Auto run/administered cities/commanderies?

[DR GOO]

Devs, you have in the past had a feature where you can choose to opt out of micro managing the many many towns, cities etc by choosing to auto manage and I think this game really needs this feature.

or at the very least, by choosing characters to administer commanderies, means you DON'T have to do it. More administration positions too (even at a cost) or just be able to appoint an administrator and tell him how you want the commandery administered and developed either for commerce, military, food etc.

This is a much needed feature so I can just get on with the war with less of the chore.

[JuX]

Have you actually considered using the "appoint administrator" in the cities tab? It's very straight forward what bonuses you get. Pretty much feature you requested, which been there since day 1

[DR GOO]

Originally posted by JuX:

Have you actually considered using the "appoint administrator" in the cities tab? It's very straight forward what bonuses you get. Pretty much feature you requested, which been there since day 1

Of course, but you are missing what I am trying to say, because you still have to micro-manage the city with buildings/upgrades etc.

[RCMidas]

Which means you know exactly what is being built where and with what of your money. Have you any idea how annoying it would be to find yourself going bankrupt and having no idea why because your auto-administrated settlements are just building and upgrading everything without care for what you actually need for a stable economy?

If you're just in the game for the battles, use Custom Battles. Playing the rest of the game requires some focus on the campaign map, building chains, reforms, and economic planning. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

[DR GOO]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Which means you know exactly what is being built where and with what of your money. Have you any idea how annoying it would be to find yourself going bankrupt and having no idea why because your auto-administrated settlements are just building and upgrading everything without care for what you actually need for a stable economy?

But your administrator would do a great job right? If your settlements were going bankrupt (which they wouldn't with the right administrator) you fire them and hire another, it would be far less annoying than having to do all the micro-managment of many many settlements and leave you free to fight the wars.

It's not like you would need to visit every settlement to manage it in RL so why in this game? So appointing administrators THAT ACTUALLY DO ALL THIS BORING CHORE FOR YOU has to be better than the occasional time you are called to sort out an erring settlement due to a bad administrator.

[DR GOO]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

If you're just in the game for the battles, use Custom Battles. Playing the rest of the game requires some focus on the campaign map, building chains, reforms, and economic planning. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But I am NOT in this game for that, It's an amazing game, I am merely suggesting this feature (which was in other TW games) would make it less boring, and chore oriented. I do know a lot of people like yourself like to be bored out of your mind, probably enjoy this kind of monotony and immersion breaking tedium. That's ok too, we can have it as an option so you can still immerse yourself in a world of self imposed tedium, but allow those more dynamic players to let someone else do that sock washing and get on with fighting the war.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by DR GOO:

Originally posted by RCMidas:

If you're just in the game for the battles, use Custom Battles. Playing the rest of the game requires some focus on the campaign map, building chains, reforms, and economic planning. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But I am NOT in this game for that, It's an amazing game, I am merely suggesting this feature (which was in other TW games) would make it less boring, and chore oriented. I do know a lot of people like yourself like to be bored out of your mind, probably enjoy this kind of monotony and immersion breaking tedium. That's ok too, we can have it as an option so you can still immerse yourself in a world of self imposed tedium, but allow those more dynamic players to let someone else do that sock washing and get on with fighting the war.

Can you express what exactly makes the game awesome for you?

[Nugcrusher]

MR GOO, I have played all previous TW games and I can"t recall where any of them had an "auto" manager. CIV, maybe but not TW...

[Shivans]

Originally posted by Nugcrusher:

MR GOO, I have played all previous TW games and I can"t recall where any of them had an "auto" manager. CIV, maybe but not TW...

Past titles indeed did have it. But in a strategy game, I don't think many used it. Here is an example of one person who does. oh well. Defeats the point of strategy in my opinion.

