Hashashiyyin
12-06-2006, 02:23
After some of the data files were released, I was hoping for some news on the different battlefield difficulties. There seems to be confusion (at lest on my part) on wether or not the AI gets moral/combat bonuses on the different battlefield difficulty levels. I've heard that VH does not give bonuses and other say it does. I started out believing that there was no bonus, until I had a few odd battles in a VH/VH campaign that seemed to point to the AI getting bonuses. Impatient, wanting to start a new campaign, I did some testing of my own and here are the results.
Test set 1:
Battlefield - morocco, clear, morning.
Playing as the English against the French.
Each test was with one unit of dismounted feudal knights per side. I wanted to see how a unit stood up to its carbon copy on different difficulties. I did a very few tests on medium, more interested in VH battle difficultly and the medium difficulty tests were more of a control group.
Medium: 10/10 battles in my favor. Not really a contest. I wiped the floor with them in every test. Obviously medium does not give the AI any bonus. It's so easy; your own troops are probably getting a rather large bonus at this level.
Very Hard: 100% victory rate for the computer AI. Most of the time losing by 20 or so men. One battle was very close and both sides took heavy loses, but for some reason when I was winning, my troops routed. Tried the test in many different configurations of attacking and defending. For attacking, I ordered my unit with a single "single-click" attack command and let the AI do the rest. For defense, I tried to counter charge the AI with a single-click command at the same place in the enemies charge.
This made me think. Not only was the AI smoking me, it was doing so rather hard. This and some surprising campaign battles I've had, made me feel like my worst feelings were true, the AI still cheats. However, I notice at lot of the time, my army was getting hung up on terrain, or had to walk up the side of a mountain first. This leads me to my second set of tests because I wanted to see the results with terrain factored out.
Test set 2:
Grassy Plain
As England against France, 1 unit of dismounted feudal knights each.
Again, tested many different configurations of attacking and defending.
Very Hard results: +90% success rate for me. Almost a complete turn around of what I saw in morocco. Results were so in my favor that I repeatedly checked to make sure I was on Very Hard. Only time I lost was once when, for some reason, my charge was not uniform. The other lose was a test of my troops taking a charge w/o counter-charging. Most fights were total victories on my side, with at least 30% of the unit's numbers remaining. When terrain factored out it seems as if your units have a slight bonus on very hard.
Now I was rather confused. With the terrain taken out of account, it's more then clear the AI's troops get no bonus what so ever. In fact, the results seem to point to your own troops having a slight advantage. Thinking back to getting the opposite results in morocco, I figured it might have been user error. Back to Morocco I headed.
Test Set 3:
Morocco, clear, morning.
Again, England vs. France, 1 unit of dismounted feudal knights per side.
Again, many configurations of attacking and defending were tried. This time with much more attention to the terrain during deployment.
Very Hard results: +95% victory rates for the AI. Same results as before. I was however able to win one battle, seeming more out of shear luck then anything I personally did.
So to recap:
With terrain affecting units, AI wins 95-100% of the time. When terrain is taken out of the equation, I won 90% of the time.
Analysis:
It seems really odd the total flip flop that occurs between carbon copy unit interactions when terrain is a factor/not a factor. The one thing that became clear during the testing on VH was the difference between the AI's and your own ability to micromanage troop movements and charges. We still have the same basic method of controlling our troops as in Shogun: Total War. While this system has been upgraded with ever successive Total War, we are far behind the AI's ability to micromanage troop movement/charges and very far behind on the speed and fidelity in which said commands can be issued.
Thus the advantage the computer has on VH is not in moral or ability, it lies in its advantage to interpret and correct for the terrain at a much great rate and fidelity. VH is going to be the most realistic battle in terms of unit to carbon copy unit balance. That is, on VH battles, you and the computer should be on an equal footing, ability, fatigue, and moral wise. The computer does have an advantage in its ability to micromanage its troops. So the overall effect is that the computer has a slight advantage on the VH difficulty.
This advantage, however, does not take into account tactics. The superior use of tactics on your part will (almost) always win the day against the AI. Your ability to intelligently move, flank, harass, etc. far outweighs the slight advantage the AI has in micromanagement. This is, of course, assuming that you are fielding an army capable of said tactics. A strait lineup of equal infantry vs. infantry on VH is more then likely going to go drastically in the AI's favor. Unless you get really creative with tactics on a strait infantry vs. infantry (obviously, carbon copy units) fight on VH, you can expect to lose. But with skirmishers, heavy and light cavalry, archers, etc. you can more then make up the difference with solid tactics.
