What difficulty do you play at?

[Zim]

Been playing EB for a week so far and loving it. I was just curious what difficulty people are playing at. I know the recommended difficulty is VH/M but I noticed in some of the AARs and unofficial guides the op says they're playing something else(like VH/VH or M/M).

I played my first long campaign as the Arverni at VH/M, and while it was tough in the beginning, it doesn't seem too bad now. The AI usually has more men than me, but not the endless stacks I'd expect from vanilla VH campaign level.

[Sarcasm]

Play it VH/H. VH in battles gives the AI to much of a ridiculous bonus - sometimes a unit of akontistai will route elite troops head-on. Bear in mind the game is designed for VH/M.

[Gazius]

Depends on the faction, Romani I'll do H or VH campaign, H battle, for those I'm relatively familiar with, H/M and for those I've just started playing since the new version added enough to make them playable, M/M.

I haven't tried a VH campaign since .7x however, since I did it as the ptolemies once and I lost within 10 years because I couldn't consolidate my forces to stand a chance fighting back and they kept sieging my cities, all the meanwhile seleukia was chomping down on me so no help from the east.

[Zim]

My Averni campaign has been fine at VH/M, but I'm going to be trying a KH campaign tonight. I've been wondering if I should lower the campaign difficulty.

To Sarcasm: I've noticed that, too. Does the hard battle difficulty make a big difference? I played that way with Arthurian: Total War, and it made the computer more of a challenge without making unit match ups too bad. Probably because the defense stats were upped so much.

I might give H/H a try, then start playing VH/H if it isn't too bad.

[Julian the apostate]

VH/VH i believe, i don't think the advantages are as noticable on normal fiends then they are on walls and in gates but overal its survivable typically. I typically only use small elite armies so it matches it up a little

[Ower]

I have played H/M and are now trying WH/M

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I always play at H/M or M/M. First of all I don't think that if two identical units fight eachother, one should be super powered. And on the campaign part, I don't like to lose. :sweatdrop:

[kalkwerk]

I played on VH/VH with BI.exe in my roman campaign. It was great fun because you really had to think strategical to win battles, especially against those über carthage units. But after 200 it got somehow frustrating that you couldnt autoresolve without loosin badly. I guess I go for VH/H next time.

[edyzmedieval]

VH/VH, and I never get defeated. I'm always careful, because it can mean that hard earned army can go to waste, and money is hard to find...

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Guys, I admit it, I'm a coward: I try to play on VH/M, yet I often end up so scared of losing that I play M/E :embarassed:

[Lord Gruffles]

Vh/h

(Why is it forcing my text into lower case!) :furious3:

[Shifty_GMH]

M/M but when .81 is released and I have to start a new game (as Romani) will step it up to H/M or VH/M.

[Mordecai]

I play H/M right now as Arche Seleuceia. I tried VH/H and got schooled so now I play on H/M

[skuzzy]

It is not difficult to beat the game on VH/VH assuming you create a decent economy and have elite stacks. But lately I've been trying to create more realism so I'm playing VH/H and actually losing a couple battles instead of always winning. It hurts me sometimes but by only alternating between two save points I don't allow myself the luxury of going back and fighting again. Of course this was all before I got annoyed of all the CTDs I get after 250B.C. in general so now I am waiting for 0.81 as patiently as possible without threatening the team with suicide and hope that it sits on their consciences. I WILL SUICIDE /WRISTS.

[Obelics]

0.72/0.74 Pahlava/Parthians VH/VH
0.74 Greeks VH/VH
0.74 Aedui VH/M
0.8 Pahlava VH/VH
0.8 Cartage VH/M
0.8 Romans VH/M
0.8 Greeks VH/VH
0.8 Lusitanians M/H

I dont know why i choosed this settings... boh?
on battles I usually tend to choose VH/VH for Phalanx & Horse-archers factions, while i tend to choose medium for sword factions (pheraphs because sword units tend to be useless against phalanx and horse-archer on VH)

[L.C.Cinna]

I used to play VH/VH with RTR so I started a Romani campaign on VH/VH with EB 0.8 and I have to say I stopped around the year 220 and started a new one on VH/M.

I never have problems with the economy. In my first Romani campaign on VH/VH i had around 500.000 mnai by 220 and that with several mercenary armies and all my starting towns on highest level already. but I got frustrated with fieldbattles. I managed to conquer the whole Carthi empire but lost most field battles. They had insane armies of heavy cav, heavy african pikemen and iberian assault troops everywhere and some of my units, especially my iberian scutarii fled the field on first contact. I wasn't able to move my general that fast from one scared unit to another.

I like it much better on VH/M now as it seems not so unrealistic although I have to say for my next campaign I'll probably use VH/H. I like the economic system in EB. It's well balanced imho. I always try to bring the economy up as fast as possible, use my generals to govern important towns, replace hired merc with cheap garrisons and try to make peace with an enemy if I'm in the position I wanted. This way I have peace with the Carthies now again after I took Sicilia and I do make lots of money. It's the year 262 now and I own all of Italy up to Bononia and Segesta plus all of Sicily, can build in every town and got around 98.000mnai on my account.