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

Auto Resolve Idea: have an option to exclude units from Auto-resolve battle in deployment screen

MadSamuraiMadSamurai Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 255
Say there's a battle that is a sure victory 3/4 yellow in your favor, but you have a unit that is low on health. You will lose that unit from the auto resolve, so what you do is fight the battle and shove that unit to the rear. This happens often enough to warrant a new feature!

in my opinion we should have an option on the battle deployment screen to select any unit and remove them from the calculation. Maybe something as simple as double clicking the card greys it out.

Alternatively we can just adjust the the auto resolve function prioritize healthy units in the fight and only use weak units in the most dire odds.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429
    This, except you make it also applicable for Manuel battles, 2 stage, in autoresove only you can set ranged units to stay back, which will make them do **** in damages but safe, melee units naturally **** off for the entire thing, while in manual you set a unit to not enter until the reinforcements are used up, as it's irritating to have near dead units in the fight while healthy ones are waiting awkwardly for them to die
  • Bogdanov89Bogdanov89 Registered Users Posts: 731
    Yes plz
    Check out the Community Bug Fix Mod on the Steam Workshop.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,004

    This, except you make it also applicable for Manuel battles, 2 stage, in autoresove only you can set ranged units to stay back, which will make them do **** in damages but safe, melee units naturally **** off for the entire thing, while in manual you set a unit to not enter until the reinforcements are used up, as it's irritating to have near dead units in the fight while healthy ones are waiting awkwardly for them to die

    I've never actually used it, but isn't there a button that tells a unit to quit the field (essentially setting it straight into "shattered" status)?
  • sieahsieah Registered Users Posts: 628
    Also when you have 2 decent armies and one haggard garrison with 2 miners and 2 Quarrellers itd be nice to have an option to leave the latter behind.
  • dstockydaledstockydale Registered Users Posts: 18
    This is a great idea. I'm all for it.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,286
    Huh, not a bad idea at all.

    It lets you selectively remove certain units you do not want to risk in auto-resolve, and the game simply calculates the battle odds based on their absence.

    Naturally, removing certain units from the equation alters the odds to immediate short term penalties in exchange for long term success. It does get boring when you have to manually fight a battle just to avoid a unit from getting destroyed, and so that Hero or cavalry unit just stays behind when you lay waste with the rest of your army of Sisters of Avelorn in yet another boring slam fest.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429
    Draxynnic said:



    I've never actually used it, but isn't there a button that tells a unit to quit the field (essentially setting it straight into "shattered" status)?

    Yes, you can withdrawal units, however you can't withdrawal them if the army will be wiped out if you lose, but the main point of this is to let you actually let you have any control of what order your units come in
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 820
    Problem with that idea is that you than have to recalculate the chances without the exluded units and that not having a "full" army for AR decreases your winning chances and increase the casulty rate. So while you might save some units you probably lose others because of that.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,286
    Which sounds like the entire point of engaging enemy armies, opting for Lightning Strike, and opting for auto-resolve in the first place.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429

    Problem with that idea is that you than have to recalculate the chances without the exluded units and that not having a "full" army for AR decreases your winning chances and increase the casulty rate. So while you might save some units you probably lose others because of that.

    You say that, but the type of fight this would be used in is cases where you don't give a **** about the health of any unit, unless they are put to dead health, a near dead 4 stack should be something you auto resolve against, but because a unit is atb1/4 health you have to either go and spend 5 minutes to kill them, or you could click on one unit and have no problems at all.
  • SchepelSchepel Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,516
    Brilliant suggestion.
  • valkyvalky Registered Users Posts: 71
    Sounds like the next Total War is going to be "TW:Hello Kitty" ..
    - I don't want to lose units in auto-resolve, so I exempt those
    - I don't want to play a 5 minute battle, which even magically replenish them
    - I don't want to do anything at all, but win the game

    Would probably not buy it :Þ

    In older titles, it was often better to just delete the unit, than to wait for 4+ turns to get them back to 100%
    (It would have been understandable, if battles lasted longer than 30 minutes .. like it used to be)
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429
    valky said:

    Sounds like the next Total War is going to be "TW:Hello Kitty" ..
    - I don't want to lose units in auto-resolve, so I exempt those
    - I don't want to play a 5 minute battle, which even magically replenish them
    - I don't want to do anything at all, but win the game

    Would probably not buy it :Þ

    In older titles, it was often better to just delete the unit, than to wait for 4+ turns to get them back to 100%
    (It would have been understandable, if battles lasted longer than 30 minutes .. like it used to be)

    Congratulations, you hate a system that is justs lets you not waste your own time, believe it or not there is no reason you should have to manually fight a teir 3 settlement with no walls or reinforcements with an endgame stack just because you have a unit that the auto resolve will look at and say, yes, this unit will clearly die, despite the fact that you could probably win the battle without a single casualty
  • valkyvalky Registered Users Posts: 71
    edited January 23


    Congratulations, you hate a system that is justs lets you not waste your own time, believe it or not there is no reason you should have to manually fight a teir 3 settlement with no walls or reinforcements with an endgame stack just because you have a unit that the auto resolve will look at and say, yes, this unit will clearly die, despite the fact that you could probably win the battle without a single casualty

    Aaaand where is the problem to fight out that 'stupid' battle by yourself?
    Your 1st TW game ? I guess so.....get real and come back once you played at least another....
    Joke is on you....Fleet Battles in E/N:TW lasted at least 30-60 minutes - no one complained, because player liked it that way. Shogun siege battles...just don't get me started....

    yeah, your first TW game :)

    (edit: just for your pleasure; I started with Shogun I ^^ ....nuff said; pre-millenia BS and such. Or can't you handle it? That would have been an appropriate excuse....I actually like the recent auto-resolve changes; punishes lazy player badly...)
    Post edited by valky on
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,004
    edited January 24
    Something gives me a feeling those long battles you're talking about are battles where the outcome is actually in some doubt, rather than battles where you can just smash your healthier units against the enemy and expect to roll over them with no problems.

    For the player's perspective, the general idea behind autoresolve is so you don't have to fight battles where the outcome is not in doubt. Problem is that the autoresolve mechanics tend to target units that in practice would be fairly easy to keep alive. Does every garrison fight really need to be played out? I've had at least segments of campaigns where I did (primarily because I was looking to raze settlements in an area I wasn't able to get much replenishment from, so every loss did matter), and in all honesty, the sixth battle against an unwalled settlement with a midgame stack isn't much different from the first.

    In fact, I think in those battles I was spending more time looking at loading screens than actually fighting the battles.

    There is a point at which playing out another cakewalk does not add to the experience.

    When a battle is actually meaningful... then it can take half an hour or more to play out. When you're sweeping through garrisons that don't stand a chance... autoresolve should be a viable option.
  • valkyvalky Registered Users Posts: 71
    edited January 24
    If you want to rely on AR - live with the repercussions. Simple as that....

    (there are prolly a few ppl, who think similar - not necessary the 1on1 testing guys....but TW games have quite a decent community and love the game ever since. Mind you to check out twcenter.net in your spare-time for example...there is no need for mindless point&click solutions)
    Post edited by valky on
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,211
    valky said:


    Congratulations, you hate a system that is justs lets you not waste your own time, believe it or not there is no reason you should have to manually fight a teir 3 settlement with no walls or reinforcements with an endgame stack just because you have a unit that the auto resolve will look at and say, yes, this unit will clearly die, despite the fact that you could probably win the battle without a single casualty

    Aaaand where is the problem to fight out that 'stupid' battle by yourself?
    The problem is that it's boring. People usually play games to have fun.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,004
    Xenos7 said:

    valky said:


    Congratulations, you hate a system that is justs lets you not waste your own time, believe it or not there is no reason you should have to manually fight a teir 3 settlement with no walls or reinforcements with an endgame stack just because you have a unit that the auto resolve will look at and say, yes, this unit will clearly die, despite the fact that you could probably win the battle without a single casualty

    Aaaand where is the problem to fight out that 'stupid' battle by yourself?
    The problem is that it's boring. People usually play games to have fun.
    Particularly when it's so one-sided that you spend more time in the pre-battle and post-battle loading screens than in the battle itself.
  • wunderb0rwunderb0r Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 601
    valky said:


    Congratulations, you hate a system that is justs lets you not waste your own time, believe it or not there is no reason you should have to manually fight a teir 3 settlement with no walls or reinforcements with an endgame stack just because you have a unit that the auto resolve will look at and say, yes, this unit will clearly die, despite the fact that you could probably win the battle without a single casualty

    Aaaand where is the problem to fight out that 'stupid' battle by yourself?
    Your 1st TW game ? I guess so.....get real and come back once you played at least another....
    Joke is on you....Fleet Battles in E/N:TW lasted at least 30-60 minutes - no one complained, because player liked it that way. Shogun siege battles...just don't get me started....

    yeah, your first TW game :)

    (edit: just for your pleasure; I started with Shogun I ^^ ....nuff said; pre-millenia BS and such. Or can't you handle it? That would have been an appropriate excuse....I actually like the recent auto-resolve changes; punishes lazy player badly...)
    and the award for most pleasant fellow goes toooo..... !
  • RheingoldRheingold Registered Users Posts: 253
    Be a great feature, not even for injured units. Really tired of losing my rank 9 slayers in against some arbitrary low level garrison.
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429
    valky said:


    Aaaand where is the problem to fight out that 'stupid' battle by yourself?
    Your 1st TW game ? I guess so.....get real and come back once you played at least another....
    Joke is on you....Fleet Battles in E/N:TW lasted at least 30-60 minutes - no one complained, because player liked it that way. Shogun siege battles...just don't get me started....

    yeah, your first TW game :)

    (edit: just for your pleasure; I started with Shogun I ^^ ....nuff said; pre-millenia BS and such. Or can't you handle it? That would have been an appropriate excuse....I actually like the recent auto-resolve changes; punishes lazy player badly...)

    Congratulations you ****, you managed to make yourself even more unlikable, believe it or not, stretching out a battle that has pretty much no importance to your empire, or to you having fun isn't good, there is no reason to force the player to play out a situation where there is no fun to be had, and passed that, the entire point of all of this is your time should be respected, yes older total war games did have longer battles, do you want a cookie or your **** sucked because you played them? Because no one else cares at all, yes warhammer was my first total war, but it's not the only total war I've played, and I can tell you right now there's just some battles that you should never have to fight, you may look down on me for not wanting to throw away my time so I can play the battles that are actually fun, hate on the concept of basic mechanics that allow you to make the game better for you all you want, the reason the game is fun is not because sometimes you have to smash through a bunch of small settlements like butter, we can all do that, doesn't mean it is fun, or engaging the only nice thing about them is that you can take your time to enjoy watching whatever unit you selected to get shot from artillery get massacred, assuming you have either a way to get your cam close to them, and artillery.
  • tww2rankstww2ranks Registered Users Posts: 218

    1. set mod
    Spectator Mode II

    u may choose - Spectator Mode

    You can now toggle between the following modes by pressing Shift + F9:

    - Spectator Mode
    The AI fully controls your army (shortcut: Shift + F10)
    - Lord Mode
    You only control your Lord, while the AI controls the rest of your army (shortcut: Shift + F11)
    - Reinforcement Mode
    You control your army, while the AI takes over the reinforcements and summoned units (shortcut: Shift + F12)
    - AI Off
    You fully control all your armies (shortcut: assign a key to "Save Camera Bookmark 5")


    2. set mod
    Adjustable Battle Speed

    set speed 50

    and get auto-resolve fast way!

  • tww2rankstww2ranks Registered Users Posts: 218
    if anyone played a warcraft 3 reforged beta. you probably noticed that every battle is monitored by Blizzard. Why can’t CA monitor battles and add results to the database? then to build the correct calculation?

    do CA want to create good auto-resolve? or it will still take us two years for them to do this. as it was from the time turn?
  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,023
    Not sure if I agree it should be on a unit level. I'm also not sure if it is possible. And what would happen if you lose the battle? Do you straight up lose that unit? But I'm definitely in favour of having an option to keep reinforcements out of the battle.
    "The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman." H.P. Lovecraft
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 429
    dreagon said:

    Not sure if I agree it should be on a unit level. I'm also not sure if it is possible. And what would happen if you lose the battle? Do you straight up lose that unit? But I'm definitely in favour of having an option to keep reinforcements out of the battle.

    If you are questioning if you will win the battle if you auto resolve, you shouldn't be concerned if one unit dies or not, passed that a simple fix would be to have them retreat as possible, and if no retreat is possible, they should not be able to hold back, also, what other level would it be then on a unit level, just take away all of the unit type?
  • humility925humility925 Registered Users Posts: 69
    People buy game to win game, not to lose game or so I thought.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,004
    tww2ranks said:


    1. set mod
    Spectator Mode II

    u may choose - Spectator Mode

    You can now toggle between the following modes by pressing Shift + F9:

    - Spectator Mode
    The AI fully controls your army (shortcut: Shift + F10)
    - Lord Mode
    You only control your Lord, while the AI controls the rest of your army (shortcut: Shift + F11)
    - Reinforcement Mode
    You control your army, while the AI takes over the reinforcements and summoned units (shortcut: Shift + F12)
    - AI Off
    You fully control all your armies (shortcut: assign a key to "Save Camera Bookmark 5")


    2. set mod
    Adjustable Battle Speed

    set speed 50

    and get auto-resolve fast way!

    Still need to actually load the battles. Part of the issue is that in some cases, the battle is such a cakewalk that for people without an SSD it takes longer to load in and out of the battle than the actual battle.
  • tww2rankstww2ranks Registered Users Posts: 218

    People buy game to win game, not to lose game or so I thought.

    those who are afraid of losing are better off spending money on a session with a psychoanalyst.
  • rrinscheidrrinscheid Registered Users Posts: 93

    People buy game to win game, not to lose game or so I thought.

    Honestly don’t mind it as long as it not crazy unbalanced. Just played a vamp count playthrough that ended in disaster. I lost several battles and settlements along the way but it was all fun fighting tooth and nail. However I allied with the Greenskins and saw a mass of 5 empire armies and and dwarves heading my way. Tried to fight it out but it quickly became apparent it was a losing cause and just not fun in general. The current ordertide is an example of losing being bs.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,761
    edited January 26
    tww2ranks said:

    if anyone played a warcraft 3 reforged beta. you probably noticed that every battle is monitored by Blizzard. Why can’t CA monitor battles and add results to the database? then to build the correct calculation?

    do CA want to create good auto-resolve? or it will still take us two years for them to do this. as it was from the time turn?

    Warcraft 3 has four races and about two dozen units for each playable race max. WH2 has 13 races, and all of them have 30-60 units in their roster. Also, Blizzard isn't recording battles for AR calculations.

    You see the problem?

Sign In or Register to comment.