Do you auto-calc any battles?

[Tozama]

Do you auto-calc any battles?

Those of us with full lives; a career, kids, wife, house, sometimes cannot drag a MTW campaign into 200+ hours.

I admit I use auto-calc in certain situations although ideally I never would if not for the time constraints on my free time.
I do try to follow some self-made guidlelines for it though.
I always autocalc castle assaults. Its usually 5:1 odds or better and playing it out on the tactical map seems to take forever for an outcome that's rather obvious. I played a few out when I first got the game and admit they're fun and different but in the grand scheme of playing out a campaign castle storming seems to add unneeded hours to my campaigns.

I also will auto-calc other no-brainer battles where I have overwhelming odds and an elite army with a high star general attacking a rabble opposing one with a lowlife general. Like my best 2 stacks on a marching mission with 9-star general moving into a rebel held province manned by 6 peasants and 2 archers

I find in the course of a 4 hour session playing MTW I hit auto-resolve about 3-6 times, 90% being castle assaults.

I hate that I am missing out on some of the excitement of the few tactical battles I bypass but it just drags the campaigns out for weeks for me since I have a real life beyond MTW.

Anyone else find themselves doing this?

[Louis VI the Fat]

What's this 'real life' thing you're talking about?

But seriously. No, I don't autocalc. Battles are the raison d'etre for this game. And I don't want to entrust my precious troops into the oftentimes mentally challenged AI...

But come to think of it, I might skip a siege or two in my next campaign though.

[Maeda Toshiie]

Same here. Too busy to actually fight against the horde. For castle asaults, only with cannons do I take personal command.

[Despot of the English]

Yes I do sometimes autocalc battles. The decision to autocalc rests on whether it is a forgone conclusion that I am going to win or if I can be bothered to command the battle personally or simply whether I have enough spare time. I always find myself commanding battles personally when crusading and subsequently having to defend the captured provinces against large Muslim armies.

[Ulair]

Hi Tozama,

You sound just like me . For those very reasons I too autocalc the nobrainers and only fight the interesting ones. Think I need to clone myself...

[ConstableBrew]

I've played a few campaigns where I use autocalc, but for my past few I have come to enjoy participating in each and every battle.

So when I don't have time to play out the five 20 minute battles that result after my 15 minutes spent micro managing my taxes, generals, stacks, emissaries, assassins, spys, priests, build ques, etc - I just hit esc at the beginning of a battle and then press alt+tab to go to windows. That effectively pauses the game and allows the computer to be used for other purposes. I then can wait hours or even days to finish playing all the battles and the only cost is the electricity to run the pc.

[Ar7]

I auto-calc sieges and crusades/jihads. Because the first ones are boring and i have a far bigger army when attacking and the second ones because i hate to battle with an army commanding things like a 27 peasant unit.

[Jihad2Death]

A four hour battle fighting nothing but peasants,and urban militia isn`t fun for me.Also I auto-calc battles when I know I have another one right after that is better.I also most auto-calc castle battles.I`m going to start fighting them when I have a king trapped.I hate it when I have killed all the princes,have the king trapped,then because I auto-calc and he gets sent back.There should be a,leave none alive option on the auto-calc.

[HicRic]

Quote[/b] (Jihad2Death @ July 16 2004,15:43)]There should be a,leave none alive option on the auto-calc.

It'd certainly be very handy-I wish there was one.

Autocalc? I use it toward the end of the campaign a few times; when I have three stacks that have to attack a couple of stacks of peasants in a few provinces, for example, I'll just autocalc and speed through to the end. I don't autocalc during the early and mid-game stages, just the occasional few in the mopping up stage at the end.

[katank]

yep, that's my pet peeve about autocalc, no chance to kill all.

I autocalc interesting battles such as horde defense.

I skip sieges except if I wanted to try out my new shiny battery of cannons.

[Tricky Lady]

oh yes, I autocalc a lot. I usually try to fight as many battles as possible, but most often, when I pass the two-hour gaming limit, I get so tired (litterally) that I don't want to spend my time fighting each battle. Silly enough, the game is still addictive enough to keep me playing (Okay, one more turn and then I really stop), so sometimes I end up autocalcing 25 game years... I must admit though, that often these autocalcs give me better results than I could do on my own.
I never fight sieges, unless I really want to win a battle losing 5 men to kill 1 enemy. So siege = autocalc.
I also automatically autocalc when I smell a chance of capturing a King for ransom (I don't manage to capture Kings in a battle myself; they usually get killed by my soldiers ).

