There is an option in the game settings where you can set how much units are needed to enable tactical combat, and if you set it to 0 it will always propose the choice.

Ya I would like to also have the option to tac battle them all, If I auto attack a bandit party with a def rating of 55 and combat rating of 66, with my party which has a def rating of 656, and an attack rating of 702, I lose which makes so much sense, then if I attack them I use Infernal on their party and they die. I dont see how they can win when I have more then a 10x advantage on them.

Not at all.  The game ignores Essence and Intelligence values in combat calculations, and undervalues ranged units.

I just lost the game I was playing because my combat strength 216 stack (including two casters with low attack/defense values but high Essence/Intelligence, and access to disruption spells like Titan's Breath, and two parties of archers) was attacked by a combat strength 230 stack which was two squads of squires or something - 60 hit point, 150 attack/0 defense.

I would have won that fight without casualties.  Blow the enemy back with titan's breath every turn while filling them full of arrows - which would have slaughtered them since they had no armor.

Not a serious imbalance in the game (well, that too, but not *just* that) but an inability of the auto-combat calculator to understand strength that doesn't come from attack values, defense values and hit points.

The only times auto-combat should be used are when one side really massively out-tools the other.

Well the same could be said for those who want tactical battles every time, they can "just turn the threshold down to 0".

Doesn't really matter what the default is - as long as you can change it to your tastes, you can make it whatever you want.

I see now that there is an option, but this is a weird option, its not at all obvious that someone would expect this to be a game option, and its not at all obvious what it does.

If it does stay as an option, at least default it to zero.

the reason the threshold button exists is for multiplayer (and good thing too, though if the autoresolve is THAT bad then I'm sure then the multiplayer community will form house rules of a threshold of 0 - or very low). 

However, it's best to play this single-player with it to 0. Oh no! you have to click one more time. 

Brad said he wanted it to feel like autoresolve would be an option that meant you wouldn't have had needed to fight the battle yourself because the AI was stupid and lost all your units for you.

You have to click one more time... .and you have to even know that this is a game option that you should look for to click!

People should also note; its not like having it set higher than zero saves much clicking; with large combats, the combat screen (where you would chooses between auto or tactical) is still presented to you, its just that the tactical is greyed out, so all you can choose is auto.

At the moment, it doesn't, because it can't recognize utility features, and it thinks that units with very high strength but no defense are good, whereas in reality they'll be annihilated before they ever get to attack anyone.

@Killzemallgod

Okay, so your original premise is that Autoresolve would feel like an option. In other words, if Autoresolve would "feel" like an option then it should be reliable.

Your next assumption, that if its an actual option then you don't NEED to fight the battle yourself ... makes sense. You wouldn't need to fight the battle yourself (Under obvious WIN conditions!!!) if the Autoresolve is reliable and a VALID choice.

Now ... your skip in logic, where your brain must have died, is when you say that the reason Auto-resolve is a VALID option is because the AI is stupid and kills off all your units. So somehow, you go from actually making sense to contradicting yourself. "The Auto-resolve is a valid option because the AI is stupid and gets yourself killed." Is basically what you said.

Now, maybe you were TRYING to say that the AI needs to be smarter because you WANT autoresolve to be a Valid option. But thats not what you actually said. At. All.

Now IS that what you were actually trying to say? That you wanted Auto-resolve to be a valid option?

Or are you simply disillusioned by auto-resolve entirely? Wishing only to laugh at people who actually hope for a decently feasible auto-resolve function between now and the end of time.