How can legendary be fun RE battle difficulty?

[Aenima]

I've often enjoyed playing games again and again on the highest difficulties to get a real challenge and not just steam-roll over them. Brothers in Arms, Halo, CoD and The Last of Us are all games that I remember being especially fun when played on their highest difficulties. They were far more difficult than easier difficulties (bog-standard infantry able to decimate your health in Halo, taking more than a couple of bullets in a couple seconds being the end of you in CoD, likewise having low health and scarce supplies in TLOU etc) and posed a real challenge as a result. You now really had to consider how you'd arm your character and how you'd deal with enemies - the days of shrugging off bullets were long gone. It could be frustrating but most of the time I enjoyed the authenticity of it, since it felt more realistic to not go Rambo on the enemy.

When it comes to battles in Total War, though, I can't say the same. Even on hard I found them unbalanced and frustrating - comitatenses being outmatched by Germanic levies is just ridiculous - and since switching it down to normal battle difficulty it feels far more realistic. My men no longer get cut to ribbons when they should be able to hold their own in combat, barbarian militias without body armour are no longer a "high threat" to disciplined Roman soldiers protected by chain-mail...it just makes so much more sense and plays so much better.

With all that said, how is it that people are able to enjoy battles on legendary difficulty? Hard felt like the AI got buffed a lot, very hard must be even worse and I can't even imagine what legendary AI buffs are like. How do you guys enjoy it? I can't imagine seeing heavily armoured, disciplined, elite infantry getting run through by levies as being anything other than mind-blowingly annoying and yet it's the case.

[RGA]

Well, the feeling of achieving the impossible can be sometimes very rewarding, I guess.

One of the key to enjoy the highest level of difficulty is accepting the fact that: you cannot use common sense, real-life's tactics and still hope to win (i.e. my armoured Roman legionaries will crush these filthy barbarians). Insisting on doing so will only result in frustration. Instead you have to "game the game", deploy every available gamey tricks and exploits to compensate for insane AI bonuses.

[gregnaar]

You like those games on hardest difficulties because they are more realistic that way. You like Attila on lower because it is more realistic that way. But you can always play a barbarian faction, and be glad that Romans cut down your poorly armored men. Problem solved. (I dont play on legendary either)

[Slaists]

I'm in the middle of a Hun legendary campaign (started with patch 1.2, turn 125 now) and see no problem with battles. From 1 stack versus 1 stack battles which give more than 50% odds for the AI, I come out generally with 25-100 losses; mostly on the lower side of that range and most of my casualties are due to friendly fire.

Before patch 1.2, I played legendary Ostrogoths until turn 150 or so: similar outcomes with slightly higher casualties. Even without Hun horse-archers the AI is very beatable on the battle field.

p.s. Don't underestimate those "stinky barbarians". Many of their infantry types have much higher attack/damage/armor piercing than starting Roman troops; armor is where they are generally lacking.

[Aenima]

Well, the feeling of achieving the impossible can be sometimes very rewarding, I guess.

One of the key to enjoy the highest level of difficulty is accepting the fact that: you cannot use common sense, real-life's tactics and still hope to win (i.e. my armoured Roman legionaries will crush these filthy barbarians). Insisting on doing so will only result in frustration. Instead you have to "game the game", deploy every available gamey tricks and exploits to compensate for insane AI bonuses.

I just struggle to see how it can be fun, considering that I'm sure I'd lose many battles due to enemy units being so buffed. I can't comprehend how a lot of battles can be won ie settlement battles where you only have 4 units and can be up against 2 full stacks. Without space to maneouvre due to the enemy swamping the settlement can the player do anything other than just throw his hands up and accept total defeat? I should watch a few battles on YT to get a look at how things are done, as you say it's probably down to how I approach battles and plan to fight them that's my undoing.

You like those games on hardest difficulties because they are more realistic that way. You like Attila on lower because it is more realistic that way. But you can always play a barbarian faction, and be glad that Romans cut down your poorly armored men. Problem solved. (I dont play on legendary either)

I like hard games for the realism, but also just the challenge. My memories of playing Attila battles on hard, however, give me the impression that Attila's battles are on some serious buff-level. Maybe one day I'll give them another shot and maybe even enjoy them.

