EB 2.3 Campaign Recommended Difficulty Settings?

[kingofportugal]

I know that in previous versions the Campaign recommended difficulty was Medium.

But I have read somewhere that Hard allows for the Ai to recruit Mercenaries.

I would like to know if Medium is still the recommended difficulty, regardless of mercenaries.

I also would like to know if the difficulty affects diplomacy or city population growth and public

[QuintusSertorius]

Hard/Medium or Hard/Hard remain the recommended settings.

Campaign difficulty affects diplomacy in 2.3, it won't in 2.35 since we removed that code. It has no effect on those other things.

[kingofportugal]

Thanks Sertorius. And when will 2.35 get realesed? Im about to start a recorded campaign, maybe i should wait?

[Lusitanio]

You should start a campaign in Very Hard/Hard. Otherwise the campaign AI is just to much passive

[athanaric]

You should start a campaign in Very Hard/Hard. Otherwise the campaign AI is just to much passive

Battles are balanced for Medium.

[kingofportugal]

I dont like the AI to constantly and autistically attack me. Especially when the ai never signs a cease fire even when being totally destroyed.

I think ill go with hard campaign.

[Lusitanio]

EBII is not like EBI. The AI only attack when they find a weak spot in your regions and most of the time, it's the AI that asks for a ceasefire after loosing some battles.
With the campaign in Hard the AI rarely attacks the player, its not even a challenge...

[Baharr]

I usually play on Hard/Medium and as long as you roleplay a little instead of doing everything in your power to exploit the AI's weaknesses it provides an imo fairly balanced experience. If you can't stop yourself powergaming and making use of every possible opportunity or gap in the AI (which is fine, some people like to play in this fairly intense style) then Very Hard/Hard will probably be more fun.

EDIT: What I mean by "powergaming" is for example blitzing as many neutral provinces as quickly as possible. I always raise an army whose composition is either historical or situationally appropriate (e.g. more elites in the "royal" stack, more levies in desperate militia defense stacks) and take time to pick out an appropriate commander - the army then gets sent out, fights as best it can, units don't get retrained but sometimes it gets reinforced with new units, etc. - this means I capture provinces fairly slowly compared to a player who rushes them asap and I find Hard/Medium suits me well.

[Lusitanio]

I have been playing total war games for years and I also like to roleplay without exploting AI's weaknesses. In Very Hard difficulty, you can play normally and have a very good challenge without powergaming because if you are experienced in total war games you know what to do.
It's your game and you do whatever you want mate, but other difficulties are just to easy and make the AI just stand there without doing nothing at all.
I think Very Hard should be the norm for EBII experienced players.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I have been playing total war games for years and I also like to roleplay without exploting AI's weaknesses. In Very Hard difficulty, you can play normally and have a very good challenge without powergaming because if you are experienced in total war games you know what to do.
It's your game and you do whatever you want mate, but other difficulties are just to easy and make the AI just stand there without doing nothing at all.
I think Very Hard should be the norm for EBII experienced players.

After having played Pergamon and Hayasdan (not to mention a few turns with Ptolemaioi) I absolutely agree with this opinion. I've played those games on the H/H and never experienced any AI attacking me. Among the AI the wars were also very rare. The AI factions would often do nothing (unless they were Nabateia or Saba). Combined with the others features of the EBII (very low battle loses unless you're defeated; big rebel stacks in the provinces; a few rebel provinces to conquer at the beginning) the gameplay is - imo - very easy as compared to the other mods.

The battle Hard difficulty I find the right one given the morale system in the EBII (low and very compressed morale of the units). The morale bonuses of the Very Hard may indeed distort the battles as their %% impact is bigger than in the other mods.

[kingofportugal]

I usually play on Hard/Medium and as long as you roleplay a little instead of doing everything in your power to exploit the AI's weaknesses it provides an imo fairly balanced experience. If you can't stop yourself powergaming and making use of every possible opportunity or gap in the AI (which is fine, some people like to play in this fairly intense style) then Very Hard/Hard will probably be more fun.

EDIT: What I mean by "powergaming" is for example blitzing as many neutral provinces as quickly as possible. I always raise an army whose composition is either historical or situationally appropriate (e.g. more elites in the "royal" stack, more levies in desperate militia defense stacks) and take time to pick out an appropriate commander - the army then gets sent out, fights as best it can, units don't get retrained but sometimes it gets reinforced with new units, etc. - this means I capture provinces fairly slowly compared to a player who rushes them asap and I find Hard/Medium suits me well.

Exactly. Thats exactly how i play.
My roleplay rules:

I keep elites to minimum and always retrain them to gold chevron.
Never declare war. Only fight with casus belli.
Never destroy factions. Always make them vassal or cease fire on the last settlement (great that we have remergent factions so i can ressurect factions).
Aim at Immaculate reputation, no matter what. So avoid exterminate pop or sack.
Keep the royal family within the original dynasty.

This way it keeps the game very interesting and it last more time.

[wojtekimbier]

Battles on hard seem to be a good balance to me, enemy troops do rout after some struggle and come back if not pursued. I imagine on medium you could mop the floor with an AI army of equal strength.
edit. Campaign on hard also works well for me, the AI is not too focused on hating you so you can actually do something with diplomacy.

[hlidskjalf]

Keep the royal family within the original dynasty.

What do you mean here? Is there any way to force who is heir after the first time you do it in the first turn?

[kingofportugal]

What do you mean here? Is there any way to force who is heir after the first time you do it in the first turn?

Yes just send every family member you dont want to be king to die in battle.

I never adopt, but I let women marry. But i send their husbands to the frontline, along with their sons. The only reason for women to marry is to give you disposable generals.

Keep the original dynasty. For example if you are Seleucid. Keep the Seleukids, and maybe Makedones (sounds like mcdonnalds)

The others i send them to die.

[hlidskjalf]

I have done that with undesirable FMs before but only sparingly because that is pushing too far into the 'powergaming' realm for me. Too bad we can't assassinate FMs.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Campaign difficulty affects diplomacy in 2.3, it won't in 2.35 since we removed that code. It has no effect on those other things.

May I ask about the reason of removing this increase of difficulty in diplomacy?

I'd also be very happy if I got a few words on the questions on the missiles and on the client rulers, if possible.
cheers
JoC

[Rad]

Vh/h or VH/VH

Edit: If you are playing on any battle difficulty other than Vh, I suggest that you release prisoners after battles. Otherwise, it is too easy. You can annihilate entire armies just by capturing them after they rout.

[Gunydii]

You can annihilate entire armies just by capturing them after they rout.

I never pursue beyond the 'you won' screen. The AI doesn't get to do it, so nor should I.

That said I tend to just do whatever the team says the recommended difficulty is H/M or H/H as I think its been for some years. Somehow feels odd if all these people invest all this time into an experience I end up not having.

Then again, I'm not above fiddling in game files, usually to correspond with things that get suggested as 'coming soon' changes but not always, so I guess I'm a hypocrite.

[Rad]

I am a heavy Carthage player, which means that after I rout the enemy's main force, there will still be a few stubborn Romans left fighting.

[BHL 20]

What do you mean here? Is there any way to force who is heir after the first time you do it in the first turn?

I think by opening the family tree and double clicking on an FM you can make them the next heir, i.e. the FM that becomes the heir once the current heir becomes leader.