M-H-VH tactical: do your playstyles change?

[Slaists]

Reading the CA response that AI gets +4 attack bonus on H and +7 on VH, led me to think that the logical human player response should be missile dominated armies on harder difficulties. Basically, you do not want the AI to touch you in melee... Similarly, horse archer dominated armies, most probably, won't notice any any difference between the difficulty levels.
Also, now it is clear why AI cavalry just rolls over human spears/phalanxes on harder difficulties. Most spears appear to have max +4 anti-cavalry bonus whereas pike types: +6 anti-cavalry bonus. These bonuses get effectively canceled out by the AI cavalry's extra attack on harder difficulty levels.

[fenir]

Yep, always happens.

So I just mod the Spear units up 4 points for my VH playing style. makes it all good

fenir

[Lord_Winter]

Yepp the few times I have played on VH/VH have been with either archer heavy armies, cav archer armies or with hordes of noob troops + occational mercs...

However VH/VH is really rediculous...play VH/H or VH/M since bother are far better balanced...VH/VH is just plain silly since the AI get not bonuses to tactics but cheat bonuses which makes most charging peasants equal to elite troopers...which often makes the battles pure fustrating...especially if you inted to take on egypt...(chariots and their desert axemen are pure dynamite on these difficulties...)

However in the long term there is little diffrence in VH/VH or VH/M since you will develop tactics which will take the AI and thrash it good with whatever civ you choose...the basic AI is just to bad (even thought it's probably bettern then in M:TW)

[Maltz]

Exactly. I've played a few of Vhard/Vhard short campaigns now, and I always have to be very careful about melees.

While playing as Romans, melee is almost inevitable, but fortuantely their defense were quite high, so even if the AI does get a big bonus, hastati and so on in 1 vs. 1 don't drop dead in 10 seconds. 10 seconds is about the max. limit for a flanking to take place.

I found playing as Greek/Macedon fractions were particularly hard because the basic phalanx infantry was almost useless in any circumstances, and all of the flanking forces has to be consisted of cavalry. I had to avoid almost all field battles, and produce a lot of cavalry to replenish the fallen. Fortunately, the famous Cretain archers are plenty to be hired.

Then I played as Parthians. This time everything is about horse archers, and I found many battles very easy - until I met the elephants... I had to starve out that city or there was no chance to win on the field

[Slaists]

hastati do not drop dead on harder difficulties? :) well, i tried fighting a gaul horder of warbands: my hastati were led by a 5 star general, whereas the AI was led by a captain; difficulty: VH. my hastati got decimated to 50% strength by the initial AI charge... on even ground.

[Doug-Thompson]

Reading the CA response that AI gets +4 attack bonus on H and +7 on VH, led me to think that the logical human player response should be missile dominated armies on harder difficulties.

The logical response would be to play on medium. I'm all for challenge, but it sounds like it would be harder to win a melee fight on medium than win a missile vs. melee fight in "very hard."

I can confirm that horse archer battles on hard are very effective. Most spear units never touch you.

What's the campaign game effect of h/vh?

[hoof]

My biggest change is far less reliance on archer/spearwall tactics.

In MTW, my main tactic was a spearwall, with archers behind.

In RTW, I don't do this primarily due to the inability to control friendly fire casualties.

However, putting archers in front tends to encourage AI general suicide behavior. They see the archers and charge, I pull my archers behind my spear wall, they try to get them anyway (and impale themselves on the spears). It's too bad the skirmishing algorithm isn't used for AI's cavalry, otherwise they'd spot the spears and stop short (possibly saving their lives).

Because of this, I rarely have more than 2-3 archer units. And given the archer's deadliness in RTW vs MTW (from my experience), that's plenty, especially with the increase in number of arrows per man.

