Intended Difficulty Setting ?

[sharkeyyyy]

I played Rome M/M and had by 100 turns conquered the whole of Greece, Italy, Spain, and North Africa. My income was ridiuclous and auto resolving battles seemed bugged it was so easy. I changed to H/H. Same deal. Slightly less cash, battles were a bit harder, but auto resolve was still ridiculous and by 150 turns I had conquered the same territory as M/M.
Is this right ? Is the mod intended for VH/VH ?


Thanks

[Lusitanio]

As an experienced EBII player, VH campaigns and H battles seems to be the best combination to play. Auto-resolve is a bit more unfair to your side and battles are hard without being too unrealistic.
Still, Roman campaigns are very easy to play and while there are some changes for the next path that will make Roman expansion harder in places like Sicily, it will keep being one of the easier campaigns.

[Jurand of Cracow]

You'd find VH/VH equally easy. And not only for the Romanoi. I've voiced my opinion on this topic many times before, eg:

what a player should do after conquering a settlement?
He doesn't suffer many losses so he doesn't need to wait for reinforcements. The unrest rarely forces him to keep many units in a settlement (unlike in the other mods, as I like to point at). Disbanding troops doesn't make sense as the upkeep costs are 3/16 (with significant upkeep it might have been different) or recruiting plus you don't get back the reserves. A client ruler is recruited so there's nothing to do for a Family Member (unless you're of Romani faction, I guess).
So what to do and why? Even with role-playing? I'm following a few home-rules but they still don't provide for any challenging gameplay...

Guys, this is something I keep on failing to understand in the EBII design.
Everybody is talking that you have to roleplay, you have to have home rules (like "no more than X elities"), you don't this or you do that. In sum: plenty of player-imposed external rules. Why you need to make all those external constraints ? Why cannot it be by design of the mod - in cases where the M2 engine does allow it?
For instance: in the mod you can lower the availability of the elite units. You can differentiate between the player and the AI. Why not simply make the elites less available for the player?
Or fighting in the advantage: various mods provided various reasons so that you don't fight in such a situation. A mod can introduce heavy costs for the large armies while in the enemy land - and it can be exponential: low for 10 units, large for 15, very large for 17, and very very very large above. And only for the player - then you're more likely to meet equal or stronger AI armies. Or you may get some punishment - as in the BGR the "overconfidence" trait. I don't like "punishment" type incentives, so I prefer the SSHIP incentives: you get very valuable traits only if you fight a stronger enemy. In this sense fighting a battle is an investement - you fight stronger enemy to get those great generals who can then provide much for your faction (in the SSHIP: this is the main way to get high Chivalry or Dread, and only with high Chivalry you can make a city over a bar to higher settlement level, and with high Dread you can keep big cities with foreign cultures under control). It is possible for the player to choose- in the Warscape one you cannot split your forces, but in the M2 you can do it just before the battle and leave a few units behind.
So why not to introduce similar incentives by design to EBII - instead of advising new players to "role play" or follow "home rules" ?
JoC

Caeterum conseo.... The problem you're trying to solve is that it's easy for the player to conquer the AI lands, in this case: the last settlement. In my opinion, the main source of all issues like this is that once the player gets a few settlements and muster a significant army, he is unstoppable: the army suffers only minor losses with any battle (10-20%, no marching losses, no diseases, no mutinous sub-generals) and settlements support that standing army easily (one settlement - half a full stack) and no need to detach an army to occupy an newly conquered province. It's a rolling machine: the player takes another and another and another settlement. Only public order may stop him occasionally and to a limited extent. The last-stand army won't change the matters, even if it may provide a hurdle.
The solutions, imo, should be based on the idea that the forces melt out during the campaign, the civilized factions need to have money before embarking on a campaign (and the loot enrich the generals and soldiers, but is not devoted to funding another conquest - unless you're a specific faction that can do that, like Romani), the barbarian factions can mobilize against an enemy faction only if they overcome internal divisions that spring up often etc.
It also must take time for a province to become productive for a faction. Their might be an intial loot (from sacking) but an efficient system of transferring wealth to the "center of power" should take long, long time - and in the barbarian case a cultural change. Look what happend to Gaul in 2-1 centuries BC, or Britain 1 centuries: structures of exploitation of wider lands and wider strata of society. Histocially, it was what made the Roman Empire to last for longer than one campaign: efficient tax system.
For instance, if we consider various governments in the EBII, their effects should not be like +5% tax or +1 farming income, but there should be a heavy +50% tax for upper-level govts, while -50% tax for the initial situation. I think it can be comparatively easily implemented but it needs a conviction from the EBII team. Scripted armies won't solve the problem.

