My difficulty is bigger than your difficulty

[Josef_the_Pretender]

I notice there's a lot of talk around here about what difficulty level you play the game on. But it seems to me that it's all empty posturing.

Obviously, it doesn't really matter - you choose the difficulty that most enhances your gameplay. For example I had been playing on the highest available, but when I started a new game, I dropped it down because it was just too easy to cop an arrow in the head when your saddle horse was moving at 2mph.

But I'm curious: is there any satisfaction to be gained from playing on top difficulty, apart from bragging rights? In what way do you find that it enhances gameplay? Are the lower settings too easy, to the detriment of your game? Or do you say, **** the begrudgers, I'm playing on 20% (or something)?

And is difficulty even relevant in this mod, where your troops continue the battle regardless after the aforesaid arrow in the eye?

Discuss.

 

[amade]

What matters to me is how difficult it is to keep the men alive, the harder it is the sweeter the battle. If I get killed by an arrow in the eye, well that happens even with lower difficulty... the trick is to simply stay out of harm's way just barely enough so you can continue to command your troops

I don't like battles where my troops would own all without me even issuing any orders. I want battles where I have to really sweat it out, trying hard to overpower the enemy while keeping as much of my men alive. So bugger the difficulty settings, it's not enough to tweak that so I mess around with the troops files and make things harder for everyone to stay alive. The aim is to have the type of gameplay where tactics determine whether I win or lose. As for the settings in the option screen I just put it at full damage for everyone and "good" AI.

 

[Josef_the_Pretender]

Didn't mean to jump back into this topic straight away, but a good distinction was made there:

There is the game difficulty level, which basically only governs difficulty (damage, AI combat level) on the battlefield.

Then there is the difficulty level that you choose for your overall game; for example rampage through the map with 100 Lady Knights (easy), or decide to run your entire campaign using only the Ruthless Bandit troop tree (difficult  - those Thugs are hard to replace ).

I was initially talking about battlefield difficulty, but it is really what challenges you set yourself that adds another dimension to the game and gives you scope to make it whatever you want it to be.

What matters to me is how difficult it is to keep the men alive, the harder it is the sweeter the battle. ..

I don't like battles where my troops would own all without me even issuing any orders. I want battles where I have to really sweat it out, trying hard to overpower the enemy while keeping as much of my men alive.

I agree. And that's also why I like the Dark Knights - they add a whole new level to the game as you have to work hard and sweat it out. Compared to that, I find it almost irrelevant whether you play on 137% or whatever it is. I'm almost ashamed to admit I was shaking like a leaf after defeating Lady L for the first time. But [note to self] this isn't a discussion about the DKs, let's not get sidetracked here.

 

[Pellagus]

It's far too expensive to wade across Calradia with dozens of top tier troops, especially Lady Knights. I tend to garrison the top tiers and only draw on their resources for sieges or if I want to take down a particular enemy.

I don't have difficulty set particularly high and still manage to get my arse kicked on occasion. It's good fun as it is and if it stops being fun I'll start again and do things differently.

 

[Kazdum]

Simply: You cant win battles of 200 vs 200 with 5 injuried and 2 dead. Battles have a cost as they should, also taking castles is way more challanging, and it feels good to take something after hard work and not a slaughter.

 

[Tormak]

I run normal damages and normal AI. Despite how much I die, I can't bear to lower it. There's a distinct feeling of accomplishment for me.

 

[Charlie Brooker]

I've wacked my setttings up too 80% difficulty and found out how bad I really am at this game.   I'm keeping it though, makes it more satisfying. :3

As for gameplay, I tend to pick a faction and just use their men, regardless of uber units or whatever, using Rhodoks at the moment!  I have no idea how to use them. xD

 

[MrFloppy]

About 70-80% but without Dark Knights.
Use many Arbalestiers and a few Elite Helberdiers. ->  put them on a hill or corner of the map

 

[DamienZharkoff]

101% (Its over 900000000000!!!1!one+shift!) Dark Knights off (Because they are to fantasy..)

I use 70% Infantry. 10% Archers. 20% cavalry

 

[The Mercenary]

I play on the highest difficulty available because it makes a fair difference, to be honest. It's easy to defeat your opponents when only 25 troops appear at a time; the player can't get swarmed. At the same time, with damage lowered, you can take multiple arrows to the face and still keep on coming. Manual blocking is also more difficult, as you have to move rapidly to stop enemy attacks (try manual blocking vs. Lady Larktin - she swings and changes attack directions so fast that it's almost impossible to parry every strike).

Also, it makes the battles that much more faster-paced. I generally ride around with a small elite guard of 20 knights, and leave the army at home. When I need to muster the army, I generally pull out 40 Infantry/Swordsmen/Heavy Infantry/Warriors, 40 Medium Infantry/Spearmen/Linemen/Spearmasters, 40 Yeomen/Arcii/Archers/Hunters, 40 Crossbowmen/Trained Crossbowmen, and 30 Knights/Druzzhiniks/Thanes, depending on my faction of choice. My 20 knights are always with me, and there are higher tiered sergeants/champions/huskarls etc. mingled throughout the ranks, so that my army is around 230 soldiers or so.