I'm in the middle of a Hun legendary campaign (started with patch 1.2, turn 125 now) and see no problem with battles. From 1 stack versus 1 stack battles which give more than 50% odds for the AI, I come out generally with 25-100 losses; mostly on the lower side of that range and most of my casualties are due to friendly fire.

Before patch 1.2, I played legendary Ostrogoths until turn 150 or so: similar outcomes with slightly higher casualties. Even without Hun horse-archers the AI is very beatable on the battle field.

p.s. Don't underestimate those "stinky barbarians". Many of their infantry types have much higher attack/damage/armor piercing than starting Roman troops; armor is where they are generally lacking.

If you don't mind me asking what's your army build/battle strategy usually like? You mention friendly fire and the use of horse archers, do you specialise heavily in missile troops to give you an edge against the AI buffs or is it simply due to playing as the Huns?

As for barbarian units, they're certainly not all bad (I personally use Germanic cavalry units in my WRE campaign when I can get them and love using Germanic infantry bands for their AP attack but it's just that if the difficulty buffs make even levies a "high threat" to Roman infantry then god only knows how much stronger their heavier units are made.

[GrimmCro]

This is a major issue with Attila for me. On lower difficulties the game is too easy, on higher difficulties the game is unbalanced in favor of the AI. Higher difficulty gives you a more proactive campaign AI but severely hampers the player by way of stacking ridiculous negative modifiers, and it renders unit stats mute since AI troops get buffs. I have to struggle to raise a quality army with a single province, AI can raise three with the same amount of provinces and raise them faster. My agents can only do one thing per turn while I constantly get messages that a single enemy agent tried to ruin provision, assault a unit and assassinate my general in a single turn.

These things would be tiebreakers if Total War had a competitor.

[Neige]

If the AI were capable of beating a human player, there would be no need for a difficulty slider. As for now, our choice is either gameplay that lacks challenge or gameplay that has artificial challenge. Not much we can do about it for now.

As for strategies, nothing should change in how you fight your battles. The only thing you need to keep in mind is that where previously a melee fight with comparable units would have been close, now it will be a defeat almost 100% of the time. That means you need to outplay the opponent whenever possible - flank them, surround them, try to catch their cavalry with spears, always keep your general out of danger. All the general rules apply, it's just now they aren't just helpful, but vital.

[Slaists]

If you don't mind me asking what's your army build/battle strategy usually like? You mention friendly fire and the use of horse archers, do you specialise heavily in missile troops to give you an edge against the AI buffs or is it simply due to playing as the Huns?

As for barbarian units, they're certainly not all bad (I personally use Germanic cavalry units in my WRE campaign when I can get them and love using Germanic infantry bands for their AP attack but it's just that if the difficulty buffs make even levies a "high threat" to Roman infantry then god only knows how much stronger their heavier units are made.

I just play to the (historical) strength of Huns: 90% tier I horse archer armies (the only exception being the general + a scout unit, preferably elite for extra scouting range, in my stacks; the latter - so I can see where the AI is in night battles): max out ammo, horse speed (army tradition, general's traits, cattle farms for all hordes) + nightfighter attributes. You have to skirmish a lot and micro the hell out of battles, but it works. The AI stands no chance against that roster.

First: kite away the AI's cavalry and kill them with your Parthian shots: almost anything will be slower than your very light horse archers with speed buffs from the mentioned factors. Always look out for the AI general getting separated from his army (he's slower than the rest usually): kill him if he does. Fire arrows on for all HA units, 6x speed and GG from there on. Not that unrealistic either. Do not know about Huns, but this is pretty much how Mongols defeated Russian knight armies some 800 years later in terms of the game's years.

For walled cities I have a specialist stack with lots of Hunnic infantry + a few artillery pieces. Horse archer armies can kill minor settlements on their own.

Incidentally, it is the missiles where the legendary AI gets the most notable advantage (reload speed and accuracy it seems). You just don't let the AI missiles shoot at you.

[Theo]

If the AI were capable of beating a human player, there would be no need for a difficulty slider. As for now, our choice is either gameplay that lacks challenge or gameplay that has artificial challenge. Not much we can do about it for now.

As for strategies, nothing should change in how you fight your battles. The only thing you need to keep in mind is that where previously a melee fight with comparable units would have been close, now it will be a defeat almost 100% of the time. That means you need to outplay the opponent whenever possible - flank them, surround them, try to catch their cavalry with spears, always keep your general out of danger. All the general rules apply, it's just now they aren't just helpful, but vital.

