Any tips for getting through a campaign faster?

[cpgray]

I was just wishing there was a way to have a quicker game of MTW. I just played my first complete campaign in a long time and it took several weeks to finish, even doing auto resolution of most battles in the final stages. I'm going to try the GA route next time. I was just wondering if there were any other ways to have the fun of a campaign without investing that much time.

[Brandy Blue]

You could try making up your own victory conditions. Just quit when you meet them.

[drone]

Welcome to the Org, cpgray! ~:wave:

It takes me months to finish a campaign, mainly because of real life and my insistence to fight each and every battle. Once I reach the point where huge battles are common, I can only get through 1 or 2 turns a session. The missus does not approve of me coming to bed at 3am. :girlslap: I think most people stop playing a campaign once it becomes inevitable victory is certain.

In battle, use the unit grouping tool to move units around faster. When waiting for the enemy to come to you, during rout cleanup, or knocking down walls with arty, use the slider bar to up the speed a little.

On the campaign map, make a system for managing provinces. I love to micromanage everything, so I spend a lot of time here and have an order of tasks to speed things up. Goes something like this:

Army movement. Fix up the stacks, move them where they need to be, merge depleted units, and set depleted units for retraining.
Agent movement.
Ship movement.
Open up a province scroll, and open the buildings scroll for the province. Queue buildings as necessary. Also check happiness and religious status. Hit the Next Province button, repeat. Repeat until original province pops up again. Close buildings scroll, open recruitment scroll, and cycle through as before.


Do you always start from the Early period? You could try a Late campaign, this will force a quicker pace with the deadline fast approaching. Also, have you tried the VI campaign? The smaller map definitely shortens the game.

[Trapped in Samsara]

It takes me months to finish a campaign, mainly because of real life and my insistence to fight each and every battle.

Hi

I could have written Drone's post. (Except the part about his missus, of course.)

The way I see it, you are enacting an epic 350 year span of history. It is only right that it should consume a significant chunk of your existence. So for me this is part of the magic of MTW; almost a role-playing feature.

However, if the duration of each campaign really is a huge problem, then you could try using auto tax and build. But I shudder to think what your AI civil servants would make of your empire.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[cpgray]

Thanks to Brandy Blue, drone, and victorgb for the helpful thoughts.

I consider myself still learning the game and although I've completed one campaign (starting in the Early Period) I've actually started more than 6 to try different strategies or practice something I learned since I started the last one.

As in all things, it is good to remember it is not the destination but the journey. In fact, I'm gonna make that my sig quote.

[Trapped in Samsara]

I consider myself still learning the game...

Hi Cpgray

I've been playing MTW since it was first released. I reckon in all those years I've played twenty, maybe twenty five campaigns, always from early. In only three cases did I not achieve victory (Almohad, Aragon & Bohemian factions in various mods).

I too am still learning the game.

To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.
Robert Louis Stevenson

Best regards
Victor

Saper aude
Horace

[cpgray]

Hi Cpgray

To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.
Robert Louis Stevenson



Very true, and one of my favorite writers, too.

Thanks for the insight, victorgb.

[Plato]

I prefer Glorious Achievement mode. It ought to make the game slightly faster, but it won't halve the time it takes to complete. And, as long as you're having fun, what are a few days here and there?

Having played STW before, I think I only played Domination mode once immediately upon getting MTW. Since then it's been GA (Mods excepted), and only large factions - I've not worked up the courage to attempt a full campaign as the Danes.

In GA mode you're mostly competing against the AI rather than out to conquer it, and you might have an indication in which direction you are expected to expand. Hence your empire will be smaller and should be at peace for much of the time. However, that doesn't mean you should get complacent and keep clicking End Turn.

I recently completed an old savegame of Novgorod Late. With two accounting dates still to go, I was leading the table by a small margin from the Spanish and Byzantines. Unfortunately, I could only bank on 6 points for holding Muscovy. The Spanish would get 12 (four each for Leon, Castile and Valencia) and the Byzantines plenty for Asia Minor and the Balkans. The Byz were within range over the Black Sea, but I need to create a convoy to send a spoiler force to northern Spain from the Baltic. It ultimately proved suicidal for the troops I sent as the HRE and English went hostile, cutting off any reinforcements. However, the points denied and the many thousands of florins in plunder were conducive to victory in the end.

