The problem is:
1) There is the possibility of abusing cheap units like troopers to break the balance on the campaign map (like a glitch). Like Stabbey wrote: you lose less units weithed in gold than the enemy with the bigger army....
2) There is the intention to "force" people to engage in RTS which is bad decision in itself. If I don't like RTS that much there shouldn't be any mechanism "by design" which let me worse off. At least the game should give me the possiblity to avoid that. Else people who don't like RTS gaming that much will be forced to play the battles on the field which is perhaps not what they initially wanted. Sure, you can always reduce game difficulty. But that's not the best solution imo.
3) The mechanic which motivate yourself to engage in combat would be even better WITHOUT the RTS in autoresolve. When you have a clear 0% chance to win (or 5% or something) and you still want to attack a country there is no other way than engaging yourself in battle. On the other hand: with RTS involved in autoresolve the motivation to engage in combat is ALWAYS the same. Is that better than the way without RTS involved in autoresolve where you are more motivated to engage with a small chance to win and less motivated with a big chance to win?
To the point: the balance of fight on the campaign map is bad as it is now. It's not well balanced and not well thought.
IF you want to have a real random element on the campaign map battles, use a dice system just like when playing Risk (the board game)......at least this concept proved to work well...
