The speed with which a 'reasonable' PC can load the tactical battle is also relevant here.  In the Total War series, my tactical battles would take minutes to load which much slowed gameplay.  While I enjoy the tactical battles very much, the slow load speed first caused me to go to autoresolve then to quit playing the game.

If the tactical battles loaded quickly, then the player could glance at the battle and decide whether to play it or autoresolve it since sometimes the tactical situation is surprisingly interesting.  I would prefer this to simply having a pre-battle odds estimate.

Regarding surrender, I believe it would be a reasonable option to have.  In fact, I would even suggest an involuntary auto surrender when the player is running the battle.  If I had eight crossbowmen facing eight dragons and certain death, it is not unreasonable for those eight men to say 'scr*w this, I have a family!* and surrender before they fry.  I guess this comes down to the player's preference for control versus realism.  I prefer the realism while others prefer to order their e-troops to certain death to slightly weaken the enemy.  Perhaps this ought to be an option the player can choose.

Any crossbowman of mine that ran away for something as puny as eight dragons would end up on my stove. Just saying.

That being said I like the idea of units routing and then fleeing beyond my control. Maybe there could even be a quest related to this, like bringing the cowards in for punishment.

Was it the old WoM game where troops who ran from a battle might end up..

- Becoming bandits or

 - becoming mercenaries or

 - Rejoining your forces or

 - Going home (disbanding)?

I like your idea of a 'Quest to Punish Cowards' option.  Each time you successfully completed such a quest it might make your troops less likely to surrender or desert because they would become more afraid of you than of the eight dragons.  Good Idea!

Is there any possibility of using an autoresolve type component that would allow me to have assasin units capable of killing soveirgns or weakening large armies in an autoresolve battle?

Best part of playing disciples is the thief aspect.

Great post, and great ideas.

Is there any word on a unit limt in a given battle?

Having a text details window is interesting, but we're in the 21st century. Since you provide a graphical battle view, why don't you propvide a graphical battle replay? (Think Dominions)

You can auto resolve, and if the fight went badly, you look the details in a graphical window rather than in a hard-to-glance text details window.

This replayer could be really interesting not only for those who want to see why an automated battle went wrong, but also if you want to look back at the battle you just played (maybe you want to look that animation when you killed the enemy channeler again). Might even export it as a video so you can upload your best battles on youtube.

Another way to help the instant resolve work well: Emulate the battle first, and then have the hero or general say what he expects the results to be (and be mostly correct) something like:

We've got some good intel on this group, we expect to be able to crush them with no casulties.

or

They look quite strong, but we should only have light losses if you provide magical support.

or

This is a close one, my lord. Possibly you should lead it?

or

These are hopeless odds. Leave us to our fate.

Ie generally the auto resolve should be an option for trivial battles that are not interesting - ones where the conclusion is prety certain.

That would be pretty sweet, but I wouldn't want it to go as far as a 3d rendered replay of the entire fight. Just use a cloth map of the battlefield.

After all, historical battles are traditionally represented with a map of the terrain and colored arrows showing the movement of troops. That's a pretty iconic image, for me at least, and it would be easier to take in at a glance than watching the entire battle play out graphically.