Quintus,
what do you think now about slowing down somehow the player's expansion?
I mean: if the player wants to take the provinces one-by-one with little pause, he can conquer fast a number of them. This is especially true for the less developed / less populated provinces for the major stumbling block: the initial civil order hit (eg. unrest related to culture or famine) is comparatively small. The best way to deal with such unrest in smaller settlements is simply a garrison: the ratio number_of_troops / population is already high for just 1-2 units - and these actually come for free due to the free upkeep from own government.
My experience comes from the play with Pergamon and Pritanoi. In the latter case (obviously an easy one), I've taken all the British Islands (+6 provinces, Pritanoi have ownership and no additional unrest, but this actually doesn't matter) in 55 turns on VH/VH, with a few realistic restricting home-rules (like no attack in winter). I imagine that for the political system of Pritanoi such a land-grab would prompt a backlash, never mind the after-conquest rebellions in the very regions. This is not reflected in the mechanics (or maybe I'm yet to experience it ;-), even though one may easily imagine it, eg. every province taken lowers loyalty of all characters but this cools-down as the time passes. Perhaps such a mechanism starting only at a higher level of difficulty: H/VH (so that the people don't complain ;-)
Experience with Pergamon in 2.3 was similar (well, not precisely: only +2 provinces in 55 turns, but then I've moved quickly due to the inactivity of the AI - and also had little problems while having plenty of money and recruitment possibilities).
I know the argument about the role-playing, but maybe something has changed in the mind of the team and you imagine a kind of mechanism to deter the player from conquering provinces too fast?
btw, I really admire that the reaction of the units to the orders on the battlefield is not such an instant one. This is really realistic imo, really good!
another good thing: I've landed on the continent and the rebels are recruiting new units in the settlement! this prevented me from attacking and now it a big problem, I need to wait for more troops. Great!
To be clear: I don' want more difficulty just for difficulty but more realism in the speed of conquest. We've had a discussion on the losses in the battles in the past and I understand this cannot slow down the conquest (even though at VH I have loses of 20-30%, and experienced even 40%, so there's a slight such effect), so I'm looking forward for something different.
JoC

I agree that trait-linked negative solutions (trade, tax, or farming mali) are bad - both because they're easily avoided and because they're negative: the players (me included) don't like negative incentives. In my modding for the SSHIP I try to do the opposite: give big money bonuses in traits and ancillaries so that the player levels-up his generals and then he can reap those good traits (not +5% or +10%, but +30% and more). As a result, it should be rather the set of base parameters that get rid of the flood of money.

if the increase of the upkeep costs of the military is not possible then the revenue side should be tweaked. (the recruitment costs are pretty much irrelevant given the low casualties in the battles: you recruit very rarely). I think it's much ahistorical that any faction can easily "tax" a newly conquered province: provide significant regular income to the "center of power". The conquered provinces would provide initial income (loot after the conquest), some income that is easy to catch (esp. mining), but then it would provide troops, but little money. So I think the initial income of the provinces should be lowered, and then increase over time. Many options are possible to achieve it, I think. For instance, the very low levels of governments should have a significant mali for income - again, not -5%, but -50% for tax/trade income; or -3 farm income, or -3 trade bonus. Or Stasis buildings could produce mali.
At the same time, you can diversify among the factions: those that were able to tax provinces effectively (esp. Romani) they'd get lower mali. Or you can simulate the learning process among the barbarians by adding better gov buildings after the reforms.

