Dei vs legendary lvl

[A_I]

Limits of armies witch we can have doing legendarny lvl almost impossible to play.
Why? Even funny Scyracuse with 2 provinces can have 8 stacks... on early game on. And we can have 5 if i`m right...
We can defend our land but conquering someone is almost impossible because spam of stack is to high and we don`t have armies to defend.
Even if i win all battles my armies need have time to resupply and next stacks attack us tiill last of them dies...
I don`t wanna say how it looks with much powerful nations... witch got more provinces...

I understand that legendary is legendary but this is not about skill this is just no sense...

We don`t have reforms because of that... enemies got it... and turns are going and turn by turn we are weaker till time some big nations take us on mark and defeat.

On hard or very hard we can fight and limits is OK. But on legendary limit need to be lowered.

[KAM 2150]

Army limits are the same on all difficulties. Legendary should be near impossible, yet many people were able to finiah it on that level. Legendary is NOT supposed to be balanced at all. Army limits stay the same, only AI gets more cash and recruitment slots.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

Legendary is supposed to be insane. It should be that you never hear someone win in legendary while playing fair.

[Cope]

Legendary is supposed to be insane. It should be that you never hear someone win in legendary while playing fair.

Yeah I think most people equate legendary with realistic, since they figure that building an Empire in real life would be extremely challenging and not simply settlement rolling. Legendary is not realistic, it's just the computer cheating hardcore to make the game as difficult as possible whilst still winnable. I'd say Hard or Very Hard is the best campaign difficulty to play on: legendary is just retarded. The essence of the game is lost because you have to constantly use stupid little tricks and workarounds to win.

[jimlawl]

If you play on normal difficulty with a 0 base income mod, nations will only be able to afford what they can truly afford.

For balance sakes I added a capital income to mine (so all capitals get an additional 500 income) but zero ghost base income (the 3000 you get even if you have no settlements). This way nations like Sparta, Syracuse, etc. can still afford small armies with income from the map (not magical 3000 ghost income). I previously tried the zero base income mod without the 500 capital income but several nations with an income under 100 couldn't even maintain their general unit alone.

Has made the game great so far, random tribes you've never heard of can't afford 6 stacks of generic tribesmen.

[A_I]

On normal after 100 turns i got so many money than i even give giftes to my enemies and wait when he will grow up to have fun.

[Fedual]

I think legendary is fine as it is, i would never be able to play on legendary unless i cheated, wich i do
Legendary should be... well... LEGENDARY! I mean that word represents:

|--easy----------medium-----------hard----------very hard----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------legendary--|

It should be (almost) undoable for mere mortals.


For me to win legendary i use 2 things, first i have modified the tech tree so that every single tech takes one turn and i start my campaign with 500 000 cash. And i am fine with having to do that, because i probably do not have the skill and i definetley do not have the patience/discipline required to finish a legendary game.

Edit: Perhaps i am the wrong one to make a statement about the legendary difficulty, I just wanted to give a (perhaps abit unorthodox) view of how some/me view and handle the legendary diff