Level of difficulty and why?

[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.

[blank]

H/M

Always played at H campaign difficulty, i'm not sure why

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.

But that is realistic - if an already engaged unit got charged from the rear by cavalry they tended to rout. Fast.

[mlc82]

I play Hard Campaign Medium Battle as well... Medium battles for the reasons listed above (not to unbalance stats, and I try to keep my armies somewhat accurate for the factions, instead of just creating huge armies of elite units).

Hard campaign because the AI still builds scary looking armies and will actually launch naval invasions (I use BI.exe), and at least try to put up a fight which it doesnt' seem to do on medium, but isn't insanely suicidially aggressive like it is on VH. Being attacked on all sides every turn and having to keep crushing AI army after AI army (I love EB but the RTW hardcoded battle AI is just horrendous) is more of a chore than fun to me.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hard campaigns, Medium battles.