differences between difficulty levels.

[iluvatar77]

what are the differences (morale, attack and defense bonuses and economy effects) of the difficulty levels in EB.

im playing with KH a VH/VH campaign, and marcus aurelius told me that this setting unbalances the game, and i find that's true!

so, a second question is what the optimal diff. setting to play?

[Ludens]

The differences between difficulty levels in EB are identical to those in vanilla R:TW for the simple reason they cannot be modded. The battle difficulty influences stat bonuses: at easy your troops get a attack bonus, at hard the A.I.'s troops get one, and at very hard the A.I. gets a big attack bonus and a defence bonus as well.

Campaign difficulty seems to influence the autocome of autocalc (strange but true), and also the level of aggresion of the A.I. At lower difficulty the A.I. is more willing to do deals, while at higher levels they are more warlike (especially the rebels, who at VH are at least occasionally willing to attack). At VH the A.I. also receives 10.000 denari/mnai each turn.

Recommended difficulty for EB is VH campaign to encourage aggressive rebels and M battles for balance. However, if you want to fight more challenging battles you are free to try H or VH. Just don't complain about unit balance: those difficulty levels simply unbalance the game. Also, at least one EB member has mentioned that they may change the recommended campaign difficulty to H, as it makes the A.I. more reasonable during negotiations (in sofar that is possible, off course).

[WhiteShark]

Basically,

Harder Diffudulty = More bonus for your enemy such as economic bonuses, morale bonus, etc.

( I am keeping it simple cuz someone covered pretty much everything above)

[gaius valerius]

so its basically impossible for me to ruin an enemy economical since AI cheats each turn... crap.

[Ludens]

so its basically impossible for me to ruin an enemy economical since AI cheats each turn... crap.

The A.I. tends to blow most of it's money on units anyway so if it doesn't get assistance it will ruin itself, leading to an unchallenging game. To counter this, the EB script gives the A.I. extra cash when it runs out, plus a few lump sums on the first turns. This has been toned down significantly in the latest releases though, because too much led to A.I. army spamming.

So yes, it is hard to ruin the A.I. economically, but this was implemented because it tended to ruin itself.

[konny]

So yes, it is hard to ruin the A.I. economically, but this was implemented because it tended to ruin itself.

It is not so that the AI will ruin itself in general by spamming units it can not afford. The problem is that the starting armies break most of the factions. If you give them extra money in that situation they'll use it for spamming even more units that will ruin them even more.

I am using an alternative money script that gives help only when treasury is negative. The factions that do not have an unbalanced treasury from turn 1 (like Romans, Karthago, AS etc) never slide into the red in the entire game, unless they lose an important city without losing much of their army.

[Korinthos Hoplites]

Perhaps we could find a way to prevent auto-ruining by the AI, and at the same time allowing the player to ruin it.