Posts from Quick battle.

Devolik, your rank was lowered because the auto-battle resulted in losses. The ideal rank is achieved by clearing the entire map in such a way that at least two-thirds of the battles are won without any losses.

Skull, that's why I don't like "regular" gameplay. For me, even three minutes is too long if I have to wait for my opponent to make their move.

Devolik, your rank was lowered because the auto-battle resulted in losses. The ideal rank is achieved by clearing the entire map, ensuring that at least two-thirds of the battles are won without any losses.

It's possible. But then, what determines the effectiveness? Because the effectiveness of my mission was 144% even though my rank was lower than veteran.
And when I played the missions only manually, the effectiveness ranged from 98% to 110%.
Therefore, I don't yet understand how the calculation is done, and whether the auto-battle really doesn't affect the rank and effectiveness as much as it affects the dynasty's experience.

Perhaps you cleared significantly fewer enemies manually compared to using the auto-battle feature? That could explain the lower efficiency... Although, I'd like to see a guide on this topic :o.

No auto-battles! Only hardcore! :)

Ment, in previous installments, there was a lot to think about at the start, but in the sixth game, you only need a minute, at most, to survey the territory and 30 to 50 seconds for the necessary actions.
Skull

And respect has nothing to do with it – there's no time, so don't play.

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction?))
Explain to me the real purpose of spending your time and others' time in battles with neutrals when the losses in auto-battle will amount to a couple of units. Are you playing for battles with neutrals online, or for battles with other players?
Not to mention that losses in auto-battle can be reduced by leaving the fastest and most expendable creatures with the other hero, splitting archers into several units to increase the chances of luck and morale...

I don't see any objective reason other than having too much free time.

You know, the issue of losing a few units is debatable. For example, I need 30 units to clear 10 mobs in the first week. I can win without any losses using these units. But if I lose at least 2 units in the first three battles, my initial development will be slowed down. I won't be able to complete those 10 battles. In the early weeks, every unit is important. In the third month, it's not about individual units anymore, but about dozens and so on. So, auto-battles at the beginning of the game and their resulting losses are a big problem.

Devolik, I don't know, on normal difficulty, with a fast-paced strategy, almost all enemies within a small/low range can be cleared in the first week without significant losses. Losses sometimes occur against archers, but it's debatable. On hard difficulty, it's not as easy, but if you think about who and when to attack, it won't be too difficult...
Friends, it's simple arithmetic. If 4 players constantly spend even 4 minutes per turn (and in manual battles, it can be even longer), then in total, a turn will take 16(!) minutes. In a gaming week, that's 112(!!) minutes. In a month, it's 448(...). That's 7.5 hours. For some gaming month... it's not even funny.

And then, notice, I didn't write "forget about these manual battles." I myself don't like skipping battles and I feel bad about every lost unit. But time is more valuable, especially when playing online.

Yes, yes, people who ignore the auto-battle feature probably haven't played online on huge maps where simultaneous turns stop working. That's when I decided never to play without a time limit again, because I managed to watch several episodes of a TV series while waiting for my opponent to take their turn.

Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?))

Not at all. All people are selfish to some extent, and personal victory will be the top priority for the vast majority, unlike the opponent's time.

Explain to me the real meaning of spending your own and others' time in battles with neutrals when the losses in auto-battle will amount to a couple of units. Are you playing online for the sake of battles with neutrals, or for the sake of fighting another player?

On this issue, Devolik has already "explained everything to you in detail," and I completely agree with him.

I don't see any objective reason other than having too much free time.

In the first battle, we lost a couple of units, in the second, too, and in the third, instead of "insignificant," they write "low." And if there are inconvenient neutrals, then we should think again: lose a couple more units in auto-battle and save time for an opponent whom we "don't know" and "haven't seen," or fight manually, ignoring the guy, again, whom we "don't know" and "haven't seen." I can tell you for sure that most, and the overwhelming majority, will choose their own units, not the guy we "don't know" and "haven't seen."
And in general, my friend, this is just elementary arithmetic, or rather, an arithmetic progression, the result of which is this: either we are left without an army and terribly slow down in development, or we run into an opponent who was not lazy, fought manually, and did not lose troops, where they write "high" and we are in mourning.

And also, haven't you heard such sayings as "a penny saved is a penny earned," "little strokes fell great oaks," etc.?

Skull, I replied to Devolik, but I still haven't seen any real arguments from you. If all players use quick battles against minor/weak opponents, then the tactical conditions are equal for everyone. And it saves a lot of time. And it is precisely because not everyone, especially those who work or study (or both), has the opportunity to sit at the game for ten hours straight that quick battles were invented a decade ago. It's silly not to understand this, stubbornly clinging to the childish "if you don't have time, don't play." I have played the entire map using quick battles, except for battles against other players (one of the participants had little time). And in total, I didn't lose even a quarter of my total units. Klivren, it's nice to see someone who understands what I'm talking about. Added after 25 minutes Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the ability to edit messages here. So far, in Heroes 6, I've only lost one Multiplayer game. It was on a small map where the enemy had a Dynasty Sword that summoned 25 Destroyers... let's just say I didn't expect it -_-' I won all the other battles, including those against players who took 5-6 minutes for each battle, playing them out manually. Their armies were never a serious challenge for me. The difference in army size of 20-25 percent is easily compensated for with the right tactics; you don't have to be a great player for that. For example, I have a rather average skill level, and I haven't played Heroes in a long time...

I agree that a quick battle saves time, but even so, in the first few weeks, it's still painful for me to lose a couple of units. And it was the same in other games. This happened to me when playing Tribes of the East in Heroes of Might and Magic V. Tribes of the East have a small growth rate, and losing 1-2 units is much more painful than losing, for example, the same 2 zombies. I don't feel as bad about losing 10 zombies as I do about losing a unit of Tribes of the East. That's the math. All factors are taken into account. When playing Heroes of Might and Magic VI, I don't feel as bad about losing, for example, 2 spearmen in the first week as I do about losing 2 vestals. So, I think everyone has their own priorities in the game and their own goals.

All people are selfish to some extent, and personal victory will be the top priority for the vast majority, unlike the opponent's time.

Well, well. I agree with the first part of the sentence, but personally, when I played on "The Bridge" with Org for the first time, I tried to end my turn as quickly as possible so as not to waste his time. Although I still replayed half of the battles manually :o.

Devolik, well, that's what I was saying. Only with reasonable losses)))
And not to completely ignore manual combat. I agree with you on that.

And regarding manual combat, it's important to remember to assign spells to the quick access bar and use hotkeys... then it might not take too long.

and my quickspell bar still doesn't work. They only work once, and the second time I have to go back to the spellbook.
That's a bummer.

... But if you take into account the second drawback, which is that the experience gained as a result of an autobattle does not contribute to the dynasty's experience,...

In quick battles, I receive 25,000 and 85,000 experience points. Please explain what you mean by "experience gained as a result of an autobattle does not contribute to the dynasty's experience"?