[Basileus]

Last time i played VH/VH was when a desert cav charged frontaly and routed my silver shields pikemen heh, VH/H is what im trying now seems alot better

[Red Harvest]

My God! They get +7 attack on very hard and they are still easily beaten? Ouch, does not say much for the tactical AI (MTW was a lot stronger by comparison.) They rout too easily even on VH. I haven't played Med or Hard in campaign mode, just VH. I've doen some med level unit tests though. In MTW I remember getting rocked back on my heels on "expert" when certain kinds of armies took the field, unless I had very specific counters. With the exception of elephants and some egyptian armies, I'm not finding this to be the case.

I take too many casualties (friendly) from my archers or slingers to rely on them. I take along a few units when I can, but just as counters to specific units and to soften them up. Facing good archers is horrendous though, they often inflict 10% casualties on a unit per volley.

[LordKhaine]

I think I'm sticking to playing medium battles now. I always did hard in MTW as opposed to expert, simply because I hate the cheating stats. I'd much rather fight hugely outnumbered by the dumb AI and have even stats..., than face SuP0r l33tz0r AI tr00ps!!!!111 (I apologise for the leet speak)

I really do wish it was like MTW, when the difficulty settings would actually increase the AI's strategic moves. The AI is a great deal worse in RTW. At least in MTW the enemy wouldnt stand still and let you shoot him. Though at the same time I like how the AI in rtw does full on charges, while in MTW they always tried to flank even when it made more sense to just charge straight in and smash the enemy formation. Oh well... fun either way!

[Brighdaasa]

i haven't played anything except vh battles, currently playing vh/vh carthage campaign

my army setups generally are lots of cavalry, a few good defensive foot units to hold the center for a bit (usually spearmen because phalanxes are too slow), the occasional ranges unit and some missile cav to chase down fleeing cavalry and generals. I almost never fail with my tactic of luring the enemy to the spears and then hitting them hard from behind with the cavalry. If done properly you take almost no losses. The only problems are agile armies like numidians and egyptians, but they go down as well, just with a little more casualties. A single cavalry unit with a decent charge bonus (generals are ecellent for this) can take out any unit with only 1 or 2 losses when charging from behind, even when the unit isn't pinned down by another unit. The key to my victories is outmanouvering the enemy with my cav. The only battles i have lost so far are against egyptians, and i assume parthians will be a pain too, but everything else including romans are total walk-over.

Too bad you can't do naval battles yourself, because autocalc on vh/vh is almost a guaranteed loss unless you greatly outnumber the enemy, at least it is in my case.

[dedmoroz]

as i posted earlier in some other thread, on VH a single unit of hestati wins against a unit of legioner cohort when all other stats are the same.
so to all of you playing on VH, when u facing a bunch of peasants they may as well be a unit of naked fanatics or even worse.
i see no real fun in that.
for now i stick with VH/H which seems much more balanced and playable.
hope CA will patch AI really soon because overall RTW is a dream came true - it will be a great shame for CA to drop the ball at that point...

[Red Harvest]

I've been thinking about the +7 attack...seems like they should have used a more balanced approach, like a smaller boost for attack, and a bigger one for defensive skill. Improving defensive skill should reduce the kill rate, and the propensity to rout. Currently the AI units still rout at the drop of a hat. +7 attack won't help that...although it will make them much more deadly when fighting head to head.

It is even more interesting when you consider the behaviour of Desert Axemen with inflated defense (armour). They are a real handful even against cav charges. They are less prone to rout easily and they don't die like flies. Perhaps this is showing us the way...increase defensive skill across the board to slow the game down and prevent super fast routing? I hesitate to increase armour because it effects fatigue and other things--although it might be the cure for the overdone archery.

In my Germania VH/VH campaign I have nearly 130 wins and zero losses (no navy ) The tactical AI is weak but I suspect my tactics would not work so well if units were less prone to routing...

[Bob the Insane]

What's the campaign game effect of h/vh?

If the strat map difficult is set to H or VH there are lots of effects I believe.. I suspect (no proof) that the AI gets additional funding along with other stuff..

