Your starting difficulty level

Just wondering what difficulty level everyone is planning to start at. For me normal normal.

I remember when I first got MTW someone said to start the game at expert level. Yeah right even though I was a shogun vet I feel that I would have lost my first campaign if I went above anything above normal. For 1 the gameplay was a bit different but learning the tech tree and not knowing the capabilities of the enemy and how units worked was a complicated task in itself. Well anyways I was just so use to walkin all over Japan so generals stars was never a big factor for me. So when I first ran into the Byzantines I thought Byzantine Lancers rocked,(not taking stars into account) then I read in these forums people sayin that they completey sucked and thats when I realized to look at the enemy generals stars

So just wondering where evryone is going to start being wimpy like me or going all out and let the comp throw at you evrything they got from the getgo

normal campaign normal battles. For the first few games I just want to see the eye candy and sus out the features that were different to MTW and get a feel for the game. Then I will boost difficulty (once I have played all factions, including the 'non-playable').

All on normal for me though i am confident my first few games will be a disaster.They where when i played mtw for the first time.

I can't wait to totally ruin Rome's domination of the Italian Penninsula by losing horribly to the Gauls my first few campaigns.

expert/expert

I played MTW to death and was really good at it. Even if I can't handle RTW on this setting, I don't mind getting my ass kicked for a while learning it. It will be a refreshing change from MTW where I had to put restrictions on myself to keep the game remotely challenging.

normal and normal :surrender:

i am a total war veteran... been playing since the series inception. EXPERT/EXPERT!

hard/hard which is where I believe I started MTW and STW.

Expert/Expert. Always go for highest difficulty for maximum enjoyment. :charge:
If I play a lower difficulty setting in the 2nd game/campaign, that means CA deserves a shrine.

~:cool:

expert campaign/normal battles

I am glad that the two difficulties are separate now. I don't like spotting the AI troops extra valor and there is no way not to do this in Shogun and Medieval if you want the toughest possible campaign.

Always hard/hard here, I might try expert just for laughs ~D

I'm for hard/normal. Was never the battle expert, but I love the strategy part.

Btw does anyone know what will be the differences in the campaign difficulty settings? If it's only a better AI I will turn it up to expert.

Shaitan

I like a challenge, and losing teaches lessons quickly...ones that I will remember. Besides, it is probably about the only chance the AI is going to get...

I almost answered with a lower difficulty level, because I might run 1 or 2 short partial campaigns at lower settings to get a basic feel for the interface before starting a serious campaign. So I've fudged a bit by considering this the first "serious campaign" (one I intend to finish--win or lose.)

Could be wrong though...perhaps the AI will be much improved. I might have to play one at normal to unlock the other factions.

Normal/Normal

I don't like playing where one side gets stats boosts.

expert campaig normal battles. Im a zillion times better at the strategic part of totalwar then the battles themselves...

I voted for normal/normal, but looking at the replies I might try hard/normal or even expert/normal If I feel I can handle it. The strategic part of MTW and STW were always the easiest for me.

It all depends on the balance. If I get thrashed repeatedly I'll lower the diff. and If it's a cakewalk I'll increase it. :inquisitive:

normal/normal to start with, if I find it too easy I'll crank it up higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

hard/hard which is where I believe I started MTW and STW.

---

You might want to keep in mind that the difficulty levels are pitched slightly differently in Rome than in Medieval. "Easy" is really very romper-stomper easy - almost to the point of deserving the moniker 'kiddie mode' - while "Normal" should be a breeze for any seasoned strategy gamer, as it's pitched at the mainstream. "Hard" is where most genre fans will find a decent challenge, and "Very Hard" should give a good game to the experts. Or so we'd like to think ~;)

Hard/Hard I think...

Especially after what JeromeGrasdyke posted....

Thanks Jerome,
by your advice I will choose hard...that should be a nice challenge while learning the ins and outs :)

Easy Easy
That way I will unlock all the other factions ;)

hard/hard

I usually regret finishing games which I played on a difficulty setting that's was too easy, looking back at the game. So this time I'm going for a challenge from the start.

only one i didnt start with expert was STW, i´ll start of with the hardest here aswell i reckon

I voted normal/normal before I saw Jerome's post. Now I'll probably start at hard/hard instead.

Hard/Hard for me too. I wouldn't like to get my butt kicked for the first game ~;)
Playing a too easy campaign just in order to unlock all the factions would make me feel like I didn't deserve it.

Considering MTW is far too easy on expert I'm gonna stick it on hard/normal. I want a challenge on the Strat map and since the battle engine is new I'll leave that on normal for now. ~:)

Easy both sounds best....and a short campaign as well....Why waste time with the Romans when there's nicer options.

I'll do a serious campaign with a decent faction and I won't feel the least bit guilty ~;)

.....Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

You might want to keep in mind that the difficulty levels are pitched slightly differently in Rome than in Medieval. "Easy" is really very romper-stomper easy - almost to the point of deserving the moniker 'kiddie mode' - while "Normal" should be a breeze for any seasoned strategy gamer, as it's pitched at the mainstream. "Hard" is where most genre fans will find a decent challenge, and "Very Hard" should give a good game to the experts. Or so we'd like to think ~;)

---

Hard/hard then, I hope that the short campaing will unlook all factions.

I'll be choosing the most difficult level that does not treat the AI to any little "bonuses" a.k.a cheats, such as those to valour and income.

I play fair, and I expect my enemies to do likewise, regardless of whether they are carbon- or silicon-based.

A.

Normal/Normal for a start. I'll check your replies to see which advantages (or "cheats") the AI gets in order to put up a more challenging game. Unless I really become very expert in this game I will not allow the AI to cheat :smiley:

The problem with harder difficulty levels in MTW was the unrealisticly inflated stat modifiers especially noticable with vanilla units. Although this made the battles more difficult in a sense, not for the reasons I would enjoy it for. Will I be challenged more by the AI, or do they just get extra money and stat multipliers? I'm interested more in being "out-witted" rather than "outspent".
That is why, and only why I choose normal.

I think I touched a nerve there...

A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArseClown

I think I touched a nerve there...

A.

---

I just felt your original point should be emphasized more.

Expert/hard

I don't mind the AI cheating on the campaign map (if it indeed does so on expert) but I do mind the AI cheating on the battle map, where I get most of my enjoyment anyway.

Fair enough, I don't disagree with your logic, I've just chosen a different path. I realize that I'm spotting the AI units quite a bit of valour on the battlefield in MTW/VI. However, the AI needs the help. It is very frustrating at times though, having lower tech units fight like DEMONS against my better troops.

Praylak, good call. I didn't stop to think that not everyone here knows how the mechanics of the game work.

Red Harvest, I think you may be missing the point. The AI shouldn't need the help. I realise that AI is extremely difficult to program, and that an AI can only be as intelligent as it's programmer. Nevertheless, I feel that CA - and any developer of any game that lends itself primarily to single-player - is obliged to devote a respectable portion of their resources to ensure that their AI can stand on its own without the need for "props" in the form of stat bonuses and supply drops.

I tend to regard the majority of multi-player games as unfinished games these days: in creating a MP game, the developer's primary motivation is to force the player base to supply any required strategy and tactics. Why? Because they couldn't be bothered supplying a working AI. It's a cynical opinion, but I believe it to be pretty much on the mark.

My observation is that today, a game marketed as a single-player game is usually a multi-player game with a token AI, and a wretchedly pathetic one at that. I can not think of even one game that possesses an AI that I can not "read" and prepare for after having seen it in action a few times.

Allow me to use Command and Conquer: Generals to illustrate this. I assure you that that in SP, the AI will rush you early on with two - never one or three - anti-infantry vehicles. For the USA, it's humvees. With China, gattling tanks. GLA: quad cannons. They will invariably come around via a back route and target your resource gatherers. Little wonder I tend to have a few tanks sitting around...

A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArseClown

I can not think of even one game that possesses an AI that I can not "read" and prepare for after having seen it in action a few times.

