Playing Battles on Medium

Does anyone find playing battles on medium difficulty too easy? I won nearly all battles, not counting naval engagements. I think AI needs a little boost, playing on Very hard can be almost impossible, but playing hard i found a nice balance. I when about 60-75% of battle, and sometimes get my ass handed to me, and sometimes pull a stunning upset. I find it much more fun with a challenge. Does everyone follow the recommended very hard campaign and medium battle? or some go with VH-H or even VH-VH?

People do go as high as VH, VH, Neospartan in paticular is well know for his obstinate mausculinity in this.

Personaly, when I finnaly get my EB1.0 working, I will try playing on HH with fatigue off, as those who have tried this says the AI a chance, and gives the battles more importance in your campaign, as the are no longer garaunteed-insta wins.

after my baktria campaign I would like to try a H/H one, I've already started a VH/M with the Romani, I'd like to see what is more balanced and challenging.
VH in battles can be quite frustrating even in vanilla TW so I don't bother for trying it in EB.

I don't like battles on anything above medium... I like to zoom in and watch the action a lot, i like to let the lines thin before charging my cavalry around like madmen. On hard you can't do that, as soon as combat starts it's a frustrating click-fest. I would like to feel as though every battle counts in the mod, but it can never happen. Not because of EB... EB is the best R:TW can ever be, it won't get better than this, it's just the way the game was shipped, battles have no importance unless you're playing as Hayasdan or something equally as insanely difficult.

Even on VH/VH if you suffer a crushing defeat, what then? You raise a new army and go at it again. What happens if you get a heroic victory and destroy a powerful AI army? He raises a new one and sends it straight at you. At the end of it all, it turns out just as it would on VH/M.

Mind you, i did suffer rather a devastating loss today as Epeiros. I had Phyrros as my general with his 5 stars, a good army, trouble is i was facing 2 Makedonian armies with a 7 star general. Thanks to Sinhuet's formation modifications the AI actually tied up all of my units and then attacked my phalanxes from behing leaving me absolutely no choice but to sit and watch them be slaughtered.

So you see, VH/M doesn't always go the way you want it.

Medium+Generals camera+Fatigue off= very exciting battles ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bava

Medium+Generals camera+Fatigue off= very exciting battles ~D

---

Add in using a faction with foot generals and you got a good challenge.

Does turning off fatigue really make much difference?

Think of all the times an enemy army is exhausted before they reach you and then rout almost immediately, doesn't happen with fatigue off.

I've never been all that great. I tend to win all the battles on medium (except naval battles, of course) unless I'm just way out classed in terms of men quality and number, but I only very rarely win heroic victories, and it's exiting enough for me. *shrug* Harder than vanilla, hard enough to be challenging but not frustratingly so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Think of all the times an enemy army is exhausted before they reach you and then rout almost immediately, doesn't happen with fatigue off.

---

I do not encounter that kind of fleing enimy much, I found VH/VH quite not proportional, VH/H is quite the best but I tend to fight at VH/M as designed by EB team, but I do not use Sinhuets nor Darth, so it mey be a lot dificult for others

I am truly awful at fighting battles, so I don't find that the medium difficulty is too easy. I have lost my fair share of battles. Especially when outnumbered,

i dont see why youd turn fatigue off to be honest. i understand it can make the game more tense, but it can work to your own advantage: YOUR troops can storm up a mountain and be fine, ruining the feeling of struggling to gain every inch of high ground. as for the generals camera? never tried it, dont wanna. im waaay too much of a control freak to do that.

Actually I play on VH/M and I've found that unless I kill the general off and then charge the enemy lines that they tend to fight to the very bitter end.


One thing I do to make gameplay more interesting is to play with balanced/historical armies. One example is how I make my armies proportionate to the ones recorded by ancient historians/what the EB team says. I try to have 3 or less elites (not including cavalry), light infantry, heavy infantry, skirmishers, ranged support, and cavalry. This does tend to be a disadvantage when the enemy brings up twelve or thirteen phalanxes, but makes battles more interesting and balanced. That being said, I usually do not lose battles, though it is mostly because of my tactic or killing off the general and then charging the rear with Cavalry. Said tactic would work incredibly well no matter the difficulty.

