Idea: Intelligent Autocalc

[Red Harvest]

I don't know that anyone has proposed this (wouldn't surprise me if they had since it doesn't seem like such a novel idea), but it occurs to me that the autocalc could be made vastly better from a play stand point. How? Use actual player battle results to determine autocalc factors. Don't use "one size fits all."

When a player started a campaign on normal difficulty, the autocalc would be neutral. Battle results would be "scored" for when the player took the field. Autocalc factors would be adjusted from this score. The "battle memory" effect on autocalc might start to work after 3 or 4 battles, and might go 10 or more battles deep, being refreshed as new results come in, with old results being discarded.

The factors might be something like--casualty ratios for friend/foe, decisiveness (numbers of surviving enemies as a percent), chance of losing family member/captain, proportions of losses (elite, peasant, cav, light inf, heavy inf, missile units, or something like that.) If you were very protective of your commander, he might rarely fall in autocalc (although the hitpoint losses for him might be so low as to risk triggering coward traits, just as it should in normal battle.) On the other hand, if you had a habit of heavily engaging your commander and losing him periodically, that would carry into autocalc. If the bulk of your casualties was normally in your cav arm (or skirmishers, or infantry) then the same would be true of autocalc.

Autocalc could become a much more natural extension of the strategic game, so that autocalc would be used to avoid "tedious" battles, but without fear of frequent disproportionate results to what the player would normally achieve.

I'm not proposing to throw out randomness. The random factor would remain, but there would be additional factors.

Just thought of something else that would help the player to understand the autocalc results. In the post battle dialogue box, show what factors influenced the battle this might look something like:

Random = -10% (negative would be against player)
Battle Difficulty Level = 0% (for normal)
Attack = -30%
Weather = -20%
Terrain = +20%
Siege = Not applicable

Battle memory factors:
Decisiveness = +50% (player generally very effective at mopping up routers)
Losses by unit type:
Cavalry = +30%
Skirmshers = +10%
Infantry = -50%
Siege gear = -20%
General hitpoint losses = +25%

[Colovion]

Sounds pretty obvious, and a very good idea, to me.

[Titus Livius]

I couldn't agree more. One of the most monotonous things about the game is having to fight every battle personally for fear of beind defeated or losing and unacceptable number of men. If you want something done right, do it yourself. I mentioned in another thread that, when fighting against a Spaniard army of 800 men and hitting auto-calc, I killed 400 men for a loss of 200 of my own. When I re-loaded and fought this exact same battle personally, I routed the Spaniards and only lost around 20 men. The only time I ever use auto-calc is when up against one or two enemy units that I outnumber at least 10-1.

I've also noticed that, in auto-calc, the enemy's family members almost never fall in battle. I hate the enemy heavy cavalry and always make family members priority targets. So again, if you want something done right....

[SigniferOne]

Umm, can we modify anything at all related to auto calc? Or is this all just wishful thinking? What file do we have to modify?

[Red Harvest]

Umm, can we modify anything at all related to auto calc? Or is this all just wishful thinking? What file do we have to modify?

AFAIK, it is hardcoded. And it is not something we have any definitions for from CA to my knowledge. I'm just throwing it out as a concept. Sometimes things like this take root, sometimes not. Not many of us seem satisfied with autocalc, and we all seem to dislike what it does in the campaign game. This is what makes rebel armies so annoying...it is forcing us to waste time in an unfun lopsided battle. Same thing happens when facing other small AI stacks.

[Julius_Nepos]

I've never understood Audo-calc dynamics in RTW. Even when outnumbering the enemy 800 to 100 I may only get a 2-1 strength advantage. I've had entire armies destroyed and routed on auto-calc because the defenders were one unit of uber-Cretian Archers, and another unit of uber peasents. I think the whole thing would benefit from a reality check.

I don't know how something like that would be implimented but it does seem there needs to be more consideration given to the various factors that effect who wins a battle. The sea-battles, which must use auto-calc suffer from similar problems. I only really use the auto-calc feature when my strength ratio is better than 10:1, otherwise I'm asking to not just lose alot of men but to lose the battle, no matter what my numeric superiority is. If anything it's the concept of "relative strength of armies" that ruins the ability for auto-calc to work properly. You could have 10,000 men, but if the enemy's 300 men are "rated" as having a 2:1 strength advantage you'll lose if you don't play the battle yourself.

So I agree the entire system needs to be revamped, taking more variables into account, and not necessarilly basing the whole outcome of a battle on a perception of "quality" of the armies.

[screwtype]

it occurs to me that the autocalc could be made vastly better from a play stand point. How? Use actual player battle results to determine autocalc factors. Don't use "one size fits all."

Excellent idea. I for one am sick and tired of having to fight numerous little battles against insignificant enemy forces because the autocalc is so untrustworthy. The way your system works, after you'd fought a handful of battles yourself you could then turn these smaller battles over to the autocalc without fear of unreasonable results.