Difference between difficulty settings?

[GeWee]

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]

Bump..

[troymclure]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[GeWee]

Ok, thanks. So there's a difference from Medieval then?

Because as far as I can remember in Medieval it was something like:

Easy: Player gets morale bonus and the AI uses dumbed-down tactics.
Normal: Normal AI tactics and no bonuses to anyone.
Hard: Better AI tactics, still no bonuses to anyone.
Expert: Beefed up AI as well as a morale bonus to it.

From what I hear here the AI in Rome gets various bonuses even on hard.
I don't like cheating AI, let it use the best tactics it can but don't let their peasants be stronger than mine... :P

[Spino]

Ok, thanks. So there's a difference from Medieval then?

Because as far as I can remember in Medieval it was something like:

Easy: Player gets morale bonus and the AI uses dumbed-down tactics.
Normal: Normal AI tactics and no bonuses to anyone.
Hard: Better AI tactics, still no bonuses to anyone.
Expert: Beefed up AI as well as a morale bonus to it.

From what I hear here the AI in Rome gets various bonuses even on hard.
I don't like cheating AI, let it use the best tactics it can but don't let their peasants be stronger than mine... :P

No, I recall a developer spelling it out for us here in the Org. In Medieval Hard was the AI at it's very best with a small morale boost for its troops in combat. Expert difficulty had the same AI opponent as Hard but with a large morale boost for AI troops.

[GeWee]

Oh ok, my bad.

[hoof]

I posted this in an earlier thread:

Don't play on Hard if you want a fair fight. Here are some stats from some controlled tests I did:

A few experiments (all battles fought until 1 side routs, large battle, syrian flats during winter, no weather):

first number is my troops left at rout time, second is theirs, lower number always represents the loser

Hastati vs Hastati:

easy level:
(the AI never threw pila on easy, but my troops did)
61/10
65/32
60/13
66/15
62/14

medium:
35/6
13/21
13/54 (my general died early)
18/2
5/22

hard:
6/41
5/52
2/39
3/52
4/48

very hard:
(on very hard, my troops broke and ran much earlier than on hard, which is why there are more of them left at rout time)
17/64
11/57
18/58
11/66
24/61

As you can see, Hastati vs Hastati, all else being equal, the difficulty level does appear to dramatically affect killing ability.

As it stands now, you cannot expect your troops to hold their own vs equal enemy types. If that is how you like to play, that's great, but especially since Generals no longer improve unit killing/surviving ability, I don't like the fact that a unit of AI hastati might be really a unit of AI principles or heavier stats-wise on hard or very hard. I want to fight the best AI tactics, but on equal terms, unit wise. Why couldn't CA have stuck with MTW's model of leaving the stats the same, but increasing morale?

I first noticed this problem when I saw what should be equal/lesser troops walk right through hoplites defending a gateway. Now I know why.


Next I tried Cataphracts (the regular horse type).

Again the first number is my guys left, the second is the AI's, and each side starts with 54 horsemen.

Easy:
45/11
44/12
42/8
47/12
47/18

Medium:
30/20
27/18
5/29
1/18
24/11

Hard:
1/32
16/52
3/45
18/50
15/48

Very Hard:
(again, like with the Hastati, my men broke much quicker than on Medium)
22/47
19/49
20/50
19/47
17/48


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.

[econ21]

Verty interesting, Hoof. Do you know how a level of experience difference would affect the combats on medium?

The reason for asking is that I vaguely recall expert in MTW gave the equivalent of +1 valour, more or less. That seemed about right (particularly given the big bonuses you could get for general command stars).

Your experiments seem to show a bigger edge than that in RTW, but to be sure one would need data on the effects of experience differences on medium (i.e. fair) comparable to what you have produced here.

[maestro]

So for a fair challenge playing on expert campaign with medium battles would be right????

[Kraxis]

Ok to root out misconceptions...

Hard in MTW gave about a 10% advantage to the AI in combat but no morale bonus.
Expert gave another larger bonus to combat (don't know it because I never played Expert) and +4 to Morale.
Normal was just that.
And Easy was the opposite of Expert or Hard (never played that one either so I never payed any attention to it)

Seek out Puzz3D, he knows the right figures, but know that the AI certainly got a combatbonus at Hard in MTW. You can test it out by playing two equal units at each other in Custom Battle at both Hard and Normal.

[Ironside]

If I remember correctly it's a 15% combat bonus on hard and 30% (about 1 valour) on expert and plus 4 morale (on expert) in MTW. I think it was someone from CA who said those numbers.

I'm guessing that the higher killing speeds with the combat bonuses makes things alot worse in RTW, considering that in MTW you aren't recommended to put two equal units to fight on equal conditions, but had higher ground or flanked them, but in RTW you don't have enough time to react.

The bonus don't need to be bigger in RTW.

This is only a guess based on opinions from the forum, considering that I don't own RTW.

[frogbeastegg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Scorpion]

Does no-one still know any hard facts about this?

If we knew what boni the AI gets, we could counter it by modding our units to make up for it (if they get more attack, you get the same amount of def, and the same amount of morale....)

This would be a good temporary solution, but of course you´d need to play with a non-roman faction, because they share units.

[Scorpion]

Gotta try bumping this one....

[Scorpion]

Since no info was forthcoming, I decided that I must test it myself.