I don't turn fatigue off myself as I feel it would give me too much of an advantage if my cavalry don't get tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

People do go as high as VH, VH, Neospartan in paticular is well know for his obstinate mausculinity in this.
....

---

:beam: Thanks Pharnakes!

Yep M is TOO easy. And Yes FATIGE OFF make battles WAY more fun since the AI doesn't tire its troops by running around.

HOWEVER, M with Fatige Off makes for really fun strick roleplaying games. So if you are into heavy roleplaying (usually with the Romani) then M with Fatige Off is best.

I've heard general camare is a good challange, I want to try it, but since I like watching my men fight from different angles and look at the scenery (like a mental screen shot) I can't bring myself to use it.

Now when you are NOT roleplaying Vh or H is best, depending on how much "unfair" u want to fight against the AI (bridges, high cliffs, etc) and depending on the faction ur playing too. (Aedui, Pontus, Hyastan [sp], etc are almost imposible in Vh, take fatige off and it can be imposible)


There is one thing I would like to point out about EB 1.0 that happens in the Western part of the map (not so sure about the east). The Eleutheroi are pretty strong, Rome won't get out of Italy intil 250some, its 228 and Sweboz have yet to break out of Central Europe. Also the Boii have a SUPER stack right around that town, and other Alpine celts have stacks protecting the towns. So... that has held up the AI expansion and my expansion.

(currently VH/H with Fatige Off, a little bit of roleplaying with no bridge battles, no high cliffs unless utterly outnumbered, and taking my time. As: Aedui:2thumbsup: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Does turning off fatigue really make much difference?

---

I did it, and personally found it preferable. I realise it negates the effect of having more hardy troops, but found the pay-off worthwhile: defending against AI armies became far more challenging, particularly if they had more men, and there's little difference when attacking as the player since I tended to prevent fatigue as much as possible anyway. It's a personal preference, and something that can be changed back mid-campaign if necessary.

currently as Romani on VH/H on BI.exe......it is quite a challenge if you make some little houseroules (or roleplaying). some would say it is really difficult.

e.g. disband legions in total peace or after 20 years in existence (they were farmers who need to work their fields!).
so the legions won´t become superhero stacks.

second i play "defensive-style"....only attack factions that attacks me. as if the senate advises me to defend roma....

all in all some historical way of campaigning and expanding.

but on H battle difficulty especially the Iberians are remarkable soldiers.
they rout my Polybian legions (with historical distribution of velites,hastati,principes,triarii) on a regular basis.

the VH campaign and BI.exe makes even italia a regular battlefield. you can´t hide there or leave it undefended.

I've just played a half dozen custom battles on hard: never losed but even when I hadn't to fight to the bitter end I always had a lot of casualities, and this with the same amout of mnai spent or 1000/2000 less than AI. Definitely you can't just collect heroic victories even when severly outnumbered as on Medium unless you are a real RTW tactical genius. But considering that in my H/M campaign with Baktria I'd NEVER faced an army really stronger than mine, the H/H campaign should be probably very enjoable with a not-so-difficult faction, shifting somewhat focus from strategic management to tactical ability.

I use house rules to help out the AI in battle. For example, I do not exploit the exagerated size of the battlefield for flanking manouvers, but flank only when I had been able to rout the enemy unit(s) on that wing.

If fatigue is such a limiting factor in battles, why is it that the EB team hasn't adopted higher fatigue stats for all the units to counteract this?

Personally, i've never played any TW game (with mods) with anything different then VH/VH.

Otherwise, its just too easy.

VH battles compensate for the stupidity of the AI.
You actually loose a battle or 2 when you're outnumbered:beam:

1. i forgot to mention that i play without timelimit!

so you can´t win by sitting it out or something.

you must win by pure fighting. especially when you are besieged or attacked.


2. i fight whereever the enemy stands. i don´t move to a position (on stratmap) which favors my defense and then waiting for the enemy to come to me.

everytime an enemy army invades my borders i move my troops to meet it.
"my people" expect that from their military commanders.
it would be much easier to move to a suitable location and camping there, waiting for the enemy.