[nvm]

The most comfortable difficulty seems to have been stated as H/H, I believe. Do note though that Roman troops seem to have a kind of an advantage in autoresolve, and are considered the easiest faction in the mod to play. At the same time, the mod is still being balanced and with focus on expanding territory you might indeed find that not very difficult without money/public order constraints.

[Dooz]

I like H/H myself. Medium battle difficulty works if you're not actively trying to do your best to maneuver and win with any edge you can give yourself with all the right moves at the right time. Instead kinda just form up, and let em slug it out, with minimal micromanagement. End up with pretty heavy casualties and could even lose battles here and there, especially if outnumbered/outmatched.

[Sar1n]

I second the H/H as optimal.

[QuintusSertorius]

The intended difficulty is H/M, which assumes you don't blitz the AI, which is what you did. Using autocalc when you're the Romans is close to an exploit, given how much better their roster is than many other factions, and the ease of getting Command stars if you follow the cursus honorum system.

Trying to account for players bum-rushing the AI is a fool's proposition that merely ruins the game for anyone else who isn't doing that.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The intended difficulty is H/M, which assumes you don't blitz the AI, which is what you did. Using autocalc when you're the Romans is close to an exploit, given how much better their roster is than many other factions, and the ease of getting Command stars if you follow the cursus honorum system.

Trying to account for players bum-rushing the AI is a fool's proposition that merely ruins the game for anyone else who isn't doing that.

Indeed, also given that the autocalc gives much more weight to heavy infantry - the kind of troops that Roman excel.

However, I don't think it's right to blame the players on their behaviour - the game is about doing what the game allows you to. It's not so difficult for the modding team to provide the player with the incentives to behave differently. Eg. the player should get very valuable traits only he fights a stronger enemy. The player should dream about fighting on such terms to get those great generals who can provide much for his faction. In the M2 enginge one can split his forces before the battle and leave a few units behind so that he fights at scuh terms. (sharkeyyy seems not to mind as he's trying higher and higher difficulties).

[QuintusSertorius]

Indeed, also given that the autocalc gives much more weight to heavy infantry - the kind of troops that Roman excel.

However, I don't think it's right to blame the players on their behaviour - the game is about doing what the game allows you to. It's not so difficult for the modding team to provide the player with the incentives to behave differently. Eg. the player should get very valuable traits only he fights a stronger enemy. The player should dream about fighting on such terms to get those great generals who can provide much for his faction. In the M2 enginge one can split his forces before the battle and leave a few units behind so that he fights at scuh terms. (sharkeyyy seems not to mind as he's trying higher and higher difficulties).

The better battle-oriented traits already work that way. You also get negative traits for consistently fighting battles where you outnumber the opposition.

[Cryoshakespeare]

However, I don't think it's right to blame the players on their behaviour - the game is about doing what the game allows you to. It's not so difficult for the modding team to provide the player with the incentives to behave differently. Eg. the player should get very valuable traits only he fights a stronger enemy. The player should dream about fighting on such terms to get those great generals who can provide much for his faction. In the M2 enginge one can split his forces before the battle and leave a few units behind so that he fights at scuh terms. (sharkeyyy seems not to mind as he's trying higher and higher difficulties).

I think I'd disagree with the assertion that "the game is about doing what the game allows you to". I mean, not to get all philosophical on this, but the game is simply a set of rules you accept to govern your actions in play. Console commands are included in the game, but most of us would probably agree they aren't part of intended play, and that's a self-imposed restriction, just like any of the extended house-rules might be.

Now, I would agree with you were this a full dev-team with complete mechanical control, then I think it's definitely best practice to make the mechanics of the game totally represent the intended play. But this scenario is different.

