anybody play hard battles?

[Dogukan]

Just wondering does anyone use hard battle difficulty? And do the ones who use normal lose an even battle?

[Marcus Ulpius]

EB team says that the mod is built for VH/M difficulty, and any harder battle difficulty unbalances the units. But there are some players who play VH/VH, although I never tried it myself. I also prefer H/M settings - that way the AI is more reasonable and won't immediately attack your faction just because it's a player faction.

[Dogukan]

I played VH/H campaign with Rome and it was awesome.....but then I found out that it was awesome becaus the enemy units get a +3 bonus. That saddened me, I thought the fights were really difficult. So is there a way to make that +3 only +1?
Besides is it fun to play normal battles? Isn't it easy? I mean when playing on hard, one had to simply make great tactical moves and deployment to defeat enemy. Even tiring the enemy units was a very crucial thing, it made me calculate everything.

[cux47]

I played VH/N as Pontus and had fair fight with AS.

I use Babylonian spearman as the backbone of my army, with some heavy Persia archers and some Galatian mecenraries and light infantry to surport them. oh, two native spearmans of course, the cheapest the better.
And my enemy send an army with 3 GB(nearly 300 hetori cataphracts) and 2 medium and 2 native phalanx, with some other surport troops.

I successfully defeated those heavy cavarlys but failed to engage with the solid, unbreakable phalanx, because I had already suffered great casuaties thanks to the enemy's cataphracts. And also the equipments and fighting stlye my spearmen used were far more lost behind compared with the phalanx hoplites.

When I realize the victory is impossible, I pulled my units off the battlefeild and retreat to Antioch, which had fallen 3 turns after by the way.

[ziegenpeter]

I played VH/H campaign with Rome and it was awesome.....but then I found out that it was awesome becaus the enemy units get a +3 bonus. That saddened me, I thought the fights were really difficult. So is there a way to make that +3 only +1?
Besides is it fun to play normal battles? Isn't it easy? I mean when playing on hard, one had to simply make great tactical moves and deployment to defeat enemy. Even tiring the enemy units was a very crucial thing, it made me calculate everything.

Maybe you can get a difficulty level in between M&H when you turn it on H and switch the fatigue on.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

I play on hard battles for campaigns that will go on for along time, partic as I always try and keep any veterans.

By the time they get silver or gold chevs, the AI often runs away to quickly, so the hard setting helps even things out, although the early years can be tough, partic against large elite pike units that won't break easily.

[Novellus]

When I started off in EB, I didn't know that the difficulty made the units unbalanced. I actually thought the difficulty change made the AI smarter.

Yeah, I didn't find that one out until later on.

I began seeing Spartiartai Hoplitai take massive casualties in battles, and engulfing phalangites was tough as they died so slowly and never seemed to drop in morale until they were completely surrounded. But it helped with the skill of choosing battles carefully.

But I've played on VH/VH for a while. I even played as Epeiros and nearly conquered Roma until my computer crashed entirely. Careful if you play on VH/VH though. It'll make you seriously have to reconsider the way you deploy soldiers.

[Mooks]

I always play on vh/h. Never can bring myself to play on very hard battle difficulty. The bonuses are insane, and I just cant calculate what can beat what once I get on that mode. I dont want to worry that a crappy levy troop can outfight one of my front line troops.

[gamerdude873]

I love playing on hard battle difficulty. It's always fun for me to have the odds stacked against me then turn it around on the AI. I also play Alex EB so the AI is ramped up some tactically too. Good stuff.

[V.T. Marvin]

I have played both on H and N battle difficulty (campaign difficulty I always have H) and both have its merits:
- on Hard battle difficulty one has to think more about his pre-battle deployment and tactical manuevres during the battle, but eventually it can get too much repetitive as the absolute condition is to kill enemy general as soon as possible - as long as he is around, his troops just will not rout no matter what.
- on Medium battle difficulty one can fully enjoy how beautifully balanced the game is and you can afford to try various semi-realistic tactics and employ various house-rules to spice it up.

Overall I have played and would recommend to use HARD battles with horse-archer heavy factions like Pahlava and the nomads while NORMAL with infantry heavy factions like successors, Gauls, etc. With Romans you can do both. I am now having amazing H/H campaign (ust after Marian reforms) and it great - it keeps the challenge even this late into the game and even my Empire at its zenith soeties suffers horrible defeats.

For campaign difficulty my preference rests firmly with HARD - it is challenging, yet still reasonable, best ballance overall.

