Posts from Social poll.

It should be acknowledged that this doesn't waste the opponent's time. If we talk about saving real time, then the game itself consumes your life time.

And if we talk about saving game time, then this is a great injustice to the opponent.

Secondly, in some battles, even with a bug-free quick battle, the AI wins against all logic.

Furthermore, a replayable battle allows you to roughly assess your strength against a particular army, thus we get extra game information earlier than the opponent, moreover, the opponent has such an opportunity only in a manual battle and, possibly, with significant losses.

I've already provided arguments, you just don't want to see them. I told you, 60 vs. 40 with a non-bugged quick cast and 75 vs. 25 with a bugged one.

Read the post above, what's unclear there?

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

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

Lider1, you didn't answer this question. And this question-and-answer exchange is, in fact, key. Arguments like "you don't understand the game mechanics" and "you're not a professional player or a tournament player" are truly weak because they relate to the person, not the arguments.

The fact that you will manually fight every battle without replayability says a lot.
For example, if you have a replayable quick battle, you fight some battles quickly, while your opponent, who doesn't have a replayable quick battle, doesn't. This means that you not only save time but also save mental energy (which is required even in the simplest, most crucial operations) and reduce the likelihood of errors (due to misclicks, inattention, or something else), while your opponent doesn't have that opportunity.

I agree that the ability to quickly redeploy 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.

Archers aren't the best example – it's precisely ranged units in Castle Clash that allow you to break through without significant losses, because distance isn't a factor there, and unit speed matters (the same centaurs easily defeat slow-moving archers with minimal problems, which is impossible in melee combat). The example with iffrits directly confirms NumOne's words: a close fight, a couple of extra morale points, and the iffrit is gone, while a replayable quick battle allows you to "reroll the dice" and change the morale outcome. I don't use the 3+ mod, so I wasn't aware of the Q button, but if it exists, what prevents you from using it, engaging in a close fight, and pressing it if you're confident in the outcome? So far, the replayable quick battle is a safety net, and no other arguments have been presented (speeding up battles with instant completion should save at least as much time as a replayable quick battle). But the saving of nerves, concentration, and troops when using a replayable quick battle is an advantage.

Great topic! The very fact that such a controversy has arisen shows that quick, one-sided changes shouldn't be made.

Kilgor, As far as I understand, there are no absolute opponents to quick battles here. There are only opponents to its one-sided implementation. And the main argument on this matter is simple and clear: if one player uses quick battles, and the other doesn't, then the first player has an obvious advantage.

I also don't understand the fervent persistence of those advocating for one-sided quick battles. If the idea of replayable quick battles was liked by virtually everyone, then everyone will happily install the mod, giving both themselves and their opponent the option to use quick battles. What, then, is the point of making it one-sided? To force the whole world to play with the HD mod? It seems to me that this contradicts the very idea of the HD mod.

Imagine an abstract situation: a world championship is taking place. A player from, say, Albania, who doesn't even know about the existence of the mod and replayable quick battles, is playing against a player using the HD mod. And our player, without the opponent's knowledge, will be using quick battles. Is that fair?

Lider1, you didn't answer this question.

I'm asking again, what obvious advantage would a player have by using a one-sided, replayable, bug-free quick battle?