Social poll.

Leader, I treat you with respect, but I do not respect your words.

If you cannot make a simple logical conclusion — how can we find common ground in our opinions?

There are interface changes, and there are gameplay changes. And the party's policy is this: gameplay is the same for everyone.

I don't think this argument interests me any further.

I already mentioned the fact that Bari's policy is that the game should be played on equal terms. Thus, getting different features (including re-playable quick combat) on different sides — won't work. But, hopefully, soon it will be possible to use all the interface and convenience features in the game.

Credit must be given that it doesn't save the opponent's time. If we're talking about saving real time, the game itself consumes your life's time. But if we're talking about saving in-game time — that's a great injustice towards the opponent.

Secondly, in some battles, even with a bug-free quick combat, the AI wins contrary to logic, and many dishonest players will use this fact to sway the battle result in their favor. Such battles are rare, but they are still worth attention.

Furthermore, re-playable combat allows you to roughly gauge your strength against a particular army; in doing so, we get extra game information earlier than the opponent does; moreover, the opponent only has that option in the case of a manual battle and, possibly, serious losses.

Another important point: being able to allow yourself to play a difficult battle on quick combat without magic, if the losses are acceptable or there are none at all. The bug-free nature of quick combat has not yet been fully investigated and requires much development, but right now that's not the point.

In 90% of cases, an average level hero with average stats loses an angel in a level 3 con if they attack and fight manually (talking about a battle with at least 5 angels without cover, otherwise losses could be greater). However, quick combat has its own opinion on this; in some situations it manages to win without losses (apparently due to morale or something else, I haven't looked into it), naturally such a result is acceptable.

The opinion that people will use this for "unfair purposes", that there will be fewer losses, that noobs will play better - is nonsense.

ps. The stories about everyone ganging up on Baratorch, not appreciating someone else's work, and pulling the blanket over themselves - is nonsense again. Everyone respects and values this product and the HD creator's work, but they want to make it even better and insist on truly revolutionary and necessary things. Nothing more, nothing less. Striving for improvement is standard practice.

The topic is fire :) The very fact that such a contradiction of opinions has erupted shows that quick combat cannot be made one-sided.

Imagine an abstract situation - a world championship is underway. A player from, say, Albania, who doesn't even know about the existence of the mod and re-playable quick combat, is playing against an HW player. And our player, without the opponent's knowledge, will be using quick combat. Is that fair?