After a week of playing H/H... here's why you should NEVER play battle difficulty on hard...

[meerkatology]

Well the devs wasn't stupid when they said they balanced this for medium.

Hard battle difficulty doesn't work, not because it's too hard, but rather...

1. with +4/4 defense attack on enemy, your own infantry's melee damage is now pretty much useless, even with a 80% infantry army, 95% of the damage i inflict on the enemy is through cavalry charges. Cavalry is now even more overpowered in the hands of the player.

2. going along with #1, cities are never worth defending now. you will always want to sally and fight them in the open to use your cavalry. this is not realistic at all.

3. going along with #2... siege units are also very overpowered now since they bypass the melee bonuses of the enemy.

with that said, here are some of my thoughts on creating a challenge on medium battles. some of these i have already been doing currently with some success.

-forced Low taxes in all settlements to decrease your income (house rule)
-must fight siege battles, no waiting it out, no baiting a sally, no autoresolving with 3 stacks.
-increase training cost of all your own units (this only really works for roman campaign as they have mostly faction unique units), I had already increased them by 300% on H/H, this will probably have to be 500-600% on H/M. rationale of this is not only to create more challenge but also make it more rewarding to win battles efficiently since the training cost and not just the upkeep will be a major portion of the expenditure. This does NOT affect autoresolve determination or AI's decisions on attacking your "more expensive" army, I have tested this.
-make high end units of my own i.e imperial legions take 1 turn to make instead of 0, while playing on 0 turn.

nerf your own cavalry by:
-DRASTICALLY increasing the cost of your cavalry, both training and upkeep, so that losing them will hurt alot and you cant just spam them. I haven't thought of how much yet, but at least 500% on training and 200% on upkeep.
-lethality mod, less time to maneuver your cavalry for flank charges.

problem arises in that mercernary and shared units will become more desireable since you can't increase their cost without increasing cost for AI as well. to address this we can:
-play by house rules - no more than 4 units per stack of mercenary/barbarian units... this makes historical sense as well, since rome would never send a 100% barbarian mercenary army on a campaign...doing so makes it more desireable to mix your army, which is more fun anyway? Doing this will make you want to send your mercs to die first since they will be cheaper to replace but hey, this was probably how they did it historically too

there's another week of wasted time playing H/H... sigh...going to edit the EDU and restart H/M, hopefully this will be my last restart.

if anyone has more ideas to make it a challenge on M battles please let me know

[Darth Bane1]

A lot easier... Make rules to yourself, keep them everytime and play as it should be played. I'm so happy and pleased with 2.6. It's challenging, the battles are harder, AI acts more agressive, holding money is much harder and so on. There is a reason why cavalry and most elite units are cheaper than in 2.5: That the AI recruits them and not cheap canonfodder!! And he does this! Oh yes. I'm fighting Macedon since a few days in most battles I faced Basilikoi Peltastai and Agema Phalangitais. Just play the right difficulty for your playstyle. I play Sparta on h/m. It's challenging. Rome always sents 2 armies to Apollonia and Macedon is still strong, even when I took their capital. Just play it as it should be played and stop nagging...

[Darkcrusader8]

I am playing at your difficulty in battles h/h with faster battle submod (so battle are not that easy) but still I have won all the battles so far these battles are really easy remember that ur enemy has also +4 in morale which is what count more
but still if u play with a general with lots of stars it compesate greatly this disadvantage plus with a powerful general ur unit never broke


I use this tactic
open field defense: take the higher ground bomard the enemy with archers and fight from higher ground
Open field attack: get rid of his lighter troops fast and the engage the heavy troops and hit them at the back


siege attack: engage and hit at the back even with infantry make more holes in the wall
siege defence: just cover the corridor from where they are coming and sofar the AI has made the general attack alone before his army arrived so it was a suicidal attack
Extremely easy

Of all the thing u said I do have noticed that the enemy tend to rout when u hit at the back with cav (even very light one) much more often than when u surround with infantry

[meerkatology]

I am playing at your difficulty in battles h/h with faster battle submod (so battle are not that easy) but still I have won all the battles so far these battles are really easy remember that ur enemy has also +4 in morale which is what count more
but still if u play with a general with lots of stars it compesate greatly this disadvantage plus with a powerful general ur unit never broke


I use this tactic
open field defense: take the higher ground bomard the enemy with archers and fight from higher ground
Open field attack: get rid of his lighter troops fast and the engage the heavy troops and hit them at the back


siege attack: engage and hit at the back even with infantry make more holes in the wall
siege defence: just cover the corridor from where they are coming and sofar the AI has made the general attack alone before his army arrived so it was a suicidal attack
Extremely easy

Of all the thing u said I do have noticed that the enemy tend to rout when u hit at the back with cav (even very light one) much more often than when u surround with infantry

my main point was the hard difficulty throws off intended balance between , infantry, range, siege, and cavalry...specifically its now even more important to abuse cavalry, which you already do on normal to a large extent, i was mainly trying to perserve balance while still creating a challenge. i already finished editing my edu, will give it a try tomorrow.