I achieved parity between Julii and Brutii peasants on Very Hard by giving the Julii +2 weapons and +2 armour. (Tested on Arcade to eliminate the morale and fatigue issues)

What is strange is that giving them +2 experience (which should give the same bonuses) makes them superior to the Brutii....

In any case, I´ll try modding +2 attack and +2 defence to my troops when playing very hard to negate the AI bonuses. As for the morale bonus, I´m going to have to hazard a guess that it´s in the +4 to +8 region...going with +4 for mine.

I´ll test out a game with Greece with these settings.

[vodkafire]

What about the campaign AI? In my current campaign map the other roman faction are incredibly lazy, conquering only 2-3 provinces by 240 while I have already conqurerd 14(by sea too) playing medium. Now, i'm short on money so i don't want any bonuses or penalties to me but i wan the AI, especially the other Romans, to play more aggressively. It's rediculous to see them be at war with 3 or 4 factions continuously for most of the game and just sit at chokepoints with huge armies, doing nothing but defending their borders and fattening their cities(all large by now). I've got the Gauls and the Greeks infiltrating my borders every turn while the other faction are supposed to have been conquering them.

[Scorpion]

Other people, mainly .Spartan from twcenter.net are tackling the strategic AI issue, and are doing a splendid job of it.

[Blodrast]

Other people, mainly .Spartan from twcenter.net are tackling the strategic AI issue, and are doing a splendid job of it.

are you referring to the faction role-models as they were listed in another thread, i.e. their attitudes in economy & development, military, and diplomacy (napoleon, caesar, genghis-khan, etc) ? or is there more to it than that ?

thank you

[motorhead]

don't have the original link anymore, but a CA dev posted this not too long ago with regards to general's effects on combat/morale in RTW:

10/5/2004 11:21
JeromeGrasdyke
CA
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Downstairs, with an eagle eye over the rest of the team.
Posts: 76 Re: CA: what do command stars do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It currently affects both morale and combat ability - we tried it for a while with just morale, but it ended up being not enough of a bonus. The combat calculations have changed so much from Rome to Medieval as to be unrecogniseable, so it's no longer easy to equate stars to experience.

As a rule of thumb it's one point of attack per command rank, up to a maximum of 10, and this can become negative for very bad generals. This combat bonus is applied to all troops under his command on the battlefield. Experience is one point of attack and one point of defense per chevron, plus a morale bonus as well.

The general's command also controls his radius-of-effect, which is set to 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence. This is used to award morale bonusses to nearby units (in addition to the combat bonus), and when testing which units are affected it tests the distance between the actual general's position and the centre-point of the unit being considered.

Hopefully that answers your question.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the "make better AI, not bonuses", it's the same old song, different game. If AI programming is so easy, pray tell, why did it take nearly 7 years, and millions of dollars in research and hardware subsidies from IBM to create a master level chess program? Chess is so simple, tiny battle map (only 64 positions), 6 unit types, and just 32 soldiers. Can you believe for such an obviously easy to create AI program, they developed special hardware (chess chips)? Obviously, with the massive AI talent we have simmering on the boards, an expert level program for such an easy game would be knocked out in a few hours.

I've even seen one post where someone suggested that CA just buy a copy of UT2004's AI and use that, as if it were a portable brain and not a chunk of code designed to be a game bot.

just my $.02,
- Motorhead

[econ21]

Very interesting information, Scorpion - if very hard is the equivalent of +2 attack, +2 defence, hard must be roughly the equivalent of +1 to both. Neither would seem excessive from a game balance point of view especially if command stars give +1 attack per star. So far, I have found the AI generals to have far fewer stars than mind (it seems easier to build up stars in RTW than in MTW, partly because of retinue and partly because you get stars from frequent victories over small armies, that often don't even fight.)

Yet it is interesting how important the differences are when we look at Hoof's results. What this implies is that even +1 attack +1 defence is a big deal in RTW. Stats really matter in this game!

BTW: Scorpion I am interested in why you want to mod to offset the AI advantages rather than play on medium - have you observed the AI is "smarter" on higher difficulty levels?

[Scorpion]

motorhead,

I really fail to see how any of that relates to the discussion at hand.
I also fail to see the point of the whole tirade about the difficulty of developing an AI. It´s not what we´re discussing in the thread.


Simon Appleton,

in my own game I have modded away the command stars entirely (see my other thread). A radical move, I admit, but I did not want the generals providing pure attack bonuses to their troops - rather, I made the effects of the command-giving traits and retinue members to provide extra morale.

This was done for the reason you mentioned - didn¨t want the generals skewing the combat system any more than I wanted the difficulty level to do so.

As for the AI being smarter on very hard, the current opinion seems to be that the AI does indeed perform a little better on very hard, especially when on the offense (ie. when it initiates the attack). The effect is not enormous, but I´ll take every little thing I can get....

I tested the difficulty bonuses to the AI using peasants, who are obviously extremely sensitive to any changes like that. I should test it with more units, but currently I´m "on hold" when it comes to RTW as I wait for the patch and the mods to develop. No reason to rush in and play when it´s not as good as it can be!

[motorhead]

@scorpion :
1) i posted the info about the effects of general's command stars since someone said

Generals no longer improve unit killing/surviving ability

. I think it's relevant to a discussion about difficulty levels since the AI is very poor about developing high command generals, giving the player a built in advantage in combat/morale for their troops.

2) at my count, i see 3 posts discussing AI and whether it's right that the game pumps stats versus building a "better" AI. My "tirade" was in response to that.