@OP
As in this title, you can not just build recklessly, or you'll find yourself in debt or without food. Hence why I believe that option isn't in the game. Now to say we like being bored out of our mind is uncalled for. I think its more people who play strategy games, like to manage everything possible. Sure the battles are what make total war games, total war games. The difference here though. This game was released with the epic campaign map and all its features. That was the selling point. So if you don't enjoy that aspect of the game. I would recommend older titles, that put more emphasis on battles. Warhammer for example does an excellent job on that front.
Truthfully your request is a simple one, and I do believe it should be added to the game. However I can't understand why you are playing a total war strategy game if you feel like its a chore to manage your buildings, cities, provinces, and administrators/Governers.
As someone else suggested, custom battles or taking things to Multiplayer might be your thing.

[EternallyHers]

To be fair to the OP, some people might get bored just doing custom battles and want to do army management and move around a map. Some people also don't want to play online, so offline is really the only things they look at. I enjoy playing on legendary, but couldn't be bothered to play online matches.

While it would let some people just focus on the battles. It'd make the game worse in a couple of ways. These are just some thoughts looking at it in a game design perspective.

Imagine if you're strapped for cash, so you start selling food via diplomacy. But the AI building your city might be building the next city type in the chain which requires more food which you won't have anymore. Or building the peasentry building which sells food for cash. Well then you'd be screwed because there could become a food shortage.

Plus there is some buildings which goes from selling 8 food for like 220 peasentry, but then it can sell 24 food for 300 peasentry, which isn't worth it early game although the AI might chose to build it earlier in the game.

Or imagine if you want to raise an army but the AI is busy spending all of your money on cities. You'd have to go through all of the cities, figure out what to cancel so that you can raise an army.

Or when the AI is building cities, it'd have to consider how far you are into the game so that it doesn't screw you over by not building buildings which reduce corruption.

There's so many small things that would need to be considered, that it'd probably need to be a pretty major overhaul to get a feature like that to work good. It's not as simple as people assume it'd be. It'd need to work well with everything considered.

Examples of fixes would be that the AI would have to look at the buildings and food every end turn, so that it can avoid money or food shortages. Plus they could implement a feature which tells the AI to leave at least X amount of money available so that you can plan out when to recruit armies.

That's not to say that in the future the developers won't add it. But there needs to be enough people to use the feature to justify them making it.

[minja]

I'm also in the camp of not understanding why you wouldn't want to manage those things yourself.

But the weirdness of wanting to avoid strategic decisions in a strategy game aside, the actual implementation of this would be awful.

Just look at Stellaris, for comparison. As you expand, that game actually forces you to set up sectors under AI management. And the AI is freakin' garbage at it. And I would argue Paradox is vastly more experienced than CA is at coding intricate, turn-based, grand strategy games.

Besides, if CA's AI could effectively manage economies, it wouldn't need so much "help" on higher difficulty levels to create the illusion of challenge.

[DR GOO]

hahaha losers

[DR GOO]

It also bugs me there are not any female units

[Mountain King]

Claims that he's not just playing for the battles, then refers to one of the most important features of the game next to battling as "sock washing" and says he wants someone else to do it so he can get back to the battles. The posts since then make it even more clear that OP is either a troll or just a child with a short attention span who wants half the game to just play itself.

[Du'u no Dewae]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Which means you know exactly what is being built where and with what of your money. Have you any idea how annoying it would be to find yourself going bankrupt and having no idea why because your auto-administrated settlements are just building and upgrading everything without care for what you actually need for a stable economy?

If you're just in the game for the battles, use Custom Battles. Playing the rest of the game requires some focus on the campaign map, building chains, reforms, and economic planning. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

This is a STUPID argument! All the past total war games had a settlement auto manage system, where you could set the Ai to prioritize certain buildings over others (Financial build, military build, Growth, Culture...)

This (and being able to auto manage taxes for individual settlements) would prevent you from going bankrupt.

[Onimaho]

I don't see a problem with this. It did indeed exist for the older total wars games...like medieval II total war, which most players utilized.

Would be not that difficult to piece together since the game already breaks down each commandary having food, trade, or industrial villages. AI would just min max based on your tech for those villages.

Like previous total war games, a player can always go in and make a change.