Idea: Intelligent Autocalc

[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.

[Shambles]

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.

Actualy,
Editing a in game feature IS a trainer.

And i havent told any 1 how to play the game,

If you cant comprehend simple sentaces then i advise You disscontinue this conversation,

Or You could actualy Read what i have said,

[Bhruic]

For someone demonstrating such a lack of 'clue' as to what's being discussed, suggesting that others read properly is laughable.

No one is suggesting editing the game. The suggestion is aimed at either the expansion, or a future game. It is a suggestion designed to remove some tedium from the game, so that the player can focus on areas that they might enjoy more. So stop talking about "trainers", or "punishment", or whatever other misconceptions you're bringing to this thread, and try and focus on the pros/cons of the actual idea.

Bh

[Colovion]

Editing an in-game feature is a trainer? Look to your patch 1.2 as a trainer then, as that's ALL it does.

Shambles, you're forgetting that the enemy AI won't coalesce their units into one solid fighting unit so you constantly have to fight meaningless battles - especially once you gain enough resources for full stacks and the AI is still wandering around with quarter stacks. 1000 vs 200 is not worth going into the battlefield for becasue we know the AI is barely capable of putting up a fight on even ground, let alone at odds liek that. I know you may think that everyone has to fight all the battles, but part of the Total War genre is the option of auto-calcing when you want. Currently the auto-calc situations makes it so that you HAVE to play all of the battles or else you get punished for a lack of an intelligent auto-calc.

That said, I play all of the battles still, but towards the end-game I hate having to go into a 1000 vs 200 battles when you have masses of men and it's really pointless to have to fight them all when you know you'll win.

I advise you to take your own advise and re-read the above posts before you attempt to chastize someone who is trying to set you straight in your folly.

[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.