Difficulty effects in battle?

Greetings all. I'm not new to the Medieval games (played and been a fan from the start in fact) and still playing the original. My question has led me here since it seems a good place to ask it.

Does the difficulty setting affect the battle performance of your units at any level outside Normal? Usually I play on Normal but since the strategic AI is rather simpleminded sometimes I put it on Hard for more of a challenge (I still find the AI builds weak armies and still isn't much cop in close combat, but okay). However I've noticed that in some circumstances the AI can win unit-to-unit battles on Hard and Very Hard that it technically shouldn't be winning.

Recent example being the trouncing my Sicilians recieved from the Byzantines. My army was low valour and the Byzantines always have nice high-star generals, so that definitely makes a valid difference, but I was still quite startled at the way their Kataphraktoi could charge straight into my feudal sergeant-line and actually win the ensuing fights. Even when side charged with some militia sergeants they manage to grind down a lot of my men before that specific unit finally got killed completely or routed.

I consider myself a fairly competent general. I understand all the dynamics following the basic rock-paper-scissor concept, I don't make too many stupid decisions . But if their cavalry can barge straight into my spearmen and win, that leaves me with very few options to exploit. I've noticed pretty much the same is true on Easy. I've checked it and you can be very rude with your troops and win "unwinneable" fights.


So I have a suspicion that the AI gets some kind of bonus on higher difficulty levels (and vice versa, you get the bonus or AI gets a penalty on easy difficulty). Is this true?

Are there any good mods that up the AI's capabilty on the strategic front? So I don't have to feel bad about putting the difficulty back down to Normal.

Description in the Beginner's guide (available in the Guide forum) is the following:

"On difficulty
There are four difficulties, easy, normal, hard and expert. Your difficulty will decide how much money you start off with, any bonuses given to you or the AI and what tactics the AI will use on the two maps. Starting funds are as follows:
Easy = 10000 florins
Normal= 8000 florins
Hard = 6000 florins
Expert = 4000 florins
On easy the player will get an extra +4 to morale in battle, making it harder for the AI to rout your troops. On expert the AI get this bonus. Normal and hard don't give anyone a bonus. The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty. Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

In addition to these changes LongJohn (another developer) says the following: The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade."

Regarding the specific facts to which you refer in your post, I have to say that Kataphraktoi lead by an eight-star general with the usual valour bonus that the Byz get very often can beat almost anything you can throw at them early in the game. Arbs are very handy to deal with those in the late area. Before that you can either try to overwhelm them by sheer numbers, use javelin (if you like micromanagement) or use mounted crossbowmen (the best option IMHO). If you select the hand-to-hand way, be prepared for loads of casualties.

Hope it helps,
Good luck

There are battlefield bonuses depending on the difficulty level.

On Easy, your troops get +4 morale. On Expert, the AI troops get +4 morale. On Hard, the AI troops get a 15% bonus their attack and defense stats, and on Expert this is +30%. So the AI troops will be better statistically on higher difficulty levels.

On Hard and Expert, the AI will also do things a little smarter on the battlefield. Ambushing, using trees and terrain, that sort of thing.

Welcome to the .Org! :balloon2:

What they said :bow:

If you want the fairest game without the imbalancing AI morale bonus then go for the hard.

About the Byzantine. As mentioned above they start with some very good Royalty, but also their faction leader gets a +2 influence bonus and +1 command bonus. This and Kataphraktoi, makes the Byzantine a very formidable force in early. It also makes it very difficult to trigger a Byzantine civil war. Their faction leader's influence is simply too high.

Thanks folks. I do realize the ownage a high valoured K. unit can deliver and I've been on the recieving end of their ouchies before, but I was still a little peeved by the way they cut their way through one and a half units of sergeants and some militia and come out with half the unit intact. I just never experienced it quite like that before. :whip: I re-checked the save game and almost all spearmen were valour 0 and the general had no stars, lol. I'm playing a sucession game with my friend but he only likes the campaign part and doesn't build great troops. :smash:

I'll chalk it up to too many things working against me then, since that same turn I was greeted by civil war and an attack from the bloody Pope. :dizzy2: Time to start a new campaign me thinks.

