Built-in autosave feature (for the TE version).

Typical simulation of professional sports, but with a huge loss in the quality and variety of enjoyment.

The concept of enjoyment, as you know, is different for everyone. It's strange to project your own taste onto others. I laid out my criteria above, and they differ from yours. That's normal.

For example, I believe it's better to give players the ability to conduct all battles with neutrals as if it were one player against another. In this case, the player's skill level would have a greater effect than 50% of everything else in the game.

I suggested this idea to Horn. He refused, arguing that the games would drag on much longer. Plus, you wouldn't be able to step away from the computer. So, this is a feature only for specific fixed maps. Although there is something to it, yes.

And I am categorically against disabling morale for neutrals... I consider this a degradation!

Well, that's your opinion. As for me, randomness that doesn't depend on the player but is critical to the result is undesirable in the game (imagine if in chess a queen suddenly decided to fail a morale check).

Heroes isn't poker, where with skillful play over the long run, rare bad beats are offset. There is no concept of "the long run" here—many Tournaments are usually played in a best-of-three format. And there aren't that many tournaments, while the duration of the games is considerable.

Here, you sometimes have to risk your entire stack several times per turn, and you can't just fold; the advantage or deficit grows in geometric progression. Therefore, according to a competitive approach, things like neutral morale should be removed.

If you use a casino approach rather than a competitive one, then there's no argument—morale is very useful and provides drive. But for some reason, morale brings me either frustration (if the opponent gets it) or dissatisfaction (if I get it). Plus, it increases the number of auto-battles taken.

Yes, with a skillful approach, you can fight so that neutral morale isn't particularly critical. That is also part of the skill. But it only mitigates, not eliminates, the factors mentioned above.

Attacking a Lizard horde or any other battle with neutrals in SoD and in TE are two different things.
And beating up low-level neutrals isn't much of a skill indicator—it's more about knowing micro-bugs and AI stupidity.

I attacked from the same save, with the same hero and the same army. The ability to fight neutrals is a very important skill indicator. Just like the ability to assess their numbers, danger, and predict the outcome of the battle.

For the most part, you can be unable to conduct final battles, not know a mass of nuances, but win games effortlessly thanks to smart scouting, resource gathering, army building, and hero leveling. Which is actually what happens regularly—a full-scale FF doesn't happen in every game.

Added after 7 minutes

I disagree; if errors or slips do not affect the result, it means they are trivial and can be neglected, and success was brought about by a better chosen development strategy, etc.

No.

Regarding most errors/slips, you cannot say in advance whether they will affect the result. How many FFs were decided by one person having 5 extra mana while the other spent it in the previous battle? How many times was a unit just one cell short of reaching its destination? How many times was the last hit on the last unit missed or landed?

Among the more frequent things—how many times while clearing the map in the 1st week did the units used for kiting run out? How many times did the "eating" for Hives/Undead run out?

That's why top players, whose gameplay I've had the opportunity to observe live many times (Alex, Mike, Sil), play very cleanly, with refined battle techniques, map movement, and chain building, saving every butterfly, every move point, every single point of mana. Because you don't know in advance if you'll be punished for trying to cut corners. Or perhaps, conversely, you'll be the one doing the punishing.