[cpgray]

Thanks, Plato,

I've begun trying out GA mode. It seems to require more knowledge of the game. So far the only crusade I've tried was a dismal failure, so I'll study tips and practice that separately. I was following frogbeastegg's advice to beginners to start with the domination mode, since you're freer to do what you want.

I hadn't thought yet about the strategy of thwarting your rivals GAs as well as promoting your own. So I'll keep that in mind, too.

[Gilrandir]

Thanks, Plato,

I've begun trying out GA mode. It seems to require more knowledge of the game. So far the only crusade I've tried was a dismal failure, so I'll study tips and practice that separately. I was following frogbeastegg's advice to beginners to start with the domination mode, since you're freer to do what you want.

I hadn't thought yet about the strategy of thwarting your rivals GAs as well as promoting your own. So I'll keep that in mind, too.
When I crusade I never go to the destination on foot. Firstly, I make sure there is a chain of my ships to the province in question. Secondly, I amass the necessary troops in a province where the crusade marker is. Then I aim the crusade, fill the crusading stack and deliver it to the respective province. Next turn you are there and chasing infidels out of the province. All my crusades plotted that way were successful. It is true, though, that sometimes I couldn't hold on to the captured province, but it was only 5-7 years later.

[cpgray]

Yep, Gilrandir,

That is exactly the mistake I made. I tried to march through Almohad Morocco and Algeria to get to Tunisia and lost the first battle in Morocco because I hadn't built up the crusade sufficiently.

Oh, well, live and learn ... or die and learn as the case may be.

[gaijinalways]

That is a tough one. Drone's comments parallel my own, including the wife who is not happy to ever see me playing PC games (yet she'll watch dramas for hours, go figure). Autoresolving some of the battles will speed things up, but mostly just allowing the time. I do sometimes use the speed slider too, but it is worrying when troops run off and you missed it as your had the speed in hyperdrive!

Happy battling,

GA

[cpgray]

Thanks, gaijinalways,

This is the conclusion I've come to. Another opportunity to learn a zen lesson: "don't push the river". This game is so enjoyable because of the whole way it fully absorbs your attention for a long time.

"The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time
Any fool can do it
There ain't nothing to it
Nobody knows how we got to
The top of the hill
But since we're on our way down
We might as well enjoy the ride" -- James Taylor

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

I prefer GA mode, and will select it in preference to psycho-dominator mode if whichever mod I'm playing supports it. I feel GA mode is somehow a bit more 'historically accurate' than the domination game - obviously I'm stretching here. And having no strategic objective other than conquering provinces gets dull once I've got a viable empire of, say, eight to ten provinces and a net +ve income of, say, 1k to 2k florins a year to invest. (I'm a graduate of the accountancy school of MTW.)

The 'crusade to the Levant' tasks are far and away the most difficult to earn the points from, in my experience - partly because of my slow, builder, style. By the time I've assembled my crusade and gotten some fleets in place, the destination will have seen one or other of the Byzantines, Egyptians or Ottomans grow strong enough to put up a serious fight, or have enough fleets to make an amphibious landing directly in the target province impossible. Or both.

I think I've only ever managed to pull one off once. And, IIRC, I thought at the time I'd gotten a bit lucky - I think I killed the Egyptian or Ottoman 'king' in battle en route to Tripoli/Antioch which eliminated the dynasty, collapsed the opposition, and rid the seas of their fleets, leaving me with just uncoordinated rebels to dispose of.

I believe I am right in saying that even in glorious achievement mode you will get offered a victory if/when you've conquered 60% of the provinces.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Pikenier]

I believe I am right in saying that even in glorious achievement mode you will get offered a victory if/when you've conquered 60% of the provinces.

That is true. There is no need to choose conquest mode at all.
When selecting Glorious Achievement mode you can also win by conquering 60%. And if you continue also the 100% conquest victory is included. Or just wait until the endyear 1453 - then the Glory Points decide the victor.