[Pobs]

Yup,

playing on hard campaign/ medium battles here and just had my camillan army thrashed in the alpine passes by a hoard of locals from Luvovaetum... 2400 of us, 3000 or so of them... the trick to losing is to field an army that includes rorarii and mercenary celtic spearmen alongside your romans, oh yes and dont take any slingers or archers to wear the enemy down, that helps too !! I should stress that we were on a substantial hill, with fatigue 'on'.... and they still overwhelmed my army and slaughtered us...we lost 1800, they lost 1000.... they just came straight up the hill and straight through my light infantry frontline as if it wasn't there, accepting their losses to pilum and spear without faltering, their heavy swordsmen and spearmen routed my frontline and the celtic mercenaries on the wings followed shortly afterwards, my core of camillan hastati, principes and triarii where then outnumbered and outflanked and went down fighting, particularly the triarii who died almost to a man to slow the pursuit, even my body guard of heavy cavalry was unable to affect the outcome because I couldn't get around the flanks of the host as they kept several units back covering their flanks...

so, if you want to fight and lose, try taking some unreliable troops with you, mercenaries and levy troops are best ... (not that uncommon an event in real life either :)...


cheers,


Pobs

[Joszen1]

I'm one of those that plays on vh/vh. I currently have a Luso campaign going quite strong - although killing the romans is going to be, erm, a magnificent feat - in 210BC. I don't get what 'the mod is balanced for m difficulty' means. No AI could match my manouvering. So I reason like this: give me an army of sheep (all I can really afford) and give the AI (bleet-bleet) an army of lions, and then lets test that proverb! Also, vh/vh is cool because micromanaging armies on the campaign map is essential and easy to leave you embarrassed. But, when you pull together a bunch of Iovoman and Scortamareva and kick the pants of legionnaires you feel a profound sense of accomplishment and self-validation. What more can you ask for?

[Hax]

I personally play on H/M or M/M.

Balance is everything!

[ldb88]

VH/VH It really is very challenging, but that's part of the fun!

Still, you do get incredibly good at beating the AI. I usually get between 5:1 and 10:1 kill:death ratio on evenly matched, medium-sized battles, usually closer to 10:1 when I outnumber the enemy. (I tend to do poorly on large battles because it's more difficult to micro. I even set unit size to medium to make controlling my units easier).

I don't know how well I would do on medium battle difficulty. A balanced battle? The player has brains, so the computer must have bonuses. Or brains. But bonuses are easier to code

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

VH/VH = Kill the general, charge the rear, wipe and repeat. Gets old quickly....

Ive found that trying to emulate tactical maneuvers and actually fighting one on one and getting casualties on medium is much more rewarding...especially when you lose...oh yes...trixy trixy AI...damn them and their hiding in woods lol

And btw, fighting hordes of extraordinarii on VH is NO FUN AT ALL. even with a full army of slingers or 3 units of gesatae.. :(

[Connacht]

I really dislike the idea that harder difficulties are so only because they give bonuses to enemy units (and not because they improve AI).
However, on medium difficulty I find the game too easy, I just have to sit and make some movements, the enemy will ALWAYS die.
With H or VH instead there is the possibility that my opponents might crush my soldiers if they have strong enough armies (anyway, sadly the majority of battles still have the usual result with all the enemy soldiers routing or laying on the ground).

[rootje]

I have a question concerning this topic, I started a campaign on vh/m with Rome 3 weeks ago and eventho I roleplay and try to keep my legions relatively small[1 legion army per region,for example] I still tend to defeat stack after stack of ai controlled armys with relative ease. Is there anyway to change a campaign running to hard battle difficulty :(?

I'd hate to capture all those rebel settlements all over again and do so much work again, just because the ai has let me down in difficulty...

(simple example? I've started expanding in gaul; gave a FM a full stack made up of the troops a roman consul would have had back in the days, even afterhe got locked in the mountains by troops and had bad morale traits due to rationing still I defeated full stack after full stack, even taking on stacks with ''naked fanatics'' with releative ease, the troops of Rome seem just too good to provide a challenge without giving the AI +4 on all stats...)

I've still havn't seen a single defeat yet..while in medieval total war 2[on vh/vh,btw, but it uses different ai] I used to get my ass kicked once in a while due to stupid mistakes or an ai actually using the advantages he got[or the ones i gave him] in a nice way...

[Starforge]

Rootje - no way I know of to change difficulty once started.

Personally I run VH/H playing most of the factions. I found VH/VH requires (from me anyhow) a larger level of exploiting the AI (Kill leader / take greater advantage of the AI's inability to maneuver / Horse Archers / or baiting AI units with high value tagets that they'll blindly follow on the map regardless of where it leaves them tactically.)

I don't rely on historic formations, army composition or tactics, however, making Hard a good fit for my houserules. I don't use retraining - only merged replacements as one of my houserules because typically, 3 chevrons and you've cancelled the hard advantage making the fights all too easy again.

I don't lose a lot of fights but it does happen.

[Cambyses]

I have tried all the settings and now always play at H difficulty with huge unit size. Yes, casualties are painfully high at times, but personally I find this is needed to combat the AI's incompetence. On M all you need to do is make sure your troops form a proper line of battle and guard your flanks appropriately = victory. In H you need to actually take a more positive tactical approach. I wish I had the patience for VH but I find myself getting too frustrated when my troops start disolving during a fight they *should* statistically win. Then I start shouting at the computer, telling my guys they deserve to die for being so useless etc and it just doesnt enhance the experience for me any more...

Also, as some others have mentioned, on H you dont need to try "gamey" solutions to win - just good tactics. ie hiding troops in forests at start, focus on 3-1 local advantage when attacking etc. On VH I find you are just running units around in a panic all the time.