^ This 100%.

I play on harder difficulties because it's possible for me to lose. This make role playing characters much more enjoyable than if I can just steam roll everything. You have to adjust the way you play because 1 serious misstep could mean you lose the game.

[GrimmCro]

If the AI were capable of beating a human player, there would be no need for a difficulty slider. As for now, our choice is either gameplay that lacks challenge or gameplay that has artificial challenge. Not much we can do about it for now.

As for strategies, nothing should change in how you fight your battles. The only thing you need to keep in mind is that where previously a melee fight with comparable units would have been close, now it will be a defeat almost 100% of the time. That means you need to outplay the opponent whenever possible - flank them, surround them, try to catch their cavalry with spears, always keep your general out of danger. All the general rules apply, it's just now they aren't just helpful, but vital.

The AI's inability to match players creativity stands, but the rest doesn't. Because unlike the AI I have to spend time and money, latter which doesn't come easy until the steam roll phase of the game, to research tech so I could construct higher tier buildings and recruit higher quality troops that would allow me to parry AI only to see them brazenly swept aside by less experienced lower tier units just because the game buffs AI stats to create a sense of difficulty.

I refuse to believe that is the only way to make the game challenging.

Merely adding more diverse rosters with unique abilities that set them apart by a great margin from other units in the same field (infantry, cav, skirmishers, etc.) from other factions would mitigate the need for such a cheap workaround. You'd have to augment your stacks to deal with diverse advantages your enemies have. With the amount of factions out there, that's a lot of variations. If you're up against a faction that has cavalry units far superior to all other in the game, you'd be forced to fight in areas where the advantage of their cavalry can be negated like forests or town streets where buildings can protect your flanks. If you're up against a faction that has superior range units, you'd have to use speed and maneuverability, maybe cheap but agile cav units to close the distance as fast as possible to negate that range advantage or guerrilla deployed troops that can lay in wait until range units are undefended and then strike. When facing enemies that have superior infantry to yours and you know for a fact you can't beat them in a head on fight, then you go with the fix, flank and overwhelm strategy.

There is a clear example of this in Attila, it's ERE and WRE units at the start of the game. No barbarian unit in the early stages of the game can match Roman units. You can easily defeat full stacks with nothing but your garrison and the reason for that are far superior unit stats and abilities the Romans have (defensive testudo FTW). Now imagine that big a difference in quality scattered across factions and units, each having their own unique skill that separates them from others by a visible margin, each upgradable over time to even better units in that rank. A whole different ballgame.


Boosting the AI with the excuse that it can't match players ingenuity is a cop out.

[Slaists]

There is a clear example of this in Attila, it's ERE and WRE units at the start of the game. No barbarian unit in the early stages of the game can match Roman units. You can easily defeat full stacks with nothing but your garrison and the reason for that are far superior unit stats and abilities the Romans have (defensive testudo FTW). Now imagine that big a difference in quality scattered across factions and units, each having their own unique skill that separates them from others by a visible margin, each upgradable over time to even better units in that rank. A whole different ballgame.


Boosting the AI with the excuse that it can't match players ingenuity is a cop out.

The only reason you're able to defeat barbarians stacks with starting Roman garrisons is that the AI has no idea how to not lose most of their army to towers. Once they get past the towers, they all bunch up on your few armored units placed in choke points while you flank with your cavalry and exploratores. This works on any difficulty.

Try taking those starting Roman units against the AI in the field (against Gothic warbands for example) and those barbarians will wipe the floor with you.

[SirRobin]

It's not a new thing - TW games have always sucked on difficulties higher than normal, because of the ridiculous stat bonuses given to the enemy. Well, I guess they had something to make the game harder, and you're not forced to play on Legendary... but still it just seems like a stupid way of increasing the difficulty.

Winning the game on higher difficulties is not so much a matter of skill as exploiting every quirk of the game to the max.

I would prefer higher difficulties to have the same stat balances, but rather make the player less able to maintain public order and sustain large armies.

[RGA]

I would prefer higher difficulties to have the same stat balances, but rather make the player less able to maintain public order and sustain large armies.

It's called legendary campaign difficulty/ normal battle difficulty

[SirRobin]

A big reason why the game becomes too easy is the "steam roller effect", where the game becomes easier the bigger your empire is, because you get more money and can field more armies, so you can get more land and get more money etc etc.