Oh and GA has other adavantages as well. When a factions gets destroyed and reappears later in the campaign their Glory Points have been deleted. So they have to start new from zero points. Can be of some advantage for the human player.
And the greatest advantage is that all goals are optional. You (and the AI) are not forced to fulfill all of them. As long as you have the most points at the end it doesn´t matter if e.g. all crusades failed or something like that. ;-)

edit: When selecting a late (1321) campaign then the campaign is over faster obviously.
Glory Points help also as you can hold your empire smaller and don´t need to conquer 2/3 of the map. Fewer battles = fewer hours to play.
Try always to invade with superior numbers. Cause often the AI retreats to the castle or leaves the province resulting in fewer battles also.
Never fight siege battles - wait until the garrison surrenders. Use assassins or spies to open the gates and take over the castle at night. So you don´t have to wait three or four years and have to fear the enemies bringing a relief force from nearby provinces.
Try also to kill enemy royal families either in battles or with your assassins. Maybe a high trained Inquisitor can also burn some princes. When the faction gets destroyed (=no family members left) their troops get rebells. Easier to conquer as they don´t interact anymore. You can collect the provinces one after another.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

All that Pikenier says is true. But I generally try to avoid killing off a faction in its entirety. Wherever possible, and obviously allowing for strategic geographic considerations (you do not want a hostile province in the middle of your empire's hinterland) I will leave a faction a single province for as long as possible. The reason: that way you avoid, or at least cut down on, faction reappearances.

Now these ARE one of the spicier, more exciting aspects of MTW, I feel. I'm sure all vets have had the 'OMFG! What the hell is that?!' experience when a souped up multi mega stack reappearance is announced in your empire (shoudln't happen unless you've not been managing province happiness and garrison numbers properly) or, more likely, in an adjacent AI empire which is tottering. And some provinces (e.g., Portugal IIRC) are more prone to this than others.

So, while I think reappearances are yet another excellent feature of this truly great game, if you're looking to shorten the length of the campaign, then 'managing' the AI dynasties is something you should think about.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Trapped in Samsara]

"Never fight siege battles - wait until the garrison surrenders."

Not always possible. It's silly, but if a tiny number of defenders make it into the fortification it will hold out 'for ever'.

V

[cpgray]

It's silly, but if a tiny number of defenders make it into the fortification it will hold out 'for ever'.


But then the assault is quick and easy and so trivial it is worth automatically resolving it.

[Trapped in Samsara]

But then the assault is quick and easy and so trivial it is worth automatically resolving it.

Of course you're right. (I never auto resolve anything. Just my masochistic preference to see things through to the bitter end.)

V

[Gilrandir]

Hi

But I generally try to avoid killing off a faction in its entirety. Wherever possible, and obviously allowing for strategic geographic considerations (you do not want a hostile province in the middle of your empire's hinterland) I will leave a faction a single province for as long as possible. The reason: that way you avoid, or at least cut down on, faction reappearances.

Now these ARE one of the spicier, more exciting aspects of MTW, I feel. I'm sure all vets have had the 'OMFG! What the hell is that?!' experience when a souped up multi mega stack reappearance is announced in your empire (shoudln't happen unless you've not been managing province happiness and garrison numbers properly) or, more likely, in an adjacent AI empire which is tottering. And some provinces (e.g., Portugal IIRC) are more prone to this than others.


That's what I do. Moreover, if a faction leader is killed and the faction becomes a pack of rebel provinces, I always leave one province unconquered as there is a great probability that re-emerging of the faction (if it ever comes) will be limited to that very province. Although, that is not 100% guarantee. Once playing as the French I accidentally killed the last king of England. By that time the English were evicted north of the Thames (to Mercia and Wales and perhaps something else up there). But when the faction reappeared it popped up not only there but in the heart of my empire - Anjou where I didn't keep any significant forces it being my no-border internal province.
So, I would like to ask: are there any laws that determine the provinces subject to faction re-emergence?

