieges because the streets are narrower and you don't have to split your troops because there is no need to defend a specific point, you are free to chose which possition is best for you. In the end it comes down to if the AI is able to take your t4 down or not and if you can hold the point where its placed. For all factions I have played so far the ammount of units you get from the garrison is enough to do that, the hardest probably was OK because their unit count is low and its easy for other troops to slip in between them to step on the point capturing it. I have lost a minor settlement with them because they not only look like Hodor they also are as bad as him at actually holding.
Sign In or Register to comment.