Most realistic difficulty level?

[LordSardar]

Hi everyone,

New user here, finally getting a chance to play MTW2. Used to play a lot of RTW before

Question for you history buffs - based on your expereince with the game/knowledge of history, in this period etc - which difficulty setting do you find is the most realistic or bring the most realism to the game? I obviously want something challenging, but not something that is unreasonable/not realistic (if you noticed, in some other games...AI's hardest difficulty levels is just AI "cheating").

Please let me know!

Thanks

[Veho Nex]

Hi, welcome to the forum.

Well none really... But Vh is a good challenge. If you want realism I recomend you check out some of the mods.

[TevashSzat]

Well, I personally found the AI to be too easy and its not that bad even on VH/VH. It really isn't that hard at all as long as you are half decent at commanding battles on the battle map

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Battles: very hard. You fight on equal terms with the AI.

Campaign: medium or hard. On very hard diplomacy isn't working and the AI faction's attacks like madmen weakening their own position. Once you have beaten them back it becomes very easy. You will notice that at the time when you have late units the AI still has town militia and so on. On medium or hard the AI is more cautious and upgrades its castles and cities better which gives it a better chance to train better armies.

[Yoyoma1910]

I agree whole heartedly with Monsieur Alphonse.


VH/M or H.

It depends if I want to try and collect Vassals (M) or annihilate the opponents who cross me (H).

[Thermal]

battles hard campaign normal, however if u add moneys to the EDB (i.e extra tax and stuff) i would put campiagn on hard, as computer spend wildly on hard, but if they have the finance, they won't go bankupt with it

[MStumm]

I am having a good time on VH/VH right now as the Byz. Everyone hates me and wants to invade me, and I always have to be on the lookout, so its been great. I do have to keep large garrisons this time around, so I've been unable to spread like the scourge all over the world so far.

Why do you want realistic difficulty, when the fun one is better I think?

[Fookison]

I find myself playing mostly with a Medium Campaign and Very Hard Battles to get the most satisfaction out of games.... That is my preference for a balanced game.

[Mystic]

havent played campaign since medievel 1 first came out. just bought m2 a few days ago and im having the most drawn out slow campaign ever. playing as english im around turn 110 and ive just been in a fist fight with france milan and denmark for what seems like forever and it seems like its never going to end. by the time i defeat the french the mongols will control 75% of the map. i have it on medium campaign and hard battles. ive had some great wars so far and although i havent moved forward since taking dublin and edinburgh im really enjoying the gameplay and the challenge.

[Sic semper tyrannis]

My 6 month first campaign is going pretty well as the Brits. I guess I got lucky in that the Hungarians are pretty huge and stopped the Mongols in their tracks at Constantinople, forcing an effective stalemate. I guess after that the Mongols wanted friends so we are now allied against Hungary. I have 40 some odd turns left and only need 8 territories and Jerusalem for the long game victory. I've eliminated the Scots, French, HRE, Sicilians, and the Danes are hiding behind their walls while I starve out their last settlement.

I'm playing Med/Med and I have the following observations to share:
The battlefield AI can be a joke. At times they will charge me with everything they have and essentially render my archer-heavy armies ineffective. However, it's when they stick their infantry units within range and just mill around helplessly that makes me frown and speed it up to 6x until they rout.
On the campaign map, they do pretty well. Factions will play with different styles. Venice, for example, stacks so many spies in their cities that I can't even hope to get a peek inside, while the Danes were vulnerable to me sowing dissent in their towns with spies and assassins. They will march around with several small armies (1-3 units) together, rather than combining them. I suspect some of their money is gained by illicit means though. In my campaign, Milan is completely landlocked by my own regions (think South Africa), but supports 4+ full stacks on the income of two regions, even after I cut off trade rights in an attempt to impoverish them. On the other hand, I often capture castles/cities that are in dire need of a size upgrade, so either they don't have lots of free money or they need help in that area too.

Overall, I'm satisfied that it's going so well, but next time around (maybe Portugal or HRE?) I will bump it up to H/H. My only fear is that the behind-the-scenes campaign stuff will be just AI cheating rather than more effective playing. Wouldn't be much fun to beat your opponent into a corner and suddenly have them recruit 10 elite units per castle and counterattack.