[Plato]

are there any laws that determine the provinces subject to faction re-emergence?
To qualify as a site for a possible re-emergance, the province has to:
have been owned by the faction at some point in the past (even one turn will do, apparently)
have a happiness lower than 120%

Of course, this leads to some further questions to which I don't have the answer:
Is there a limit to the number of regions that can be affected?
Is there anything further which determines how the re-emergance manifests itself (unit types and numbers)?

I know that the provinces don't have to be contiguous (ie. sharing a border or sea); crusader factions sometimes get a plot in Europe, and either an island or a crusade target.

[drone]

A reemergence has to have a "seed" province, a province previously owned by the dead faction that is under 100% happiness and triggers an uprising. I think that if any of the other provinces previously owned by the faction are under 120%, they get sucked into the reemergence. So as long as you keep your provinces over 120% happiness, you don't need to worry about losing a province to reemergences.

[cpgray]

A reemergence has to have a "seed" province, a province previously owned by the dead faction that is under 100% happiness and triggers an uprising. I think that if any of the other provinces previously owned by the faction are under 120%, they get sucked into the reemergence. So as long as you keep your provinces over 120% happiness, you don't need to worry about losing a province to reemergences.

I think it's pretty clear from the manual, the game interface, and frogbeastegg's beginners guide, that rebellion only happens when happiness drops under 100%. It is recommended that you keep all your provinces at >= 120% because there are things that will drop the happiness in one turn so you want a bit of a cushion. Frogbeastegg says that the auto tax management in the original game aimed to keep happiness at >= 100% and that caused problems (for instance, when your monarch leaves the kingdom to a less competent son) when happiness dropped at times. With VI the auto tax management aims at 120% so that a small, quick drop keeps you over 100%.

[Brandy Blue]

With VI the auto tax management aims at 120% so that a small, quick drop keeps you over 100%.

And there was me changing my taxes manually because I thought VI did this the same way vanilla does. Thanks for the tip.

[drone]

The -loyalty switch can be used to set the auto-tax default (and the AI's target loyalty) if you want to customize it. Makes it easier for you, and improves the AI stability, as seen in the Caravel mod with the recommended settings.

[Gilrandir]

I think it's pretty clear from the manual, the game interface, and frogbeastegg's beginners guide, that rebellion only happens when happiness drops under 100%.
It is not about rebellion, but reemergence chances, and as far as I understood Drone differentiates rebellion (which happens if loyalty is below 100%) and probable reappearence of a faction (if loyalty is above 100% but lower than 120%). Thus, to have 110% loyal province will not prevent it from going over to a resurrected faction.

[drone]

To clarify, for a reemergence to happen, there first must be a rebellion/uprising (less than 100% happiness). If the province was previously owned by a dead faction, and the game is tracking a potential leader of that faction (an underage heir when the faction was eliminated, so up to around 60-80 years from the factions demise), the rebellion/uprising becomes a reemergence. Now, all the provinces previously owned by the faction are checked, if the happiness ratings are below 120%, they can become part of the reemergence.

So to prevent your own provinces from being affected, you need to keep your happiness above 120%. This will not prevent reemergences in provinces owned by other factions, but it will keep your lands from getting sucked into them. If there are no rebel provinces, and everyone keeps their happiness above 100%, a reemergence will not occur since a rebellion/uprising will not occur, but this is a pleasant fantasy scenario in Total War. :yes:

[Trapped in Samsara]

If there are no rebel provinces, and everyone keeps their happiness above 100%, a reemergence will not occur since a rebellion/uprising will not occur, but this is a pleasant fantasy scenario in Total War.

Hi

Drone makes an excellent point. And this is why I am not with Gilrandir when he wrote, above, "...if a faction leader is killed and the faction becomes a pack of rebel provinces, I always leave one province unconquered...".

I get rather nervous about having rebel provinces on my borders when a dynasty dies out because, IIRC, rebel provinces are always on the 100% loyalty score. So anything with less than about 300 to 500 troops in it is easy meat for a rebellion and therefore, potentially, a faction reappearance.

