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.

I've had a problem because of which I can't start the game for the 3rd day

Let's give players the options.

I agree with the OP. They should bring back the option to choose if you want to skip a battle. Also as an ideea, an option to replace main missions with skirmishes. 

Italian Campaign improvements will come with 1.7.0 so there is still a chance that our wishes will come true.

Hello everyone,

Sorry,I am a little bit late on the hour, but better late than never.

I would like to say that :  i am more than more and even more totally and entirely in agreement too with the author and 99% of the contributors on this forum.

I am one of the old Company of Heroes players, I started on the first opus almost at the beginning.
And I can say it, I had a lot of fun playing and I was even happy to spend MY hard-earned MONEY to buy all the DLC that added a real plus to the game.

I continued on the 2 where I have more than 4000 hours of online play. (thanks to the workshop)

From this opus, I began to see the change in policy of the developers:
- Less interesting DLC
- Really superficial additional campaign.
- Number of playable online maps rather limited.
- but especially the addition of a whole bunch of mini DLC in order to modify your online profile by adding totally useless skins, but of course paid.

By the way, I want to salute and say a big thank you to all the content creators who spent thousands of hours creating all these maps as well as the multiple game mods.
Without them, the game would not have been what it is.

As for COH3, at the beginning when you were promoting the game, with a lot of trailer videos, and very little gameplay, I admit I was tempted.
But I still waited for the game to come out before deciding.
And then, once it was out, after watching several gameplay videos, and all the comments I finally gave up spending MY MONEY.

I let myself be tempted a little over a year after its release, when the game was on sale at -75%. Mainly for the campaign, which seemed to offer a real renewal for the license.

The idea was very interesting, but in reality, the gameplay of the game itself as well as the few units offered, and the different possibilities of managing this campaign greatly tainted my enthusiasm.
So much so that I took a lot of time to do this campaign. Which I never finished once (I especially took a lot of breaks between each game played)
And the best was having to start it again from 0 with each new update ?.
I also want to point out that I had to do some things like three online games.

So when I went back after this famous update, I admit I didn't understand.
I first thought that it was an option that had been added in order to choose the battle resolution mode, and that I would not have chosen the right option.
I looked in the menus to see if it was possible to change that, but it was impossible.
And so I haven't touched the game since.
And I never spent a single cent of MY MONEY, to buy all the totally useless skins again.

All you had to do was make the skirmishes more difficult by adding bonuses or penalties depending on the environment and the army you're facing.
But that would have taken you more time and especially more MONEY.

In any case, thank you Relic or THQ. You convinced me...
The only effect it had is that now I won't buy any of your games.
I think you're making fun of the world.
And all your justifications for improving the dynamics of the game by changing this option are totally pitiful.

You are far from having the notoriety and the attention to detail of the Rockstar studio, to be able to allow yourself to have this kind of idea.
Especially when 99% of users complain about this orientation.

That said, Rockstar had the same effect on my behavior as you.
They had created what could have been the game of the century with Rdr2 and Rdo.
But after the total abandonment of the game to focus on the future GTA6 which would bring in much more money because it reaches a larger community.
I made the same decision.
I will not buy GTA6.

And releasing a whole bunch of DLC to offer skins, or internal currency at totally unreasonable prices when the game has just been released and is not even finished, is really taking consumers for milk cows.

I imagine that the other participants think like me.
It would never have bothered me in the least to spend MY MONEY, to buy REAL content that would bring a real plus to the game.
But spending hundreds of coins for appearance skins, that is completely unthinkable for me.

So yes, investors have money, and of course they expect a return on this investment, but they are not the ones buying the games ?

For COH4, you will just have to try to do like Rockstar, and sell new additional units separately at an exorbitant price ?

As we said in my country, don't take bladders for lanterns...

Good luck to you for your future.