Expert, hard, normal................

[Swamp Thing]

You know, it seems the game is very unbalanced at the higher levels.

The valor boost most enemy units recieve means even medium level units can give your top-of-the range men a hard time.

Example

I decided to run a brief test, and had a unit of billmen take on chivalric men at arms at normal.

I played the CMAA, and 3 out of 4 times the CMAA defeated the billmen who, whilst a good unit, cannot compete in hand-to-hand fighting with the tougher men-at-arms.

To my suprise, on expert and hard it was the CMAA who died. When I switched roles and went the billmen, it was I who was soon getting killed, not the CMAA.

This discovery explained why battles on expert generally went badly even against inferior units, especially on occasions where I had a general with a superior command rating, had soldiers who were quite fresh, and was fighting at the top of hill.

Playing the game on normal means that it is not less difficult, just more fair, and infinitely more enjoyable.

[Brutal DLX]

Hi there

Your observation is true. Playing SP at higher difficult levels confers a bonus to the AI troops. You can look up the exact numbers if you do a little search on that here at the .org forums.

[econ21]

Yes, I don't like the harder difficulty levels for the reason you state - it makes the combats less intuitive and "realistic". I wish there was another way of making the game more challenging than weighting the dice (well, may be there is - see the Wesmod and others...).

Note that relative differences in the command ratings of leaders can have similar effects - arguably, a little overpowered.

[NewJeffCT]

Not sure why, but I seem to have had my greatest victories (kill ratio and number dead) at the harder settings. I am sure that part of it is that I improved with my tactics and ability to manage the battles. However, I recently dropped down in difficulty to play my first Muslim faction, the Egyptians, and I seem to get a lot of 60-40 or 55-45 kill ratios, as compared to my last campaign as the English, where I almost always would get at least 66-33 kill ratios, and would often exceed 75-25.

Another thing I noticed in climbing up the difficulty ladder is that battles and armies get larger. My original campaign while learning the game on Easy rarely had a lot of combats with reinforcements and invading a province almost always meant a battle. However, as I worked up to Hard/Expert levels, my armies would often be so huge that the opponents would either immediately retreat to the castle, or even abandon the province, with no fighting.

[Div Hunter]

Would have been better to have the AI tech up more and use better tactics in the harder skill levels. Maybe give the AI a bigger starting budget as well?

[Crandaeolon]

There was a big difficulty level discussion a looong time ago, last year IIRC. The game is not even combat stats-wise on any difficulty level. On Easy and Normal the player's troops get combat bonuses, on Hard and Expert the computer does. EDIT: this is wrong. There is NO difference in combat stats on Normal difficulty. Thanks Puzz

I also seem to recall that the most "advanced" combat maneuversfor the computer are unlocked on Hard difficulty. If someone knows the specifics, please post here or give a link...?

Personally I don't have a problem with the computer getting combat bonuses, the AI is far too easy to beat even on Expert. For those wanting maximum challenge, set Morale to off... this makes it much harder to chainrout the enemy.

[Puzz3D]

Concerning Player Advantage, on normal setting

[Crandaeolon]

Ah good, nice to have that straightened out. So there's no combat bonus advantage to either comp or AI on normal setting. Good, makes testing easier.

What about AI routines, then? Does the AI have more "tools" available on Hard&Expert?

And IIRC, some dev once said the generals in MP and custom have 4 hit points... not 6. So 6 is the correct amount, then?