Developer blog update: Morale & Difficulty Settings

[Zatoichi]

It does sound like an improvement - I raised morale across the board in vanilla RTW to get battles to last longer, so it'll be nice if I don't have to do that again!

One thing that follows on from units lasting longer in combat is the number of casualties on both sides increasing.

This leads on to the inevitable retraining question - will the AI make sensible use of retraining on the campaign map, or will we face ragtag beaten up armies again like in RTW? Also, will retraining be like it is in RTW or will there be limits to the number of units retrained in a turn like in MTW? Will recruitment pools have an effect on retraining? I'm just retraining crazy tonight it would seem!

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I think I see a couple of Martinellas in the background of that Milan fighting Byzantines pic. Looks like we might see them and Carraccios in the game.

[LadyAnn]

Best of luck to anyone that can beat the AI on the “Very hard” setting with a full 20 unit army. My advice is: if you are new to Total War and want to just get to grips with the controls start on the “Easy” setting, if you’re a veteran of Total War games opt for “Hard” or “Very Hard”. Best of all I am confident that “Very Hard” will ensure M2TW is going to sit in your PC for a long, long time, I can’t see even the best Total War Players winning on “Very Hard” without more troops.

I guess this will be the test before going on MP:
"Have you beat AI at Very Hard"?

Anniep
ps.: it seems we can set the difficulty level as we host MP, or I speculate too much?

[Lord Adherbal]

I hope this also means they fixed the instant destruction of (a large part of)routing units.

[shifty157]

Well. It does sound very promising. I know ill be going for VH/VH right away to see just how much thought they put into these changes.

[Martok]

Hmm. Dare I exhibit cautious optimism, or is it too soon yet?

[Barkhorn1x]

Hmm. Dare I exhibit cautious optimism, or is it too soon yet?

I hear ya, but hope is good.

Barkhorn.

[Tamur]

As K'ung-fu-tzu has said, "Only in the case of regime change is it always too soon to exhibit cautious optimism".

[econ21]

I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.

The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.

I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.

Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.

Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.

Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.

[Jambo]

I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.

The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.

I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.

Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.

Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.

Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.

My centiments exactly.

[Puzz3D]

The message from you, the community was loud and clear. As a result in Medieval II: Total War, the difficulty settings will only affect unit morale, fatigue and AI. As the difficulty ramps up, the influence of morale and fatigue become more apparent with the “Very Hard” setting giving you the most realistic battle experience possible. In addition we have included AI mechanics that will give the AI a faster and far more intelligent feel. Best of luck to anyone that can beat the AI on the “Very hard” setting with a full 20 unit army.

The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.

[danfda]

The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.

Normally I agree with you Puzz3D, but you lost me here. I don't think that he means any actual "speed" difference, as in the AI's troops move faster than yours do. It seems to me Jason intimated that the AI will react more readily and aggressively to your troop maneuvers--for example, recognizing and moving to counter any flanking attempts more quickly--than the troops sprinting like Justin Gatlin on steroids. The AI may get some less obvious and less potent fatigue and morale gifts on VH, as econ21 illustrated, that may give the illusion of being faster, but I do not think you can draw the conclusion that speed itself is altered. Those AI bonuses are designed to make the game closer to the challenge that we all desire (which I am sure you're okay with and I myself don't mind), but I would be astounded if the AI itself wasn't greatly improved. They made such a leap from MTW to RTW that the AI couldn't really keep up. Now having learned some lessons, there is no reason not to expect the AI to be much more "intelligent."

But that is my opinion, and only mine.

[screwtype]

The AI units respond faster on the higher difficulty settings (Note the last sentence which suggests that no one will be able to handle the full 20 units against the AI which implies the AI gets some kind of speed advantage.), and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's. Difficulty settings have always caused a dispartiy in morale between the player and the AI in every Total War game, and now they've extended that idea to include fatigue. Also, the blog doesn't actually say the AI is more intelligent. What it says is that some AI mechanics have been included which gives the AI a more intelligent feel. Again this sounds like an advantage the AI gets and the player doesn't.

Well I don't know if you're right, but if the AI has a fatigue advantage in VH, I imagine that could make for a pretty tough challenge.

Really though, I cannot understand CA's obsession with making all the decisions for the gamer, instead of letting him make his own. Why can't there simply be a set of game options where you can set things like morale and fatigue levels for both yourself and the AI, so that you can tailor the game to the exact level of challenge you find most appropriate?

[*Ringo*]

and I'm quite sure it's the player's morale and fatigue that gets lowered not the AI's.

Thats the way i read it also. What would be the point of lowering both the AI and player's stats uniformly? That results in no differences at all!

IMO this is CA's last chance to get the Total War series back on track. Understandably the new engine in RTW wasn't as polished as the STW engine was in MTW, it simply wasn't as developed. Lets hope that's the problems CA have addressed in MTW2 look more towards MTW as a benchmark and from this blog i'm encouraged (although not convinced).

Anyway, only time will tell; all this speculation is making me dizzy!

Why can't there simply be a set of game options where you can set things like morale and fatigue levels for both yourself and the AI, so that you can tailor the game to the exact level of challenge you find most appropriate?

Excellent idea btw screwtype!

[ProudNerd]

I really don't understand this blog. If morale and fatigue are ultra realistic on very hard, and the AI is at its smartest, I can't see why that makes playing on very hard a great challenge. It sounds like a level playing field, and I am pretty confident most experienced players can beat even the smartest TW AI on a level playing field.

The big tension with RTWs battlefield difficulty is between realism and challenge. Medium is realistic in the sense that unit match-ups are what you'd expect from the stats. But veteran SPers often press for hard or very hard to make it more challenging. This greater challenge comes at the price of unrealistic unit match-ups - AI hastati beating human principes etc.

I can see that higher morale across the board might be both more realistic and make it more challenging (as in RTR), but still on medium and with equal forces, the experienced player will still walk it.

Fatigue I actually think hurts the AI in RTW - it's often exhausted when it hits your fresh troops. I've started turning fatigue off to increase the challenge.

Smarter AI is nice, of course, but I can't see why it should not be on by default - rather than linked to difficulty levels. With all due respect to CA, I just can't see it being so smart, it's too smart for most players. Yes, a chess AI can thrash most inexperienced players like me but I doubt TW AI has got to that level yet - there are just too many and too complex options for the AI to compute.

Something does not compute. The only way I can see very hard being extremely difficult is if things are unrealistically slanted in favour of the AI (e.g. your men rout or tire realistically, but the AIs act like tireless Spartans). Either VH is not very challenging - which is unlikely given that Jason is an experienced MPer - or it is not the most realistic experience you are likely to have. If the AI will only be smart on a difficulty level where things are in some hidden way slanted in favour of the AI, then that is a bad game design decision, IMO.

That’s exactly what I think the entire blog makes the AI sound totally redundant. I’m not impressed in he slightest. Btween this and the apprantly same horrible dipo its removed a heck of alot of the excitement for mtw2. Who caes thats its a new setting and all that if it has these two gaming ruining flaws?