>Dude you're not actually supposed to ""play"" the game, you're supposed to skip itWhy is it so difficult to just make fights less numerous and low level enemies less onerous? This isn't just for TW, all the HOMM likes, even jarpigs
>>2502401As far as I know most modern JRPGs cut down on the grind required, discourage overleveling by cutting down reward for much weaker enemies and possibly have some sort of mechanic where random encounters stop bothering you entirely.I think every game that doesn't curate encounters will have some irrelevant fights and it's fair to not want to have to play them out and waste time, but you can't be mad about auto-resolve at the same time, that's literally the solution. You just want to not know it was there? That's not really possible in a sandbox strategy game. It's always going to be possible for understrength unit to exist for whatever reason. Also CA has actually introduced a mechanic discouraging irrelevant small stacks loitering around the map and the people have been malding about muh captains and army limit for a decade.Though I can see the case for not allowing you to autoresolve close fights and only when you really do have an overwhelming advantage. I think it's fair to say that taking a 55-45 victory because you can't be bothered to actually play out the 40 unit fight and learn how to manage those situations is actually robbing you of good gameplay. Just because you can do that makes you only play out battles to cheese out the enemy.
>>2502431It's not that every fight has to be curated, just more framework limitations that chop off the extremities. Don't let AI attack with only 1 unit and don't allow battles to balloon to 50 units (if the designer wants that to be abnormal). Games like Erador and Spellforce Eos have a bit of that "stripped down" feel, but I think they went the opposite direction by upping the density of combat making auto-resolve feel just as necessary. >You just want to not know it was there? Honestly if the game just had a system built around it, I would be fine. Limited # uses, using gold or passing skill checks - something that doesn't break the 4th wall asking you "how much of your life are you willing to waste?"
>>2502401No million dollar company is going to leave out people who don't want to fight every single battle.
>>2502401I feel like PDX games have rotten my brain, I just can't play games where there option of not auto-battling.It's like not commanding is part of the experiencing and option of commanding destroy that illusion
>>2502401TW autoresolves are too fucking broken. This is even worse with Rome 2.
>>2502615I hate how elephants and chariots have a set amount of HP that they will lose on each battle, even on easy ones, which means you have limited uses of auto-resolve before the unit is wiped from the army. Which is ass because they can stack 1k kills if you use them manually, but are forced to babysit them
>>2502401RPGs do that pretty often. Areas of a lower level than you have reduced encounter rates, there’s ways to repel weaker enemies, aggro ranges get smaller on weaker enemies and eventually they won’t attack at all, etc. I don’t really see how you could do that in a strategy game, though.
>>2502401you are bitching about stupid shit, as usual
>why won't everyone play the game my way?
>>2502813It's pretty easy to do. Much smaller armies with no chance of winning should just surrender.
>>2503016So like highly rewarding autocomplete?
>>2502401>even JRPG'sMother's system where you auto-complete encounters that are low-level enough is kino thoughbeit.
>>2502401The problem isn't autoresolve, it's tedious battle systems. RTS and small scale tactics games can give you fun manual battles but anything large scale should have you setting up only who is in the battle, what their positions are, and what they are using. Basically any large scale game should be similar to a wargame.
I'm still waiting for someone to make an autobattler that mimics the kind of control a general would actually have over troops in classical linear warfareThe total war method of making it into an RTS where troops can be micro-managed as long as they aren't routing is fundamentally flawed
>>2503283Devs still struggle with simple "survival brain" AI for units to not make them simply "stand still and take it," unless you micromanage them 24/7, after 30+ years of RTS existence. Therefore my hopes of anything like you describe are pretty much nonexistent.
just aim to winning the game in 40 turns, stop wasting time
>>2502401>game offers you an option to autoresolve battles>WOW THEY'RE LITERALLY FORCING ME TO SKIP EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT'S SO BADGamers are the biggest retards on the planet.You play the battles you want to play, and you autoresolve the ones you don't. It's literally that simple. You curate your own experience. Some people like min-maxing every single battle, while others prefer to take a (arguably more realistic) hands-off approach and focus on the bigger picture. There's room for both playstyles>B-BUT THEY SHOULD DELETE THE BATTLES I DON'T WANT AND ONLY INCLUDE BATTLES I DO WANTYou're effectively demanding that the entire world should be able to predict your personal preferences and adjust for them, proving beyond any doubt how much of a retard you are.
>>2503283The closest you'd realistically get to a system like this is something where you give your orders beforehand and then just watch things play out in autobattle mode, like in the Dominions franchise.
>>2504433autoresolve isn't an issue but I can see it being a slippery slope for lazier devs
ITT: OP learns that a game with a M&B/Battle Bros strategy layer and an autobattler tactical layer is the supreme strategy game.