 

[Argos]

I play on 109%, but quite a bit of that is because of battlesizer I think. My maximum number of troops in battle is 364 (nice round number ), cause I like big battles, and waves that appear suddenly make tactics harder.

Other options:
Normal damage to me and friends
Average combat AI
Normal combat speed

I'm still a wuss and reload when beaten though, so I have no right to brag to anyone.

Thanks to NE though, getting yourself wounded in combat no longer causes you to lose the whole bloody battle, which you were winning easily.
The semi-permanent wounding system is also good for a bit of extra realism and challenge.

 

[Durf]

I leave all the settings on default which I believe makes you and your troops take 50% damage or something.  I like getting to the point where I can steamroll things with top tier units.

 

[Argos]

That's usually not a problem with full damage, as long as your enemies aren't also top-tier. Controlling your units well can give you crushing victories even when outnumbered.

 

[DamienZharkoff]

I would use manual block if it was easier to use. Half the time I block left, and it will magically read my slight upward motion during a left motion as up and I get owned 

 

[Kazdum]

Even full dificulty is kinda easy after you get top tier and elite units... for the lords never have more than 1/10 of their army with elites or top tiers... so playing with 1/2 damage is really painful to me.

 

[Argos]

Even full dificulty is kinda easy after you get top tier and elite units... for the lords never have more than 1/10 of their army with elites or top tiers... so playing with 1/2 damage is really painful to me.

This is a pretty much universal advantage to the player in games. You have to challenge yourself and take on much bigger numbers, or it gets a bit dull.

 

[ash12181987]

I need to get the battlesizer, but before battlesizer I have it turned up as high as possible (Everything BUT manual block... and again as said by Damien: only because Manual block is f-ing annoying to use.)

Personally: I perfer to not be an invincible superman, and because of it I die... often. Even in the beginning when is frustrating to the point of wanting to pull your hair out, because there are 5 sea raiders left, I have 80 arrows sticking out of my stomach, and the group of 20 I brought are all now pushing up daisies... it is too thrilling to make it easier.

Besides, later on I get myself a crusader and heavy armor... and go and find the sea raiders again...

 

[Argos]

I need to get the battlesizer, but before battlesizer I have it turned up as high as possible (Everything BUT manual block... and again as said by Damien: only because Manual block is f-ing annoying to use.)

Personally: I perfer to not be an invincible superman, and because of it I die... often. Even in the beginning when is frustrating to the point of wanting to pull your hair out, because there are 5 sea raiders left, I have 80 arrows sticking out of my stomach, and the group of 20 I brought are all now pushing up daisies... it is too thrilling to make it easier.

Besides, later on I get myself a crusader and heavy armor... and go and find the sea raiders again...

I always start by going to tournaments and only recruiting companions (I use more companions than most). With mounted companions, sticking to small-medium groups of bandits should be easy enough. I only start recruiting from villages when I have a few characters with training skill, and make those into cavalry as well. It's first when I'm a bit more powerful that I switch to using mainly infantry/archers. Fighting bandits with 50+ weak recruits is fairly useless, in fact I try not to use the first 2-3 tiers in combat, though with archers it's not a problem.

 

[faigulla]

I found this write up interesting so I decided it to post here too: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,62670.0.html

I thought I'd share some of my gameplay thoughts on this subject, just so you get an idea of what another person thinks on M&B (even though I haven't touched it for a couple of months).

Difficulty usually rises more in relation to the units on battlefield. When I was playing MB I didn't played in 160% (and 120%) to be unrealistic, it was all about gameplay realism and convenience, if the game is too easy, you'll end it and bore yourself quickly, if it is too hard "on purpose" just because others do it, then you won't enjoy it, and what's the point of playing a videogame like M&B in the first place?

When it comes to gameplay, for what i recall, the options I chose were based in what I think would be great to try and play as close as possible to my "real" enjoyment (and not to show my difficulty is better than yours) and not to make things look too easier, or end quickier. Normal damage to everyone, friend or foe, manual block, 230 (or more) units on the battlefield, no saving unless quitting, etc. All of this seems fair enough for the standpoint of gameplay fairness against the AI (which doesn't have your, and our cleverness as human to exploit), and to a M&B player who is already playing for quite some time.

This can also be correlated with one of my peeves which I want to extend the game for as long and conveniently as possible. I do not get the best armor or weapons in the game, not too quickly, not without a lot of sweating, not without a lot of fighting, because what's left after the best armor or weapon? This gets me to play with mediocre or average clothes or amor progressively building up into better armor, all in a sense of "real life" or roleplay.

If you want to get higher difficulty increase your slider of units allowed on the battlefield and choose no saving without quitting. These are just two things that will probably make a bigger diference in the difficulty increase. Only do it if you want without any pressure. Try out the no saving without quitting for example as a test, even though you think that's too stressful. Try it out, and you may begin to feel that you have less stress by not having to keep loading and loading a battle or event that didn't go your way previously. So you have really no option, and now you'll really appreciate the drawing screens of being taken off by bandits or being in a prison, because... you can't just do anything about it, just like in real life. **** happens.


Link fixed.

-Merc

 

[Wellenbrecher]

That link doesn't work.
And I agree with what you wrote. It's a pitty my good ol' PC can't handle the number of units I'd like to see.

Scratch the 'good' it's just old