By the way, loyalist rebellions are strange and unpredictable things. Me English, hard, early, Caravel mod v2.1. The Egyptians are giving me a hard fight in and around the Iberian peninsula. I invade Portugal amphibiously to outflank them by opening a new front which was supposed to undermine their defence of Castile. I easily defeat the Egyptian garrison but then lose my naval control of the Atlantic seaboard. So my force is cut off from reinforcements. I suffer three years of rebellions then decide that the only way I'm going to get my general out of this predicament is by conducting a chevauchée from Portugal to Navarre. I do this in concert with attacks from my forces in the North and manage to rescue my general and a handful of his stalwarts.

Once I'm gone the Egyptians then retake Portugal only to suffer a succession of English loyalist rebellions (!) which are not ultimately successful in returning the province to me 'directly', but amount to such an ulcer, drawing in more and more Egyptian troops, that I finally manage to take and hold Castile. At which point I had the strategic initiative because that province borders so many Spanish provinces it's like a huge salient, hence the Egyptian position disintegrated.

A great fight and a thoroughly enjoyable campaign; probably one of the best I've ever had. But go figure English loyalists rising up against the Egyptians in Portugal, when I suffered repeated rebellions when I was in there!?

I love this game.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Gilrandir]

Hi

Drone makes an excellent point. And this is why I am not with Gilrandir when he wrote, above, "...if a faction leader is killed and the faction becomes a pack of rebel provinces, I always leave one province unconquered...".

I get rather nervous about having rebel provinces on my borders when a dynasty dies out because, IIRC, rebel provinces are always on the 100% loyalty score.
Who said anything about leaving a province ON MY BORDERS? If I leave that province I like to have it as far as possible from my lands. Even better, when it is surrounded by other factions. Why I don't take all the provinces of a destroyed faction: the faction is likely to reemerge and I will have to wipe it out time after time (probably confronting every time ever growing number of troops). But if I leave it rebel, the reemerging faction appears with a smaller number of troops, sucks in the rebel forces (or has to fight them, if I'm lucky), sooner or later attacks my lands (if they are close), gets repulsed and stays quiet ever after. So I see it as a choice between fighting a battle once and fighting recurrent battles every now and then.
As for the experience you shared, I envy you. In all the campaigns I played I NEVER had any loyalist rebellions that would support my faction (but I had plenty of them the other way around). I have two possible explanations to that:
1. Being greedy I hang on to the provinces I own tooth and nail, so I must be VERY hard pressed to leave it. Thus, never relinquishing a province I never get loyalist rebellions.
2. I play on expert and perhaps the AI does not allow such things on that difficulty.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi Gilandir

A misunderstanding: "I always leave one province unconquered" only made sense to me if you were in a position to conquer it. Which usually means being adjacent to it.


the faction is likely to reemerge and I will have to wipe it out time after time

As part of my AI dynasty management policy I have occasionally, and after careful consideration of the cost-benefit equation, invaded a last/sole AI-dynasty-owned province with the deliberate intention of culling the AI's forces. There must be a keep/fort in the province. The idea is not to kill the king or any useful heirs just drive them into the fortification along with, say, a couple of hundred of their men. I'll then leave the province next turn. But this is a bit tricky to pull off completely successfully, obviously.


1. Being greedy I hang on to the provinces I own tooth and nail, so I must be VERY hard pressed to leave it. Thus, never relinquishing a province I never get loyalist rebellions.

Loyalist rebellions can occur whenever a province changes hands provided the happiness level drops too low. In other words, you don't have to leave or relinquish one. Being kicked out will do. Or even besieged, I guess.


2. I play on expert and perhaps the AI does not allow such things on that difficulty.

As far as I know, expert level does not enhance the strategic AI, or change its behaviour on the strategy map, or allow/enable or prohibit things which do happen on hard level.

Expert level merely affords the BAI a bit more morale and valour, as I understand it. Personally, I find this 'tedious' as AI units tend to fight virtually to the last man which just pointlessly drags out the length of the battles, it seems to me.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Gilrandir]

Hi Gilandir

A misunderstanding: "I always leave one province unconquered" only made sense to me if you were in a position to conquer it. Which usually means being adjacent to it.



