If a match between two armies is simulated like an RTS AI vs AI battle there is no point that the result would be different because the AI would be identical. [...]
I think (and that's my honest opinion) that there shouldn't be an RTS simulation in the background because it's completely pointless.
I don't think there is. I just said that it is (or the results are)
balanced accordingly.
And I don't agree that autoresolving would be superior to personally engaging in battle:
It used to be in older builds, for a simple reason:
When you go into RTS, you have to build a base and produce more troops.
This will almost inevitably lead to higher losses (at least for me, and I assume the average player as well).
In contrast, autoresolve produced the results one would expect from directly putting the units against each other, without any additional units produced during the fight, i.e. a single trooper did not cause such high losses as it does now.
Consequently, in such cases using RTS was a bad idea, because autoresolve used to give more consistent and lower losses.
You know what I mean now?
Actually I think our oppinion on the matter is not so different, I merely argue that it is that way for
balancing reasons.
Bringing it more in line with expectations would however potentially favor autoresolve over RTS again, unless RTS is rebalanced a bit as well
Not to engage personally in battle shouldn't be rewarded.....
Before you used to be punished for doing so, which isn't so great either.
