Different difficulties

[Aradan]

On Battlefield:

Easy: AI gets -4 attack
Medium: No bonus/penalty
Hard: AI gets +4 attack
Very Hard: AI gets +7 attack
That's all, no morale or anything.
Note that the numbers are not 100% exact, as the bonus is given through a parametre in the chance_to_kill formula, which produces for example 3,899 (which roughly equals 4). If you're interested, the formula is near the bottom of the original post of this thread, under 'useful formulae'.


Campaign:

The harder the difficulty, the more aggressive the AI towards you, the more difficult is to make alliances and stop wars involving you, and (I think) it gets more money bonus per turn.

[Charge]

That's all, no morale or anything.

This is stupid! mostly AI needs exactly morale. ATT/DEF bonuses only makes his peasants to crush militia in head-to-head combat and bireme to utterly crush trireme.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

In my opinion difficulty levels should not provide any bonuses to statistics whatsoever. I believe that the AI should possess more strategic intelligence in place of this deficit. In M:TW that was the case but in R:TW the factor seems to not exist at all. It's a pity really - it would be much more pleasurable to play against a more intelligent AI when you feel that you want to.

On the strategic map, I feel that a similar policy should be applied. Rather than an un-natural and often game breaking increase in aggression, the AI should be more careful and think more clearly about it's strategic and diplomatic actions and their implications.

[Sonicdahedgie]

I do believe I concur, Omanes!


I find it disturbing that the AI get an unfair advantage, instead of actully being better. I would love it if the only difference in the difficulty was the AI's thought process.



However, I believe that this was probably the best choice. The Ai was very likely incredibly difficult to program, and CA probably couldn't make it any better. So, they had to resort to other methods to balance the difficulty.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

However, I believe that this was probably the best choice. The Ai was very likely incredibly difficult to program, and CA probably couldn't make it any better. So, they had to resort to other methods to balance the difficulty.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The CA managed to successfully create an AI in Medieval: Total War and Shogun: Total War which was much more intelligent that the one contained within Rome. The AI seemed to respond more cleverly to the players manoeuvres and made more natural and sensible manoeuvres themself - it also had the very useful habit of being able to gain a victory the player much more easily. It wasn't perfect, no AI is, but, despite it being older, it was most certainly superior to Rome's. They also managed to develop the more enhanced difficulty system which I described. It's a crying shame these, and many other features were lost - mostly because the CA wanted to target a larger and younger audience and focus on other aspects of the game.

[B-DogKY]

I'm gonna hafta disagree with you here, Omanes. I went back to MTW after playing RTW and BI, and man, the tactical AI is a mess, unless of course, you like playing ring around the rosie with the AI. Anyway, the ONLY 2 battles I can remember anything about in the series were both from BI, once as WRE against the celts and once as the Alemanni vs the WRE. These battles were fought so tactically sound on BOTH sides that they were truly a joy to play. It's the reason I still play the game, in hopes I might get another battle as good.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Hmm, that's odd. I have never experienced any problems comparable to that before in M:TW. From my experiences, you only have to chase the AI if they have horse-archers, but after their missiles have run out they usually charge. Sadly, I've seen what you are claiming has occurred more in Rome and BI and have lost many battles because the enemy refused to fight tactically and instead decided to run around the field.