difficulty

**GRANTO** · March 29, 2011, 04:18 AM

what difficulty settings is everybody using ? what are the recommended settings for campaign and battle?

**Constantius** · March 29, 2011, 04:45 AM

Hard /Hard for me. Very hard battle tends to mess up things, giving super powers to normally weak, unamoured levies.

**juvenus** · March 29, 2011, 05:01 AM

yup, hard is probably the best for campaign...although the normal would be the best for battles but it depends what difficulty the mod was calibrated for. the only difference between the hard/VH and normal is that enemy troops get artificial bonuses for combat and moral (on the normal level they have just their original stats while the increase in dif gives them additional bonuses). but it usually screws the gameplay cause those bonuses get on top of their original stats thus making every enemy unit stronger than it's supposed to be. so, there's no any intelligence improvement but a mere adding of additional bonuses. very "original" from CA, a one may argue.

**GRANTO** · March 29, 2011, 05:26 AM

cheers

**Justinian Australis** · March 29, 2011, 06:56 AM

I am a big scaredy cat...I play M/M. Please dont judge me.

I even get walloped on that big time.

**PSEUDO ROMANUS** · March 29, 2011, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Justinian Australis

I am a big scaredy cat...I play M/M. Please dont judge me.

I even get walloped on that big time.

I hear you, brother. I'm not the only pussy, I can see

**Blatta Optima Maxima** · March 29, 2011, 10:12 AM

I play M/M as I don't like slugfests. I mean, on any campaign difficulty above M the AI gets money (actually, on H it gets more than on VH - VH is bugged and YOU get the monehs not the AI), which means tons of repetitive battles. I sometimes use H for battles, even though it's pretty easy to beat with missiles.

I have completed some H/H campaigns in other mods, but it gets boring quickly.

**juvenus** · March 29, 2011, 01:25 PM

yup, VH for campaign is buggy, i forgot to mention that.

**Knonfoda** · May 12, 2011, 08:01 PM

Sorry, just to save time creating another thread, I just want to straighten something out.

Campaign: Very Hard is bugged, is that right? So I get the money instead of the PC?
Battle: Normal takes all the 'correct' stats, which I am guessing have already been made balanced by the team, and keeps them that way. Hard adds morale and such bonuses, and Very Hard adds even more of them, is that right?

So if I wanted to play a realistically balanced, bug free game it would be campaign: hard battle: normal?

**julianus heraclius** · May 12, 2011, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Knonfoda

Sorry, just to save time creating another thread, I just want to straighten something out.

Campaign: Very Hard is bugged, is that right? So I get the money instead of the PC?
Battle: Normal takes all the 'correct' stats, which I am guessing have already been made balanced by the team, and keeps them that way. Hard adds morale and such bonuses, and Very Hard adds even more of them, is that right?

So if I wanted to play a realistically balanced, bug free game it would be campaign: hard battle: normal?

Yes

**Knonfoda** · May 12, 2011, 08:19 PM

Thanks julianus heraclius,

I would like to take the chance you are online and ask an unrelated question, if that is okay.

What is the reasoning behind certain unites of auxilia, limitanei, comitatenses and so forth having titles such as legio III deioteirana or milites II traiana? Or seniores and iuniores? Is it for historical purposes? I understand there were a many different variety of units, with different standards and so forth, I love the diversity, but is there any way to predict where each one can be recruited? To give an example, I seem to have a british cohort in egypt, and there are numerous rebels which spawn with said titles too. Is there a reason behind this?

Thanks.

**julianus heraclius** · May 12, 2011, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Knonfoda

Thanks julianus heraclius,

I would like to take the chance you are online and ask an unrelated question, if that is okay.

What is the reasoning behind certain unites of auxilia, limitanei, comitatenses and so forth having titles such as legio III deioteirana or milites II traiana? Or seniores and iuniores? Is it for historical purposes? I understand there were a many different variety of units, with different standards and so forth, I love the diversity, but is there any way to predict where each one can be recruited? To give an example, I seem to have a british cohort in egypt, and there are numerous rebels which spawn with said titles too. Is there a reason behind this?

Thanks.

In BI there is the possibiliy to have named legions. So for SAI I have taken the opportunity to try to reflect border legions with real names. I have tried to have them as close to their real location as possible but of course depends upon the number of cities available on the map and so forth.

What is the british cohort you speak of/ Do you mean that it has a british name?

To find out which city gives which particular legio name, go into the region.txt file which is located in the base folder; destination path: SAI/data/maps/base.

There you will find the name of the legios for each roman city.

Cheers

**Knonfoda** · May 12, 2011, 08:55 PM

Thanks julianus,

I checked, but this time (I didn't save last time, and I haven't started a new campaign yet, so had to start another one) instead of Limiatanei Armatus something britones it says Limitanei Armatus Legio I Secondae Italianice, this is in Thebai in Egypt. Is it random when the game starts, the unit naming?

Also, I noted rebels that spawned near Nicomedia had Milites Legio 3-6 Quartae Flavia, near Caesaria they had milites Legio -35 Prima Isaura, etc... are rebels supposed to have these units too?

And lastly, (sorry for all the questions) why are a host of units allowed to have names, as opposed to maybe one standard bearer unit, kind of like the 'aquila' or 'prima' unit in vanilla rtw?