[Darkcrusader8]

Cavarly is fine and a bit of bonus for the AI is ok u just think cavarly is too strong because u have a lot of time to charge since combat last longer than in any other mod all units have too much defence but none of them are overpowered unit balancing is fine

and playing on medium is absolutely too easy no matter what u do

[meerkatology]

Cavarly is fine and a bit of bonus for the AI is ok u just think cavarly is too strong because u have a lot of time to charge since combat last longer than in any other mod all units have too much defence but none of them are overpowered unit balancing is fine

and playing on medium is absolutely too easy no matter what u do

your second statement doens't make any sense, think about it. no matter what i do?

cavalry is op perhaps not stats alone but cost effectiveness, even tone admits to it.
if you argue otherwise , you aren't using them properly.

[Zydrius]

I always play h/h, but I agree with your points that melee damage is very slow and cavalry in player hands is owerpowered. One could make house rule to make cavalry full charge only once or twice, but I hardly can resist making it only few times as without cavalry battles would last even longer and would be more boing .

[Smiling Hetairoi]

You guys are strange. You complain about H/H difficulty even though the mod was designed for M/M.

[meerkatology]

You guys are strange. You complain about H/H difficulty even though the mod was designed for M/M.

M/M or even H/M is way too easy. thats why we are trying to find a way to make it harder without throwing off balance.

[Grimbold]

H/H is fine.

[Ovidius Empiricus]

I agree with Grimbold. H/H is fine. I haven't had experiences like you describe. That's apparently due to our styles of playing being different. You're saying I should stop playing H/H? Or you're explaining to yourself why you're not playing it anymore? I don't get the point of this thread.

1. with +4/4 defense attack on enemy, your own infantry's melee damage is now pretty much useless, even with a 80% infantry army, 95% of the damage i inflict on the enemy is through cavalry charges. Cavalry is now even more overpowered in the hands of the player.

Not for me. I've had no problem getting a lot of kills with cavalry, different kinds of infantry, archers, slingers, skirmishers, while playing a variety of campaigns. But you don't even mention which faction this is assumed to be describing. They each have different strengths and weaknesses, and consequently ought to be played differently.

Besides, the difference between medium and hard isn't what makes cavalry more or less powerful, because the difficulty level affects all units. The individual unit stats are what make the difference. If infantry have too much of this or cavalry too much of that, you could change those things, but playing on medium wouldn't do it.

And since we're talking about what it is "in the hands of the player," as if you can't control how you use them, you can't well justify making all sorts of other house rules like you do later on.

2. going along with #1, cities are never worth defending now. you will always want to sally and fight them in the open to use your cavalry. this is not realistic at all.

What is unrealistic? I defend cities by fighting armies in the field, before they ever get the chance to besiege a city. No one in his right mind would've let one of their own cities be besieged, just to have the chance to fight a certain kind of battle. They weren't a police force fighting battles in urban environments. They were armies fighting in the field. That is realistically what they were and what they did.

3. going along with #2... siege units are also very overpowered now since they bypass the melee bonuses of the enemy.

Huh? You have siege units fighting in melee, and what do you think has changed about their stats? How exactly do you think that relates to difficulty settings?

[meerkatology]

Not for me. I've had no problem getting a lot of kills with cavalry, different kinds of infantry, archers, slingers, skirmishers, while playing a variety of campaigns. But you don't even mention which faction this is assumed to be describing. They each have different strengths and weaknesses, and consequently ought to be played differently.

Besides, the difference between medium and hard isn't what makes cavalry more or less powerful, because the difficulty level affects all units. The individual unit stats are what make the difference. If infantry have too much of this or cavalry too much of that, you could change those things, but playing on medium wouldn't do it.

its romans, but its moot, cavalry is extremely overpowered across all factions, rome actually has worse cavalry than most other factions. even tone has said that the cost of cavalry is much cheaper than how powerful they are inorder to make AI build them. How is cavalry different on M vs. H? because flank charging bypasses defense and thus the defense bonus AI gets down affect it as much as infantry, cavalry in general bypasses most of the enemy melee as well, since you are only charging and pulling back. in essence cavalry isn't affected by the +4/+4 attack defense nearly as much as infantry is.

ranged units are fine for their cost i use them in 1 stack vs 1 stack as well, but lets face it, when crunch time comes, ie. you are fighting the superpower that has 10 stacks in one place, and you need to fight 3-4 stacks at once with a smaller # of stacks, you will resort to massing elite infantry and heavy cavalry to maximize your army's power per stack. after all you want to leave as little stacks in the hands of AI reinforcements as possible, and giving AI reinforcement ranged units is just lol.