But in real life, it actually gets harder to maintain an empire the bigger it is. The reason is that communications become more difficult, local leaders and generals accumulate power and decide to rebel, and that more and more tribes and cultures need to get along within the empire's borders.

I wish the games made a better job of showing these things and making them hinder expansion.

[SirRobin]

It's called legendary campaign difficulty/ normal battle difficulty

Isn't the main point of legendary campaign difficulty that it gives the AI huuuuuuuuge sums of free gold, plus boosts to agents etc?

[Aenima]

It's true that, ultimately, this is the only way to really make battles more difficulty.

I can't imagine how difficult it is to program the BAI for TW games, much less how you'd scale it in terms of difficulty (maybe get the programming team to play a tournament and find your legendary/very/hard/normal/easy players from the winners and losers? ). That said, it does feel like quite the cop-out to just have it boil down to giving the AI some stat buffs, although as I said there's not really any other feasible way to do it.

I'm really enjoying my current H/N campaign and I'm happy to keep playing it, though. And hat off to everyone with the patience and testicular fortitude to grit it out on legendary!

[Bramborough]

A big reason why the game becomes too easy is the "steam roller effect", where the game becomes easier the bigger your empire is, because you get more money and can field more armies, so you can get more land and get more money etc etc.

But in real life, it actually gets harder to maintain an empire the bigger it is. The reason is that communications become more difficult, local leaders and generals accumulate power and decide to rebel, and that more and more tribes and cultures need to get along within the empire's borders.

I wish the games made a better job of showing these things and making them hinder expansion.

Theoretically, the increasing corruption mechanic, imperium malus, and high Power penalties are supposed to reflect that. I agree, however, that they don't quite do the job. Imperium in Attila greatly affects diplomacy of course, but doesn't influence the internal workings of the state. Power is reasonably easy to keep in the Balanced/Respectable range. Corruption just hasn't been that big a deal in the factions I've played thus far (as opposed to R2, where corruption did get pretty steep at high imperium).

You do hit upon a good point. Higher difficulty levels are a combination of A) making it harder for the player to run his own faction (i.e., "internal" difficulty), and B) making the AI factions harder to deal with ("external" difficulty). CA doesn't have to do both....and in any case, it does feel like they've taken "B" too far, and have done so in annoyingly unrealistic ways.

[Ashu-Siralis]

For tips on how to play on legendary, see this video. I find playing on anything less than legendary boring now.

General tips for legendary:

Cavalry. Flanking. It is the only thing through which you can win.
Your missiles will always get shredded. The accuracy buffs from legendary are insane. Missiles. Are the most important target on the battle map. Five low tier skirmish units can destroy your entire army.
Defend, and don't attack unless you have a good cavalry advantage.

Don't just March into their skirms. You will get massacred.
The morale gAme is the only important game. You will always get out killed.

[Aenima]

For tips on how to play on legendary, see this video. I find playing on anything less than legendary boring now.

General tips for legendary:

Cavalry. Flanking. It is the only thing through which you can win.
Your missiles will always get shredded. The accuracy buffs from legendary are insane. Missiles. Are the most important target on the battle map. Five low tier skirmish units can destroy your entire army.
Defend, and don't attack unless you have a good cavalry advantage.

Don't just March into their skirms. You will get massacred.
The morale gAme is the only important game. You will always get out killed.

Heh, ironically enough yours was the "Let's Play" series that I went straight for earlier when I wanted to see how people play and win battles on Legendary. It's definitely a case of hitting hard, fast and not getting caught by enemy units, especially missile ones. What's your views on trying to hold onto the entirety of the WRE on legendary and not abandoning provinces as you did - think it's probably setting the game up for failure with a lack of happiness buildings and the like that you can fund from abandoning other provinces?

[Ashu-Siralis]

I think it's possible, but I'm a very conservative/cautious player, so I really wanted to consolidate my borders. Also, this patch improves a few features drastically, so I think it's a lot more possible in this patch. It all comes down to: beating rebels with garrisons and knowing how to stack morale penalties against much larger armies. With the corruption that high, though I really would not want to play it. It would be rather masochistic. That's why I plan to stop personally controlling settlements once my corruption is at 50% mad. I'm pretty ok with what I have right now, actually.