For battles, the difficulty of the battle map give the bonuses stated for battles on the battle map.. The difficult for the strat map effects the autoresolved battles (so the Read Me states)... So if you have a campaign difficulty of H or VH expected to get battered if you autocalc (including naval battles)...

[frogbeastegg]

Reading the CA response that AI gets +4 attack bonus on H and +7 on VH

Does anyone have the source for this? I'd like to get an official quote in my guide with regards to difficulty levels, just like in my MTW one.

[metatron]

Wouldn't know, never really played anything but VH.

[Doug-Thompson]

Infantry armies get slaughtered on harder combat setting by horse archers.

I played "hard," and the AI stayed and fought and got dozens of armies slaughtered by HA. I play "medium," and the armies only fight if caught or if it it's fairly enourmous, which means cavalry and archers are present.

Apparently, the bonus is used by the AI in calculating combat odds. The combat odds seem to decide whether the AI will accept a battle or not.

However, the formula does not take mobility into account, allowing micro-managed HA armies on "hard" to rack up crushing victories with few losses.

[Slaists]

Does anyone have the source for this? I'd like to get an official quote in my guide with regards to difficulty levels, just like in my MTW one.

hmm, it is in one of our .org posts: a response by one of the programmers. but i forgot which one and the link too :(

[Slaists]

For battles, the difficulty of the battle map give the bonuses stated for battles on the battle map.. The difficult for the strat map effects the autoresolved battles (so the Read Me states)... So if you have a campaign difficulty of H or VH expected to get battered if you autocalc (including naval battles)...

now i see why my ships get sunk by inferior fleets in VH strat-map difficulty :)

[Satyr]

I am so disappointed! Even playing VH/VH the AI provides no challenge. I have yet to lose a battle even when vastly outnumbered. If I tried that in MTW-Medmod I would be slaughtered. Oh how I wish for a challenge like trying to win as HRE in High in Medmod!

I guess I will wait around and see if CA provides a decent patch and also see if someone can come up with a Medmod equivalent. I do remember not enjoying MTW much before Medmod. I sure wish CA had hired Wes! Ah well, hope springs eternal. And I can always go back to MTW and get a good game from the AI.

I AM thinking of switching to H/H. I get tired of slaughtering small armies and would love to autocalc some of them when I outnumber the enemy by 5 or 10 to 1 but the calculated losses are too great. When I can fight the battle myself and lose no troops except to friendly fire but autocalc loses hundreds, autocalc becomes useless. Although I wish the AI were actually capable in battle and I did lose those numbers.

Here's to more waiting.

[Ironside]

Does anyone have the source for this? I'd like to get an official quote in my guide with regards to difficulty levels, just like in my MTW one.

You mean like this?

Can we edit the battle AI difficulty levels and their effects? If the answer is no, could you please tell us exactly what boni the AI gets on Hard and V.Hard?

Again, these values are hard-coded. The combat bonusses are easy; they apply to attack only, while on Easy the human player gets a +4 bonus, on Hard the AI is given +4, and on Very Hard +7. The morale bonusses are much more complex, as they work on a series of sliding scales, detailing which is beyond the scope of this document.

Link

[frogbeastegg]

Yes, that's it Ironside. Thanks muchly, and just as I was checking the thread too.

[Ulstan]

I play on very hard campaign/medium battlemap, and do a lot of fighting with just plain captains. (With 10 star generals, my hastati will fight and die to a man in melee and not route).

[TheDuck]

I play on very hard campaign/medium battlemap, and do a lot of fighting with just plain captains. (With 10 star generals, my hastati will fight and die to a man in melee and not route).

Since I'm playing Julii, and the civil war has started, I'm bribing Brutii and Scipii armies and using them the Brutii/Scipii I'm fighting. I don't even bother looking at their composition. Its a tad more challenging (bit I still win when heavily outnumbered). My own prebuilt stacks are simply for mop-up and sieges (since the stacks I bribe never have siege equipment in them).