Ideal Campaign Difficulty setup?

**romantiq77** · April 23, 2008, 06:00 PM

Hey there everyone,

This will be my first attempt at playing any modded version of Medieval Total War.

I know in the Vanilla Setup, I play H/VH (hard on campaign as I hate having a non-existent diplomacy system).

Question is, since I like playing the game so it is as hard as possible, what is the best difficulty to play it on with SS6.0? Will VH on the campaign setup in SS6.0 still be too annoying because of hard-coded aggression and meaningless alliances? I'm not too narrowminded in the sense that I know even on Hard I don't mind having enemy AI breaking alliances with me, but on VH they just don't seem to take notice of any relationships.

Your answers would be greatly appreciated.. thanks

p.s. On a side note, SS6.0 runs on the normal MTW2 not Kingdoms? If that is the case, then there would be no 8800 series shadow fix in it will there?

**DireklianCliff** · April 23, 2008, 06:13 PM

I play 6.0 on H/H and have thus far enjoyed every minute of it. A tip for alliances: Marriage alliances are much less likely to be broken, I've found.

**Slevin Kelevra** · April 23, 2008, 06:26 PM

At first you should play H/H but if you want to get bored, go and play VH/VH with Norway

I guess SS6.0 runs on Kingdoms. Am I wrong?

**shenryyr** · April 23, 2008, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Slevin Kelevra

I guess SS6.0 runs on Kingdoms. Am I wrong?

yep, Kingdoms.exe is what runs when you launch stainless steel

**romantiq77** · April 23, 2008, 06:31 PM

Thanks for the feedback everyone.. at the moment it almost appears that VH as the campaign difficulty may be too hard? I don't mind if it is hard, as long as it is not hard-coded mindless aggression like in Vanilla.

**cherryfunk** · April 23, 2008, 06:18 PM

I've been playing H/H and it's a great challenge. But some factions are much harder than others -- the Templars, the Teutonic Knights -- they might be better at M/H.

**Chim** · April 23, 2008, 06:19 PM

It seems that VH really got a meaning in 6.0. You can really tell the difference between levels now.

**shenryyr** · April 23, 2008, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chimaeira

It seems that VH really got a meaning in 6.0. You can really tell the difference between levels now.

I didn't do it. but you can blame me if you want :o

Originally Posted by King Kong

Thanks shenryyr!
Your reports very really most helpful.

I promise you that my next moddig project is mainly aimed to defeat you in a campaign.:wink:

**s0meguy** · April 24, 2008, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Chimaeira

It seems that VH really got a meaning in 6.0. You can really tell the difference between levels now.

Yeah, at very hard if you attack the enemy unit with the same unit your unit gets totally annihilated :/ and your morale is much lower, not fun imo, you also inevitably lose an unrealistic amount of troops at some bottlenecks and sieges

you mean the ai really uses different tactics?

H/H is the way to go for me. AI morale not terribly unbalanced, and the AI gets enough money to spam full stacks every 1-3 turns.

**DireklianCliff** · April 23, 2008, 06:28 PM

You're correct, sir. Get your Kingdoms cd out.

**themoob** · April 23, 2008, 06:35 PM

Well, I've been playing my 6.0 campaign (as Poland) on H/VH, which seems to be the perfect balance.

The whole world isn't coming after me to annihilate me, but I've had to be very careful who I ally with, who I war with, who I give lots of shiny tributes. The thing about 6.0 I've found, is that diplomacy is absolutely ingenius! Alliances are actually useful, and now its possible to get a decent reputation (right now I've even got a reliable reputation, 60 turns in after two wars) which seemed impossible in vanilla.

I use the VH for battles as, no matter how smart the A.I. is, it can't measure up to people power.

**Naked Emperor** · April 23, 2008, 06:37 PM

I am playing Lithuania on VH/VH and it hasn't been hard yet and I'm 50 turns into the game.

One temple and you have the equivalent of pavise crossbowmen at the beginning of the game makes everything much easier.

**Caesar Clivus** · April 23, 2008, 06:42 PM

I always play on VH battles, H campaign because I like having diplomacy actually doing something

**Clayton Gold** · April 23, 2008, 06:50 PM

Same as most others, I usually play on H/VH. For my first campaign, I tried H/H so I could fool around a bit, but I am finding it much more difficult than before.

**crackerjack1348** · April 23, 2008, 10:46 PM

I'm playing H/VH right now as France. England has been giving me aLOT of problems. I've been trying to mount an invasion of Britain for a while, but it's hard because I'm broke. I prefer Hard on the campaign over very hard as well because the diplomacy is virtually non-existent, as you said.

**Gomer_Pyle** · April 23, 2008, 11:20 PM

Playing on VH/H. And at first i was thinking madness. But after a while now that would be best. I have had my alliances for 50 turns now and still holding.

**Dontom** · April 24, 2008, 02:33 AM

Vh/Vh with Denmark and i can assure you it is tricky to expand after you run out of nearby rebel settlements. The enemy seem to have nothing but Castle's, meaning they can out produce you with help from their crazy

ing economy. Oh, and about 7 of my settlements have emissaries from varying factions trying to bribe them every turn.

It doesnt help that i am trying my best to avoid ANY war with the HRE, as their gothic knights make my puny spear militia fill their pants.