As part of my AI dynasty management policy I have occasionally, and after careful consideration of the cost-benefit equation, invaded a last/sole AI-dynasty-owned province with the deliberate intention of culling the AI's forces. There must be a keep/fort in the province. The idea is not to kill the king or any useful heirs just drive them into the fortification along with, say, a couple of hundred of their men. I'll then leave the province next turn. But this is a bit tricky to pull off completely successfully, obviously.



Loyalist rebellions can occur whenever a province changes hands provided the happiness level drops too low. In other words, you don't have to leave or relinquish one. Being kicked out will do. Or even besieged, I guess.



As far as I know, expert level does not enhance the strategic AI, or change its behaviour on the strategy map, or allow/enable or prohibit things which do happen on hard level.

Expert level merely affords the BAI a bit more morale and valour, as I understand it. Personally, I find this 'tedious' as AI units tend to fight virtually to the last man which just pointlessly drags out the length of the battles, it seems to me.

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace
Hi Victor!
I don't know how to split your post into several quotes, so I will answer in a solid block. You are almost right in expecting a left-intact rebel provice to be adjacent to your own lands. Almost, because you forget the islands. So when I deal with Italians, Sicilians, the English, the Byz, and occasionally other factions who have islands in their possession (once I had Russians on Malta!!) I use the tactics I descibed.
I'm also in a habit of handicapping the army of a faction in the last/sole province, but more often I don't invade but wait for the attack to be able to use all the advantages of a defensive battle. Mostly I don't have any problems with it afterwards as their single province can't support any troop producing.
Misunderstanding about "relinquishing". I may have chosen a wrong word, by which I meant "to stop possessing the province irrespective of the way or causes." Thus kicking out=being besieged=relinquishing in that post.
Speaking battlewise, you may find hard difficulty more appealing, but I think it is a matter of taste. On expert I often win battles when the enemy (having plenty of reinforcements) withdraws after the first stack was repulsed because it sees no perspective of victory. On hard I can hardly remember the AI behave like that. Plus on expert the AI is more cunning on the battlefield and does not forgive any mistakes of yours. And it has more attack bonuses (or so the beginner's guide to MTW teaches us).
But speaking strategically, on expert the AI is more agressive, it may attack you with several factions at a time, consistently turn down your marriage and alliance offers and generally give you more pain in the ... (select the organ you prefer). In a word, it does not let you relax and bask in the rays of your glory.

[cpgray]

Loyalist rebellions can occur whenever a province changes hands provided the happiness level drops too low. In other words, you don't have to leave or relinquish one. Being kicked out will do. Or even besieged, I guess.


Just recently I experienced a loyalist rebellion in my favor while besieged in a castle. The Aragonese kept invading Aquitaine and I kept repelling them but my forces got whittled down. They finally invaded when I didn't feel I had enough to repel them right away so I withdrew to the castle to gather outside troops. But before I could do that the loyalist rebellion happened and I got fresh troops with some units I couldn't yet train and kicked them back to Aragon.

A related question: Under what circumstances does the Papal faction reemerge? If you keep loyalty high will it never happen or does it happen every so often no matter what or is there some other factor (such a zealousness)? I got the impression from the Guide that it just happens randomly no matter what you do.

Because of that, when I got tired of being excommunicated, I eliminated the Papal faction, destroyed all the buildings, built a fort, and trained 100 peasants and left them in charge. I figured that would limit the strength of any reemergence. When the Sicilian's invaded, I let them take over the headache.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Under what circumstances does the Papal faction reemerge?

I believe the Papacy is a special case: the Pope cannot be 'permanently' suppressed by the usual methods, and so is always likely to make a comeback unless the game ends shortly after he's been taken out.

I have been on the receiving end of a gi-normous Papal reappearance (quantity and quality) which took me by complete surprise because I though I had Rome/The Papal States absolutely nailed down North Korea-fashion.

