What's up with autoresolve?

Users who are viewing this thread

kemlor

Recruit
In the late game it's just a "press to win with minimal casualties" button or in some cases "press to win a battle you'd probably otherwise lose" button. It's nuts. Granted, my tactics skill is over 200, but why would a skill exist in a game that removes the incentive to engage in the essential content of the game, which in Bannerlord's case is the battle gameplay?

It should be a button for quickly dispatching smaller parties to make the game feel less grindy or to exchange player's troops for the player's time. It should not reward the player for not playing the game.
 

clock4orange

Master Knight
it is not a reward, it is punishing system... who always dies first? yeah, top tier trooops you train for last couple years
 

Madeloc

Regular
Auto-resolve equals stupidity-resolve.
You resolve yourself = no casualty
You trust the stupid implemented system = 15 looters can kill 3 T6 vs 300… this no-brain system, sadly… probably enough for console players and money makers 😉🖕🖕🖕
 

kemlor

Recruit
Auto-resolve equals stupidity-resolve.
You resolve yourself = no casualty
You trust the stupid implemented system = 15 looters can kill 3 T6 vs 300… this no-brain system, sadly… probably enough for console players and money makers 😉🖕🖕🖕
Yeah, it's a bad design if high tier troops die when autoresolving against weakling opponents, especially if you have even some investment in the Tactics skill. My problem is that a decent Tactics skill level makes it redundant to fight yourself against equal or more powerful opponents. I have almost full points in Vigor and Endurance and only 3 points in Cunning (under which Tactics skill belong to), so my character isn't even that specialized in Tactics/autoresolve. Yet, I'm better off just autoresolving almost everything at this point. And I'm pretty sure I'm not that bad of a player that it'd be expected for an autoresolve mechanic to outperform me. 😅
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
You trust the stupid implemented system = 15 looters can kill 3 T6 vs 300… this no-brain system, sadly… probably enough for console players and money makers
AFAIK its main purpose is to resolve AI vs AI battles swiftly without the player suffering campaign map FPS loss for events they're not involved in.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
It's kind of a win-more skill. When you have a large force and high tactics you can auto resolves with few losses but when closer in power or less tactics you're are so much better off fighting live and using good actual tactics. But of course you could just live battle with the large force and still do even better or control what troops go in for the kill (and exp) and such. And it's not perfect either, you can still lose a t6 unit to a small party with high tactics and a huge army and that 1 troops is worth more then the time saved by auto calcing the battle.

It gives the AI faction lords a slight edge over you wanderers if they run a party or are promoted to a clans. The AI lords are spawned with decent tactics, but anyone in your clan has a hard time gaining it as you hog all the skill if they're in an army with you and if they're free roaming..... well good luck doing much of anything on their own.

I find it my least priority, tied with polearm. Their are some okay perks mixed in but the actual skill is very poor and does very little as it grows only being noticeable when you have very high tactics and an overt power advantage.

I have seen people do only (or almost) auto calc games though, so it does have fringe playstyle, it's just not common.
 

geala

Squire
If you are not in charge of the army, playing bigger battles yourself can be a way to disaster. Because the AI of your army is braindead and often tries to attack against all odds. Playing one battle after the other can also be a chore, so I really appreciate the tactics skill.

It is seemingly possible to mod (e.g. Auto Resolve Rebalanced) the stupid casualty results, to take armor and skills into the calculation and let high tier troops die less often. Sadly for me the mod does not work in 1.8.0 stable but was nice in the beta.
 

kemlor

Recruit
It's kind of a win-more skill. When you have a large force and high tactics you can auto resolves with few losses but when closer in power or less tactics you're are so much better off fighting live and using good actual tactics. But of course you could just live battle with the large force and still do even better or control what troops go in for the kill (and exp) and such. And it's not perfect either, you can still lose a t6 unit to a small party with high tactics and a huge army and that 1 troops is worth more then the time saved by auto calcing the battle.

It gives the AI faction lords a slight edge over you wanderers if they run a party or are promoted to a clans. The AI lords are spawned with decent tactics, but anyone in your clan has a hard time gaining it as you hog all the skill if they're in an army with you and if they're free roaming..... well good luck doing much of anything on their own.

I find it my least priority, tied with polearm. Their are some okay perks mixed in but the actual skill is very poor and does very little as it grows only being noticeable when you have very high tactics and an overt power advantage.

I have seen people do only (or almost) auto calc games though, so it does have fringe playstyle, it's just not common.
I still just think autoresolve is OP and rewards the player way too much for not fighting themselves, at least in the late game. I shouldn't have a warrior type character who will eventually get his tactics skill high enough for being better off autoresolving every battle except for siege attacks. I get equal or better results in every single non siege attack battle by autoresolving. Maybe I'm just doing something horribly wrong then when fighting and commanding the troops myself.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
Maybe I'm just doing something horribly wrong then when fighting and commanding the troops myself.
Essentially, yes.

