What is different in 1.3?

[Fisherking]

The things I have noticed so far include:

Unit upkeep is reduced.

Recruitment costs are lower at lower difficulty ratings.

Building costs are lower at lower difficulty ratings.

Research is slower at higher difficulty settings.

Trade is changed at various difficulty setting.

Skirmisher units have 90m range, and many have a gaggle formation rather than ranks.

You have to fight to keep trade spots. Navies are more important and some ship stats are changed, if not on the cards.

There is more but some of you may have noticed other things I have missed.

[Sheogorath]

The battle AI seems a bit dumber to me, as I mentioned, previously I saw it occasionally attempt tactics, but now it just seems to rush. In one battle it did try to flank me with some cavalry, but since I turned an infantry unit to face them the cavalry just sort of ran a circle around my army, then rode off back to the main force, probably looking rather embarrassed.

[Cheetah]

In one battle it did try to flank me with some cavalry, but since I turned an infantry unit to face them the cavalry just sort of ran a circle around my army, then rode off back to the main force.

This is what you would have done in the place of the cavalry commander is not it?

[antisocialmunky]

It would seem intellegent until you realise that the AI ALWAYS tries to do that. So in effect it has finally been wrong enough times for the proper situation to come up for it to get the right answer. To put it another way, it just bubbled in C for all the test questions.

I will however say that this is the first time that I have seen or heard of the AI withdrawing its cavalry instead of finding something to suicide them on.

[Prodigal]

Battle field range finder is red/orange, a small but staggeringly important change.

Cannons fire on a very low trajectory.

Getting a viable navy is a must.

[Zarky]

Don't know if this is official but auto-resolve seems to be easier.

[Cheetah]

It would seem intellegent until you realise that the AI ALWAYS tries to do that. So in effect it has finally been wrong enough times for the proper situation to come up for it to get the right answer. To put it another way, it just bubbled in C for all the test questions.

I will however say that this is the first time that I have seen or heard of the AI withdrawing its cavalry instead of finding something to suicide them on.

Fact is that the AI has fairly decent priorities when it comes picking a target for a charge. For example I noticed that native lancers always charge the moving units (even if it is on the other flank) and not the stationary ones (ofc facing the lancers). Also lancers avoid pikemen at all cost (which ofc can be exploited by the player). So just because an experinced player can outsmart the AI it does not mean that the AI is utterly dumb.
The real test would be letting someone fight the AI who never seen a TW battle. Actually, IIRC someone did that with the vanilla game and the player was trashed in all battles.

[A Very Super Market]

I'm fairly certain that the auto-balancer measure only takes into account the units, not the experience. With an experienced army, I've won several auto-resolves against bad odds and bad soldiers.

Edit: Hell, I think the measure is only based on the number of men, with a multiplier for cavalry and artillery. Six units of Desert Warriors does not equal 3 of line infantry, 2 Provincial cavalry regiments, and a 24-pounder.

[Marquis of Roland]

Fact is that the AI has fairly decent priorities when it comes picking a target for a charge. For example I noticed that native lancers always charge the moving units (even if it is on the other flank) and not the stationary ones (ofc facing the lancers). Also lancers avoid pikemen at all cost (which ofc can be exploited by the player). So just because an experinced player can outsmart the AI it does not mean that the AI is utterly dumb.
The real test would be letting someone fight the AI who never seen a TW battle. Actually, IIRC someone did that with the vanilla game and the player was trashed in all battles.

I agree here; The AI has some decent basic tactics down, that most TW players know how to deal with/exploit, or at the very least predict. Most of my friends don't play this game (because of the system requirements, no surprise there), but when they do play a battle unsupervised, it usually ends very badly.

[antisocialmunky]

Fact is that the AI has fairly decent priorities when it comes picking a target for a charge. For example I noticed that native lancers always charge the moving units (even if it is on the other flank) and not the stationary ones (ofc facing the lancers). Also lancers avoid pikemen at all cost (which ofc can be exploited by the player). So just because an experinced player can outsmart the AI it does not mean that the AI is utterly dumb.
The real test would be letting someone fight the AI who never seen a TW battle. Actually, IIRC someone did that with the vanilla game and the player was trashed in all battles.

Well I do agree with that. The AI isn't terrible unless it bugs out, sits in a ball, and dies or something stupid.

I've just never liked the fact that the AI sends cav in piecemeal and has tunnel vision when it finally picks a target. Suicide runs are annoying.

[Husar]

Fact is that the AI has fairly decent priorities when it comes picking a target for a charge. For example I noticed that native lancers always charge the moving units (even if it is on the other flank) and not the stationary ones (ofc facing the lancers). Also lancers avoid pikemen at all cost (which ofc can be exploited by the player). So just because an experinced player can outsmart the AI it does not mean that the AI is utterly dumb.
The real test would be letting someone fight the AI who never seen a TW battle. Actually, IIRC someone did that with the vanilla game and the player was trashed in all battles.

Well the problem I have with the battlefield AI is that it doesn't always get proper units by the strategic AI, if it actually employs line infantry in a line then yes, it can be very challenging, but often it doesn't have access to decent units and then when it does, i often see it park some of it's best infantry in buildings....
Since a lot of battliefields have buildings, that can ruin a lot of battles for the AI...

Oh and then it sometimes shuffles units around like a bunch of scared rabbits, hides some far away behind a fence too far away from it's main force etc. so I can just takes them out piecemeal or how you say. Those new features are nice but they also ruin the battlefield AI in way too many battles I've seen, I think I lost a lot more naval battles than land battles and find the naval part way more satisfying in general.

[Marquis of Roland]

Most musket armed units have reduced accuracy (-5 across the board except Russian line?). Infantry and artillery movement noticeably slower (makes cav speed advantage even more poignant). Howitzer artillery very inaccurate. Cannon roundshot slightly more accurate. Artillery caissons have significantly more HP. AI large-group movement improved.

The "gaggle" formation is the mob formation CA promised to give irregular units and pre-tech light infantry units. So now you won't have Natives marching at you in line formation, w00t!

There are significantly more ships of the line cruising around, so prep for that early on. You dont wanna end up 10 turns behind research and all your ports are blockaded.

@Sheogorath
That is an old AI behavior with the cav. They like to circle behind to take out your artillery/general, or charge into the rear of your infantry. Turning 1 or 2 infantry units to face them, as you did, and they will run back, as they did lol.