Most realistic difficulty level?

[MStumm]

I am having a good time on VH/VH right now as the Byz. Everyone hates me and wants to invade me, and I always have to be on the lookout, so its been great. I do have to keep large garrisons this time around, so I've been unable to spread like the scourge all over the world so far.

Why do you want realistic difficulty, when the fun one is better I think?

[Fookison]

I find myself playing mostly with a Medium Campaign and Very Hard Battles to get the most satisfaction out of games.... That is my preference for a balanced game.

[Mystic]

havent played campaign since medievel 1 first came out. just bought m2 a few days ago and im having the most drawn out slow campaign ever. playing as english im around turn 110 and ive just been in a fist fight with france milan and denmark for what seems like forever and it seems like its never going to end. by the time i defeat the french the mongols will control 75% of the map. i have it on medium campaign and hard battles. ive had some great wars so far and although i havent moved forward since taking dublin and edinburgh im really enjoying the gameplay and the challenge.

[Sic semper tyrannis]

My 6 month first campaign is going pretty well as the Brits. I guess I got lucky in that the Hungarians are pretty huge and stopped the Mongols in their tracks at Constantinople, forcing an effective stalemate. I guess after that the Mongols wanted friends so we are now allied against Hungary. I have 40 some odd turns left and only need 8 territories and Jerusalem for the long game victory. I've eliminated the Scots, French, HRE, Sicilians, and the Danes are hiding behind their walls while I starve out their last settlement.

I'm playing Med/Med and I have the following observations to share:
The battlefield AI can be a joke. At times they will charge me with everything they have and essentially render my archer-heavy armies ineffective. However, it's when they stick their infantry units within range and just mill around helplessly that makes me frown and speed it up to 6x until they rout.
On the campaign map, they do pretty well. Factions will play with different styles. Venice, for example, stacks so many spies in their cities that I can't even hope to get a peek inside, while the Danes were vulnerable to me sowing dissent in their towns with spies and assassins. They will march around with several small armies (1-3 units) together, rather than combining them. I suspect some of their money is gained by illicit means though. In my campaign, Milan is completely landlocked by my own regions (think South Africa), but supports 4+ full stacks on the income of two regions, even after I cut off trade rights in an attempt to impoverish them. On the other hand, I often capture castles/cities that are in dire need of a size upgrade, so either they don't have lots of free money or they need help in that area too.

Overall, I'm satisfied that it's going so well, but next time around (maybe Portugal or HRE?) I will bump it up to H/H. My only fear is that the behind-the-scenes campaign stuff will be just AI cheating rather than more effective playing. Wouldn't be much fun to beat your opponent into a corner and suddenly have them recruit 10 elite units per castle and counterattack.

[cambovenzi]

alright guys, i have a quick question about game difficulty.
are auto-resolve battles determined by the campaign or battle difficulty setting?
i seem to have forgotten and am confused on the subject.

in relation to that, if someone could point me in the direction of where i can find all the difficulty setting differences, that would be great.
googling didnt go as planned :)

[cambovenzi]

eh i just tested it out.
autoresolved battles fall under the campaign difficulty like i thought.
(which would explain why my general and some militia archers walked through half a stack

still interested in a link to the other specifics tho, if anyone has them.

[cambovenzi]

as far as realism, i tend to like a hard campaign difficulty, so the diplomatic game is more realistic.(not everyone attacking you, almost no matter what)

as far as realism for battle difficulty, it has to be very hard.
i find there are many exploits or easy ways to beat the AI on hard.
at times the AI will just st there until you engage in melee cmobat. you can often surround them, charge a flank, or pick off a couple units with archers/crossbowmen.

the autoresolve feature on hard is much harder than actually playing the battles yourself in most situations.
i know they both say "hard" but that doesnt mean it is even.
i can often easily wipe the AI off the field in battle, but if i autoresolve, it often leans the other way.
i dont mind this at all, unless it is a massive fight with too many units for my liking, or a ticky tack battle that i dont feel like fighting.
as far as auto-resolve realism goes, i think hard is the most realistic. you need staggering odds on VH to win most battles. medium is far too easy on many fronts, and can easily autoresolve a win in the majority of fights with anything close to even odds or better.