Battle Auto-Resolve?

[savannah]

I hadn't seen anything about this yet, but I was wondering if RtW3 would come with a Battle Auto-Resolve?
Don't get me wrong I really do love combat in RtW2, however, in the middle of a long war it can get tedious and annoying to constantly do battle.
I know RtW2 does come with a limited Auto-Resolve function (generally for smaller engagements,) but an Auto-Resolve feature for all engagements (yes even fleet battles,) would be nice. Beside, playing a designing and spreadsheet game can sometimes be nice sometimes too.
Any news on this?
Your thoughts?

[wlbjork]

I suspect this will be an option, due in the main to AI wars becoming a thing.

Of course, you can reckon on the automatic system not being as competent as a veteran player...

[oldpop2000]

Jul 7, 2022 9:59:38 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

I suspect this will be an option, due in the main to AI wars becoming a thing.

Of course, you can reckon on the automatic system not being as competent as a veteran player...

I am dead set against Ai auto resolve. AI while interesting and useful under certain circumstances, is not the way to try to determine the outcome of a battle, only human intervention and control can simulate actual naval combat.  

[hawkeye]

Jul 7, 2022 18:46:41 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Jul 7, 2022 9:59:38 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

I suspect this will be an option, due in the main to AI wars becoming a thing.

Of course, you can reckon on the automatic system not being as competent as a veteran player...

I am dead set against Ai auto resolve. AI while interesting and useful under certain circumstances, is not the way to try to determine the outcome of a battle, only human intervention and control can simulate actual naval combat.  

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.
I mean, sure, if it were mandatory, that would be a big (and I mean BIG) no-no, but as an option you can take or leave?
Also, since such a mechanic would probably be necessary for the AI vs. AI wars anyway, enabling auto-resolve for the player if he wishes to use it shouldn't take a lot of dev-time.

Honestly, I don't really see a drawback.

P.s. Btw, since there is _always_ an AI component (i.e. the enemy) in RtW, isn't what you are asking for essentially a PvP version of RtW?

[savannah]

It shouldn't matter if you are dead set against it. Implementing an AI battle Auto-Resolve would be optional to use: and if you didn't want to use it you wouldn't have to. If you did, like me occasionally, them you could.

[maxnacemit]

It's mentioned in the development log thread, so it will be implemented.

[andrewm]

It would avoid the feeling that fighting that destroyer only battle will waste 30 minutes of your life , with minimal changes to victory points and having to concede defeat to avoiding wasting your actual time

[garrisonchisholm]

There will be, and is now in fact, the ability on the battle screen to give command of all your forces to the AI, which will then proceed at high speed with no pauses. Only for use in situations where you truly don't care about the result.

At present there is no methodology for "randomizing" a battle result without going to the battle screen, except of course for raider intercepts.

[thomasmacmoragh]

Jul 13, 2022 8:38:28 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

There will be, and is now in fact, the ability on the battle screen to give command of all your forces to the AI, which will then proceed at high speed with no pauses. Only for use in situations where you truly don't care about the result.

At present there is no methodology for "randomizing" a battle result without going to the battle screen, except of course for raider intercepts.

Should the officers and Admirals have an effect?

[garrisonchisholm]

Jul 14, 2022 10:22:22 GMT -6 thomasmacmoragh said:

Jul 13, 2022 8:38:28 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

There will be, and is now in fact, the ability on the battle screen to give command of all your forces to the AI, which will then proceed at high speed with no pauses. Only for use in situations where you truly don't care about the result.

At present there is no methodology for "randomizing" a battle result without going to the battle screen, except of course for raider intercepts.

Should the officers and Admirals have an effect?

Should they, yes it feels like they should.  I don't know off the top of my head where that might be on the to-do list, but I will bring it up.

[vonfriedman]

Difficult problem to solve, especially due to the weight that would have to be given to fate, which often (how often?) had a great importance (e.g. from the single shell that blew up the Hood, up to the extraordinary combination of events that led to the sinking of the entire Japanese aircraft carrier squadron at Midway)

[gurudennis]

Jul 14, 2022 11:22:23 GMT -6 vonfriedman said:

Difficult problem to solve, especially due to the weight that would have to be given to fate, which often (how often?) had a great importance (e.g. from the single shell that blew up the Hood, up to the extraordinary combination of events that led to the sinking of the entire Japanese aircraft carrier squadron at Midway)

I would argue that fate had as much to do with these events as objectively deterministic causes.

The Hood was quite obsolescent at the time of her sinking and in all likelihood (debates still rage) ended up succumbing to a well-understood armor scheme deficiency.

The Japanese loss at Midway unfolded fairly predictably given what we now know about the recklessness and doctrinal rigidity demonstrated on the Japanese side.

It does not seem inconceivable to me that RTW can model both these factors in some fashion without necessarily making these historical outcomes preordained (which of course they weren't).

[zederfflinger]

Jul 14, 2022 18:13:53 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

Jul 14, 2022 11:22:23 GMT -6 vonfriedman said:

Difficult problem to solve, especially due to the weight that would have to be given to fate, which often (how often?) had a great importance (e.g. from the single shell that blew up the Hood, up to the extraordinary combination of events that led to the sinking of the entire Japanese aircraft carrier squadron at Midway)

I would argue that fate had as much to do with these events as objectively deterministic causes.

The Hood was quite obsolescent at the time of her sinking and in all likelihood (debates still rage) ended up succumbing to a well-understood armor scheme deficiency.

The Japanese loss at Midway unfolded fairly predictably given what we now know about the recklessness and doctrinal rigidity demonstrated on the Japanese side.

It does not seem inconceivable to me that RTW can model both these factors in some fashion without necessarily making these historical outcomes preordained (which of course they weren't).

You might also add the rudder hit on Bismarck to that list.

I think that fairly random, catastrophic events are something the game models well when you are playing the battles, but having that happen in a simmed fight is likely to make the player very frustrated.