Final Word. VH is the most realistic battle setting as long as you understand and compensate for the AI's far greater ability to micromanage units and correct for terrain.
Hope this helps you when deciding on your next campaign difficulty level. Please feel free to test my results and post yours.:beam:
Test set 1:
Battlefield - morocco, clear, morning.
Playing as the English against the French.
Each test was with one unit of dismounted feudal knights per side. I wanted to see how a unit stood up to its carbon copy on different difficulties. I did a very few tests on medium, more interested in VH battle difficultly and the medium difficulty tests were more of a control group.
Medium: 10/10 battles in my favor. Not really a contest. I wiped the floor with them in every test. Obviously medium does not give the AI any bonus. It's so easy; your own troops are probably getting a rather large bonus at this level.
Very Hard: 100% victory rate for the computer AI. Most of the time losing by 20 or so men. One battle was very close and both sides took heavy loses, but for some reason when I was winning, my troops routed. Tried the test in many different configurations of attacking and defending. For attacking, I ordered my unit with a single "single-click" attack command and let the AI do the rest. For defense, I tried to counter charge the AI with a single-click command at the same place in the enemies charge.
This made me think. Not only was the AI smoking me, it was doing so rather hard. This and some surprising campaign battles I've had, made me feel like my worst feelings were true, the AI still cheats. However, I notice at lot of the time, my army was getting hung up on terrain, or had to walk up the side of a mountain first. This leads me to my second set of tests because I wanted to see the results with terrain factored out.
Test set 2:
Grassy Plain
As England against France, 1 unit of dismounted feudal knights each.
Again, tested many different configurations of attacking and defending.
Very Hard results: +90% success rate for me. Almost a complete turn around of what I saw in morocco. Results were so in my favor that I repeatedly checked to make sure I was on Very Hard. Only time I lost was once when, for some reason, my charge was not uniform. The other lose was a test of my troops taking a charge w/o counter-charging. Most fights were total victories on my side, with at least 30% of the unit's numbers remaining. When terrain factored out it seems as if your units have a slight bonus on very hard.
Now I was rather confused. With the terrain taken out of account, it's more then clear the AI's troops get no bonus what so ever. In fact, the results seem to point to your own troops having a slight advantage. Thinking back to getting the opposite results in morocco, I figured it might have been user error. Back to Morocco I headed.
Test Set 3:
Morocco, clear, morning.
Again, England vs. France, 1 unit of dismounted feudal knights per side.
Again, many configurations of attacking and defending were tried. This time with much more attention to the terrain during deployment.
Very Hard results: +95% victory rates for the AI. Same results as before. I was however able to win one battle, seeming more out of shear luck then anything I personally did.
So to recap:
With terrain affecting units, AI wins 95-100% of the time. When terrain is taken out of the equation, I won 90% of the time.
Analysis:
It seems really odd the total flip flop that occurs between carbon copy unit interactions when terrain is a factor/not a factor. The one thing that became clear during the testing on VH was the difference between the AI's and your own ability to micromanage troop movements and charges. We still have the same basic method of controlling our troops as in Shogun: Total War. While this system has been upgraded with ever successive Total War, we are far behind the AI's ability to micromanage troop movement/charges and very far behind on the speed and fidelity in which said commands can be issued.
Thus the advantage the computer has on VH is not in moral or ability, it lies in its advantage to interpret and correct for the terrain at a much great rate and fidelity. VH is going to be the most realistic battle in terms of unit to carbon copy unit balance. That is, on VH battles, you and the computer should be on an equal footing, ability, fatigue, and moral wise. The computer does have an advantage in its ability to micromanage its troops. So the overall effect is that the computer has a slight advantage on the VH difficulty.
This advantage, however, does not take into account tactics. The superior use of tactics on your part will (almost) always win the day against the AI. Your ability to intelligently move, flank, harass, etc. far outweighs the slight advantage the AI has in micromanagement. This is, of course, assuming that you are fielding an army capable of said tactics. A strait lineup of equal infantry vs. infantry on VH is more then likely going to go drastically in the AI's favor. Unless you get really creative with tactics on a strait infantry vs. infantry (obviously, carbon copy units) fight on VH, you can expect to lose. But with skirmishers, heavy and light cavalry, archers, etc. you can more then make up the difference with solid tactics.
Final Word. VH is the most realistic battle setting as long as you understand and compensate for the AI's far greater ability to micromanage units and correct for terrain.
Hope this helps you when deciding on your next campaign difficulty level. Please feel free to test my results and post yours.:beam: