Best difficulty setting for a rtw newbie?

[Zimfan]

Hello all. :bow: I bought RTW and MTW around the same time a few months back, and, attracted mostly by it's graphics, played mostly RTW. I'm on vacation with my fiancee's family right now, but tomorrow she and her mother are spending the whole day watching dds of their favorite show, so I have the whole day to play games, and hearing a lot about mtw's superior gameplay(and seeing some evidence of it in my few VI games), I'm going to give it another try.

I'm having trouble deciding what difficulty to play. I'm tempted to play on medium, since I don't have much exxperience with the game, but I'm afraid that the factions might sit around waiting for me to conquer them without expanding as happens in my medium difficulty RTW games. At the same time, I'm worried that I might get my butt kicked on hard, and get a bit irritated with noone ever allying with me in RTW on hard.(RTW Hard campaign Medium battles, no peasant garrisons is usually a challenge for me). Could someone tell me a bit about the actual difference between the difficulties?

[econ21]

I'd start with medium. I always like medium battles in TW because it gives you "fair" historical match-ups on the battlefield - their men will only outfight yours if they are superior etc.

I forget the details in MTW, but "hard" gives a fairly subtle edge to the AI on the battlefield. "Expert" is a bit more blatant, but not as much as RTWs VH battles.

I don't recall the strategic situation varyingly markedly by the difficulty level: you get less cash to start with but from what I remember, it did not feel that the AI treasure chest varied that much (unlike in RTW VH campaigns).

In my opinion, the Risk-type map of MTW (and STW) can make the AI much more competitive than in RTW. So I would try it on medium and bump up the difficulty level on later campaigns depending on how you find it.

[Zimfan]

I'd start with medium. I always like medium battles in TW because it gives you "fair" historical match-ups on the battlefield - their men will only outfight yours if they are superior etc.

I forget the details in MTW, but "hard" gives a fairly subtle edge to the AI on the battlefield. "Expert" is a bit more blatant, but not as much as RTWs VH battles.

I don't recall the strategic situation varyingly markedly by the difficulty level: you get less cash to start with but from what I remember, it did not feel that the AI treasure chest varied that much (unlike in RTW VH campaigns).

In my opinion, the Risk-type map of MTW (and STW) can make the AI much more competitive than in RTW. So I would try it on medium and bump up the difficulty level on later campaigns depending on how you find it.

I'll try it on normal, then. I prefer a level playing field battlewise too. It seems to make the battles more realistic, and I'm not so great at the games that the battles aren't challenging. I was mostly worried about the ai on the strategic map.

Well tomorrow we shall see if the Danes can conquer the world! :2thumbsup:

[Martok]

econ21 is correct. Choosing between Normal and Hard isn't really going to affect how agressive the AI is on the campaign map. It would be different if you were playing on Easy (the AI is generally more passive), but obviously you needn't worry about that in your case.

Good luck, Zimfan; may the world come to fear the might of the Danes once more! ~:cheers:

[Zimfan]

Thanks for the advice, guys! As my first non Viking era campaign, I'll be focusing mainly on playing, and not taking too many notes or screenshots, but I'll try to take enough to For the mtw empire history/screenshots thread. :2thumbsup:

While I'm asking newbish questions, could someone tell me what infrastructure to build to get huscarls. I read here that the Danes get them in early and want to pump out as many as possible before late.

[Martok]

I don't remember the exact requirements for Huscarles, but I believe you need a Spearmakers Workshop and Swordsmith. In addition, I'm pretty certain you need an Armourer as well.

At the very least, make sure you've built a Spearmaker and also upgraded your stronghold to a Keep so you can build the Spearmakers Workshop and Swordsmith.

[econ21]

It's your game, but personally, I would go easy on the huscarls. They really are overpowered for the early era. It might make your game dull. Sort of like RTW post-Marian legionnaires fighting warbands... I'd take one or two per 16 units to represent your elite warriors. Normal vikings are very decent fighters in the early period anyway.

[Geezer57]

While I'm asking newbish questions, could someone tell me what infrastructure to build to get huscarls. I read here that the Danes get them in early and want to pump out as many as possible before late.
You'll need a Swordsmith + Armorer in the provinces of Denmark, Norway, or Sweden.

[Martok]

It's your game, but personally, I would go easy on the huscarls. They really are overpowered for the early era. It might make your game dull. Sort of like RTW post-Marian legionnaires fighting warbands... I'd take one or two per 16 units to represent your elite warriors.
Yeah, I should've mentioned that in my earlier post as well. Even when I have a large Danish empire, I doubt I've ever had more than 10 Huscarle regiments in the field at any given time--and even that's a lot.


Normal vikings are very decent fighters in the early period anyway.
Also quite true. Between Landsmen, Carls, and "vanilla" Vikings, the Danes already have far and away the best infantry line-up in the Early period. Adding Huscarles to the Danes' roster is like buying a jet-powered car when you already own a Porsche, Lambourgini, and a Corvette--it's overkill. ~D

@Geezer57: Thanks for helping on the build requirements. I couldn't remember whether or not a spearmakers workshop was needed. :bow:

[Peasant Phill]

Besides, aren't huscarles very expensive in regard to upkeep?

[sbroadbent]

econ21 is correct. Choosing between Normal and Hard isn't really going to affect how agressive the AI is on the campaign map. It would be different if you were playing on Easy (the AI is generally more passive), but obviously you needn't worry about that in your case.

One thing I have noticed though is that on the Easy difficulty level, there is usually one (sometimes two) factions who are over aggressive, and will take a lot of territory very quickly. It then becomes a match between you and that faction, as very few other factions will even be able to stand against them. I've played in games where factions will get eliminated, usually by the actions of just one faction. Unless you do something early, that aggressive faction will mass alot of troops and alot of ships. You'll likewise need similar resources, or find ways of bringing the faction down. Inquisitors work great against catholic factions.

On the other hand, on the higher difficulties, because more factions tend to be more aggressive, the game is better at keeping things balanced. Fewer factions get eliminated early, and there is more potential for the steamrolling factions to come to a halt, or atleast slow their rate of expansion enough for you to catch up yourself. The only problem with the highest difficulties is that you start out with even less money, and the AI gains boosts in the strategic battles.

[Martok]

Besides, aren't huscarles very expensive in regard to upkeep?
Yes, very. Which is another big reason I don't train a whole lot of them. ~:)

@sbroadbent: I admitteldy have nothing to base this on other than my own gut feeling, but personally I think it's more that a couple AI factions just get lucky in one or two key battles. After that, it becomes relatively easy for them to steamroll the other factions since everyone's less expansionist on Easy (even though the "steamroller" faction itself isn't overly agressive either). That's only my impression, though. :shrug:

[sbroadbent]

Yes, very. Which is another big reason I don't train a whole lot of them. ~:)

@sbroadbent: I admitteldy have nothing to base this on other than my own gut feeling, but personally I think it's more that a couple AI factions just get lucky in one or two key battles. After that, it becomes relatively easy for them to steamroll the other factions since everyone's less expansionist on Easy (even though the "steamroller" faction itself isn't overly agressive either). That's only my impression, though. :shrug:

I have quite a bit of experience playing on Easy, and these are my broad conclusions that I recall.

- Either the Spanish will defeat the Almohads and then proceed to sweep the map, or the Almohads will do the same. This happens in probably 9 out of 10 games guaranteed. Whoever wins that conflict will likely become your main enemy. Note: The Almohad result was more likely in vanilla MTW, while the Spanish result was more likely in MTW VI.

- The Argonese, Danes, Polish, Hungarians, Novgorodians, and other small factions usually are completly docile, and it will only be a matter of time before they are eliminated.

- The French and English will fight it out, but it won't matter because by the time one wins out over the other, the Spanish or Almohads (whoever won between them) will sweep the English/French territories.

- The Germans collapse in rebellion/civil war (usually after being excommed... The only time the Germans don't get excommed is if you're playing them and you avoid it).

- The Sicilians since they are on islands won't suffer the fate of the Argonese group because they'll never expand outside of their islands, and no one will bother to invade them.

- I don't remember much about what the Italians did because I usually played them. If they were AI, they might survive to the end, as long as they can defend against the Almohad/Spanish invasion.

- The Egyptians always swallowed the Turks.

- The Byzantines would maintain their provinces, and expand a bit.

