Expert Difficulty Question

Hi,

I used to play on normal difficulty as I thought it to be the best balance with no cheating for me or AI. After some reading about difficulties lately I noticed that many people are used to play on expert and actually recommends it. So I gave it a try and to my surprise it made the game easier than I was used to and I will explain why exactly. Regularly I was able to win most battles routing the enemy having little losses yet the enemy armies usually were not destroyed as I was unable to capture so many routers. Well this is no longer a problem as the AI units stay in a fight almost to the last man so typically I don't really need to run down many routers as there simply are not many of them. My casualties did not go up as significantly so I am actually net gaining from the increased difficulty and the AI as a result has less chance to regroup (the battles are more fatal for it).

I am thus wondering if the hard difficulty wouldn't be a better choice if anyone has experience with it. With the better fighting capabilities but without the morale bonus it could be in fact bigger challenge than the expert which paradoxically leaves the surrounded units in a fight way too long causing many of them to be utterly destroyed rather than routing/regrouping.

Thoughts?

You are not the first to notice this tendency on Expert. While the combat tended to be a little tougher, strategically the AI was hampered by the annihilation of it's units. Also, as a side effect of the AI fighting to the death, your troops gain valour faster, steamrolling the effects for the next battle. Most people recommend Hard, because of this effect.

If I remember correctly, the battle AI on Expert is the same as Hard, so you should get the same tactics.

Welcome to the Org, Resurrection! ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If I remember correctly, the battle AI on Expert is the same as Hard, so you should get the same tactics.

Welcome to the Org, Resurrection! ~:wave:

---

Hi

I too am under the impression that the AI's tactical ability is the same for hard and expert. I almost always play at the hard setting 'cos I simply get bored slaughtering AI troops who should, by any sensible standard of 'realism', have broken and routed off the field of battle thus allowing fresh companies to take their place.

I can also, however, vouch for the fact that on hard and expert the MTW battle AI can do sneeky, even smart things it won't do on normal or below: e.g., ambushing, changing into wedge formation mid charge and smashing my cherished 'lifeguard' company of Avar Noble Cavalry (I still have nightmares about that one.), manouvering so as to either force me out of my favoured defensive position or force me into a very unfavourable attack approach, etc. It also skirmishes better...

Regards
Victor

Sapere aude
Horace

I would not completely agree about recklessness of the AI on expert, especially if it is a battle with (lots of) reinforcements. I figured that out when battling against the Horde. On hard it keeps sending reinforcements until they are all routed or my troops are exhausted. On expert if your deployment+set of troops seem to the AI impregnable it just stops sending reinforcements and withdraws after the initial 16-unit defeat. I discovered what I call "a golden formula army" against such cavalry-heavy armies: 2 arbalesters, 2 archers (preferably longbows), 4 solid spears (italian infantry or chivalric sergeants) to form a spearwall, 2 or 3 polearms (billmen of foot knights), 2 mounted archers (steppe heavies or byzantine cavalry - couple of times swapped them for naptha but somehow didn't find the performance satisfactory), 2 light cavalry (for chasing) and 2-3 knights/heavy cavalry. If they are deployed terrain-wise the Horde may perform the withdrawal as often as not (which never happened on hard). The same story against catholic factions. I remember a treacherous attack from the Spanish with lots of royal knights. I played the Aragonese and didn't have quite a balanced army in the province "far, far away" from the a main sphere of conquest, but skillful deployment and arrowshowers made them withdraw after engaing only couple of units (oh those jinets!) into the battle. So in this aspect the expert AI seems to be wise if you managed to make it peceive the battle as a hopeless one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I would not completely agree about recklessness of the AI on expert, especially if it is a battle with (lots of) reinforcements. I figured that out when battling against the Horde. On hard it keeps sending reinforcements until they are all routed or my troops are exhausted. On expert if your deployment+set of troops seem to the AI impregnable it just stops sending reinforcements and withdraws after the initial 16-unit defeat.

---

In my recent Viking campaign I have noticed this exact behaviour on HARD difficulty so I don't think it is limited to EXPERT only. In fact I have seen a lot more recklessness on expert than on hard. For instance in one attacking battle where I was slightly outnumbered (on hard) enemy divided into two groups but he spread too far and I was fast enough to slaughter one half of their force while the other half marched towards me. When the engaged half wavered and routed this other half did not dare to attack me and simply withdrew. There were very many routers and as usual I did not catch most of them. Since the half of the enemy withdrew intact the battle result was very realistic! On expert the AI would still not quite get in a fight in time but its forces would be slaughtered to the last man almost due to the morale boost. The strategical situation thus would be far worse after such battle for the AI...