How much do you autoresolve?

[econ21]

I never autoresolve a field battle. Partly because I love the tactical part of the game - it's the heart of the game to me. And partly because I can do so much better than the autoresolve. [I confess, I nearly always autoresolve sieges as the results are so much better than fighting out the battle.]

But, the problem is, you can end up with so many battles, finishing a campaign becomes tedious. I usually find by the end of the early period, I'm the leading faction and would rather start another game than play on. However, I may be missing out on something here.

One idea a poster on usenet (Duncan) suggested, was to only play out the battles your king is involved in. This seems to be a nice compromise, enhancing the role-playing (since you only hear second hand about your generals) and maybe historicism, in making you work with more of a single "main army". It might also stop me relying so much on immortal uber generals and strengthen my rather weak royal gene pool. What do people think?

The time factor is not so important early on, when there is peace, or when you have a faction in a quiet corner (eg England). But for some factions like HRE, it often seems like endless, often repetitive battles. (If, like me, you try to turtle and not rush the AI).

Any other rules of thumb people have to deal with the trade-off between time and fun when deciding whether to autoresolve?

[PanthaPower]

I auto resolve only in the following cases:

* My King or Heirs are not involved
* The battle is too large (e.g. 4000 against 4000)
* I'm not outnumbered.
* When I feel that I might lose if I push auto-resolve.
* When I'm not on a heir-suicide mission.

[el_slapper]

Well, having a rather buggy config makes me autoresolve a lot. It remains rather doable to win the game in Hard using only autoresolve. For fun, I sometimes do some fights by myself - but with a rather high PC-crash rate(not related to MTW, every 3D games has the same problem).....

In expert, don't know. In hard, doing only 1 or 2 crucial battles, and job's done - as long as you carefully plan your wars.

[Aleborg]

For me it depends.

Sometimes i like to play a quick campaign and then i autoresolve practicaly all the battles (only play 3d when the battles are really important).
Then i have an strategic campaign, and as i always play at the higher level is really funny.
Other times i like to have a tactic and slow campaign using hard factions (love it with russians) then i fight all the battles, but it take too much time.
Anyhow, for 3D battle y prefer farly the foyer.

[Cazbol]

My rule is simple. I command every single battle, regardless of how many they are, even if it means I have to stay up long into the night before going to work. The auto-resolve option doesn't exist in my games.

[Bob the Insane]

Quote[/b] (Cazbol @ Jan. 30 2003,09:13)]My rule is simple. I command every single battle, regardless of how many they are, even if it means I have to stay up long into the night before going to work. The auto-resolve option doesn't exist in my games.
Argh.....

You are one dedicated person....

Personally the likely hood of auto-resolve for me id directly proportional to the time of night...

After midnight, it becomes the norm.....

[Basileus]

My last 2 campaigns have had no auto resolve ive played them all..time consuming though

I did auto resolve more often before..when i dont have that much time usualy

[BDC]

I'm a rather second rate general, so I auto-resolve most battles except where I outnumber the enermy 5 - 1 and am guarranteed success.

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

I only auto-resolve battles I am 100% positive I can't lose...those rare cases where the enemy either 1) can't retreat or 2) doesn't want to retreat.

Ex: My forces: 1000 Enemy forces: 25

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[HopAlongBunny]

I auto-resolve more than I used to. Somehow, pushing endless waves of peasants off the map doesn't appeal to me.

Some large battles are fun to fight, but when you may be looking at 3 or 4 in a turn, auto-resolving helps to move the game along (win or lose)

[Tyrac]

Never auto calc a castle assault. It is like pretnding there is no castle there at all. The Auto resolve simply is completely inaccurate in assaults. It is so bad I really consider it to be a bug and 'almost' like cheating. If you are going to assault a castle then by god be ready to pay the price for it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

One thing I tried to do in my last campaign was auto resolve all fights I was not "personnally" involved in. (except castle assaults) I.E. My King was the only one I personally commanded. Like I said I tried to but I just couldn't and ended up personally commanding any fight with a general of royal blood. heh. which is usually most of them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[BDC]

I think of auto-resolving castle assaults as including the stuff people did in real life but the engine doesn't support eg storming walls and digging under them.