I've read somewhere that Command stares negate morale penalties or give positive morale of their own. Is this true? Ive been playing medieval for years but I never knew all of such specific numbers (lost the manual ages ago, heh).

Command stars give +1 morale per star to all friendly units within 50 metres. Once the units go outside the 50 metre boundary this bonus is effectively halved (2 command stars give +1 morale, 4 command stars give +2 morale).

They also give +1 valour for every two stars (excluding the morale bonus).

The morale bonus is separate (not bestowed by valour as is usually the case) because it only takes effect on the field based on the distance from the general and most importantly his continued existence.

This is why a good general is so very important in MTW.

-Edit: Morale on the battlefield is very complex, remember that there is a -8 morale penalty immediately following the general's death. This can cause a catastrophic chain rout if your units are non elites with low base morale.

Thanks. I basically know all these things by principle and the obvious ones by numbers (like the 2 stars/1valour bit) since you can see it. But Im mighty interested in the actual numbers that lurk behind most of what the game calculates. It's good to know this stuff. I hate morale penalties on generals. So often a good high-star guy gets ruined because he should be in the looney asylum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bozewolf

So often a good high-star guy gets ruined because he should be in the looney asylum.

---

Yes the "good runner" or any of the coward line of vices can ruin a good general and are not easy to offset.

In a game with the Spanish I had an uncle, 6-star and high acumen. But he had "coward". So uesless. Then after 25 or so years governing Granada he was down to a "good runner" and after another 20 odd years he had "Utterly Fearless" (although the good runner vice didn't disappear). In the end he also turned out to be charismatic so he was back on 0, lol.


Such a weird game sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bozewolf

In a game with the Spanish I had an uncle, 6-star and high acumen. But he had "coward". So uesless. Then after 25 or so years governing Granada he was down to a "good runner" and after another 20 odd years he had "Utterly Fearless" (although the good runner vice didn't disappear). In the end he also turned out to be charismatic so he was back on 0, lol.


Such a weird game sometimes.

---

Ah yes, you've gotta love the contradictory traits this game lays on your generals sometimes. One of my favorites was from a couple years ago when I had a Sicilian prince who was a "Truly Pious Atheist".... :laugh4:

Haha, yeah. I see that especially when I go Inquisitor on other factions. Lowish piety generals that have a religious trait can end up being True Believers and Atheists at the same time.

Sometimes seemingly contradictory traits combine to make very cool generals from a character/roleplay viewpoint. Way back when I started playing the game (with the Byzzies, of course :2thumbsup:) I had a high ranked general that was a a great warrior, natural leader but also raving mad (the -3 one) and a "Deep Thinker" at the same time. He was also a severe alcoholic and gay. :laugh4: It had so much character. He was my hero general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bozewolf

I had a high ranked general that was a a great warrior, natural leader but also raving mad (the -3 one) and a "Deep Thinker" at the same time. He was also a severe alcoholic and gay.

---

I sometimes try to make sense of the weird mess of attributes that get handed out (really just for my own amusement and to add to the 'immersion').

Perhaps, for example, this general being gay was, as a result, very determined to prove himself. If he was a "deep thinker", he more than likely would have been concerned about the repercussions of being "outed", and perhaps in his obsessive attempts to hide his true self, he may well have appeared to be "raving mad". Alternately, his desire to prove himself in the field may well have contributed to this tag - as he consistantly charged at his enemies like a man possessed....

And let's face it, with all of this turmoil going on in his life, is it any wonder that he turned to the bottle?

Okay, I'll go back to my corner now...

bamff: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Yes the "good runner" or any of the coward line of vices can ruin a good general and are not easy to offset.

---

Indeed. The greatest 9-star commander in the world is useless if his vices cause his men to flee the battlefield right away.

My general rule of thumb is if a general inflicts more than a -2 morale penalty on his troops (*maybe* up to -4 if he's otherwise truly awesome), he gets retired from military duty. (I usually won't disband them, however -- that just comes off as ungrateful on my part. ~;) )

Oh, I'll disband them like a bunch of cheap Russian hookers...:smash:

A coward line general, if he has decent accumen, might make a good dedicated governor. Leave him in a backwater province to suck horse shoes.

