Difficulty/Unit size.

**Martok** · 09-11-2007, 02:46

I used to play on Normal all the time, but I was beginning to play on Hard more often at the time my PC died. It also partially depends on the faction I'm playing. The Eggies, for example, are easy enough that playing them on Hard is a more appropriate challange for them. On the other hand, I don't think I would *ever* play the early Armenians on anything worse than Normal -- I'm just not that masochistic.

I've pretty much always used the default unit size. They seem to be better balanced than the other sizes.

**macsen rufus** · 09-11-2007, 17:19

I usually play on Hard these days - I did spend quite a time palying in Expert, but the AI morale bonus started to feel unrealistic (the lone AI peasant standing up to the charging knights etc

) Losing armies should break rather than fighting on to the last man, so making "morale-crushing" victories nigh on impossible, as in Expert, just didn't feel right.

Originally Posted by Martok

I don't think I would *ever* play the early Armenians on anything worse than Normal.

You should just gird your loins, eat your spinach, and go for it

That was one I did in my "expert" days, and probably about the last one, too, after having to grind down each muslim peasant individually with my Armenian infantry

Unit size, well when I had a smaller, slower machine I had to use small units with all the eye-candy (such as it is in MTW

) turned right down. Now I can max out on everything. Generally I play on large, as spear units look more realistic (166 men) - you can have a wall of some depth, whereas on smaller (50 or 60 men) settings the wall is a bit too narrow, or a bit too thin. Unit size affects tactics due to area of ground required for manoeuvres etc. I find this aspect can annoy me a bit on huge, as archers especially become a real menace, milling around all over the field

Once I could turn the unit size up a bit I had to relearn the use of BG units - on small, 20 knights vs 30 swords, say, makes them a steamroller, but when you have to face 100 swords per unit, the balance is different. IMHO, this made 'small' unrealistic too, as the BGs did all the work, and the difference in factions' royal birthrates made all the difference strategically. A campaign could hinge on whether your prince comes of age the year before or the year after the neighbour's prince.

Briefly and incompletely: XL adds extra factions (eg Crusader States, Teutonic Order, Lithuania etc etc etc), new units, extra provinces, re-jigged economy so farming becomes more important, trade less so. PEASANTS REMOVED as a trainable unit

It's what I usually play for the Mediaeval period, and generally find it an improvement over vanilla

Well worth a download...

**Martok** · 09-11-2007, 21:46

The XL 2.1 patch mostly adds various tweaks and rebalances. Some units stats were adjusted, and trade income was increased slightly so that it's more worthwhile to have trade fleets.

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

You should just gird your loins, eat your spinach, and go for it

That was one I did in my "expert" days, and probably about the last one, too, after having to grind down each muslim peasant individually with my Armenian infantry

Better you than me, mate. I still think I'll leave the Armenians to you.

**Geezer57** · 09-17-2007, 17:27

+1 for Expert difficulty and default unit size. If I do my job correctly, the A.I. still breaks and runs before dying to the last man - they just hold a little longer, which makes the battle outcome more uncertain.