Just to test how well it actually performs atm., I gave myself 300 tactics and autoresolved a couple of battles against normal parties.

I would still loose around 10-20 men (wounded included) depending on the strength of the hostile party. In none of the cases would I have expected to loose anyone, if I had fought it myself. And, for good order, I fought a small army, around 450. My party was totally wiped out.

Tactics is not overpowered.
 

kemlor

Recruit
Essentially, yes.

Just to test how well it actually performs atm., I gave myself 300 tactics and autoresolved a couple of battles against normal parties.

I would still loose around 10-20 men (wounded included) depending on the strength of the hostile party. In none of the cases would I have expected to loose anyone, if I had fought it myself. And, for good order, I fought a small army, around 450. My party was totally wiped out.

Tactics is not overpowered.
What was the size and composition of your party and the enemy parties you tested this with?
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
What was the size and composition of your party and the enemy parties you tested this with?
A standard lordkiller party of around 120 high/max tier men. In this case, ranged, but it wouldnt have mattered if it had been infantry instead.
 

geala

Squire
I wonder how autoresolve is calculated when the player is not in charge, but the player's party is part of the battle via the Send Troops command. Does it use the player's Tactics skill? I believed so, but now I'm not sure anymore.

I had a 1320 to 1391 battle of us heroic WE heroes against the Vlandian villains a few days ago, we lost at autoresolve and we lost with the battle played. The latter mainly because the AI, despite having fewer and possibly inferior troops (the marker was a bit in favor of the Vlandians), thought it was time for a dashing attack. It was not. I had only 23 Tactics or so, and planned to give me 300 and try again after reading this thread, but sadly I had overwritten the save already.
 
Last edited:

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
I wonder how autoresolve is calculated when the player is not in charge, but the player's party is part of the battle via the Send Troops command. Does it use the player's Tactics skill?
It does. The first thing I checked was how well I would do without tactics (I have 17 tactics on my char).
 

kemlor

Recruit
A standard lordkiller party of around 120 high/max tier men. In this case, ranged, but it wouldnt have mattered if it had been infantry instead.
Okay. Do you know what other drawbacks there is to using autoresolve? It seems to give less loot vs. playing yourself, is there something else? Less experience?
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
Okay. Do you know what other drawbacks there is to using autoresolve? It seems to give less loot vs. playing yourself, is there something else? Less experience?
From what I have read it gives less (leadership/roguery) xp. It does seem to give more xp in medicine, but whether that is simply a result of taking more losses I havnt checked.

Since you are missing out on combat xp then you would also naturally level slower.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
If I knew there was a robust, detailed crunching of numbers and massive variables involved -that would be good enough for me to enjoy the game on a strategy level
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
I still just think autoresolve is OP and rewards the player way too much for not fighting themselves, at least in the late game.
First let me say I think tactics the skill it's self, is worthless and needs second effect not related to auto calc battles or sacrificing troops (okay I guess a 3rd effect). There are some nice perks on it though.
1 Late game it doesn't matter, you can roll over everyone and paint the map. If you have built up tactics and disposable troops and want to auto calc all the battles, who cares. The player has already done the hard part of the game and now it's just casual map painting. It doesn't reward the player at all other then sometimes saving 30 seconds of launching an actual battle. And keep in mind if you happen to lose a good troop it's a loss of time because walding your butt over to recruit another particular troops will take longer then just launching the live battle. So example: I CAN auto calc this battle of 500 versus 100 and maybe be fine OR maybe I lose 1 khans guard and then I've LOST TIME rather then saved it because it takes more to replace it it then what I saved. If I re-load the game and try again I've barely saved any time now compared to just doing the fight live. Lol I forgot what 2 was going to be.

I shouldn't have a warrior type character who will eventually get his tactics skill high enough for being better off autoresolving every battle except for siege attacks.
Yeah, I wouldn't make tactics a priority at all. When you've put FP in everything else you want you can add some to tactics just to pick up some of the perks, but there's no reason to be intending to auto resolve battles.
I get equal or better results in every single non siege attack battle by autoresolving. Maybe I'm just doing something horribly wrong then when fighting and commanding the troops myself.
Yeah you don't have to let any good troops get killed in live battle. In live battle you can position your good troops to do max damage in max safety and use junk troops you get along the way or for free from prisoners, to distract and manipulate the enemy, they can die who cares, but you core force remains with few or no losses. In auto calc everyone can get killed and the more of a type of troop you have the more likely that type of troop (like 200 fians or 200 khans guards) gets killed and not your riff raff random troops.
 
Top Bottom