Oelm
Auto-translated
And I'll answer myself what fundamentally distinguishes replayable quick combat:
compared to the variant I proposed, it allows you to assess the enemy's forces less responsibly, accurately, and carefully—to evaluate whether you can defeat the enemy with quick combat without losses or not. And in case of an error in assessment, it gives you a chance to correct it.
So you attack some noobs and think: "Ah, I can get away with quick combat here"
and then—bam—and your angel gets wiped out. And in one case you can fix the situation, while in the other you have no such opportunity.
Replayability of quick combat gives you more confidence when attacking a weak army with the intent to finish it off quickly, because if something goes wrong, you can correct the situation.
Replayability allows you, in certain cases, to essentially peek at the exact number of creatures and choose:
if the group turned out to be at minimum—quick combat is enough
if at maximum—fight manually.
Without this ability, you either fight manually to be sure of the result and waste more time, or you save time by taking a risk: maybe you won't lose the battle, but the cumulative losses from such fights can decide the outcome.
Therefore, one-sided replayability is a cheat!
__________________
I don't understand your logical construct. One-sided replayability cannot be a cheat—that is obvious to any qualified player. Moreover, your "correct" quick combat might be a necessary thing from an ideological standpoint, only in practice it's tied to unpleasant nuances, which are also quite obvious. And replayable quick combat—well, it's just a couple of subtle issues like killing ghosts, which can easily be ignored. I'll repeat once again, one-sided replayable QC **must be** because it saves real time on the game. That's exactly why this feature is in demand, and, which again is absolutely clear, not because of some mythical advantages in the game.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.