[katank]

yep, jedi kings either kill a few hundred guys and escape, or are brought down by massed missile fire.

I rarely capture them.

autocalc for ransoms are good.

[ConstableBrew]

Quote[/b] (Tricky Lady @ July 16 2004,11:33)]oh yes, I autocalc a lot. ... I must admit though, that often these autocalcs give me better results than I could do on my own.

That is part of the reason I moved from autocalcing to playing everything - I needed the practice. I felt wimpy always getting worse numbers than the corrisponding autocalc. Now I do quite well, all thanks to fighting every battle I can.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

If its going to be epic i have to fight it. When putting down rebellions( apart from when it is truely necessary to pop in a appearance) i autocal the battle

[katank]

but some you can autocalc.

if you have decent units and you are fighting a rebellion consisting of a peasant or an archer, you can afford to autocalc.

not as if charging your units to destroy their junk would give much tactical practice.

it either has to be a tough fight or I get to play with cool units for me to play a battle.

stupid forgone conclusions will just be a waste of my time.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The sort of rebellions when you have 200 odd sorts under a good general against a huge host is entertaining, particularly the irish have this in in VI, 200 men backs against the wall vs 1400 men i had yesterday was great and if i auto calculated it i no doubt would have lost.

[Gith]

The only battles I tend to autocalc are ones where I have zero archers and light cav and the enemy army has a ton of horse archers.

It isn't that I don't think I could win, it is that I really, really don't want to spend the time chasing down a bunch of horse archers.

[katank]

yep, HA battles are annoying.

if you aren't careful, that army can destroy you. good thing the AI don't know how to use HAs effectively.

I rarely do better than autocalc in those battles.

[Inuyasha12]

I've never done it, so i don't even know how it works, or looks if you do.

[katank]

have you seriously never autocalced? in that case, I applaud you for your persistence.

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ July 16 2004,19:24)]If its going to be epic i have to fight it. When putting down rebellions( apart from when it is truely necessary to pop in a appearance) i autocal the battle

Makes me think of a recent event in my Almohad campaign.
For the same reasons as the ones ConstableBrew mentions (the need for practise) I imposed myself not to autocalc in this campaign.
So early in the game (1092 or so) I face a rebellion in Tunisia (forgot to lower taxes, stupid me).

Rebels: one unit of AUM. I countered with two desert archers and a unit of berber camels.
I thought: good practise, you'll wipe them out.

And that, that was a BIG mistake...


Left the field in dishonour: 3 berber camels, and 31 desert archers. Rebels remaining: 42.

Ouch.
(PS. I don't think autocalc would have given me better results here, do you?)

[katank]

you could have destroyed the AUMs.

skirmish them. your troops are faster than the AUMs.

also, you are defense right? so time is on your side.

pick them apart with arrows and let the battle last a long time.

the AUM would absolutely bake and soon can barely move.

after you are out of ammo or when it starts running, charge from all sides.

[Gith]

Aye..exactly what I thought when I read the message.

How did the AUM even get engaged with your army?

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (katank @ July 16 2004,22:59)]you could have destroyed the AUMs.

skirmish them. your troops are faster than the AUMs.

also, you are defense right? so time is on your side.

pick them apart with arrows and let the battle last a long time.

the AUM would absolutely bake and soon can barely move.

after you are out of ammo or when it starts running, charge from all sides.

That's what I thought too. Piece of cake.

But one unit got stuck and got caught (perhaps didn't retire them quick enough).
Other unit shooting at AUMs caused nearly no casualties.

Same story with the berber camels.

Think I just was a bit too careless and too sure of a victory.
Oh well, it was a good lesson, and destroyed them anyway two years later.

(PS. lured Spanish king into death with desert archers a few years earlier, so basically I know how to skirmish. Just messed up profondly that battle)
(sidenote: I love berber camels)

[katank]

yeah, arrogance can be bad.

line up the guys on all three sides.

firing into flank and rear negates the shield

also, it doesn't matter much anyhow as if you are defense, you don't actually have to kill, just survive.

the longer the battle is, the more advantageous for you as the AUM cooks but your desert troops don't

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (katank @ July 17 2004,01:34)]also, it doesn't matter much anyhow as if you are defense, you don't actually have to kill, just survive.

the longer the battle is, the more advantageous for you as the AUM cooks but your desert troops don't

I attacked

The rebellion appeared in a province without garrison and my kingdom got split in two (it was Tunisia that rebelled).