What is unrealistic? I defend cities by fighting armies in the field, before they ever get the chance to besiege a city. No one in his right mind would've let one of their own cities be besieged, just to have the chance to fight a certain kind of battle. They weren't a police force fighting battles in urban environments. They were armies fighting in the field. That is realistically what they were and what they did.

i guess this is a valid point.
But my point is that, for the player. army+epic stone wall in a seige defense is less efficient than army alone fighting in the field. this should not be the case irl.

Huh? You have siege units fighting in melee, and what do you think has changed about their stats? How exactly do you think that relates to difficulty settings?

siege unit's damage bypasses defense. thus negating the +4 defense the AI gets. ranged units in general by passes defense skill as well, so they are slightly stronger with battles on H, relatively speaking.

[High Fist]

flank charging bypasses defense and thus the defense bonus AI gets down affect it as much as infantry, cavalry in general bypasses most of the enemy melee as well, since you are only charging and pulling back. in essence cavalry isn't affected by the +4/+4 attack defense nearly as much as infantry is.

Flank charges should bypass the shield defense, not the armour defense. The +4 still applies on flanks. I think the reason cavalry charges seem more important in H/H is that, because their infantry is stronger than yours, you are more reliant on cavalry, envelopments and ranged attacks on the flanks (probably my favourite).

But my point is that, for the player. army+epic stone wall in a seige defense is less efficient than army alone fighting in the field. this should not be the case irl.

Well, if you want the game to be balanced for real life you should be playing M/M, not H/H.

[meerkatology]

Flank charges should bypass the shield defense, not the armour defense. The +4 still applies on flanks. I think the reason cavalry charges seem more important in H/H is that, because their infantry is stronger than yours, you are more reliant on cavalry, envelopments and ranged attacks on the flanks (probably my favourite).


Well, if you want the game to be balanced for real life you should be playing M/M, not H/H.

they get +4 defense skill, not armor, this does not work from behind or against range

[Sertorio]

RS2 is probably one of the mods where you really need to micromanage your cavalry. Leaving it alone in melee against an infantry unit will usually get it killed.
Charging a fresh infantry unit on the front will get it killed. Sometimes even a bad flank or rear charge can lead to unexpected losses.
And i am talking M/M not even H/H. Sure i have played mostly Western factions, but i am now conducting a Seleucid, an Armenian and a Scythian campaign, and so i hope to have a more informed opinion about the East. So how is it so OP ? As posted before it is supposed that the player will not abuse his cavalry by spaming cavalry units, that are usually decisive with their charges.
I really think you should try the damage mod if you are not liking your H/H experience or M/M. Because a lot of other player seem to like both.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

In a week, how many battles have you fought? Are they of all sizes, or do you auto-resolve many of them, especially if not many units are involved?

I'd certainly be happy to agree about cavalry - would still love to see them nerfed a fair bit, until the point where they are mostly only good for fighting each other and running down routers - and otherwise used for a bit of skirmishing.

[meerkatology]

In a week, how many battles have you fought? Are they of all sizes, or do you auto-resolve many of them, especially if not many units are involved?

I'd certainly be happy to agree about cavalry - would still love to see them nerfed a fair bit, until the point where they are mostly only good for fighting each other and running down routers - and otherwise used for a bit of skirmishing.

like 200 battles, i fight them on 3x most of the way... i dont really autoresolve, its overpowered, it gives your units too much exp, and once they get silver chevrons they will get heroic victories against any odds on autoresolve. i.e. if you keep autoresolving against carthage on caralis you end up gettnig gold chevrons on your stack there, then take it to where ever u wanan invade, and heroic victory autoresovle vs 3 stacks 1v3...

in my current roman campaign, i've currently increased my cavalry cost by 1500% and upkeep by 300% same stats, i think its more inline with how good they are now.

[Sertorio]

I would like to see you try throwing your cavalry unsupported against fresh uncommitted infantry(like spearmen or legions or phalangites) and then come back with some results. On Campaign not Custom.

[Sertorio]

I would like to see you try throwing your cavalry unsupported against fresh uncommitted infantry(like spearmen or legions or phalangites) and then come back with some results. On Campaign not Custom.

[meerkatology]

I would like to see you try throwing your cavalry unsupported against fresh uncommitted infantry(like spearmen or legions or phalangites) and then come back with some results. On Campaign not Custom.

when i say overpowered i dont mean i throw them at the enemy and go afk, i mean i use them the way they are supposed to - to take out enemy cavalry, to snipe the enemy general, and to repeatedly, and i mean repeatedly flank charge - nothing is stopping you from doing this, they barely take any losses pulling back. in this role they are too good for their cost, you cant argue against this.

and on a side note, if i was armenia and had nakharars, they will win, badly, against any non-AP unit, even from the front. heavy infantry? heavy spearmen? elite pikemen? try and see for yourself, just dont charge into front of pikemen, instead walk up to them and melee.

also, units on campaign and custom have the same stats except roman legions in the rome campaign are weaker and cheaper. other things are the same.