I know what the team mean when they talk about the balance at M, but its just too easy to win if you have been playing the game for a while.

[rootje]

Just went I wanted to restart my roman campaign switching from medium to hard battle difficulty, my two best generals got assasinated, i got attacked by the gauls,swebosz,carthaginians and lusotanians[and still have a front open with getai] and suddenly noticed carthage had gotten a reform and started massing troops that were way better than my triari and principes, they have pretty awesome looks too,blue and green armor!

Anyhow, this will keep things entertaining still, got my ass kicked hard on a city invasion when his superior troops waltzed tru my lines and I had to fight for my life just to get a win on a time victory

..too bad the next turn they again laid siege to the city again,ha, my poor general just became a roman hero...

[Dogukan]

HEY!!!Is there a way to change battle difficulty during campaign?

[Mediolanicus]

Nope.

Well, there are programs to alter save games, but I doubt they work well with EB and they are more than potentially gamebreaking AFAIK.

[NeoSpartan]

I've played:

VH/VH fun stuff!!! With this settings there are no house rules, RUSH the AI, I exploit the AI as much as possible, and exploit ground placement to its fullest.
--this is a fun setting if you just wanna go all out and pull all out all kinds of battle tactics.

VH/VH Fatige OFF. Creazy s**. I did this once with KH back in 8.x. I actually managed to make live and expand into AS. Again fun stuff if you wanna go all out!

VH/M BORING! This setting, even with house rules and all.... killed the fun out of EB. I could beat anything and everything and the AI routed super fast, especially since I had Gaesatae in my armies.
--However, if someone uses extreme house rules with historical expansion, or likes to chill and build up cities, then this setting + Force Diplomacy mod is the best.

VH/H Fatige OFF. Awesome balance this works perfect for me. The AI is strong, but not too strong so I can use house rules and take it easy. Also the AI doesn't tire its troops by needless running.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Actually i believe M/M is a perfectly good difficulty to play on. This is because historically Nations didn't go to war every ten seconds, because it wasn't feasible. The AI goes nuts on any harder levels of play. As for the battles, it doesn't makes the AI rout uber fast. Honestly ive had PLENTY of close calls on M/M campaigns before

[Mediolanicus]

Actually i believe M/M is a perfectly good difficulty to play on. This is because historically Nations didn't go to war every ten seconds, because it wasn't feasible. The AI goes nuts on any harder levels of play. As for the battles, it doesn't makes the AI rout uber fast. Honestly ive had PLENTY of close calls on M/M campaigns before

QFT!

Of course you have to have well balanced armies with 12 units or so to have fun. I you go to war with elite fullstacks as many here do.. that kills the fun...

[Atraphoenix]

my humble observation
on RTW.exe VH/M easy you are the new Alexander!
VH/H still you can defeat the enemy but more realistic just aim your tactics well.

on alex. vh/m my favourite, though I hate to fight endless battles, best fits to me.
vh/h on alex, men there should be more funny games to suicide, even pandadapoi can resist your FMs and kills your king ,

vh/vh,
if you say fighting with your elites with heavy losses, no comment, but to sacrifice even a spartan against a medium phalanx, it is not funny at all
I wish the game have no difficulty settings, just a celever ai and you, I can assure than first MTW and STW had better ais than RTW. I had many battles with MTW that the enemy crushed my army with double envelopments, what RTW does; cavalry charges phalanxes from front!

my favourite is VH/M on alex VH/H on RTW.
I still could not managed to evaluate BI cos it has more different and more comlicated responses than others some very clever some very stupid

[NeoSpartan]

Actually i believe M/M is a perfectly good difficulty to play on. This is because historically Nations didn't go to war every ten seconds, because it wasn't feasible. The AI goes nuts on any harder levels of play. As for the battles, it doesn't makes the AI rout uber fast. Honestly ive had PLENTY of close calls on M/M campaigns before

suit yourself man, if you like slow expanding games, then go for it.

[NeoSpartan]

my humble observation
...
vh/vh,
if you say fighting with your elites with heavy losses, no comment, but to sacrifice even a spartan against a medium phalanx, it is not funny at all

...

WHAT! nah bro... vh/vh you gotta do your best, roll out all elite armies that you can at least have a fighting chance!

I remember taking on the Ptolemoi all elite armies with my KH all elites back in .74 (btw back then the cavarly "charge" did not work) and .8x in VH/VH. That was crazy! If the number of troops were even I was in deep s***. Even if I outnumbered them, I was in for one hell of a fight.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

suit yourself man, if you like slow expanding games, then go for it.

Im a slower kind of guy that's all.
Really i dont see the point in OMFGWTFPWNING the map in like 10 turns. How can anyone get the enjoyment of the game by doing that.

[NeoSpartan]

Im a slower kind of guy that's all.
Really i dont see the point in OMFGWTFPWNING the map in like 10 turns. How can anyone get the enjoyment of the game by doing that.

rushing the AI is only fun in VH/VH