Difference between difficulty settings?

**GeWee** · 09-29-2004, 13:59

Is there any difference between how the difficulty settings work in Rome compared to Medieval? I mean both battle and campaign difficulties.
If there are differences please list them here.

**GeWee** · 10-04-2004, 05:35

Bump..

**troymclure** · 10-04-2004, 08:06

somebody has done some pretty detailed testing unit vs unit on different difficulty levels ( sorry can't remember the thread but kudos to whom it may concerN) and the general gist seemed to be. On Easy thereis a Moral + kill bonus for human. Normal No Bonuses, Hard Computer gets kill bonus, Very Hard computer gets kill and moral bonus.
hope this helps. ps the above statement is entirely hearsy. :)

**Scorpion** · 10-04-2004, 11:18

Hm, the AI getting a kill bonus on Hard...I don´t approve of that.

Hopefully the AI plays to the best of its (admittedly very low) ability on Medium....

**GFX707** · 10-04-2004, 14:16

Seems a bit cheap and unfair and pointless to give the AI stat bonuses to me. Which is why I always play on normal.

They should make the AI "better" on higher skills.

Less time on pretty graphics, more on AI

**Longasc** · 10-04-2004, 14:21

All the AI gets is probably some right now unknown boni - it does not react smarter or different than on easy / medium on high / very high.

**frogbeastegg** · 10-05-2004, 16:08

The complete breakdown of MTW's difficulties, as quoted from guide which in turn quoted the devs:
On easy the player will get an extra +4 to morale in battle, making it harder for the AI to rout your troops. On expert the AI get this bonus. Normal and hard don't give anyone a bonus. The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty. Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

In addition to these changes LongJohn (another developer) says the following: The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade.

I think, from what I am hearing, the Ai has a much larger bunch of bonuses this time around.

**Ulstan** · 10-05-2004, 16:23

Hmmm thanks for the info froggy. (I loved your guides to MTW btw but I never posted here before now so belated thanks :p)

It *sounds* like, if we go by MTW, there are no real ai tactics unlocked by a harder difficulty setting, just units are intrinsically better.

I'd like to fight on the highest AI tricks and strategies level, with the units being as even as possible. Think Medium in RTW would fit that bill? Or have you guys noticed the AI doing neat stuff in hard that it doesn't do in medium?

On a side note, in one hard battle the enemy hid his infantry in the woods. I saw them hide of course, and knew they were there, but directed one of my cavalry to charge his generals unit to see what would happen.

The cavalry ran along happily until the infantry stood up *just* in front of them and then got promptly slaughtered :p

**Nelson** · 10-05-2004, 16:31

Originally Posted by hoof

Don't play on Hard if you want a fair fight.

I think people don't really understand how much of an edge Hard gives the AI in combat. Maybe MTW spoiled us, but I think a lot of the frustration going on is due to the artificial combat bonuses the AI troops get.

Good job, Hoof. Your numbers tell the story. Too many players want a tougher game but go on to complain about the uber cavalry and super missile troops. The medium stats from your testing reveal a balanced battle. Jack up the values for the AI and what else should people expect? Battles may indeed be harder but the tactical balance will be tossed.

**Soulflame** · 10-05-2004, 19:35

About the people who think it is not fair that the AI gets a unit stats on harder then normal settings:

Although I do agree it would be nicer if the AI was better without the bonusses its units get when on higher then normal, that in itself is also a form of 'making the game tougher'. You can't expect the AI to be as advanced as a human player, so if you want a tougher battle, you should indeed prepare for the fact that the AI gets some tipped scales to try and match your superior tactics. Coding a strategic AI is A LOT more difficult and probably even impossible at some point. And honestly, increasing AI morale isn't really making the battle tougher, it's just making it longer (and thus killing even more units probably).
The only problem this can generate is that perception of units may be off. For example, you know that you opponents Hastati are better, but how many Hastati do you now need to send in to win? How much units should flank and how fast do they rout?
On normal this may be a bit easier to figure out, since then you know that 1 on 1, they should about balance out, and thus, any extra unit or better tactic will almost instantly tip the battle in your favor. This 'point of tipping' (or inflection point) is much harder to determine on harder then normal settings.

Other then that minor point, the fact that the AI gets a unit stats increase on hard and very hard is not that farfetched and shouldn't be a point of complain I think. It is the best and easiest way to make battles tougher.

**dedmoroz** · 10-06-2004, 19:37

Originally Posted by Soulflame

the fact that the AI gets a unit stats increase on hard and very hard is not that farfetched and shouldn't be a point of complain I think. It is the best and easiest way to make battles tougher.

I must disagree on that.
IMO, aside from making better AI on higher difficulty, best way to make battles more challenging is to throw in better AI armies which is: upgrades, experience, high star commanders, more units, better units, good mix of units.

For me, let AI cheat with money on strategic map so it can field better armies, rather than simply tweak killing speed of the units which is very cheap and absolutely unbalancing the game.

Currently I am playing expert campaign with medium battles, so far crashing Gauls easily. I hope soon I will start fighting better armies with better units for greater challenge - can somebody confirm that? Is there greater challenge later on?

**ChaosLord** · 10-06-2004, 19:56

I don't think its that bad, given that generals increase a units attack. Considering most players are gonna have their armies controlled by good generals whereas the AI has alot of general-less stacks so it seems balanced to me.

Of course, this is only from a Roman perspective, I haven't played the other factions yet, just Scipii.