+1 for automating tedious battles. The more the outcomes resemble actual battlescape session, the better. However, some very simplified abstract formulas would also work; at least at first. As to soldier loses in such battles: I expect some tweaking / configuration would solve this. Plus self-imposed half-ironman, i.e. only for automated battles. I really, really don't want to spend time equipping 12 of my soldiers only to arrive, search, find, shoot and kill 1 zombie that was hiding in the closet on the opposite end of the map. 1 zombie vs 12 soldiers should (almost?) never result in a soldier being lost (wounded is fine). But 12 soldiers vs 30 zombies is a different story.
There are so many cool things one could do with such a feature. E.g.:
- allow to decide if the player wants to do auto-battle upon arrival, when enemy type and count is better known.
- allow the player to order retreat, if the auto-battle is not going well. This might still incur loses, but possibly less.
- decide how careful the soldiers should be, willing to risk their life to capture a live specimen. More risky mission orders could result in bigger payoffs (more enemies captured, less destruction, less civilian deaths) but also result in possibly bigger loses, due to the ordered restraint.
- limit the amount of missions player can command manually; e.g. one per week max. The rest has to be auto-resolved.
- make the ability to auto-resolve a mission be unlocked as a reward, if the player previously won 5+ of missions of given type, or against given enemy type, or both.
- allow to auto-resolve given mission only if the player has crushing advantage, given some formula. Like at least 2 to 1.
- decide which soldiers are on the front-line (rookies, naturally) and which are hanging out in the back and thus at lesser risk.
I think this has huge potential to make the game more streamlined and enjoyable.
