What Total War do you think is the best and why?

[Puzz3D]

EB is hardest on VH/H,

Well try telling that to Hound of Ulster. The AI is going to play the same way as it does in XGM which I've played extensively. In fact, the BI AI which XGM uses is better than the RTW AI that EB uses.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Right OK, HoU you heard that?

[TosaInu]

Well try telling that to Hound of Ulster. The AI is going to play the same way as it does in XGM which I've played extensively. In fact, the BI AI which XGM uses is better than the RTW AI that EB uses.

We compare the BI AI to the RTW AI then?

[Drisos]

I only tried STW and RTW so far. Stw being my favourite.. well, favourite.. I don't really like RTW so maybe I can't call stw favourite among good games.. :P

STW SP is far more challenging, it seems. In the BI campaign, I take whatever barbarian factian, just build up my army and siege one city after another. nothing stops me. No one ever attacks me. :S There's some cool new stuff in the campaign though. Religion, more difficult loytalty system (though it's ridiculous you'll have to destroy public baths to keep population low enough not to have revolts..), a different style of moving, etc.
But the battles.. yuck. I don't like the graphics over the STW graphics at all. RTW may have more detail, but as Puzz said, in STW the units are recognizable, all have 'their own look', etc. Plus, the way people fight, kill, and fall, are ridiculous in RTW. I don't want to see detail when it looks so bad. Do something good, or don't do it..
Plus, the battles are far from easy. Waaaay too simple. For instance, I had to play stw for months and ask advice here before I could deal with the highest difficulty. With RTW I started the second campaign I played on highest setting, because it had been too easy. I just create 1 or 2 all-cav armies. They move fast across the map, and kill any army to the last man within seconds. No challenge at all. I don't even need flanking, etc, etc.
In STW, I still lose battles now and then. In RTW I have never, unless it was a hopeless situation. (outnumered.)

Plus, shogun has far better atmosphere. For me, RTW is a game. Shogun is an adventure.

And the small MP community I took part of for a few months was great. I still miss it. While I got disgusted about the public in the RTW foyer within minutes after the first time I logged in there..

[R'as al Ghul]

It has been claimed in this thread that the AI behaves differently on the different difficulty levels. That's not quite true.
In STW and MTW there's no difference for the campaign AI.
In STW and MTW the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.

In RTW and M2 the campaign AI gets increasingly aggressive the higher the campaign difficulty is selected. (it can be argued if the AI's behaviour on levels higher than normal is smart or desirable).
In RTW and M2 the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.

Here's an excerpt from frogbeastegg's RTW guide:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Difficulty

Difficulty is split into two categories; campaign map and battle map. Explaining exactly how difficulty works is … complicated. See, there are unknown factors, there is the known set of factors CA themselves told us, and there are the things players have guessed at.

Battle map
Normal is a level playing ground with no advantage to either side. I shall quote CA developer JeromeGrasdyke on the effects of difficulty on combat bonuses: “The combat bonuses are easy; they apply to attack only, while on Easy the human player gets a +4 bonus, on Hard the AI is given +4, and on Very Hard +7. The morale bonuses are much more complex, as they work on a series of sliding scales.” Unfortunately the very hard bonus is rather ridiculous and it allows the AI do crazy things, such as smashing a phalanx head on with plain hastati. The AI achieves results which should never happen, and the general attitude I have seen expressed towards this difficulty is one of frustration. So for now I recommend sticking with normal; it might be rather easy for veterans but at least your phalanx works …

Campaign map
Given that I only play with this set to very hard a true comparison is a tad difficult. This does seem to differ depending on whether you play a BI or RTW campaign, for example you starting money in BI is always the same, regardless of the setting, whereas in RTW you start with less money on the higher levels. The AI in both should be more aggressive on higher levels, and will use agents more to bribe your armies and cities on very hard. On the lower levels I’m told the AI will only target diplomats.

The readme for the 1.1 patch says that campaign map difficulty affects the results of auto-resolved battles. Although it does not actually state what changes are made for each difficulty it seems logical to assume that on easier difficulties the battles are most likely to give you favourable results, whereas on the harder levels you will take more losses and lose more battles.

It's an established fact that the Total War AI does not have different "personalities" in so far as it would act smarter on higher difficulties and afaik CA has never claimed otherwise.
The boni applied to the units and given by generals makes the battles harder to win and may deceive the perception of players.

-----------------------------
On Samurai Warlords:

It's my opinion that the STW and MTW AI's can deal quite good with the limited set of units that STW and the Samurai Warlords mod offer.
I also claim that I've fixed the problem of suicide generals in beta_8 of our mod by changing parameters for the Hatamoto unit. As long as the General is a Hatamoto unit you usually won't see any suicide attacks.
The Kensai is indeed hard to balance and I've not yet succeeded in terms of production of this unit. The AI, although it builds less Kensai than in beta_5, still loves this unit. I assume it's because of the high attack value, which is probably also the reason for Artillery spam in all titles.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

It's also my feeling/observation that the battlefield AI is the same for all factions and levels within a game title.

Tweaking the unitstats can have an effect on the behaviour of a unit, in that it starts making manoeuvres it otherwise wouldn't, but this is, how to say, more a side-effect than changing the AI, which is hardcoded.

It would be nice if generals/factions or even units can be told to adhere to this or that strategy. The Ikko scenario (ADF/BDF) is supposed to have an outraged mob of angry farmers. In some parts they have no hope to win, but they attack nevertheless. The ADF/BDF files leave only two options:

-they are so strong that they act as berserkers and also win.
-they don't win, but refuse to even get close.

