Level of difficulty and why?

[Disciple of Tacitus]

What level of difficulty are you using in your campaigns and why? I'm not looking for "the AI sucks" or "I'm great" answers but more of a "this level challenges me without bludgening me and this is why..." kind of thing.
I am becoming a big fan of Konny's House Rules/Campaign Rules, but that is an individual preference. Can we get a roll call on this one...


btw, I use m/m b/c I thought that was what the game was designed for but the more I peruse the forum, the more I see people using other levels of difficulty. Hence this post.

[Intranetusa]

M/VH

Medium battle so the AI doesn't get insane bonuses such as +7 attack & +7 morale.

Very Hard so the AI can actually send in some decent units after me


(Also my settings so I can actually autobattle sometimes without getting pwned by levy millta when I have full stacks of elites)

[Danest]

Against, say, the Seleukids, I find very hard campaign to be an exercise in some sort of madness. That's no shot against EB despite how it might sound. But having to fight off three or four full sieges/stacks each turn from one faction alone can become truly exhausting. Especially if I'm playing Hayasdan...

When I'm playing the Romans, however, I kindof enjoy the "barbarians at the gates thing" that comes with the very hard campaign level.

In any case, I'd never touch anything above medium battle. No sense in giving the AI units unrealistic bonuses. I prefer that my elites can beat a skirmisher, and that might go away on very hard. :p

[cmacq]

This thread tracks a game that was on Hard/Campaign and Medium/Battle.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97333

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Have always played on M/M. I don't like me or the AI rushing (though I did blitz to crush Epeiros and KH early as Makedonia).
.

[Midnj]

VH/H.

I prefer H for battles because I find you can't win by simply rear-charging with cav right after the lines meet. You actually need to time your charges after specific units are worn out enough to succeed. Right now, a good heavy cav unit (most generals) can easily rout regular infantry right away and produce the ridiculous "heroic victory/clear victory" parades you see in the AARs.

[jabarto]

I recently switched from H/M to M/M. I did it because of what I'd heard of diplomacy being better on that level, but I stayed there because the AI expansion in my last few campaigns has been much improved.

Against, say, the Seleukids, I find very hard campaign to be an exercise in some sort of madness. That's no shot against EB despite how it might sound. But having to fight off three or four full sieges/stacks each turn from one faction alone can become truly exhausting. Especially if I'm playing Hayasdan...

This, too. I prefer my games to be more leisurely paced, and I can always institute more houserules if I get bored with them, but it's harder to find a workaround for endless battles and dogpiling AI.

[Apgad]

I use M/M, mostly because time pressures (damn job and family) mean I only have 4-5 hours of playing time per week. Harder settings mean that campaigns take months and months, which drag on a bit.

When I get sacked and divorced I might try VH/VH, but not just yet...

[konny]

M/M

M battle difficulty should be no question.

M campaign difficulty is my favorite because the AI seems to be a bit more reasonable in its diplomatic behaviour (you are still backstabbed all the time, but the AI also makes peace more often). Another thing is that I do not want the AI to hire mercs without controll. It should stick to what is allowed by MICs.

I am becoming a big fan of Konny's House Rules/Campaign Rules, but that is an individual preference.

Thank you.