---

I play quite a lot of MP FPS and the description you give above could just as easily be applied to a lot of human players out there... And the AI is usually more accurate.. :laugh4:

But there is something about being sniped by a bot with a Walther from half a map away that is sooo... cheesey.

Another instance of flawed AI, employing it's ill-conceived advantages to unrealistic and all-too-predictable effect.

A.

Normal/Normal - in theory CA will have pitched the game to play the most enjoyable at this level for the majority of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

expert/expert

I played MTW to death and was really good at it. Even if I can't handle RTW on this setting, I don't mind getting my ass kicked for a while learning it. It will be a refreshing change from MTW where I had to put restrictions on myself to keep the game remotely challenging.

---

then why did you vote expert high ~:joker: ~:wave:

Arseclown,

I agree with you to some extent, but that is not pragmatic for the developers. It takes really good players considerable time to develop really good AI in a strategy game. Look at how long it took to build chess algorithms and machines that could beat a world champion! In some ways chess is quite simple and well defined by comparison, and there were thousands of people working on chess programs for decades.

I used to be an avid chess player and have won an expert level US national class tournament and beaten masters. I was outclassed by true masters though and was usually fighting unsuccessfully for a draw against them. I could beat/draw most commercial chess machines on tournament settings until a few years ago. Part of it was knowing my opponent. I played a computer differently than a human--same basic idea as in TW. Tactically, a computer could kill me so I avoided tactical openings. But I could see far deeper strategically. The computer was good enough tactically that I could trick it into a poor strategic position by sacrificing pawns or pieces--converting its strength into a liability.

To build a truly strong AI takes time and experience with the final product. Unfortunately, this is not a luxury the programmers are ever allowed (to my knowledge.) To really do it right means the game rules must be frozen and the unit abilities must be set in concrete well before release. (Imagine the chaos for a chess algorithm if suddenly pawns were allowed to move in reverse--humans would adapt quickly, programs would not.)

One thing I've seen when I have played games against some developers (not CA), they tend to be average players. Now if they could take a "dream team" of strong players with *differing* styles to work with the programmers, they could build a very strong AI. Even if the players volunteer their skills and input for free, the project will cost a fair bit of money and delay a "time sensitive" product.

A new problem arises when you have a very strong AI: it can be tough to "dumb it down" so that the masses will play it. Most folks I knew with chess programs and chess computers complained that they could never beat the machine on any level--but the were not "serious" players, just casual looking for a 5 or 10 minute game. So it can actually backfire. Your customers might be offended by having to play with "sissy mode" options and then still struggling to win.

Chess is great, I play chessmaster when I need to sharpen my brain, which is quite often, it get's dull quickly :) My rank is only a meager 1100 something. Yep, the AI is tactically sound but prone to weakness strategically...ofcourse I've never tried an AI higher then 2000, don't think my ego could take it lol :)

If only a game like RTW could have so robust an AI, someday :)

I voted normal/normal: a normal campaign to allow me to get a feel for the game and normal battles because then the units are closest to their historical power.

But after reading what Jerome said, I'll go for hard/hard. TW campaigns take so long, I don't want to waste time on something that turns out to be too easy. (I still break out into a cold sweat thinking of the early Homm3 campaigns that were both very long and very easy.)

Hard/Hard.

Expert/Expert

I expect to get PWNed by the AI in my first games though...

Red Harvest,

Yeah, I know what you mean... I appreciate reality, I know that a strategically strong AI is just a dream... I guess I'm just dreaming at this point in time. Do you blame me? So many people here at the Org have harboured such high hopes for RT:W over the past year or more, and having seen some of what is in store for us, I'm desperately hoping that an advanced AI will restore some of our faith in the game.

Let's be brutally honest here: as I have previously made very clear, I don't care what units are included in the game, because regardless of how fantastic (in its true sense) some of them may be, ultimately, we're going to mod R:TW beyond recognition anyway. To me, it's the R:TW engine that matters.

Please refer to a couple of my previous posts on this topic to see where I'm coming from:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=35446 , about two-thirds down the page.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...6&page=1&pp=30 , about halfway down the page.