[caravel]

I've found that when playing RTW on VH campaign map difficulty that the AI doesn't get any more clever but actually gets more aggressive in that it sends armies continually against it's enemies with terminator like persistence. These armies tend to be much more fragmented (multiple stacks attacking in a non cohesive and uncoordinated fashion) and are still led by captains, lacking the leadership of a general.

[Puzz3D]

I've found that when playing RTW on VH campaign map difficulty that the AI doesn't get any more clever but actually gets more aggressive in that it sends armies continually against it's enemies with terminator like persistence. These armies tend to be much more fragmented (multiple stacks attacking in a non cohesive and uncoordinated fashion) and are still led by captains, lacking the leadership of a general.

IIRC, this is where the BI strategic AI is improved because it consolidates stacks and puts generals into these stacks. I use the XGM mod and that can be played with either the RTW exe or the BI exe, so you can get a good comparison between the two AI's. I just haven't played it with the RTW exe in a very long time because I prefer using the BI exe. I won't say that you never see a general traveling alone in BI, but the AI always attacks me with large armies which does make the battles more difficult. I am playing Carthage, and the Egyptians attack relentlessly across the Sahara desert, which isn't historical, but it forced me to focus on driving back the Egyptians instead of going after Rome, which hasn't been easy because the economics is tight and good units are expensive. I'm playing XGM on normal/normal difficulty. At the strategic level the game is hard, but the battles all exhibit the same problems with the AI that I mentioned earlier and you have to fight a lot of those battles.

[Puzz3D]

It has been claimed in this thread that the AI behaves differently on the different difficulty levels. That's not quite true.

In STW and MTW the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.

Not true R'as, and even I overlooked a change to the battle AI on the hard difficulty setting. This is from frogbeastegg's Guide to Medieval Total War, and I clearly remember the posts by Gil Jaysmith and LongJohn2 which she references here:

On difficulty
There are four difficulties, easy, normal, hard and expert. Your difficulty will decide how much money you start off with, any bonuses given to you or the AI and what tactics the AI will use on the two maps. Starting funds are as follows:
Easy = 10000 florins
Normal= 8000 florins
Hard = 6000 florins
Expert = 4000 florins
On easy the player will get an extra +4 to morale in battle, making it harder for the AI to rout your troops. On expert the AI get this bonus. Normal and hard don't give anyone a bonus. The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty. Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

In addition to these changes LongJohn (another developer) says the following: The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade.

[R'as al Ghul]

Not true R'as, and even I overlooked a change to the battle AI on the hard difficulty setting. This is from frogbeastegg's Guide to Medieval Total War, and I clearly remember the posts by Gil Jaysmith and LongJohn2 which she references here:

Yes, true. I had forgotten about that.

- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

I cut out the parts that are clear and were mentioned before. Like combat bonus etc.
Honestly, I can only confirm that on higher difficulties the AI will try to ambush and will scout for ambushes and hidden units, it also goes into "loose" formation sometimes.
I'm not convinced that the other points are true or can be noticed by players.
Especially the claim that the AI will use "stop and shoot" tactics or will "move units out of the way of collapsing walls" seem more like wishful thinking.
What's the "appear weak" plan?

[TosaInu]

What's the "appear weak" plan?

Pull a tosa.

[Puzz3D]

Honestly, I can only confirm that on higher difficulties the AI will try to ambush and will scout for ambushes and hidden units, it also goes into "loose" formation sometimes.
I'm not convinced that the other points are true or can be noticed by players. Especially the claim that the AI will use "stop and shoot" tactics or will "move units out of the way of collapsing walls" seem more like wishful thinking. What's the "appear weak" plan?

I've seen the MTW AI use double-envelopment by sending cavalry out to both flanks, and I remember LongJohn talking about making this change to cavalry in one of the MTW patches to make cavalry try to flank more often. In STW, I've seen the AI conduct a double-envelopment ambush, but this is caused by the presence of two forests on both the left and right sides of the map, the tendency of the AI to hide its troops in trees and the tendency of the AI to try to set up amushes. I've never seen the AI make this double ambush in MTW, but it might be due to the topology of the maps.

You see the AI use the "stop and shoot" tactic all the time in MTW and STW. That's when the AI stops it's advance to shoot at you instead of just continuing to move forward and charge. The use of this tactic may be more pronounced in MTW than it was in STW, and doesn't really work to the AI's advantage unless it outnumbers you by a lot of shooters since it doesn't use shooters as well as a human player can. On a side note, you'll notice that AI archers don't always release their arrows on an animation cycle. This mechanic is no doubt there to conserve ammo for the possibility of shooting enemy melee units after the human player's archers had run out of ammo. This was a more effective tactic in STW because the men in the unit retain all of the unused ammo regardless of the number of men left in the unit. In MTW, dead men take their ammo with them, so the tactic of skipping volleys works to the detriment of the AI shooters because the unit looses killing potential as it sustains casualties in a skirmish with the player's shooters.

I'm not sure what the appear weak plan is other than a delayed attack. In other words, the AI knows it has the stronger army, but doesn't attack right away hoping that the human play will attack it instead.

The AI definitely uses loose formation, but it puts units into loose formation only after they have sustained significant casualties, casualty rate or casualty proportion (I'm not sure which). As soon as the casualty rate drops as a result of going into loose the AI will return the unit to close formation only to go back to loose again when the casualty rate increases. What would be smarter is for the AI to go into loose sooner and stay in loose as long as the unit is under fire.

I've never seen the AI sustain casualties from collapsing walls when defending a castle. On the other hand, I have sustained such casualties by placing my units too close to the inside of a collapsing wall when I'm defending a castle.