Hi all
What determines the otoresolve battle result? Which kind of troops should I use ?
Thanks in advance
Printable View
Hi all
What determines the otoresolve battle result? Which kind of troops should I use ?
Thanks in advance
from my experience, good general and lots of heavy infantry.
cavalry/archers/dogs/elephants are ***** underpowered..
Generally, in autoresolve, the best units are ones which are very powerful in melee. The game ignores the power of missile weapons and bases the result upon an all out charge between both parties. This also applies in siege battles, where the city walls' relevance is not at all considered.
The system also ignores the additional power of phalanxes and similar formations, so units with these attributes will simply perform as they would without the formation being enabled.
Chariots are drastically overpowered in auto-resolve, as are other units with multiple hit-points (with the possible exclusion of elephants). If you are a faction who can use them, and you wish to do a lot of auto-resolving, they can be almost essential in deciding the fight.
You can find a similar thread on auto-resolving battles here.
Hope this is useful ~:)
Thanks very much..
I am playing an hotseat campaign (factions are managed by humans) with several friends an thats why I asked it. Since as a rule all battles will be made otomaticly. Also to make it fair we didnt allowed usage of chariots.
IMO, game calculates the attack and defence points of one side and other side and decides which side will be winner. Since Chariots are several hit ponits and very high attack point that is causing them to be more effective in auto battles.
Also, Does terrain affect auto battles ? In my experience yes it does. In my seleucid campaign I attacked with a full stack to a small egyptian army on a top of hill. I am defeated...I send another stack it is also defeated. Then I decided to make the war my self an saw that Egyptian arm was standing on a very high position an consist of mainly missle units...it was impossile to get close to it since because of the heavy missle fire my units one by one routed.
What do you think about terrain affect on auto battles?
Quirinus says it does not.
:sweatdrop: Do I? I have no idea. Probably I was speculating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom0
I suppose the general outline is:
Auto-calc is bad for units with warcry, phalangites, missile units, elephants, cavalry in general, and especially horse archers.
It is good for (AFAIK) chariots, stat-heavy infantry, general's bodyguards.
Actually, pretty much what Omanes said.
I've noticed that the position of the unit cards, and how close they are to the front affects how much action they see. Unit cards in the front tend to recieve the most casualties. That's my :2cents: on autoresolve (however little I do of it).
I beg to differ, Good Ship. In my autoresolve battles I've noticed that my casualties are more spread out. That's why I never send Elephants into an autoresolve battle under any circumstances unless I'm nearby to an Elephant-training city.
My experiences seem to match with Punicus' when it comes to auto-resolve. Although Good Ship Chuckle does raise a fairly interesting point. I'm not very good at this sort of explanation, so you'll have to bear with me:
Auto-resolve seems to calculate losses by subtracting a calculated figure off all units of the same type which have the same number of units in them (e.g. all Hoplites with 80 men in them, all Peltasts with 57 men in them, all Greek Cavalry with 5 men in them e.c.t).
The figure is taken off the units one man at a time.
e.g. ten men must die in total from two units - -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B.
This will result in equal casualties from each individual unit, but, if the number of casualties to be subtracted does not divide by the number of units, this isn't the case.
e.g. ten men must die in total from three units - -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit C, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit C, -1 from unit A, -1 from unit B, -1 from unit C, -1 from unit A.
Let's say that unit A, B and C all had 80 men in them originally. This results in unit A now having 76 men, unit B having 77 men and unit C having 77 men. This is unequal and unit A has taken more casualties.
This is just an insane hypothesis, and aspects of it may be completely wrong, but, regardless, I would prefer to see it a little more evenly spread out in all honesty - it makes the battle seem fairly un-natural.
~:)
I have to agree with Good Ship Chuckle on this one. Especially in auto-resolves where the odds are overwhelmingly for your army, and sieges, that does seem to happen. The units near the front of the stack will take a disproportionate amount of casualties, while units further down the stack will either have very little casualties or not at all. That's why I tend to arrange my veteran units, archers and special units near the back of the stack-- so that experience is more evenly distributed, and a lesser chance that acrhers/special units will incur crippling casualties.
Yes, my first units seem to be the front line, in tough battles all units will see action but with easy ones only the first few deal with the enemy.
Maybe it was not you Quirinus, someone autoresolved against an army on a hill which couldn't be defeated manually because of the location of their troops.
I would be amazed if autoresolve uses such terrain parameter like hills, then it doesnt use walls...
Besides that is impossible i think technically, hill is only a model on campaign for hilly ground type and it is an absolutely bad idea to use this in any way in autoresolve.
I was about to clarify myself, until I read that Quirinus did it for me. :7teacher:
The only battles I autoresolve are ones that are clearly in my favor, because there is no sport in fighting a one sided battle. Thus all my autoresolving experiences come from these unfair battles, which is the result of my bias opinion. In bigger battles, I'm sure that the casualties are more spread out.
Any ideas when general HIMSELF (bodyguards) fighting in battle? Not always they doing it even in a 20v20 mess
When I use autoresolve,I combine it with auto_win attacker/defender,especially with naval battles.
...yeah,I'm a minor cheater. :shame:
So that's why Egypt always ends up being a super power, it's the damn chariots. same goes for Briton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
There are quite a few other factors also. This included the inconvenient starting positions of their units combined with the AI's standard strategy (see here). There also is the matter of the early Selcuid training strategy - millita hoplites which are not only a phalanx unit, but are also a fairly low class one.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
~:)
True true. Egypt does get quite a superb starting postion. The wealth is one thing, but also not surrounded by hostile factions is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
Egypt can force their entire might in one sole direction, that must be good for them.
Not sure what you mean, but I find that the general's bodyguard will almost always get depleted in auto-resolve, though the general himself actually dying is pretty rare. I've only seen one instance of a general dying in auto-resolve (when it's not a crushing/overwhelming defeat).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
9/10 auto-resolve losses include my general getting impaled, is it more likely attacking pikes? An all out charge would mean that the cav gets to their lines first..
Hmm...... that's odd. Maybe you play on a higher difficulty setting? I play on M/M, so the general always survives with at least a few of his bodyguards (probably meaning he routed after getting slaughtered or something to the effect).
hmm cant remember my generals infliciting large casualities in autoresolve despite multiple hp's.. Mostly they do nothing (even in large battles), in small battles they never fight; abd when they do, at best they kill bit more men than lose themselves...
Thanks again for all information..
How about numbers...do they cofirm advantage?
According to the my observation, elite but small armies have more advantage aganist low quality but numarious forces.
What do you think ?
Yes... I don't think the number of troops matter so much as the stat-number-to-amount-of-troops ratio. So, 4-5 legionary cohorts would probably win against 10-15 town militias, even though both the town militias' numbers and attack-defense stats combined are more than that of the legionary cohorts.
Wait, does that make sense?
I'll back Quirinus up on that - it does seem to be a balance of stats and unit numbers rather than one being the focus more than the other.
And BTW, it makes perfect sense ~:)