Exactly, even if a battle is won 100% of the time, there's still a probability of different loss totals. That is, in the end, we might end up with a couple more dragons. How to handle this? I don't know how to use ArtMoney, but I have no doubt that this is "parasitic"

:) Such battles where it's "crowd vs crowd" are usually not ArtMonied. Any way, after several dozen rounds, the player no longer takes losses, spends no mana, and uses no arrows, while the enemy, for example, slowly dies from poison while chasing units. And I have no doubt that this is not a "parasite," but a good time SAVER on stupid, long, but guaranteed-to-win battles that you've already completed many times and know that no matter how the computer changes tactics, you will still win manually. For those who still don't get it: the discussion of using ArtMoney is NOT about all battles, but about long standard battles (fairies vs skeletons, etc.).

Added after 30 minutes

Iron, you really should have studied mathematics and elementary logic back in the day... you're wasting so much of your own and others' time... :)

:) Mathematician—you're the one who needs to study logic, and I'll prove it to you right now.

For example, I have never encountered ball lightning in my life and don't know a single person who has. Therefore, it doesn't exist. Now show it to me, then I'll believe... Well, or something along those lines.

A smart person, an educated one, even if they've never seen ball lightning themselves and don't know anyone who has, will believe in its existence without seeing it, simply by having information from at least a school curriculum. I am proving to you that there are battles that are won no matter what, EVEN if the computer changes tactics however it wants. Usually, such battles are stupid and long. Practically everyone knows about them—both judges and players :) And they've already been proven by time and practice :) I don't understand why EVERYONE tries to force players to grind these stupid battles live for several hours when everything is already clear anyway :)

If an event has never happened once, then based on that alone, you cannot claim that it cannot happen.

And if this event has happened even once, then based on that, you ALREADY can claim that such an event is possible. For example, in 4, a battle on morale from an external dwelling is ALWAYS won and a fairy beats any number of CD. Why conduct it live every time?? Explain from your logical point of view—who the hell needs this?

Indeed, why am I even stating my thoughts here. Pure word-spinning... If it were up to me, I would officially allow IronAxe to use all known tricks and programs while playing and would never question that right. Play however you want; why drag others into this swamp? Stop lobbying ArtMoney here.

And many people don't need YOUR official permission :) They use it anyway. This isn't a swamp. Your swamp is forcing people to manually grind multi-hour stupid battles that are guaranteed wins.

Smart people already told you clearly once—if you want to use it, use it quietly and be happy. Just don't tell anyone about it...

:) Read carefully what AmberSoler wrote! Notice that the word "smart" is not in quotes. This means smart people knew what they were saying and had sufficient information on this matter—and I'll clarify who those were: some of the portal masters :) Only, I considered it wrong that others shouldn't be told about this, because I don't take anyone for a fool. The essence of their statements was as follows: this cannot be brought to the masses, because then every newbie will start hacking EVERY battle in a row and chaos will ensue. That is, by their definition—they divided players into two parts—some can UNOFFICIALLY save their time, while others face an OFFICIAL ban on ArtMoney. This exact framing of the issue is what I didn't like then and don't like now. And when these smart people, being masters of Gorbik's resource—the portal—explained it all to me, a fool, I got a bit smarter; but I didn't intend to and don't intend to use this in secret. That's why I'm trying to establish such a rule—because at the moment I don't feel protected from relatively unfair play. And all of this is based on facts. I know people use it, I know organizers can't tell who completed a battle manually or not, and I've heard from smart people in responsible positions that if you know how and are able—use it silently. But I want everyone to be on equal terms in this regard, because we're talking about saving personal real-life time—and that is sacred :)
Added after 36 minutes
[/U]

The battle lasted 3 hours manually, and at some moments it started to seem that my hand would shake—and that' same it...
In this battle, as in the case with the ballista, snipers were a distraction, and harpies acted as the ballista.
BUT! after about 50 earth units remained, for some reason they stopped chasing snipers and rushed the harpies.

But nevertheless, the battle was won, if I understood you correctly?
How? Explain. Did you have to spend additional mana on magic? Can you write the details of the winning tactic?

And this is where, having an automator, we would have messed up.
So there is sense in AmberSoler's words.

While my words have no sense :)
A battle automator should primarily be in the head :) ; in practice, one must know that a battle is won NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise is there any point in conducting such a battle manually next time. I agree that not all battles fall under this; we're talking about battles like fairy vs skeletons.

Added after 11 minutes

Iron, why do you always use other portals as examples??? You write every other post "if you wanted to understand me" or "you still didn't get my point." Yes, we are just too stupid to understand your thoughts, Iron Axe!!!

And what am I guilty of ???

If ArtMoney only automates cyclic processes, then I simply have nothing to hit with! ;)

Well, consider it almost that way :) It just skips the cyclic processes of the battle; in the end, after the battle, we have no advantages over those who did it manually (not a couple extra skeletons, nor one extra mana point). It doesn't save us any troops, mana, or arrows during the battle.
Only ArtMoney isn't just something I have :) I personally know what can be done with it and what cannot. I tried to explain; some understood me, some didn't. Those who didn't—don't even try to steer ArtMoney :) And if an organizer puts a stupid long battle on the map—bash your keyboard for several hours if you want to try to make the top ten, BUT why, if you are 100% sure that the battle is winnable. And as for there being no such battles and not being able to be 100% sure—AmberSoler is lying to you. Such battles exist in both 4 and 3.

Added after 16 minutes

I agree with Vbn and AmberSoler. I can confirm this case documentarily using the example of the last

Your case confirms nothing and refutes nothing, let alone "documentarily." Present the documents first :)

tournament, in the final battle for capture art (I conducted the battle for the first time without using a force field), I won not without problems, but I won;

Here you won :)

So first you won, and then when it came time to write the description, you realized that winning is impossible because the computer changes tactics :) Well now. Now I don't understand anything at all :)
PS.
Here is what I'll tell you: This battle cannot be subject to either automation or ArtMonization BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BATTLE WE MUST SPEND MANA, and depending on the computer's change of tactics, it depends which magic we spend, and that determines how much mana we spend by the end of the fight because different magics cost a different number of mana points. So why are you pushing your example, and "confirming documentarily" at that. You better think about a battle with one fairy against 1000 skeletons and look for associations with it or analogues of such a battle where from the very beginning or a certain point the battle is won WITHOUT SPENDING CONSUMABLES OR YOUR OWN TROOPS.