[lonewolf371]

That's unfortunate. I never leave a province un-garrisoned, it simply leaves too many oppurtunities for the AI.

Quote[/b] ]yep, jedi kings either kill a few hundred guys and escape, or are brought down by massed missile fire.

This reminds me of an EXACT moment while I was playing the French dynasty. I had easily routed the entire enemy army, and all they had left was the general. I destroyed the general's entire bodyguard, and only he was left. I piled my entire army on top of him, and HE STILL WOULDN'T DIE, after many accounts of profuse swearing, a Saharan cavalry reinforcement attacked the rear of my soldiers and ROUTED MY ENTIRE ARMY. Now that made me pretty mad, but I got revenge later by encircling the Moslem army and capturing all of the remnants (2500-3500). Of course, they were refused ransom and slaughtered.

I love autocalc, I use it all the time. Most times when I fight like Katank its just to try out some cool new unit or one of my recently built standard armies (3 sword, 3 HC, 3 back-up cavalries, 3 spears, 3 archers, 1 royal knight). Besides trying out new units, I use autocalc when I feel that I have to. For instance, after a successful crusade my crusaders are attacked by an army of 10000000000000000000000 moslem soldiers versus my 1000 remaining crusaders.

[Sociopsychoactive]

I do use auto calc, but for time saving an if I'm tired more than anything, although I do use it against HA or similar. Rarely does autocalc get a better result than I could, but when facing HA or similar, even when I have ranged to counter them, my army tends to get cut to pieces, the worst of this was when I sent two full stacks against one stack of mostly jinettes, and got completely massacred, lost nearly 500 troops and nearly a thousand catured, including my king, an heir and one of my finest none-royal generals, who then got good runner and captured, plus poor attacker.

I'm amazed that people usually autocalc sieges, they are alot better fought, espcially when it's a pitifull garrison, you have many, or even only a few more troops and no siege. ith autocalc you lose loads more, with manualy fighting you can send a single, already partial squad to bash down the gates and get cooked in oil, without minding, meaning you lose around 30-50 men, and kill the garrison easily when your cav or whatever charge in to back up your weary, cooked and disheatened gate bashers.

I alsways fight sieges, with or withou siege and have found it to be some of the best battles in the game when facing large, reasonable similar armies on both sides. Do you all defend assualts? I always do, and more times than I can remember have won with around 60 men, often lowly UM, against 200 spears and an archer unit by running out the gate and smashing into the back of the enemy before the walls fall, routing them then dashing back inside.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Quote[/b] (Sociopsychoactive @ July 17 2004,07:32)]I'm amazed that people usually autocalc sieges, they are alot better fought, espcially when it's a pitifull garrison, you have many, or even only a few more troops and no siege. ith autocalc you lose loads more, with manualy fighting you can send a single, already partial squad to bash down the gates and get cooked in oil, without minding, meaning you lose around 30-50 men, and kill the garrison easily when your cav or whatever charge in to back up your weary, cooked and disheatened gate bashers.

I alsways fight sieges, with or withou siege and have found it to be some of the best battles in the game when facing large, reasonable similar armies on both sides. Do you all defend assualts? I always do, and more times than I can remember have won with around 60 men, often lowly UM, against 200 spears and an archer unit by running out the gate and smashing into the back of the enemy before the walls fall, routing them then dashing back inside.

The irritating thing about autocalcing sieges is that you loose too many of your good troops.

A siege only takes two minutes to fight by hand: Place your artillery, aim, Ctrl-t, charge garrison...

No sweat, and no 50 fine men dying or whatever other nasty thing the autocalc-AI will come up with.

[Louis VI the Fat]

didn't mean to copy Sociopsychoactive's entire post. Can't edit as a newbie though.


Quote (Sociopsychoactive @ July 17 2004,07:32)
I'm amazed that people usually autocalc sieges, they are alot better fought..in autocalc you lose loads more


Same here.

Except for:

'With manually fighting you can send a single, already partial squad to bash down the gates and get cooked in oil, without minding, meaning you lose around 30-50 men'

Why waste your fine young men? If I've got no artillery to hurl some rock, I'll whip some peasants towards the castle's gates. No tears to be shed when they die by the dozens, there's always more where they came from. And besides, they should be proud knowing that by sacrificing their insignificant lives they're contributing to the enlargement of the realm and the enrichment of the royal coffers.
Not to mention that you have to, like, carry rocks to the battlefield and stuff, whereas peasants can just walk there on their own...