Well yeah, obviously. I've had plenty of legendary chicken governors with high acumen. I never really consider them "generals", though. Hell, even if he is the most cowardly man in the world, if your acumen is sky-high I'll put ya in charge of my biggest income province as fast as I can disband those Russian hookers...

I think we lost track of one of your questions. Are there any mods that up the AI's capability on the strategic front?

The only mod I have tried is XL. It doesn't really made the AI any smarter, but it helps it strategically in three ways

1: The AI is more likely to build ships. This makes it harder for you to dominate at sea and build huge trade blocs.

2: Farm income is increased and trade income decreased. The AI is better at exploiting farm income than trade income, so the economic side of the game becomes a little more even.

3: No one can build peasant or Muslim peasant units. This forces the AI to build some better units instead. You will notice a considerable improvement in the Egyptian AI units especially.

Also, there are new challenging factions to play. Armenia is pretty tough - a one province nation right in the middle of the Byzantine-Egyptian-Turk ruckus. Also, playing the Cuman in high era puts you right in the path of the Mongols. Oops!

Note that most mods require Viking invasion. You didn't say if you have it or not, but I assume that you do. (Sicily is not a playable faction without it, if I remember correctly.)

Thanks for getting us back on track, Brandy Blue!

My mod experience has also been limited to XL, and I would agree, each of the changes that you have noted certainly improves the level of competition/challenge that the AI offers.

I would also add that the elimination of the land bridges also helps to level things up somewhat.

Haha, this thread made me laugh several times.

A question, does a 0 star general increase the morale of his men with his presence at all? I as if remember soldiers get the text "encouraged by the general" when even a rookie general is near, but that's probably just an automatic assumption I've always made. If this is the case, then in some fights it might make sense to actually withdraw the general in the beginning of the battle to avoid disaster.

It's a trade off. You can withdraw the general to keep him safe if morale is already high and you're confident of winning the battle, but there is a morale penalty for units that are more than 50 metres away from the general. On the other hand if the general is part of a battered unit and looks likely to get picked off anyway, then withdrawing might be worth the risk. But there are vices to be gained for doing so...

0 star generals don't bestow any valour or battlefield moral bonuses on the units under their command. They are basically "not a general yet", but just a regular unit leader that just so happens to be leading the army. So having one of these commanding your army is like having no general at all. If this 0 star general is too far from any units under his command they won't suffer any penalties because no bonus was given in the first place. The only penalty is the temporary morale plunge if the "general" is killed or routs.

The latter was what I had in mind; if then the only possible effect a 0 star general could have on the battlefield is causing a disaster by getting killed or routed, then it might be better to not deploy him in the first place. Well, doesn't happen too often I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

it might be better to not deploy him in the first place.

---

On the contrary. Loosing a 0-star commander is not a real loss, and you should only give battle when you are winning. So why not let him promote to 1-star (1 victory needed)? And should you loose him, well, you should be unlucky not to regroup an be able to mount a second attempt while attacking, or if you are defending your routing units will be close to where the reinforcements are coming in.

If you are defending and don't have reinforcements, well, then you need the commanders unit even more.

Furthermore, withdrawing can inflict vices, whereas staying in there could give you virtues.

/KotR

: O does he not get the promotion if he is not present on the battlefield?

I *think* the general who starts out as general on the deployment screen before the actual battle loads will get the star. BUT I've sometimes been surprised by somebody else getting the victory. So just keep him in there...

/KotR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

The latter was what I had in mind; if then the only possible effect a 0 star general could have on the battlefield is causing a disaster by getting killed or routed, then it might be better to not deploy him in the first place. Well, doesn't happen too often I guess.

---

I think you might just be missing the point. Every unit is led by at least a 0 star general so it is impossible to go into battle without one, unless you have a 1+ star general.

:bow:

I guess that must mean someone else assumes the role of general once you withdraw your original general, which I had no idea of :P

That is - to the best of my knowledge - incorrect. When battle commences, there can be only one general, and is he withdrawn, then the battle concludes without a general. Though as there appearantly is no bonus, the difference is academic.

/KotR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

I guess that must mean someone else assumes the role of general once you withdraw your original general, which I had no idea of :P

---

No you're still slightly off. Your question was regarding it not being worth deploying a 0 valour general in the first place. My point is that you either deploy a 0 valour general or a 1 star plus general. There are no other options.

:bow:

A question I've wondered about recently: You invade a province, and have more units than allowed on the battlefield. If you move the highest-starred general to the reinforcements section, what is the overall effect? Does the highest star general that starts on the battlefield count as the general for bonuses, etc, or would it still be the highest involved in the battle? Would this be a way to keep a poor command King from being the general in a fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

A question I've wondered about recently: You invade a province, and have more units than allowed on the battlefield. If you move the highest-starred general to the reinforcements section, what is the overall effect? Does the highest star general that starts on the battlefield count as the general for bonuses, etc, or would it still be the highest involved in the battle? Would this be a way to keep a poor command King from being the general in a fight?

---

As far as i know: no

The game always selects the highest general available. You *can* of course substitute the default general unit in the pre-battle screen for a reinforcement unit, and I don't think that the default general than gets counted as the general for that specific battle.

You can see the effect by swapping say a 4-star general with a 1-star general. The valor marker on all units changes immediatly. I havn't checked if you can keep your king (and your army) out of harms way by doing so, but I would imagine it was possible.

But again, sometimes the game has a difficulty finding the "real" general when assigning a victory.

This needs testing IMHO

/KotR

Quote:

---

No you're still slightly off. Your question was regarding it not being worth deploying a 0 valour general in the first place. My point is that you either deploy a 0 valour general or a 1 star plus general. There are no other options.

---

Sorry, I used "not deploy" as a synonym for "withdraw immediately in the beginning of the battle" :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knight of the Rose

You can see the effect by swapping say a 4-star general with a 1-star general. The valor marker on all units changes immediatly. I havn't checked if you can keep your king (and your army) out of harms way by doing so, but I would imagine it was possible.

But again, sometimes the game has a difficulty finding the "real" general when assigning a victory.

This needs testing IMHO

/KotR

---

This is one thing that really messes things up, the replacement will lead the battle but everything except death will transfer to the default general. And some negative v&v works thruogh even that (the not so bold line).

Had a buggy general once (the former king of a died out faction that I inhierited the lands, but the faction had a civil war that ended up with only the general unit left).
Bascially he was an immortal. He never comanded the battle himself (didn't show up on the battlefield), but he had a stand-in with the general bonues (aka high star general, ended up with 8-stars on def). But that stand-in could die in battle normally and things were normal, except that a new stand-in was chosen.
But unlike his stand-ins he never saw battle (how do you engage with a unit that doesn't exist?) and started to be "not so bold". I don't think I tried this, but I'm pretty certain that he would get good runner if his stand-in ran though.

Yep the game can be pretty wierd sometimes.

Yes, this is a known issue. I've seen battles where vices were gained by more than one general, and where a prince gained the vices even though he wasn't leading the battle. There are also a few bugs that pop up when the king leads the battle.

^^ The one bug I usually get when my King leads the battle is 'You have lost.'

Oh wait, that's just my bug from firing up a game at 2am when i'm tipsy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

bamff: :laugh4:

Indeed. The greatest 9-star commander in the world is useless if his vices cause his men to flee the battlefield right away.

My general rule of thumb is if a general inflicts more than a -2 morale penalty on his troops (*maybe* up to -4 if he's otherwise truly awesome), he gets retired from military duty. (I usually won't disband them, however -- that just comes off as ungrateful on my part. ~;) )

---

On the flip side I will take a 4 star general with a +2 to moral over a 6 star no virtue any day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironsword

^^ The one bug I usually get when my King leads the battle is 'You have lost.'

Oh wait, that's just my bug from firing up a game at 2am when i'm tipsy.

---

I get a somewhat more sophisticated version of this, don't know why - but suddently the game charges my line of archers straight into the enemy, cavalry runs into the forrest, and when I *clearly* clicked on the halt button, the game routs my units. Not my fault.

:clown:

/KotR