Message from Oelm:
Max, what you're writing says two things about you:

1. You haven't really played Quick Combat, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

This only reflects your point of view, but it doesn't mean your point of view is correct. But that's not the point. The point is that if one person effectively utilizes its advantages, and another doesn't, then it will definitely have a significant impact, and that's the whole point.

Message from baratorch:
I haven't played Quick Combat..., but when I learned about this feature, I immediately appreciated its benefits and immediately wanted this feature in HD.

Here's the first reason why the implementation is bad. You need to play online; if not, you need to consult with a sufficient number of SOD players who have experience with online games. It's wrong to implement something just because it seems good. This applies to releasing a version for SOD players, not just for yourself.

In online play, I can't imagine what game advantages auto-battle can give (or take away) from a player.

What, R55Max, is the specific harshness of the game without auto-battle? With a concrete, real example with numbers?

Here are some general views on Quick Combat:

1. Elementary knowledge of the basics in battles with neutrals. A player's skill is also measured by their ability to conduct battles manually, not by the computer doing it for them. Let's take 100 players, including newbies and masters, give everyone the same army, and position them the same way. 100 battles will result in 100 identical results (if we consider the Quick Combat algorithm), but if done manually, there may be a different number of outcomes, ranging from one to 100, and there are hundreds of such battles in the game. In each one, a small difference accumulates, creating an overall difference in skill.

2. Secondly, Quick Combat with the ability to replay... This already sounds absurd in SOD. Maybe it would be better to implement the ability to replay each battle a second time if something didn't go well the first time? :confused:
And then it would be even easier to just give auto-battle for every turn...
When Quick Combat is not replayable, it carries a huge risk, which is simply eliminated to zero, once and for all.

3. They say that, except for the hydra in the Hive, everything is fine with Quick Combat... I don't understand what "not counting" means. You NEED to count it first, because knowing this, people will always use it.

4.

Message from Oelm:
To think that Quick Combat will decide the outcome on the second week, and after that, is just the delusion of an optimistic person.

Here's what I mean:

Message from baratorch:
Hoping to win by playing worse than Quick Combat, i.e., worse than AI, is utter foolishness. You won't even reach your opponent because the AI will defeat you, and you play worse than it.

Quick Combat is only needed to avoid wasting time on a battle that you will 100% win without losses or with predictable, acceptable losses.

If it doesn't decide anything, meaning it always performs worse, then what's the point? The answer is wasting time. But why waste less time if it degrades the quality of the battle in SOD? The mod has already significantly reduced the time spent on "unnecessary" clicks, etc. Removing manual battle control is already too much.

I, for example, don't play online at all just because I don't like the length of the game. Things that speed it up (without simplifying or changing the gameplay) are definitely a good thing.

I agree that it's a good thing, but not everything that reduces the game is good. These changes need to be approached selectively. One thing is reducing the time required to perform certain actions, and another is reducing the gameplay by reducing human execution.
For example, I think there are people who will find the game uninteresting if it turns into a one- or two-hour experience with infinite acceleration, including a full-fledged game with normal feedback.

Message from Oelm:
True SOD players are very resistant to any innovations.

This is normal, and it's the right approach.

Message from Scorpiona:
Previously, auto-battle would play out, and that was it, but now there's the option to reject the result of auto-battle and replay it yourself.

This is important, I agree.

Message from baratorch:
Secondly, the second one, no matter how hard he tries, won't be able to run Quick Combat without magic in pure SOD.
Therefore, it turns out that one person is playing SOD, and the other is playing something that's not quite SOD (but SOD with replayable Quick Combat without magic). In RC6, I eliminated this unfairness. If you want a completely pure SOD (in terms of gameplay), turn off the ImprovedGameplay option. If you want replayable auto-battle, turn on all ImprovedGameplay. And everyone is satisfied: both ultra-super-mega-conservative SOD players (like R55Max) and people who value the absence of bugs and convenience.

I would like to correct the statement about R55Max. He values the absence of bugs and the convenience of the HD mod. If there is any doubt about this, read our correspondence in PM; there are many statements confirming this value. The seemingly conservative assessment from others should not be misleading, as changes to SOD for the better and the movement of HD in that direction have been supported by me from the very beginning of the mod's development:

http://clip2net.com/s/2f58O

I don't understand how implementing replayable Quick Combat is related to this. It's clearly adding new gameplay, not inherent, not fixed, not a bug, with new functionality. In my opinion, this is already an approach to existing games (SOD, Warlords, Warlords with SOD) - SOD adapted for Warlords. I would like to remind you that Warlords adapted for SOD is not recognized by either Warlords players or SOD players.