Idea: Intelligent Autocalc

[Red Harvest]

I should also add that since the player is likely to run a high net positive in his/her autocalc scoring, these factors would NOT apply to naval combat or any thing else that can only be autoresolved.

The idea is merely to make autocalc a more natural extension of the campaign, where players can fight battles because they want to, rather than being compelled to for every battle no matter how trivial.

[The Stranger]

seems like RH is brusing (sp?) with ideas

[ShellShock]

I don't like this idea as the AI is weak enough already, so that I usually win most battles easily, whereas I'm more likely to lose auto-calced battles. With "intelligent" auto-calc, the AI would lose even more battles.

If you want to give the AI a better chance, auto-calc ALL your battles.

Also how would this work in AI vs AI battles? Presumably they would auto-calc as of now, which would probably put the attacking AI at a further disadvantage compared to when you are the attacker.

[Red Harvest]

Shellshock,

You completely have missed the reason for this. This is not to let the player win more battles. It won't do that. What it will do is make it so the player won't have to fight all of the tedious walkovers that are so annoying. Why? Because the player will be able to get approximately the same result without taking the field. The point is to remove a substantial portion of the tedium from the strategic game. With a representative autocalc the player could choose to only fight interesting battles.

In fact, if the player autocalcs the obvious wins, and plays the tougher ones out, then the ratios will be closer. As a result the autocalc adjustment will be less in their favor than if they also played out the easy wins (e.g. typcial 360 killed, 2 losses type combats that are not uncommon for fighting small stacks.)

Plus there would have to be some upper limits on the autocalc adjustment. Becoming invincible in autocalc is not the idea either. There would still be risk.

[Red Harvest]

And AI vs. AI would be completely unaffected...I thought that was obvious.

Autocalc's current problem is how capricious it seems to be. At present the AI is losing a lot more battles because many of us NEVER autocalc as a result of what we have seen. Autocalcing all battles is decidedly unfun.

And if the AI were substantially improved then the autocalc adjustments would be milder.

[screwtype]

If you want to give the AI a better chance, auto-calc ALL your battles.

ROFL. You know, that ain't such a bad idea! You'd have much more realistic battle results, and a much tougher campaign, if you did that!

Hmmm....might have to try this some time...

[Shambles]

Personaly i dont use auto calc,
Becous I like the battles, So i cant say iv ever noticed anything wrong with it,

And if the state of auto calc Right now means You either do it your self Or dont do as well, then id say Keep it like it is,
Becous even with a large army if you have no skill You could loose,
But the auto calc may just say you won,
And newbie players would be compelled to use auto calc Instead of actualy Playing the game.

[Bhruic]

I don't think he's suggesting replacing major battles with autocalc. But when you are taking your 1000+ man army vs 200, what's the point in firing up the battle map? If I play that battle, I won't take more than 10 casualties (often none). But if I autocalc it, I'll lose a lot more.

So in order to avoid losing troops for no reason, I'm forced to fire up the battle map and fight out the tediously pointless battle. Multiply that by a few dozen such combats over the course of a playing session, and it gets really annoying. If I could be sure that autocalc would handle the battle intelligently, I could just autocalc all those battles, and have more time to play the rest of the campaign - and the battles worth fighting out.

Bh

[Shambles]

I don't think he's suggesting replacing major battles with autocalc. But when you are taking your 1000+ man army vs 200, what's the point in firing up the battle map? If I play that battle, I won't take more than 10 casualties (often none). But if I autocalc it, I'll lose a lot more.

So in order to avoid losing troops for no reason, I'm forced to fire up the battle map and fight out the tediously pointless battle. Multiply that by a few dozen such combats over the course of a playing session, and it gets really annoying. If I could be sure that autocalc would handle the battle intelligently, I could just autocalc all those battles, and have more time to play the rest of the campaign - and the battles worth fighting out.

Bh

You may not use auto calc for The battles where you have 1200 units and the computer has 1000,
But newbies may, And win becous of it,
where if they had gone in them selfs they possibly cvould have lost,

Id call this a Trainer,
Something I frown upon (till my for-head hurts)

I still think The "tedious battles" would have been fought in real life,

and only yester day I was fighting a large enemy force with only 1 group of archers.
My men eventualy routed But with only minimall losses.
and i devistated most of the enemys forces,
So i beleve that its possible for the computere to do so as well.

I really beleve you shouldnt play with the auto calc.

becous honestly, If you cant be botherd Going down to the battle,
You deserve to be punished for being a bad general.

[Bhruic]

And why would they win? You don't even understand the idea being presented, but you're drawing all sorts of (incorrect) conclusions about it.

The idea is simply to have the autocalc "fight" like you do. Which means if you are a crappy general and lose battles, than autocalc will do likewise. So "newbies" who autocalc won't be doing themselves any favours.

As for how you believe people "should" play, you're entitled to your opinion. But, frankly, I don't care how you think I should play. And your idea about being "punished" for not wanting to fight tedious battles is laughable. Games should not be designed to punish people, they should be designed to be enjoyable. Which fighting numerous tedious battles really isn't.

Bh

[Shambles]

I see so if you start the game,
And the 1st battle you happen upon is tedious
Use auto calc on that tedious battle,

So what happens? If you win u will continue to win,
and if u loose u will continue to loose?

Im sorry to hear You have such an attitude about you but really,
If you dont like the game dont play it,

The "tedious battles" are a integral part of the game,
And Just becous youve won in the past dosent mean You wont do some stupid mistake and Loose the battle any way,

And if you leave your men to Go into battle unsupervised Then I do beleve that a Greater loss factor shoul be implimented,

If you want the pc to play the game 4 you Then so be it,
But This idea is Just a trainer,
and you can download them form any Cheat site you may want to visit.

[Bhruic]

Look. You don't understand the idea at all. It's been explained to you numerous times, and you still don't get it. That's fine, you don't need to understand. But since you obviously don't get it, perhaps you should stop drawing conclusions about what it means.

As for the rest of your post, it's rather idiotic. Suggesting that using an in-game feature is a "trainer" is just plain stupid. Feel free to play the game the way you want. Telling other people how they should play the game, however, is not your call.

[screwtype]

You may not use auto calc for The battles where you have 1200 units and the computer has 1000,
But newbies may, And win becous of it

So what? If people want to autocalc all their battles, that's their decision.

I happen to know that, believe it or not, some guys who play Shogun and MTW autocalc ALL their battles, in spite of the fact that most people would agree that fighting battles personally is what the TW series is all about.

If some people want to play that way, let them. You can still play the game how you like to play, so it makes no difference to you.

[screwtype]

The idea is merely to make autocalc a more natural extension of the campaign, where players can fight battles because they want to, rather than being compelled to for every battle no matter how trivial.

Yup. Makes sense to me!