Autoresolve ideas

[Lost Angel]

As a suggestion, the game should gather statistics on how you complete the missions and given similar balance adjust for your skill level, that is if I tend to complete most missions with max 2 soldiers wounded, it should boost up my success rate in autoresolve as opposed to when I get my soldiers killed on average, my autoresolve should accordingly have higher fatality ratio.
Why this makes sense? Because many of us don't have too much time to invest in every mission, yet after 2-3 autoresolves the squad is shredded to nothing, while with the same squad played manually I get maybe 1 dead in 4 missions (I do retry).
I am not sure what the exact learning algorithm should be, how complex to make it, but I guess it should rely on current system, just adjust success/failure chances via learning curve considering fatalities, number of wounded, soldiers XP level.
Any ideas?

[jerm]

I don't think it should work that way. It's way too easy to run a few AMAZING missions (from reloads) then autoresolve all the way to victory.

If anything, it should run on a more linear algorithm based on gear score (*gasp! prepares to be lynched by WoW scrubs*) Something like, (Total Aliens gear score)(Some RNG value for kicks)-(PhalanX squad gear score)(Some RNG modifier here too)=% chance to win. Of course, not knowing what the aliens are packing and the RNG modifier would even it out a bit. If the aliens outnumber and outgear you=autoloss. I suppose the soldier's rank and skill should also factor into the RNG modifier for Phalanx members.

Just a thought.

[Lost Angel]

well, the autoresolve adjustment should be more clever, meaning the more battles you win - the more solid your success modifier - I've done  over 300 missions by now and as I sign in - I have 4 downed fighters and 1 flying to be shot... come on...

[jerm]

Aircraft combat is a different issue, but I think I saw somewhere that pilot skill is going to be implemented. But it has something to do with how piss-poor earth-based Phalanx aircraft are. Scouts can be taken out by single aricraft. UFO fighters need at least 2 crafts to shoot down safely (with pre-laser weaponry and even then, have 2 just in case). Transports/Terror ships are not even possible with 2 ships and laser weaponry. There's simply not enough damage to take it down. You'll need at least plasma cannons.

The autoresolve mentioned by OP is the tactical mission autoresolve function.

[Lost Angel]

Jerm, indeed, I mean tactical missions. For aircraft the balance is fine - I'm pre-lazer (I have it, but not researching yet) and I can shoot down pretty much any craft by luring it into heavily guarded landspot with a base and a couple of sam sites just fine... what can be done there is something of an optional mini battle screen letting the user take that dogfight manually to some degree.

[geever]

You'll need at least plasma cannons.

There is no plasma cannon for aircraft.

-geever

[gargy2002]

UFO fighters need at least 2 crafts to shoot down safely

2 crafts? I just target the fighter and wait until the fighter is flying towards the interceptor, then order the interceptor return back to base and SAM sites (Base defence) smash the fighter down very easy..

[Lost Angel]

speaking of which - making alien fighters smarter might make sense too - so they don't fly into sams so easily, but then they'll be way too strong...

[UFOtonic]

speaking of which - making alien fighters smarter might make sense too - so they don't fly into sams so easily, but then they'll be way too strong...

Well, they are not so dumb in 2.4... If you place two SAM sites that are very near one to each other, but not near enough to supperimpose their field of action, Fighters (not sure now if only also other UFOs) that approach to your base having the SAM sites in the middle, are clever enough to go through that "hole" of your defense line... Just considering the possibility of having smarter fighters patrolling the sky by pairs made me feel a bit worried...  

In 2.4, I have also noticed that at least some UFOs tend to change their direction more often, so they are not as predictable as in previous builds. It's a nice improvement.

[Lost Angel]

I'm on 2.4 and I don't have the holes you're mentioning, so can't veryfy - my every base is heavily concentrated with sams, so they really stand little chance, rarely they reach the base and then it is tactical battle

[rlilewis]

As a suggestion, the game should gather statistics on how you complete the missions and given similar balance adjust for your skill level, that is if I tend to complete most missions with max 2 soldiers wounded, it should boost up my success rate in autoresolve as opposed to when I get my soldiers killed on average, my autoresolve should accordingly have higher fatality ratio.
Why this makes sense? Because many of us don't have too much time to invest in every mission, yet after 2-3 autoresolves the squad is shredded to nothing, while with the same squad played manually I get maybe 1 dead in 4 missions (I do retry).
I am not sure what the exact learning algorithm should be, how complex to make it, but I guess it should rely on current system, just adjust success/failure chances via learning curve considering fatalities, number of wounded, soldiers XP level.
Any ideas?

Just want to say that I agree with your original point. In medieval total war and games similar each army (I use the term army loosely) that was led by a lord/general would gain command stars as you win more and more battles and I think you lost stars (even going negative) if you lose battles.

These command stars are then used in part to decide the outcome of an autoresolve battle along with number of troops on each side and the quality of said troops. I really like that system because you put effort into fighting the manual battles to train up your generals so that in future you can autoresolve with confidence that the outcome will be favourable.

However UFO AI lacks any clear leader of a squad since ranks are gained automatically rather than being appointed by the player's choice. I would prefer to clearly designate a member of the squad who will act as the leader and then any battles won/lost will confer command experience to them. Also I think the automatic rank ups should be changed from ranks to simply a measure of a soldier's experience in battle. So instead of private -> lance-corporal -> corporal etc you would have rookie -> Junior -> Experienced -> veteran -> hardened veteran etc... This could act as a guage of troop quality in combination with a scoring system for the gear they are using.

Would be nice if other ranks could be appointed like lieutenant and seargents and they will receive a portion of command experience (higher amount for higher ranking officers) so they can get some passive training and when you build a new base you don't have to start completely from scratch as you can make your lieutenant the commander for the new force and promote all the others to fill the gaps.

[jerm]

Hmmm... reminds of commander units in WH40k:Dawn of War. "Walk softly and carry a big gun."
"Slay the xeno, the mutant, the heretic!"