Well mention this as part of a larger response - I agree with @shadow_12357 

I also agree with shadow_12357 we could already auto resolve if we wanted to but who wants to coh is all about fighting battles you have literally ruined the game please give us the game back.

At least we should be able to choose auto-resolve or fighting skirmish

Totally agree with the OP. This can't be an improvement. In fact we shoudl get a new achievement which would be play the entire campaign without autoresolving a single battle

There is no excuse for this absolute downgrade. I have been defending CoH3 to my gamer friends since shortly after launch. Taking away the option to skirmish instead of auto-resolve removes half of the playtime of the campaign and it removes those hours from the funnest part - the core part - of the game. Absolutely, unacceptable. This represents a SERIOUS leadership failure Somewhere on the CoH3 team. Put it back or revert to the previous version of the game - this massive downgrade never should have been released, let alone as an “upgrade.” #verydisappointed 

I agree with @shadow_12357

Hopefully I can clarify some points as to why the team decided to change these systems. There were a few issues with the old skirmish system that the Design team wanted to address with the changes in Steel Shepherd. Skirmishes were not removed, they were just moved so they only occur in towns and cities, and not out on the open map. The system is still there, just in a slightly different way.

Primarily, there were far too many skirmishes on the open campaign map that were either very repetitive or very grindy, or simply detracted from the overall enjoyment or momentum of the Campaign. Additionally, a player could just brute force their way through the campaign map by not making very many strategic decisions and just driving a single company right up the map with no support, should they be able to outplay the AI in every skirmish (there were also some bugs that made skirmishes easier than they should have been).

The new changes to the campaign map allow players to make more impactful decisions about scouting, supporting companies, and where and how they spend their resources and assets. The RTS segments now focus on the main missions, with skirmishes now reserved for anytime a friendly Company and enemy Company engage in a town or city (which normally wouldn't trigger a 'story' mission).At least this is my simple understanding of the design problem and the changes made to address it. (But I'm not a Designer, so don't take my word for it.)

All of the above design adjustments to the campaign map in Steel Shepherd were targeting the feedback and pain points that the majority of our campaign players were experiencing and relaying to us before December.

You can get a more detailed answer from one of our Campaign Designers in this interview I conducted with them here. Link should take you to the right timestamp.

John_RE wrote:

Hopefully I can clarify some points as to why the team decided to change these systems. There were a few issues with the old skirmish system that the Design team wanted to address with the changes in Steel Shepherd. Skirmishes were not removed, they were just moved so they only occur in towns and cities, and not out on the open map. The system is still there, just in a slightly different way.

Primarily, there were far too many skirmishes on the open campaign map that were either very repetitive or very grindy, or simply detracted from the overall enjoyment or momentum of the Campaign. Additionally, a player could just brute force their way through the campaign map by not making very many strategic decisions and just driving a single company right up the map with no support, should they be able to outplay the AI in every skirmish (there were also some bugs that made skirmishes easier than they should have been).

The new changes to the campaign map allow players to make more impactful decisions about scouting, supporting companies, and where and how they spend their resources and assets. The RTS segments now focus on the main missions, with skirmishes now reserved for anytime a friendly Company and enemy Company engage in a town or city (which normally wouldn't trigger a 'story' mission).At least this is my simple understanding of the design problem and the changes made to address it. (But I'm not a Designer, so don't take my word for it.)

All of the above design adjustments to the campaign map in Steel Shepherd were targeting the feedback and pain points that the majority of our campaign players were experiencing and relaying to us before December.

You can get a more detailed answer from one of our Campaign Designers in this interview I conducted with them here. Link should take you to the right timestamp.

It is a good thing that you are "listening" to the players--yes there were too many skirmish battles, and to fighting all of them was tiring.

But is it too hard to have a toglle button for the optional fights? Do you have to take away a specific gameplay that I was enjoying?

I only checked campaign today because I miss clicked a button, and then I realize I have all the skill points I haven't used--and I cannot even test them because I don't know when or where I would find the next skirmish battle.

I have not touched the campaign for long, because the campaign is boring, a large part of it was because I cannot stack army, I have only 3-4 units in a big map and I have to attend to every single mission. I don't know why the devs think it is such a great idea to teach the players how to have fun.

You did not make these changes based on player feedbacks, no player with their right mind would say: I don't want an option, please force it on me.

This is ridiculously stupid, and I am saying this with all the respect and love I have for this game.

I also don't see this being seen as player feedback--because there are not enough players playing the campaign who also happened to enjoy these skirmish battles. Again, you didn't have to care about the ten of us out of thousands of players, you also didn't have to take away the option all together.

WE, the players, the customers, the BUYERS, decide what is fun and what is not for each one of US (and however we may want to enjoy the game), not some avant-garde team forcing rules on our taste taking us the right to choose. A choose that was already there in the first place.

Unplayable downgrade.