Why play anything easier than vh/vh

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-09-2007, 06:46

I'll agree that the campaign AI needs work in order to live up to it's "VH" moniker.

IF-

*The AI decides it is not going to blitz me to death, it had better learn how to defend

*The AI decides to attack me, it had better come in force. Not one dinky stack of milita spearmen, archers, and knights led by a pathetic noob general. If you're going to hit me, hit me hard and hit me good. Bring several stacks at once, bring spies, artillery, proper heavy infantry, several units of bodyguard per stack, that sort of thing.

*If the AI decides to turtle, it should still save up a bunch of florins, make a big pile of them, and then spend it all on a whopping huge invasion army to take me down. Take a few of my border cities, and hold them. That would be enough of a nuisance to teach me not to blitz everyone. I would expect my bordering factions to do such things on VH/VH

*If the AI decides to blockade my ports, it had better plan on blockading more than one, and for more than a turn or two.

*If the AI decides to harass me by sitting troops in my territory, it had better be prepared for my backlash.

I personally believe that diplomacy isn't broken anymore. Diplomacy works, for the most part. I don't expect the AI to keep it's word, because neither do I. Alliances work best when you don't share a border. If you share a border, prepare to be backstabbed.

**phonicsmonkey** · 08-09-2007, 06:58

I agree pizzaguy

the AI is least hard to play against when it throws half-stacks of badly led and badly equipped troops at you on a seemingly random whim

this may be because it re-assesses the situation every turn and makes no long-term plans

I would like to see it (eg) decide to invade my eastern territories, send spies to check how well they are defended, make an appraisal as to what it needs in order to take them, train an army to do the job, then send that army led by its best available general to take those territories or die trying

that would constitute a challenge

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-09-2007, 07:08

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The only trouble is that I would get a clear heads-up about the invasion the instant I catch a spy in my territory. I would be well-prepared for the invasion if I see a spy or catch one, and the enemy attacks 12 turns later. The AI should once in a while attack blindly (If your relations with them are bad). It wasn't always the case that they knew what to expect anyhow. But they should come prepared for anything, no matter how big my empire.

There should be a feature to assess the enemy strength when maps are exchanged, making you a bit more reluctant to share your maps with the enemy. Once you show them your maps, that faction should be able to assess your strength and plan accordingly.

Alternatively, princesses, merchants, assassins, priests and diplomats should be able to at least relay how many units there are in enemy territory, if not tell the AI everything about them. I use diplomats as spies and merchants as well.

Merchants cost nothing per turn, and function like a poor-man's spy. Offering trade rights and map exchange should come with the penalty of having your borders open to such riff-raff (as it does now) and having your military strength revealed to the enemy (as it should).

**Budwise** · 08-09-2007, 07:52

Why play anything easier than vh/vh?

Because I don't want to be the queer in the game of smear the queer. I don't mean that in a bad way at all but its a figure of speech and it matches this debate.

**Crash** · 08-09-2007, 08:04

The H and VH campaign is actually easier than an M campaign. The diplomacy and rebels in H/VH are much more difficult for the AI than the human player. To me the most challenging games would VH/E because battles would be tougher to win for the human player but the campaign game would be easier for the AI player.

**Gaius Terentius Varro** · 08-09-2007, 09:05

Originally Posted by Budwise

Because I don't want to be the queer in the game of smear the queer. .

Too late

**Mete Han** · 08-09-2007, 13:46

Come on guys, if the battle difficulty is less than vh then the ai cannot respond to your formation changes and manuveurs effectively. You can easily surround them. They just sit and wait like ducks. as for the campaign difficulty, I think it might be worth a try to play in M or H difficulty. Try to play in vh against the mongols and timurids stacks in battles and see how the morale and fatigue works against you. Like the askthepizzaguy, I think the more pain in a game the more pleasure to complete it.

**Zenicetus** · 08-09-2007, 08:14

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

the AI is least hard to play against when it throws half-stacks of badly led and badly equipped troops at you on a seemingly random whim

this may be because it re-assesses the situation every turn and makes no long-term plans

I'm not sure that's a major obstacle, because I've seen other turn-based strategy games where the AI (subjectively) seems smarter. For example, the GalCiv2 space strategy game has the same turn-based limitation, but it also has a built-in brake against early blitzing by the player. It takes time to colonize your corner of the galaxy and tech up to the point where you can even think about military action. By the time you get there, you're facing a few AI factions that are as strong and well-organized as you are.

I've always felt it was a weakness of the TW game design that the player can blitz so easily, in the first game turns. Once you get the steamroller going, it's hard to stop it. I suppose it's an inevitable result of sticking reasonably close to history. The game wouldn't feel right at this period of time, if we were starting from tiny isolated villages and couldn't engage in combat right away for expansion.

Anyway, I hate facing half-stacks too, and the only way I've found to get a more challenging game is to stop myself from blitzing, give the AI time to build, and set strategic difficulty to M so the AI doesn't get crazy about expanding ahead of their resources.