Ultimately I think it comes down to a question of buy-in on the part of the players - would people rather play a game where they have to limit their actions somewhat of their own accord to align with intended play, or would they rather play a game with strict mechanical guidelines or incentives that also have drawbacks and may at times be considered "unfun" mechanics? I don't think there's a clear "should or shouldn't" answer on this, everyone has their own preference, but it seems the prevailing consensus is that house rules are better than hamfisted mechanics for most people. And ultimately, the devs have to design for most people, and indeed their own preference, considering it's a volunteer produced mod!

It might be an interesting topic for a poll though, whether people would prefer mechanics with drawbacks or the limitations of house rules. Anyway, I play H/M OP, and use a lot of house rules myself, which there have been discussion threads about.

[NosPortatArma]

100 turns to conquer all that is not very fast imho. it can be done in 30-40 turns, and then you can talk about it being too easy.

some rules I use to increase difficulty:
* play VH/VH
* don't hire mercs
* don't flank with cav or chase routers
* release prisoners
* max 14 units in army
* balanced and realistic army comp
* maintain 4-6 unit garrison in every settlement, realistic comp
* if you really want to slow it down, only assault settlements that are 1 turn away from surrendering
* max 2 active offensive armies at a time, no small stacks running around

[Krampus]

Honestly, I agree that some of the “exploits” are more inherent to the engine than anything. For example, avoiding siege battles by waiting for the AI to park a small stack at an adjacent square, so that when you attack it the garisson joins the battle as reinforcements and gets slaughtered in the field. Also, not using generals. You have no forced marching or supply issues.

Also, the battle difficulty issues will never be solved until you can get a smarter AI. I really appreciate how much more improved the AI is from that in EBI, but there’s only so much you can do. Same with campaign map AI, which is arguably harder to tinker with.

Re some of the easier modding suggestions, such as tieing good/bad general traits more strongly to the balance of forces in battles fought, that’s a great idea! Why not make a submod for that? The forts submod has the field army upkeep script y’all mentioned.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The better battle-oriented traits already work that way. You also get negative traits for consistently fighting battles where you outnumber the opposition.

That's a great news. As always, there's a question of the balance - if the probabilities are large enough to make a difference.

ultimately, the devs have to design for most people, and indeed their own preference, considering it's a volunteer produced mod!
It might be an interesting topic for a poll though, whether people would prefer mechanics with drawbacks or the limitations of house rules. Anyway, I play H/M OP, and use a lot of house rules myself, which there have been discussion threads about.

I fully agree. The most important thing is though to ask the correct questions. If such a broad question is posed ("mechanics with drawbacks or the limitations of house rules") then the answer would always be "leave it with the houserules"!. I'd be happy if there'd more granular questiosn (eg. A) costs of stacks increasing with the size of stack (low for 1-10 units, large for 11-15, very large for 16-18, and very very large for 19-20) B) costs of stacks without any differentiation on the number of units).

Re some of the easier modding suggestions, such as tieing good/bad general traits more strongly to the balance of forces in battles fought, that’s a great idea! Why not make a submod for that? The forts submod has the field army upkeep script y’all mentioned.

Yes, indeed. I'll use the forts submod and perhaps other submods (if they're updated) while playing the next game. However, I just want to voice my opinion that they should be included (at least partially) in the base mod.

some rules I use to increase difficulty:
* play VH/VH
* don't hire mercs
* don't flank with cav or chase routers
* release prisoners
* max 14 units in army
* balanced and realistic army comp
* maintain 4-6 unit garrison in every settlement, realistic comp
* if you really want to slow it down, only assault settlements that are 1 turn away from surrendering
* max 2 active offensive armies at a time, no small stacks running around

Here we go again: "Everybody is talking that you have to roleplay, you have to have home rules (like "no more than X elities"), you don't this or you do that. In sum: plenty of player-imposed external rules. Why you need to make all those external constraints ? Why cannot it be by design of the mod - in cases where the M2 engine does allow it?"
The units in the army might be solved by stack-upkeep-costs, the release-prisoners by positive trait system, balanced army comp by better differentiation of availability and costs for the elites, the garrison thing by unrest in the settlements, the assault (partially) by negative siege point system, the number of offensive armies by special ancillaries (in the BGR spirit).
Anyway, my current houserules are as follows:

