What the-?!

[Anonymous II]

Yep, I have also been a "victim" of lazyness a couple of times. I think, "Oh well, since I would have won this battle easily anyway, I guess I'll just let the AI calculate me a victory"... but then... no...

I seem to forget all my stupid losses though, 'cause I seem to fall for the temptation to autocalculate every now and then. Especially when there's a battle where I don't have a general present that I want to increase traits for.

On the other hand, I have found it to be a great way to get more experience to archers.

[PBI]

Never, ever autocalc if you have expensive siege units in the army, especially in a siege; the computer seems to decide the best use for the gun crew is to storm the walls.

Autocalc does annoy me, I try to fight as many battles as possible, especially in sieges, since it gives the attacker unrealistically low casualties but needlessly sacrifices important units such as siege weapons. I think I would have preferred the old MTW system, which IIRC would essentially kill a set number of your troops per caslte level if you assault without siege weapons, so attacking a citadel with gun towers would always be very costly even if there were only 3 men defending it.

I always think there should be more scope to give your subordinate commander general instructions in autocalc, such as "stand-off with our missile units" or "headlong charge with the heavy cavalry". Or, some system based upon chivalry/dread or the general's bravery, i.e. a high-dread general would coldly send wave after wave of peasants and militia to their deaths, while a hig-chivalry general would lead the charge himself with the elite troops.