Although we may have access to certain parameters (such as how in M:TW one could specify a unit's general role, eg. Kataphractoi: "ATTACKER,AMBUSH,ANTI_MISSILE,CAVALRY") I expect that the core of R:TW's AI shall be hardcoded. As much as I hate to say it, a broken AI shall stay broken, no matter how much we try to compensate with tweaks.

Edit: I am particularly concerned about how the tactical AI shall handle skirmishers. Will hastati be able to throw their pila on the run, or will they hesitate, glance around, lift their- too late, trampled by cavalry. :embarassed: We could tweak this somewhat in M:TW by increasing the javelin range from 2000 to 2500, which made it at least manageable, but I think you will agree that this was hardly a satisfactory solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I played a computer differently than a human--same basic idea as in TW. Tactically, a computer could kill me so I avoided tactical openings. But I could see far deeper strategically. The computer was good enough tactically that I could trick it into a poor strategic position by sacrificing pawns or pieces--converting its strength into a liability.

---

Exactly!! This is what I mean about being able to "read" an AI. One whould note that the "strength" you refer to, as you have noted, has been developed over decades of concerted effort. Most AIs lack this, and as such don't have any strength whatsoever. This is precisely why they need to resort to cheating to be competetive.

Quote:

---

To build a truly strong AI takes time and experience with the final product. Unfortunately, this is not a luxury the programmers are ever allowed (to my knowledge.) To really do it right means the game rules must be frozen and the unit abilities must be set in concrete well before release.

---

I believe this is called planning. ~;)

Quote:

---

Now if they could take a "dream team" of strong players with *differing* styles to work with the programmers, they could build a very strong AI.

---

Agreed. I have acknowledged this in stating that "an AI can only be as intelligent as it's programmer" earlier in this thread.

Quote:

---

A new problem arises when you have a very strong AI: it can be tough to "dumb it down" so that the masses will play it. Most folks I knew with chess programs and chess computers complained that they could never beat the machine on any level--but the were not "serious" players, just casual looking for a 5 or 10 minute game. So it can actually backfire. Your customers might be offended by having to play with "sissy mode" options and then still struggling to win.

---

I believe JeromeGrasdyke has addressed this to an extent, earlier in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

You might want to keep in mind that the difficulty levels are pitched slightly differently in Rome than in Medieval. "Easy" is really very romper-stomper easy - almost to the point of deserving the moniker 'kiddie mode' - while "Normal" should be a breeze for any seasoned strategy gamer, as it's pitched at the mainstream. "Hard" is where most genre fans will find a decent challenge, and "Very Hard" should give a good game to the experts. Or so we'd like to think ~;)

---

So we hope, Jerome, so we hope... I expect that "Very Hard" shall give experts a good game many times over and not just the first time, too.

OT: Red Harvest, I had no idea you were such a venerable chess player! ~:) Please don't read any sarcasm into that, because I really mean it. I don't care if you can't compete with Kasparov, just as I don't care that my pianistic abilities can not compare to those of Vladimir Ashkenazy. You have my respect and admiration. :2thumbsup:

Also OT: I shall be changing my nick sometime in the next few days. I guess I've finally outgrown ArseClown. ~:joker: vBulletin code permitting, I'll be venturing down the Dark Path as ... *cue: Shostakovich, Symphony No.5, I, development section* ... Degtyarev14.5.

A.

Heres my oppinion

You know even for MTW the A.I. was'nt too bad on the battlefield. When the A.I. was at its worst was when they were greatly inferior to you. So it would constantly juggle its troops around figuring how it should be setup to defend from you. When the quality of troops is equal I do'nt think it was all to bad. IMO the A.I. was really horrible was in troop selection. It's biggest aim was to make a huge army of missile troops and peasant class units. Where this problem really stems from is its teching up. It made teching farms,mines and trade secondary. So the A.I. tries to buid an anti rush defense army. Well because it just spent all its money on crap and has very little left it can no longer tech up for income. So it all comes down to the A.I spending there money poorly from the bginning.

Also everyone plays differently some stretch there line and have no reserves, where as I go for more of a box formation with half the army being reserves and some missle units.