- The horde you would think would make a huge splash. Very rarely are they able to keep the momentum going past the first couple provinces.

I've also played a number of games on Normal, and my general conclusion is that the weaker factions tend to not get eliminated as early. On Easy you can easily expect 3-4 factions to go down within the first 20 years.

I don't play unmodded MTW anymore as I tend to play XL games now. I like the increase in the number of factions, and I've seen a number of interesting strategies by the AI. Steamrolling does tend to still happen, but not as quickly. When a vanilla MTW faction would be eliminated after 4 or 5 years of battle, it can take 20-25 years of back and forth struggle in XL before the scales get tipped enough for one faction to succeed over the other.

[Zimfan]

Well, I've played my game out to the early/mid 1200s on normal difficulty. Denmark now controls Great Britain and the Northern hslf of most of Europe, as well as the Baltic. Unfortunately, Spain controls most of the west, as well as North Africa. After losing all his territory, the Pope came back with a vengeance and all but destroyed the formerly massive Hungarian empire, France, Germany, and England are all reduced to one territory, and THe byzantines went from having a third or so of the map to nothing as the Mongol Horde and Sicilians divided their territory. I'm fighting it out with Spain for western Europe, but running in the red due to disruption of my trade network caused by the war. If this was RTW, I know I'd win, but the AI is very tough(for me) in MTW.`Very exciting game. :2thumbsup: Can't seem to get the hang of the high units, though. Vikings and Huscarls(tried to avoid using the latter too much, not always successfully) made a great base for my army before, now that I'm using Chivalric Sargeants and CMAAs I'm having trouble. The sarges always seem to break and run, even if they're winning their battles. I know the guide I read here said that spearmen should be the anchor of the army, but I miss my axemen. ~:mecry: Ah well, I'll figure it out.

Thanks for the advice guys!

[Ironside]

The sarges always seem to break and run, even if they're winning their battles. I know the guide I read here said that spearmen should be the anchor of the army, but I miss my axemen. ~:mecry: Ah well, I'll figure it out.

Thanks for the advice guys!

Hmm, may I suggest building religious buildings? The church gives +2 in morale and the reliquary gives +4. Missed that myself in my second campaign I played (it had poor tooltip at the time). Then with master spearmaker you'll get them to 6 in morale, good enough for them to withstand 60-80% losses in frontal battle before routing.

Considering that you've played RTW I'm assuming that you have control of the v&v, the other factor for quickly routing troops.

[Zimfan]

Hmm, may I suggest building religious buildings? The church gives +2 in morale and the reliquary gives +4. Missed that myself in my second campaign I played (it had poor tooltip at the time). Then with master spearmaker you'll get them to 6 in morale, good enough for them to withstand 60-80% losses in frontal battle before routing.

Considering that you've played RTW I'm assuming that you have control of the v&v, the other factor for quickly routing troops.

:2thumbsup: Since my first post I've learned the value of buildings that enhance morale, armor, etc. I assumed that as in RTW it was more important to tech up to the best units than to upgrade them, so my sarges lacked significant upgrades. I was again embarassingly reminded of this playing a Saxon VI campaign, when a quickly raised mercenary army I sent against an inferior though large rebel force(about 1/3 peasants) experienced a chain route as soon as one unit of ums routed. Too late for my Danish campaign, but I'll be starting a new campaign soon, maybe as the Byzantines.

[Ironside]

:2thumbsup: Since my first post I've learned the value of buildings that enhance morale, armor, etc. I assumed that as in RTW it was more important to tech up to the best units than to upgrade them, so my sarges lacked significant upgrades. I was again embarassingly reminded of this playing a Saxon VI campaign, when a quickly raised mercenary army I sent against an inferior though large rebel force(about 1/3 peasants) experienced a chain route as soon as one unit of ums routed. Too late for my Danish campaign, but I'll be starting a new campaign soon, maybe as the Byzantines.

I suspect that in v 1.0 generals with good stars gave a considerble morale bonus, that's why it took a while before I noticed it.
Anyway, I suspected that something was wrong when my half of my hightech army with arbs, cmaa, halbs and some cav (all with armour and weapon upgrades), routed without contact with the enemy. The other part routed soon after.
That's what happens when you think that your people will join your faith anyway so why bother with converting buildings