I find the game too easy but don't like increasing battle difficulty - first world problems

[Humble Warrior]

MTW2 and RTW had increased stats for AI on higher difficulties. In RTW they were substantial.

MTW 2 was the first title where CA no longer disclosed what exactly are the differences between battlefield difficulties. There is a notion though that MTW 2 difficulties were broken and never fixed. Basically, there was no noticeable difference between battlefield difficulties.

I distinctly remember reading CA saying that they had changed the difficuty to the way I described above. Perhaps they changed it later? Or maybe I imagined it?

However, that doesn`t explain how unlike previous Total wars that I only played on normal due to silly bonuses, I was able to play MTW2 on FULL difficulty for years.

Maybe I imagined that too?

[Slaists]

I distinctly remember reading CA saying that they had changed the difficuty to the way I described above. Perhaps they changed it later? Or maybe I imagined it?

However, that doesn`t explain how unlike previous Total wars that I only played on normal due to silly bonuses, I was able to play MTW2 on FULL difficulty for years.

Maybe I imagined that too?

Well, that (there essentially not being any difference between difficulties in MTW 2) would actually explain that.

I remember playing MTW 2 on VH as well and not noticing much difference between that and normal.

[Humble Warrior]

Well, that (there essentially not being any difference between difficulties in MTW 2) would actually explain that.

I remember playing MTW 2 on VH as well and not noticing much difference between that and normal.

I`m sure I could find the details somewhere, but Y`know I just can`t be arsed. what`s the point? To argue with some faceless forumer. nah, i got better things to do.

[Aeratus]

In M2TW, the increased battle difficulties only affected morale and fatigue rate, and their effects were barely noticeable. They were nothing like the effects you have in TW Attila, where increasing difficulty level causes enemy stats to become significantly stronger.

[RGA]

IIRC, M2TW difficulty was not based on bonus but on AI, i.e. very hard AI was more intelligent than very easy. It's not that hard to do, you simply have to unlock advanced tactics (like keep some reserves, flanking, etc.) for higher difficulties. The problem is: even at the highest difficulty, AI was still super easy for any seasoned Total war players.

[Zwirbaum]

I played in MTW 2 on VH but the game was (and to much part still is) broken on many levels, sluggish unit behaviour, cavalry charges could make you gray and etc. So, yeah maybe in MTW2 there was no stat boosts (or significant stat boosts).

[Aenima]

The previous point mentioned about CA not disclosing what exactly difficulty levels do is actually quite interesting - do the game files reveal it at all? Asides from a video on YouTube in which someone (Skye?) said that X changed Y and people on message boards repeating what he said I've never seen an official statement. Anyone have any way of getting in touch with a CA member of staff and getting a reply on what it actually is that the difficulty levels do?

[xjlxking]

Yeah, basically that is my position. I never play any Total War game above Normal difficulty. Peasants killing armored knights isn't "Difficult", it's ridiculous.

Yup

I just hate this. I tried playing on legendary and it was like...wtf! I get you want to make the game hard, but stop putting so much artificial difficulty. It's absurd


Personally, I just dumb my self down. I make a check list to make it harder for myself. Do's and Do nots

[Dracula]

The previous point mentioned about CA not disclosing what exactly difficulty levels do is actually quite interesting - do the game files reveal it at all?

It cannot be disclosed that, the same let's say hastati, used by the AI, get +3 or +4 morale difficulty increasing (at an average 6 base for vanilla TW games). And the previous example peasants-knights is comparatively exact.

[Symphony]

IIRC, M2TW difficulty was not based on bonus but on AI, i.e. very hard AI was more intelligent than very easy. It's not that hard to do, you simply have to unlock advanced tactics (like keep some reserves, flanking, etc.) for higher difficulties.

Do we really want to see things like flanking reserved for higher difficulties? My opinion, those kinds of things are basic, and should be present in the AI at any level.

[Dracula]

Do we really want to see things like flanking reserved for higher difficulties? My opinion, those kinds of things are basic, and should be present in the AI at any level.

To suggest the AI has had any tactics at all is such a big delusion that ...

[Symphony]

To suggest the AI has had any tactics at all is such a big delusion that ...

Yes, that's very cute.

According to the poster I quoted, not only is flanking a tactic, it's something that should be reserved for higher difficulties. I mean, not that the TWC community would talk out of both sides of its mouth or anything...

[The Despondent Mind]

Yeah, basically that is my position. I never play any Total War game above Normal difficulty. Peasants killing armored knights isn't "Difficult", it's ridiculous.

[Bob the Insane]

You can see the AI using simple tactics. If you setup a defensive battle and set your defensive line in place the AI will determine if it has missile superiority and if so attempted to wear you down with missile fire and then it will send cavalry off to attack the flanks. It will endeavour to keep it's infantry in formation until the fighting starts (but the apparent effectiveness of that is entirely dependant on how much infantry a stack has). It will also target your general if he is in range. Simple tactics...