[cambovenzi]

alright guys, i have a quick question about game difficulty.
are auto-resolve battles determined by the campaign or battle difficulty setting?
i seem to have forgotten and am confused on the subject.

in relation to that, if someone could point me in the direction of where i can find all the difficulty setting differences, that would be great.
googling didnt go as planned:furious3: :)

[cambovenzi]

eh i just tested it out.
autoresolved battles fall under the campaign difficulty like i thought.
(which would explain why my general and some militia archers walked through half a stack

still interested in a link to the other specifics tho, if anyone has them.

[cambovenzi]

as far as realism, i tend to like a hard campaign difficulty, so the diplomatic game is more realistic.(not everyone attacking you, almost no matter what)

as far as realism for battle difficulty, it has to be very hard.
i find there are many exploits or easy ways to beat the AI on hard.
at times the AI will just st there until you engage in melee cmobat. you can often surround them, charge a flank, or pick off a couple units with archers/crossbowmen.

the autoresolve feature on hard is much harder than actually playing the battles yourself in most situations.
i know they both say "hard" but that doesnt mean it is even.
i can often easily wipe the AI off the field in battle, but if i autoresolve, it often leans the other way.
i dont mind this at all, unless it is a massive fight with too many units for my liking, or a ticky tack battle that i dont feel like fighting.
as far as auto-resolve realism goes, i think hard is the most realistic. you need staggering odds on VH to win most battles. medium is far too easy on many fronts, and can easily autoresolve a win in the majority of fights with anything close to even odds or better.

[Old Geezer]

Yes, sic semper tyranus, Milan is cheating. When an AI faction drops to IIRC 3 settlements it gets a special bailout from the programmers.

I am glad to see the general consensus agrees with my experience as to the effects of the levels of difficulty. VH is probably the easiest campaign (stategy) level to play on after the initial rush by 3 or 4 of the AI factions, because usually after I weather that around turn 50 the rest of the campaign is a mop-up and waiting for the Mongols to appear and be toyed with. Were it not for my stupid pride I'd probably be playing on medium level or normal or whatever it is called in the campaign and leave it on VH for the battles.

[rvg]

I play on VH/VH. For the ultimate total war experience.

[MStumm]

I play on VH/VH. For the ultimate total war experience.

Hell yeah! :viking:

[Armenia_Byzantium]

I play on VH/VH. For the ultimate total war experience.

i dont wanna rush into things so i play normal campaign/medium battle

:shame::sweatdrop:

[Lancome]

I agree VH/VH is a complete Joke! Late game the enemy is running around with a ton of Militia and maybe just maybe 1 Late game unit. I do agree that they trash their economy.... I just started a Game as Portugal.... Gotta love Portuguese Knights.... anyways I put the $ cheat and I went around Giving every Faction 200 gran..... *ahem* -.- except the mongols and the Timurids.

[cassu]

Most realistic gaming experience i have is from a seljuk campagin in Broken Crescent, there was a bug or something with the AI that caused everyone to make alliances with everyone. Because everyone was (nearly) everyones friend so not many wars started and factions grew rich and strong. The only wars were Jerusalem against ERE and Ayuub, ERE against turks. So when the mongol invasion came (about 1200 something) the ERE had all of anatolia and a equal army with the mongols :dizzy2:. After the turks were dealt with th ERE attacked the abbasid caliphate but i attacked too on the next turn and got cheaply all but one province from them because there army was being wasted on Romans :beam:. I have the seljuk lands and conquerd omani with a tresury of about 400k and a equal army with the ERE. What makes this game so realistic is that there are no easy pray anymore because: A) They have cash to raise a next mongol army in a heartbeat B) If they have no cash they have about 20 full stacks running around. The game was M/M 1.05 patch with extra AI patches.

[Alp Arlsan]

M/M would be the most realistic difficulty level as neither you nor the AI have any aid. Unfortunately this is too easy for most TWers so I would suggest that you bump it up to H/H for a challenge without ridiculous bonuses.