Battlefield difficulty test results.

[Slaists]

If I understand Hashashiyyin correctly, what he meant by superior AI with difficult terrains is actually pre-battle positioning. Hashashiyyin metions, he frequently would have to tire his troops before being able to fight the AI on mountainous terrain.

I have a different question though: did Hashashiyyin try to do both sides of the battle: i.e., attacking and defending? It seems, the pre-fight exhaustion would be a factor in a scenario when the player attacks. What happens when the player defends (and has the luxury of choosing the more advantageous terrain)?

Your analysis concludes that the AI is superior on VH because of tactics and terrain. I don't see how tactics are involved when you charge two units frontally against each other. Did the AI, in any of those tests, flank you or did it always charge you headon?
Also, in how far do you think did the terrain influence the battle?
You took two equal units, both are/ should be affected by the heat that you most probably have on the Morocco map. I don't see any advantage for either unit. Was one of the units charging downhill or was the height equal for both? If the AI always charged downhill into your unit then it's clear why they won 90% of the time.
You need to offer more information for these tests to be conclusive.

R'as

[BuckNekkid]

I have yet to lose a battle on VH. I'm not bragging, I'm complaining. I SHOULD lose once in a while. Someone mentioned that the AI was actually smarter on Medium. So I've been playing on that, and so far the AI has been more aggressive. AI on VH is just too passive (whether I have fire superiority or not). Medium is still too easy, but more fun.

I really feel that little work was done on the AI between RTW and M2TW, even though that's what the vast majority of posters asked for. Shame.

[Bob the Insane]

Well I have noticed on VH battle that you men will get fatigued just marching uphill. And a substantual hill will leave your men exhausted and on VH they do not recover very fast (if at all)...

I find it is better to use multiple units of the same type for these tests as it evens out other variable and allow the effects of morale to be seen. Simply leaving them in the default formation (which will match the enemies) on the grass plain and group the units and tell the group to attack the center of the opposing force and let the AI get on with it.

You have me intrigued though, I will have to do some tests myself tonught...

[Quillan]

I'm not so certain that's what he's referring to. I noticed something in a fight last night against the Danes with the Spanish. The AI was hiding most of its army in the woods. I unloaded my artillery on them until they ran out of ammo, then started closing with the remainder of the army. They came boiling out at that point. I had a 5 unit line of Tercio pike in the center of the line, with 3 units of Sword & Buckler men on each end, and musketeers out front. The norse war clerics avoided the pike and went after the other stuff. One of the cleric units came out of the woods at a dead run (full speed), across a field with a couple of dead trees in it, and hit one of my S&B units. I went from 90 men to 14 men in a matter of seconds. I can't get a charge that effective with lances over that terrain by single clicking and letting them walk, and here the computer does it at a dead run from an angle. I think that's what he's referring to by the computer compensating for terrain. Morocco has a lot of rocks in its battlefields.