Research: Battle Difficulty

[player1]

Is battle difficulty bugged in campaign games?

I used to think so.
Not anymore.

With testing custom battles I agreed with other testers, that it's bugged, since harder battles are faster not biased toward AI, in same way as easier battles and slower and not biased toward player.

Well, the problem is that we all jumped the gun and "concluded" that same works for campaign games. Even whole debates about is M or VH battles more challening arised.

Well, it's not true!

I did a dozen of tests on campaign maps, when I set up several one on one battles, and my conclusion is that battle difficulty works in campaign game.

On easy it's easier for player to beat similar unit, on harder it's easier for AI to beat similar unit.


I hope someone else could do some tests and confirm the issue, so we could put this myth at rest.


P.S.
I modified descr_start.txt files for campaign, so I could set up several one vs one battles. Also I tried when attacking to keep same elevation with defender as possible to prevent any bias.

[The_Mark]

That's what I've been saying all along

[player1]

The flattest battle location on campaign map I found is x88 y88, if attacked from south east.
You should attack enemy unit while running, so both parties would use charge.

[Cesare diBorja]

I like a VeryHard Campaign Map, Medium Battle Map. The maneuver of the AI on the CM are very tough to manage and defeat and often I am forced to retreat to find better ground. Experienced generals survive traps set by the enemy. Others get massacred. I have battles that are epic (2000-5000men) and I have some battles that are unit against unit. If the enemy detects your unit, it will assign a unit of its own to defeat yours. If you beat that one, the AI will send a better one. I had a unit of Archers defeat three individual units before being wiped out itself (GCS v. Macedonia).
Medium battle maps guarantee this: Only a generals skills and the experience of his troops count towards victory. All bonuses To the game are otherwise zeroed. So it is a fair playing field and makes for some interesting(stimulating) and often severely competitive battles.

All my test are with the single player setting:

diBorgia

[Humba]

I like the m/vh combination too. One problem tough, naval battles seem to be really hard to win. Seems like the possibility of winning or losing is not 50/50, even when I and the enemy have the same amount of men/boats against each other. I think the naval battles are unfairly biased to the computer in vh. Is there any file where this could be corrected back to 50/50 change of winning or losing? I'd like to keep the very hard level on, because of the good stuff what it makes to the ai behaviour, but the naval battles are a problem.

[Ludens]

No, the autocalc balance can not be modded unfortunatly.

[Severous]

The combat strengths of your factions ships could be modded upwards.

[RLucid]

I like the m/vh combination too. One problem tough, naval battles seem to be really hard to win. Seems like the possibility of winning or losing is not 50/50, even when I and the enemy have the same amount of men/boats against each other. I think the naval battles are unfairly biased to the computer in vh.

The Campaign difficulty VH, is used by the AI for all non-battle map battles, according to some FAQ I read some time.

So VH/M means all Auto-calc battles will be VH on strategy difficulty setting, and the ones you fight out M battlefield setting.

As all Naval battles are Auto-calc, what you saw was to be expected, presuming your settings were same as previous poster, who used VH/M as his Campaign/Battle map difficulty settings.