Difficulty settings

[Derfasciti]

I just got it this morning and so far I've beaten it as the English on short mode with medium/medium settings, and I'm on my way to finishing it with the Scots.

So far, while it hasn't been a cakewalk, it's been fairly easy even with the patch. (BTW, how do you know the patch was installed? Is there something that shows v 1.1 or whatever?)

My main question is, what do you suggest for difficulty. I'm looking for realism but also something of a challenge.

Can you suggest any factions?


Thanks for any help and advice.

[Grimmy]

Going just on hearsay, since I havent really tried them yet, I understand that HRE can be a bit of a trick to play, since they're surrounded and the Turks can be fun since you've got the Byzzies to deal with and then the mongol and then the timurid hoards.

but those are just guesses based on stuff I've read on this and other forums.

[sapi]

Firstly, play vh/vh - it's just tougher and => better (but the ai doesn't get any bonuses in battles iirc).

Secondly, try not to expand quickly, as it makes things very easy (i still do it though :P )

[Derfasciti]

And of the patch? I'm really paranoid if I truly installed it correctly, and i'm not sure, but isn't the patch supposed to make the AI a bit harder?

[Slaists]

I would suggest H/VH. On VH campaign difficulty economic warfare and diplomacy completely lose meaning, while on H they still matter.

Don't build up high expectations for the VH battle difficulty though. The AI is quite dumb on that setting still...

[Dutch_guy]

Does anyone actually know what the difficulty levels change, in comparison with the m/m difficulty ?

For instance, does the AI utilise more and better military manoeuvres like it did in MTW, or does it just get the morale bonus like it did in Rome. And does it get cash bonuses on the Campaign map, or does it simply expand a bit more aggressively.

[Zenicetus]

I'm not sure if campaign difficulty settings include cash bonuses for the AI. The major impact I've seen (and this was discovered on another thread somewhere here), is that diplomatic relations normalize towards neutral at medium difficulty. In other words, if you do something to upset another faction, your relations suffer, but every turn they'll slowly shift back towards neutral. At easy difficulty your relations normalize towards good relations.

On hard and very hard, your relations normalize to worse relations all the time, unless you do something to stop it like gifting cash or provinces. That means you'll be hard pressed to avoid constant warfare on all fronts. It also means (I think) that the AI factions are always stretched thin, financially and militarily, due to constant conflict.

I've been playing at m/vh, which makes diplomacy more predictable. Factions seem to spend more time building up between battles, or maybe it's just a result of the player being better able to negotiate ceasefires and alliances, forcing the AI to build up instead of attack constantly. I think it makes for a much better game, but your mileage may vary.

I'd like to know about cash advantages or not, as part of this. Even if the AI doesn't get a cash advantage at medium, you can mod the game and boost the King's Purse for the AI factions to get bigger armies. I might try that on my next m/vh campaign.

[katank]

VH battle is great. Morale effects are realistic and AI is supposed to be "smarter". There is no cheesy morale bonus for them in that setting either. This is a huge improvement from earlier games.

As for campaign difficulty, it's hard to say. VH definitely makes them attack you more. Then again, usually that's just suicidal for them. I'm not big on bribing the AI constantly so it's pretty much Total War all the time. That may not be what you like so it's worthwhile to experiment with M/H campaign.