Question for KAM (About the new battle difficulty values)

[popovic]

This might be more appropriate for a PM, but this info might be interesting to other users as well, so I thought I might as well make a thread.

A while ago KAM mentioned that he has changed some of the bonuses applied to the AI at higher battle difficulty levels.

I am personally very much interested what exactly has changed, since I`m toying with the idea of switching to Hard battle difficulty (on a permanent basis).

KAM?

[KAM 2150]

Never said that, never done that. Battle difficulty is unmodable.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I thought it was? I thought you could at the very least give the AI units more morale on harder difficulties, and give them economic bonuses on harder difficulties?

[KAM 2150]

Only in Attila and Warhmmer you can change AI morale bonus/penalty but nothing else while it Rome 2 you can't do even that.

[popovic]

Ah, sorry my bad then.

I could have sworn I read you talking about that in one of the threads.

Maybe better close this, so it doesn`t confuse people?

[chriswhr]

Than what are the differences between battle difficulties then?

[KAM 2150]

Nobody really knows, some bonuses to melee attack, defence, morale based on difficulty. At least in old versions of DeI, if you played on VH, unit levy unit would most likely match your heavy unit. Overal people think that Hard gives various bonuses +4 and VH +7, legendary does not increase any bonuses but it does not allow for minimap or orders while pausing.

[Vardano]

What Kam said above. I can assure you that AI has higher morale attack and defense on higher difficulties. It is almost impossible to break even medium quality AI troops on legendary and those peasants are beasting and feasting too lol. But that is still more fun than to play on normal difficulty. I would say if have an experience at Total War games then the most balanced difficulty right now is Hard for battles.

[popovic]

I would say if have an experience at Total War games then the most balanced difficulty right now is Hard for battles.

Exactly!

That is just my impression as well!

Some time ago I started a campaign at Legendary (mostly for the campaign boost for AI, not so much for battles), and it was ridiculous. Basic levy archers wouldn`t break after a charge and a prolonged melee against medium quality cavalry.
I quit after the first battle like that.

Then, recently, I tried bumping up the battle difficulty in my current campaign up to Hard (from Normal).
Now, I haven`t tested it much, but I think this gives the battles just the RIGHT kind of challenge, imo.

The main difference is that now elite infantry units (for instance, Veteran Legionaries) REFUSE to break, even after my peltasts unload all of their javelins in their back.

Some will say that this is unrealistic behaviour, but imo, it definitely makes battles better.

Before this, unless the battle was a siege, it was only a matter of me getting my peltasts/elite archers behind the enemy, and it was a guaranteed win.
And because the AI is so bad at reacting to flanking maneuvres, it was really easy to outmaneuver it in such a way.

However, now, since the elites are considerably less likely to break, it is no longer enough for me to rely only on peltasts etc. After these guys run out of ammo, I now have to use good quality melee troops myself, that have a chance of taking down heavilly armoured oponents.

This makes my stacks more expensive to maintain, and it forces me to expend my 1st and 2nd class populations more.

Overall, it makes the overall gameplay more challenging, and closes the options for some cheesy methods.

Now the only question is, imo, is the added difficulty appropriate? Does it sometimes make the AI too strong?
Is it ok to use it all the time with all the factions I play, or should I sometimes change it?

That is why I opened this thread. I wanted more info about those bonuses AI gets (but since they are the same as in vanilla, it is all kinda redundant).

P.S. Of course, I am aware that I can change battle difficulty at any time during a campaign. However I like to figure out one value that is balanced and fun, if possible, and then stick to it.

[RE5PEKT]

I don't know the answer, but I involve more questions instead

Do you intent to have "realistic experience" using basic frontal charge tactics with almost no flanking with right wing consisting of your elite troops and the rest of your armies of leavy trash? Then hard might be too difficult for you.. Do you intent to behave as the most Godly general of all times using the best proven strategies (wing flanking, concentrated push, enveloping, etc.) combined together plus having military specialized provinces (which the AI almost certainly don't pose with)? Then hard might be too easy for you. Even on normal it's sometimes to make some elite troops flee.

[RE5PEKT]

*..it's sonetime hard to make..

[RE5PEKT]

But in campaign I always go VH and for battle easy for the first 40 turns, normal for next 40 turns and hard for 80+ turns.. thats my own softcore/nocore/hardcore submod And I specialize military provinces just half the way they can be maximized (that's my only houserule).

[RE5PEKT]

Also above posted example with strong right wing was mainly for hellenic factions. Romas fought in line, than i tripple line and then mainly in 1 line again. Barbarians waried from simple one line fight throught no line skirmishing of some tribes to very complicated strategies of some other "barbarian" tribes/nations. But romans had y troops in armies too...so did barbarians, so did all other nations.