1) armies larger than 2 units must be lead by a general. This includes any transfer of troops from recruiting settlements to the frontline. To initiate any battle a general must be present.
2) no sieging during winter north of the line Mare Internum - Mesopotamia. It means: no new sieges can be started, and all current sieges must be resolved instantly - either through storming the walls or through abandoning the siege. (the case for such a rule is three entries below).
3) recruitment and initiating building only with a general present in the settlement (he can leave the settlement during building though) (I wish such a rule would be implemented in the mod by the EBII team (so that I don' need to make it a home rule...), this is rather easy to do).
4) no retraining of units in less-than-half-strength: the heavily depleted units are always merged (this is a good compromise between no-retraining rule and no rule at all: 1) units over 50% of men should be IMO realistically considered to have retained cohesion so they can be replenished; 2) this rule enables the melee units to get higher chevrons (silver, perhaps even gold), 3) it also keeps buildings giving retraining costs bonus useful, WHILE it removes the glaring retraining exploit (when the player merges units, keeps the last few guys with golden chevrons and then retrains them to get a full-golden-unit).
5) no suicidal actions by generals: any bad one must live to the end of his day (such actions are unrealistic as nobody would die voluntarily, and it also makes player's life much easier: bad general - kill him at no cost as the game engine gives another one).
6) balanced army composition: always with a few light units, use of the tribal / lower tier factional units, if possible. Never more than 3 bodyguards in an army (at least one must be a young, learning general).
7) any battle fought personally should be a challenge: this means leaving some units deliberately behind while initiating a battle (this rule doesn't impact on the cleaning exercises - like getting rid of two-unit rebellion - as it's done by autocalc).
8) sieges are resolved either personally or by starving the enemy out (autocalc is usually the best way for resolving the sieges so it can be exploited by the player).
9) trading settlements is not allowed with the AI, unless it is included as a part of a peace treaty.
10) trading maps is not allowed at all (it is both very un-historical (nothing like this existed in the ancient times, the knowledge of geography spread with the movement of the people) and bad for the gameplay (AI pays too much for them).
11) armies may embark only on the navy docked in a port (except for a lone general - he can do it anywhere). Disembarking anywhere.

(I've hesitated with another one: any settlement must build a temple asap. This is because I've found that building temples for a few British settlements (Alauna, Dunopalator, Isamnion) unnecessary: they've got good public order and there's no point to pay upkeep for these buildings)

[NosPortatArma]

Here we go again: "Everybody is talking that you have to roleplay, you have to have home rules (like "no more than X elities"), you don't this or you do that. In sum: plenty of player-imposed external rules. Why you need to make all those external constraints ? Why cannot it be by design of the mod - in cases where the M2 engine does allow it?"
The units in the army might be solved by stack-upkeep-costs, the release-prisoners by positive trait system, balanced army comp by better differentiation of availability and costs for the elites, the garrison thing by unrest in the settlements, the assault (partially) by negative siege point system, the number of offensive armies by special ancillaries (in the BGR spirit).
Anyway, my current houserules are as follows:

right, but I'm no modder, and EB2 team hasn't added those things yet, and maybe won't ever add them. So only thing that is left IS to impose arbitrary restrictions on yourself, unless you want to play a really easy and unrealistic mod.

[Septentrionalis]

Trying to account for players bum-rushing the AI is a fool's proposition that merely ruins the game for anyone else who isn't doing that.

I think that those are some words of wisdom right there. I am not sure how the blitzing could be done, but I guess it involves not building that much and spending a huge amount on recruitment every turn.

I would like to offer a different experience. I always build as much as I can and generally try to keep all the settlements happy and my family members without negative traits having to do with running unhappy regions. I usually end up spending all or almost all of my money on settlement improvements in the beginning of the turn, many of which take an incredibly long time to pay back their price. But I want to build a civilization in the long term.

