Quick battle. — General

Renegat

10/17/2011 2:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Hey everyone, I've been reading the latest posts and have a question: do some of you actually use the auto-battle feature? (I mean, do you continue playing the game after using auto-battle?)
For example, I've never used the auto-battle feature in the game – only to watch it. Otherwise, what's the point of the game? You gather resources, and the computer fights for you?
It doesn't seem very heroic:smile26:

Победитель

10/17/2011 2:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

So, given the heated discussions that have already arisen in several threads on this topic, I think it's necessary to create this poll. I suggest you express your opinion about "Quick Battle" (commonly known as autobattle, enabled in the settings) in this thread. Let's simulate a situation. You have a huge army, 10+ archangels, 150+ archers. There are many neutral melee units around, and the danger is "minor." Will you clear them all manually, or will you save time for a major battle? Now, let's consider the drawbacks. The first is a partial loss of atmosphere. Therefore, it's naturally boring to fight every battle on autobattle. But if we take into account the second drawback, which is that the experience gained as a result of autobattle does not contribute to dynasty experience, we can draw the following conclusion: major battles with significant neutral forces (4000 experience, for example), even if without losses, should be fought manually. Then, the experience will go towards your dynasty, and you won't feel ashamed for not fighting "like a hero."

Карты для Heroes of Might and Magic V
Цикл "Закадычные враги": "Особенное гостеприимство, "Супероружие", "Меж молотом и наковальней"
"Падение Шантири"

Кампания для "Кодекса Войны"
"Выбор Сагиттеля"

5p74

10/17/2011 2:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Renegat

Hey everyone, I read through the last few pages and had a question: do some of you actually use the auto-battle feature? (meaning you continue playing after using it).
For example, I've never used the auto-battle in the game – only to watch it. Otherwise, what's the point of the game? You gather resources, and the computer fights for you?
It doesn't seem very heroic:smile26:

Understand, it's easier and faster to play with auto-battle. If the auto-battle doesn't satisfy you, you can easily fight yourself. Auto-battle allows you to quickly defeat weak units without wasting time on them. Although, there are unique moments when the results of the auto-battle in global battles are better than your own (sometimes even unrealistically better, and it's unclear how the auto-battle managed to defeat, for example, a powerful opponent with minimal losses).

Renegat

10/17/2011 2:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I understand that auto-battle is easier... But I often felt bad about losing a few units, so sometimes I replayed the same battle 5 times. P.S. There were times I replayed it more than 10 times, but that's starting to sound like masochism, right? :o

In reply to 5p74

__VeT__

10/17/2011 3:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

5p74

Understand, it's easier and faster to play with autobattle. If autobattle doesn't satisfy you, you can easily fight manually. Autobattle allows you to quickly defeat weak units without wasting time on them. Although, there are unique moments when the results of autobattle in global battles are better than your own (sometimes even unrealistically better, and it's unclear how autobattle managed to defeat, for example, a powerful enemy with minimal losses).

Yes, I agree... Once, I attacked succubi (with autobattle enabled in the settings), and I won without any losses. Then I decided to defeat them manually... And bam! These Succubi go first, and it's no longer possible to win without losses... That's how it is...

Победитель

10/17/2011 3:22 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Well, this is a drawback: in "Heroes 6", the autobattle doesn't lose to a quick battle in terms of outcome, as it did in "Heroes 5"; instead, it calculates the result, which often makes it more advantageous to use only the autobattle.

Карты для Heroes of Might and Magic V
Цикл "Закадычные враги": "Особенное гостеприимство, "Супероружие", "Меж молотом и наковальней"
"Падение Шантири"

Кампания для "Кодекса Войны"
"Выбор Сагиттеля"

Ment

10/17/2011 3:26 PM UTC

Auto-translated

That was a fun poll :) Actually, it makes sense; there's no point in manually killing all neutral creatures one by one, only the most aggressive ones ;)

К А
Стикеры GBF в Telegram

Небо

10/17/2011 3:35 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I never use auto-battle. Even against small groups of neutral creatures. I wouldn't say I lose a significant amount of time, and besides, I'm not in a hurry when I play games.

Небо – мольбы не ждёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт

По вопросам модерации: nebov24@gmail.com

Lazy_coma

10/17/2011 4:02 PM UTC

Auto-translated

If the auto-battle awards more than 5000 experience points, I replay it to ensure everything contributes to the Dynasty rank. Also, if, in my opinion, too many Warriors were killed, I replay the battle without any losses.

Хорсик

10/17/2011 7:26 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I use the auto-battle feature because it takes a lot of time to play each battle, and sometimes I simply don't have time to play every battle myself. I only turn it off when fighting large armies or key heroes.
Also, since I have a pirated copy and there are no dynasties, there are no downsides to this feature for me.

Skull

11/1/2011 1:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I would play with auto-combat, but I really need experience for the dynasty. I even have to replay battles that are supposed to be "loss-free." :(

HA6JIIODATEJIb

11/3/2011 4:42 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Everyone who says things like "it's unfair," or "it's not heroic" conveniently forgets about other people. The main purpose of autobattle, even since the third installment of the series, is to save time when playing with other people. Good players always use autobattle against neutral creatures, only switching to manual battles when there are critical losses. This shows basic respect for other people's time. When you start a game with 4 players, and on the very first turn, someone takes three minutes to make their move, and then even engages in a manual battle, it's, to put it mildly, irritating to people who have other things to do in life besides playing.

Ment

11/3/2011 5:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

When you start a game with 4 players, and on the very first turn, someone takes three minutes, and even engages in a manual battle – it’s, to put it mildly, annoying for people who have things to do in life besides the game.

Well, firstly, the first turn should be the longest: to survey the surroundings, think through a strategy, and even activate the skill wheel in the starting five. As far as I remember, the autobattle on the first turn didn't give me the best results, so a manual battle made sense. Later, with the appearance of more or less decent armies and spells, the autobattle only results in single-digit losses, and it can be used safely.
Secondly, is three minutes a long time for you? That's strange; I thought anything less than four minutes was a good time...

К А
Стикеры GBF в Telegram

Devolik

11/3/2011 8:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Played the second mission on normal difficulty for Haven using auto-battle – I was disappointed. 1: No experience is gained for the Legacy. 2: I replayed major battles, but not minor ones. 3: After conducting many consecutive battles with auto-battle, even though it showed me small losses, I later noticed that I had almost no army left. That is, I wasn't in control; when I fought manually, I could go far on the map with a small army, but here I had to return for reinforcements. 4: For the first time in all the missions I've completed, I received a lower veteran rank. Previously, the lowest rank I received was veteran. It feels like with auto-battle, you not only lose Legacy experience but also your mission completion rank decreases. 5: You start to relax and become less focused after frequent auto-battles (this is about myself).

In reply to HA6JIIODATEJIb

Skull

11/3/2011 12:39 PM UTC

Auto-translated

HAVEN6

The main purpose of the autobattle, even since the third installment, is to save time when playing against other people. Good players always play against neutrals using the autobattle, only taking over manually when there are critical losses. This shows basic respect for the other player's time.

Here, you are wrong. I haven't played the sixth game online yet, but in the fifth, good players set a minimum of 5 minutes and try not to incur any losses at all. And respect is no longer the issue – if you don't have the time, don't play, although in the fifth game, there were simultaneous turns, but here, that's not working. But for me, even here, the priority will be the integrity of my army, not the opponent's time (of course, if the autobattle will be without losses, then I will agree with it).

Above, in my post, I wrote about playing in the campaign.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Quick battle.

Do you use auto-combat?

Statistics

Library

Users Online 7 users 1275 guests

Today's Visitors 13