V

[drone]

The Papacy will always come back, although I'm not sure about the time frame, but the usual rules of happiness percentages don't apply. Papal reemergences can be pretty harsh as well, so I usually leave them for the last faction standing in my path. The time-honored way of dealing with the Pope is to take the Papal States, strip it of just about everything, and then abandon it to be retaken. Then take the rest of their territories leaving the Pope with one province, no cash, and an army upkeep large enough to keep him broke and unable to build/recruit anything for the rest of the game.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi


...on expert the AI is more cunning on the battlefield and does not forgive any mistakes of yours...
But speaking strategically, on expert the AI is more agressive, it may attack you with several factions at a time, consistently turn down your marriage and alliance offers and generally give you more pain...

I have read several debates down the years about the differences between the hard and expert levels. My recollection is that all of them concluded that the only difference between hard and expert is that in the latter case the AI-player received some additional morale and valour uplift for its units on the battlefield, and you get some more florins at the start of the campaign.

So the expert level AI player (perhaps that should be engine), both on the battlefield and on the campaign map, is no more cunning, or aggressive (except for what the additional morale would confer), or tactically or strategically sophisticated than the hard level AI player.

What do people think?

Best regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

[Trapped in Samsara]

Sorry, should have done my research first.

From Thread: A Beginners Guide to Medieval: Total War - Page 1
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?31445-A-Beginners-Guide-to-Medieval-Total-War

"On difficulty
There are four difficulties, easy, normal, hard and expert. Your difficulty will decide how much money you start off with, any bonuses given to you or the AI and what tactics the AI will use on the two maps. Starting funds are as follows:
Easy = 10000 florins
Normal= 8000 florins
Hard = 6000 florins
Expert = 4000 florins
On easy the player will get an extra +4 to morale in battle, making it harder for the AI to rout your troops. On expert the AI get this bonus. Normal and hard don't give anyone a bonus. The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty. Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

In addition to these changes LongJohn (another developer) says the following: The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade."

The above would suggest you are mistaken Gilandir.

V

[Gilrandir]

"Your difficulty will decide how much money you start off with, any bonuses given to you or the AI and what tactics the AI will use on the two maps.
The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty.
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus
The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade."

The above would suggest you are mistaken Gilandir.

V
I don't know what (battlemap or campaignmap) observations of mine you find ar fault, Victor.
But the quotations you offer do not seem to bear you out. I made bold the points in your quoting which are in agreement with what I said: more agressive behavior of the AI (both in battles and campaigns) and its units more difficult to overcome on the battlefield.
I also rely on my personal experience i.e. I don't lose a single battle on high at my present level of skills (and I can't boast of the same on expert). Campaigning on high gets boring after approximately a hundred years, campaigning on expert keeps me thrilled until about 1350 at the earliest.
But you are right in one thing: lets ask the MTW community to experss their judgements.

[Trapped in Samsara]

I don't know what (battlemap or campaignmap) observations of mine you find ar fault, Victor.


Hi

Remember, Gilandir, we're debating whether there is a difference between the AI's tactical and strategic abilities when set to hard as opposed to expert. I would restate this to mean, 'is there an increase in the AI's sophistication'. And I'd see "sophistication" and "cunning" as interchangeable in this context.

You wrote, "...on expert the AI is more cunning on the battlefield...". This is not supported by the extract from the guide document.

I am interested to hear if other players believe that, "...strategically, on expert the AI is more agressive, it may attack you with several factions at a time, consistently turn down your marriage and alliance offers and generally give you more pain in the ..."

(I've had all these things happen to me when playing on hard. And I didn't notice any difference between the hard and expert CAI in those half a dozen campaigns that I have played on hard down the years.)

V

[Gilrandir]

Hi

You wrote, "...on expert the AI is more cunning on the battlefield...". This is not supported by the extract from the guide document.


The document you refer to speaks of the use of different tactics on the battlefield depending on the difficulty, the combat strength of the a.i. units affected by the difficulty level and of a morale bonus the AI gets on expert. I believe taken together these features can be equalled to a more sophisticated way the AI behaves being harder to overcome.
But if we forget the data provided by the Guide (for a minute): I had drawn the same conclusions experientially (by playing on different difficulties) long before I came across this information in the Guide.
As for your invitation for others to express their opinion, it seems that people at the Org have already discussed it some time ago and do not wish to repeat themselves. We are too late to have opened discussion on that topic, Victor.