However it is entirely reactive, it does not appear to display any plan other than engaging your troops in a reactive manner and killing each individual unit. It is reacting to your army composition and positioning based on it's own composition. This means the experienced player will tend to learn exactly how the BAI will react in any given situation and be ready to counter it or take advantage of it.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

You can see the AI using simple tactics. If you setup a defensive battle and set your defensive line in place the AI will determine if it has missile superiority and if so attempted to wear you down with missile fire and then it will send cavalry off to attack the flanks. It will endeavour to keep it's infantry in formation until the fighting starts (but the apparent effectiveness of that is entirely dependant on how much infantry a stack has). It will also target your general if he is in range. Simple tactics...

However it is entirely reactive, it does not appear to display any plan other than engaging your troops in a reactive manner and killing each individual unit. It is reacting to your army composition and positioning based on it's own composition. This means the experienced player will tend to learn exactly how the BAI will react in any given situation and be ready to counter it or take advantage of it.

That was kind of the original intention behind the capture points that were in Rome II, though they didn't work out well.

The AI right now is completely reactive towards the player, because it has to be. The only objective in a battle is "Destroy your enemy" which means the AI is incapable of forming any actual goals on it's own, because by it's very nature the battle determines that the AI be reactive.

If the battles were scripted more heavily, with capture points and places you need to defend and such, that would allow the developers to create an AI that can determine which of these different objectives to strive towards at any one point. I think this would make the AI seem more dynamic, if it split it's forces to multitask.

I don't think it would be better for Total War, though, and I think it would carry plenty of flaws as well.

As it is, I don't see how to make the AI less reactive without more battlefield objectives. That is why a human's strategies are so different. We have thousands of little objectives at any one point. "Defeat enemy archers." "Counter enemy cavalry charge." "Use Eastern Forest to flank with hidden units."

The AI doesn't really have such things. It has one objective, "Destroy Enemy Army" or "Defend location" and it tends to go about that in the most obvious, direct way possible.

[Imperator Artorius]

The downside with using battlefield objectives is that the AI often becomes too fixated on them.

For example with Ultimate General: Gettysburg, as the Confederates, it was possible (and still might be, but I haven't tried this tactic in a while) to inflict a Stalingrad-esque envelopment on the Union during the later phases of the first day. The Union AI would be so focused on defending Gettysburg itself and the approaches to Cemetery Hill that it wouldn't react to the player swinging units wide around either flank, and wouldn't retreat until too late, if it all.

Naturally, objectives and the scripting that comes with it leads to the AI becoming entirely predictable. Not that it isn't as it is but still.

[talljoe]

Hey OP,

I actually think Hard battle difficulty is fine in ATW. I haven't seen any weird results at Hard honestly, any unit of mine still beats theirs 1 v 1. In general though, I agree with you: the way CA buffs the AI in battle is really annoying, particularly the bizarre accuracy buffs to ranged units.

[Aeratus]

the way CA buffs the AI in battle is really annoying, particularly the bizarre accuracy buffs to ranged units.

At VH, I perform far worse than auto-calc against AI armies that have a lot of ranged units when I am playing with relatively balanced armies myself. The main culprits are barbarian slinger-spam armies, and the high-tech Hun troops that spawn later in the game. Against barbarian slinger-spam armies, massed slingers simply shread apart any unit that tries to approach it. Trying to fight an AI army that has 10 units of slingers will almost always result in a few of my units getting totally destroyed, whereas auto-cal will rarely result in full unit destruction.

[Yerevan]

@ OP : I also always played every TW title on normal battle difficulty. To prevent battles to get too easy I employ house rules.
For exemple not giving an order to an unit which is already engaged in a melee and which I consider being too far from its general to recieve any communication. The units I send behind ennemy lines to flank and hammer will stay and fight where I sent them in the first time, or maybe pursue their ennemy if they already defeated it, but their adaptation to the battle events has to be minimal....
In short I try to recreate a believable simulation of command communication even if it sometimes lead to arbitrary choices...
Other exemple I won't make my units run when I think that in RL it would break their cohesion. Or another again, before R2 I was trying to simulate the existence of LOS, and, as long as my light cav have scout the battle field, place my army as if it were blind.

Those are old habits which feels quite natural for someone who roleplayed every tw game. But I can understand how twisted it can seem to others lol

I almost forgot : since S2, realism mode is mandatory.

[talljoe]

At VH, I perform far worse than auto-calc against AI armies that have a lot of ranged units when I am playing with relatively balanced armies myself. The main culprits are barbarian slinger-spam armies, and the high-tech Hun troops that spawn later in the game. Against barbarian slinger-spam armies, massed slingers simply shread apart any unit that tries to approach it. Trying to fight an AI army that has 10 units of slingers will almost always result in a few of my units getting totally destroyed, whereas auto-cal will rarely result in full unit destruction.

Yep, I am hoping that the person who made "Better AI recruitment" for R2 will do so for ATW. I just will never be interested in fighting slinger spam armies.