There is very little money to use on recruitment, and very often, although I play non-aggressively, it is spent to deal with immediate threats. Most expansion comes from retaliating against those who continuously initiate violence against me. After all, they are not going to stop attacking unless I deal them a blow. Any deliberate expansion is incredibly painstaking to do and finance that way and really feels like a great undertaking and something I feel like celebrating when done successfully. It also means sacrifice, because recruiting more than usually prevents me from building that metalla maior or huge port I have been wanting to.

I have played on H/M, and I have found the game very balanced and extremely gratifying that way. I really hope that the game is not geared towards increased difficulty to cater to those who play it as a battle game and not a state-building simulation. I urge anyone who has so far only considered "winning" the game to think about it as a historical simulation. You might find it well worth the trouble, and if you don't, there is always going back and finding ways to make it more challenging to you by applying house rules and avoiding what many here on the forums have identified as exploits.

[Dooz]

I always have my fingers crossed the mod doesn't end up catering to competitive-play mindset, with arbitrary difficulty multipliers and whatnot. But I'm pretty hopeful based on track record and general ethos that it'll remain a more flexible platform for making your own fun.

[Raiuga]

I used to play on H/H but I'm gonna try H/M in the next version because it's been said that the stat's have been balanced for BAI medium difficulty.

I'm up for a more challenging campaign provided by realistic and logical features.

From the comments I have been reading the experience has been different for most people, so I can't say that the mod is generally "easy". I would say it is considerably of moderate to hard difficulty in terms of the tools that are available by the M2TW engine.

In terms of difficulty, there are two simple approaches being quality or quantity. Since AI lack on the quality side, the challenge comes from quantity where normally the AI factions can field more units compared to the Human player with similar territorial ownership.

[Dooz]

I can't say that the mod is generally "easy". I would say it is considerably of moderate to hard difficulty in terms of the tools that are available by the M2TW engine.

Especially when you consider that not everyone who might be interested in this mod is a years-long veteran of total war gameplay and mechanics, or games at all. Would suck to leave them out of the equation just because they might not even participate in forums and voice their opinions and concerns as much or at all. I think this mod might uniquely attract such potential users because of what it aims to achieve and the types of people who might be drawn to that.

[NosPortatArma]

i see eb as an interactive history book which gives an imersive environment for historical roleplay. not as a challenging or competitive game, because mtw2 is too limited for that.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Especially when you consider that not everyone who might be interested in this mod is a years-long veteran of total war gameplay and mechanics, or games at all. Would suck to leave them out of the equation just because they might not even participate in forums and voice their opinions and concerns as much or at all. I think this mod might uniquely attract such potential users because of what it aims to achieve and the types of people who might be drawn to that.

I think a compromise would be possible to find: the more difficult features should kick in only at higher difficulties. In the EDCT it's easily programmable. In this sense everybody could be happy.

i see eb as an interactive history book which gives an imersive environment for historical roleplay. not as a challenging or competitive game, because mtw2 is too limited for that.

So do I, but I play with my characters because of what the game provides. Eg. if there's a system for long learning of the young FMs in the celtic setting (druid training for years), I do it. But if there's nothing in the game, what the characters are supposed to do?
Or taking settlements for loot: you can do it from thin air "it's historical, I've got a home rule that this faction did it historically" - I conquer and I leave it to rebel, or one can set the game in such a sense that 1. this is very profitable, 2. the faction is not able to keep the settlement, 3. there're good traits given from sacking - then the player does it as a part of gaming.

In terms of difficulty, there are two simple approaches being quality or quantity. Since AI lack on the quality side, the challenge comes from quantity where normally the AI factions can field more units compared to the Human player with similar territorial ownership.

From what I've seen the player is usually superior in quantity exactly due to having more territories: he's more decive in taking new lands and after less than 100 turns he's got more territories even if he doesn't do a constant conqeusts.