[econ21]

I just don't find castles assaults much fun in MTW. It's not very intuitive - you get shot by things you can't see; setting up your catapults etc with the right range to hit and not be hit back is tricky; watching your mob hack the door down looks daft; it takes as much time as a field battle but without the tension or tactical possibilities. If I did not autoresolve, I'd starve them out - in fact, I usually do that, being a little lazy, rich and reluctant to spill my men's blood.

I do hope RTW does better here. I don't see why they can't. In other games such as Heroes of Might and Magic III, successfully beating off a castle assault is one of the highlights of the game (cue cut scene of herald proclaiming victory from the battlements). A siege should be thrilling - Two Towers anyone?

[chilling]

I can't say I enjoy the castle battles much either, I find them tedious. I spend too much time getting everything set up I think, and not being able to storm the walls or place my archers on the battlements really spoils it for me.

I auto resolve those battles that give me silly odds in my favour, something like 2000 vs 100, or the other way round, I'm not a big fan of making a single unit dance around the map trying to wear the other army out.

Sometimes I'm forced to autoresolve, when it's getting late and I want to go to bed, the AI usually decides it's time for a faction to try it's luck with a couple of invasions. Needless to say if I loose one of those that I think I would have won if I was playing myself, I'll be right back the next time I play for a small dose of revenge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Satyr]

I have played campaigns both ways. In the beginning, I fought all battles personnally. I have also played a couple games where I autoresolved EVERY battle so that I didn't have that against the AI. This was one of my 'hardcore' efforts. I actually found it takes a few more game years, but the game goes much quicker in man hours this way. Any rules you set for yourself only help some, the only way to not win (hard/expert) is to play peasants only or get unlucky in the first 25 years (and I have lost several games in that time frame).

[MiniKiller]

I like that idea of only controlling your kings battles, I have been playing them all but next time I might only do Kings and Heirs.

[Leet Eriksson]

dunno my comp is getting odd these days,if i autoresolve more than 20 or 30 times in a row it crashes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif i am forced to do most of my battles thru personal command.

[MiniKiller]

Thats wierd? thats really strange? Usually its the other way around, you crash in game so have to AC.

[pdoan8]

Im used to resolve the battle in which I would be impossible to defeat or even lose a single soldier like when my for are just too big (1000 highest quality troops vs 100 peasants).

Now, I fight every single battle and try to make the battle as much fun as possible. If the enemy have little troops, I would send a tiny army to challenge them. It's really fun when both armies are roughly at the same strenght Also, I can force the AI to take the battle in stead of withdrawing into the castle.

[Brutal DLX]

Well, usually I only play the interesting battles, like invasions or last stands, or whenever I add some new high tech units to an army and want to show my opponents what new toys I got.. like bringing field artillery and arquebusiers against an old-fashioned army consisting of knights, spearmen and such..

[Xicote]

I never use Auto-Resolve. NEVER. Every single battle I play, even if it was 400 vs 100, I'd still play it. The battles are the best part of the game for me.

[Psyco]

I ALWAYS fight battles except if they are seiges
i just find them too boring and im too lazy to get seige weapons so it takes about 30min just to get at the two guys hiding behind the keep

[Loras]

same here, i alway auto resolve sieges, aside from that i never do.

[ToranagaSama]

I fight all battles except the following:

1) Where I have a ridiculous numerical advantage. I'm a one stack player, so that's approximately my 1000 vs 150 or less.

2) Castles battles where, again, I have ridiculous numerical advantage. In my case, the AI is much better at defending Castles, than I am at Taking them, but as some have mentioned, its the Tedium of Castles Battles, that's prohibitive. Usually, I'll have NO siege weapons, without which the battles are truly boring.

Curious, am I the only one that finds Castle battles, for the most part, BORING?? The fun ratio is about 1 battle in 10. JMHO.

Oh, and I always wait until the last moment before the castle falls to attack. Usually, I just let it fall. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif