Social poll.

Those who support one-sided replays say they don't see any arguments as to why one-sided replays are considered cheating. And I haven't seen a single argument as to why replayability should save time! After all, quick battles that cannot be replayed, i.e., instant battles, already exist!

OelmFor example, I know in advance in a significant number of cases which battle is more advantageous to use.

So, if you know, why do you need replayability?Oelm, you didn't answer this question. And this question-and-answer exchange is, in fact, key. The arguments that you don't understand the game's mechanics, and that you're not a professional player or a tournament player, are truly weak because they relate not to the arguments, but to the person. The fact that you will conduct all battles manually without replayability says a lot. For example, if you have a replayable quick battle, you conduct some battles quickly, and your opponent, who doesn't have a replayable quick battle, doesn't. This means that you not only save time, but also save mental effort (which is required even in the simplest important operations), and reduce the likelihood of errors (due to misclicks, inattention, or something else), while your opponent doesn't have this opportunity. I agree that the ability to quickly exchange troops and separate individual units is unfair to those who don't have it, but this is absolutely not an argument in favor of the idea that one-sided replayability is not cheating, i.e., is fair.