Difficuty settings

[R.E.LEE]

when you pick say general you get -alot of resources etc,is this the only aproach to making a better AI opponent,im only askink because on all advance setytings i do not anymore, now that i understand the game mechanics,have any prob beating the AI.So my ? is is your ai opponent only made tougher by denying the human supplies money men etc?ive been war gaming 30 years i think ill die long before any company makes true artifical inteligence.anyhow i would realy like some info,other than gil answering a couple ?seems pretty dead in FOF forum to bad,just started liking this game again.[>:]

[GShock]

Not that bad...and not that dead

I don't play the detailed battle anymore and have found the AI challenging at all levels, even Sergeant when playing quick battle only. Obviously, i play as CSA only. Challenging enough for me because i win and lose so it's good imo. BTW i think increasing the difficulty level not only takes some of your resources away but also modifies the AI die rolls in combat and i've also noticed that it makes it harder for your Governors to support your war efforts though im not entirely sure about this since it might be related to the fact that losing more battles and regions in VA (for example) affects Letcher anyway so it might not be related to the diff. level itself but by the combat results in the state.

[Ironclad]

My understanding is that the difficulty level doesn't directly affect Governors, but as you surmised there is an indirect effect through the improved battle and economic performance resulting from the AI resource advantages and combat bonuses. Note also that at major level the AI has a possibility of bonus field fortifications in detailed battle and this chance increases further up the difficulty scale (This is separate from the hasty entrenchments upgrades)

[GShock]

Again, another thing im not sure about is the ease with which you may call on mustering-impressment-conscription, the higher the difficulty, the more likely the unrest % factor. Everything might be linked or not, but indeed the difficulty levels make things very different and very nasty.

I believe i find FoF as CSA unbalanced economy scenario much more challenging with the historical leader values instead of the randomized ones. I do not really know if the AI is good at picking leaders with the randomization setting on, because i can't see its leaders' values but Rosencrans has beaten me with AS Johnston repeatedly, while Grant has beaten Beuregard consistently too in VA. In both cases i was defensive and with forts present. Both cases playing unbalanced scenario as CSA at normal difficulty level.

Yes, definitely the AI knows how to select the best container leaders.

[Conny D]

ORIGINAL: GShock

Yes, definitely the AI knows how to select the best container leaders.

Same here, assuming Ulysses Grant is the union mastermind the ai will always do a good job and pick him to be promoted to 5 stars. Strangely enough the high rank does not prevent Army commanders from beeing wounded in detailed combat... Just dont like to see my top enemies & my own full generals pass away after battles because i'd never send them to actually lead brigades in the heat of combat but have them draw their plans in an Army HQ behind the lines!

[GShock]

I'm playing automatic instant combat and i think it's much much better balanced. Lost many battles like this as CSA, with detailed i am truly invincible against union AI. 

[jkBluesman]

ORIGINAL: Conny D

Same here, assuming Ulysses Grant is the union mastermind the ai will always do a good job and pick him to be promoted to 5 stars. Strangely enough the high rank does not prevent Army commanders from beeing wounded in detailed combat... Just dont like to see my top enemies & my own full generals pass away after battles because i'd never send them to actually lead brigades in the heat of combat but have them draw their plans in an Army HQ behind the lines!

Remeber that you can reassign generals. If you put your highranking generals to units behind your battle line or assign them to supply waggons they will have a better chance to survive although you will not get all the bonuses from them.

[Conny D]

ORIGINAL: GShock

I'm playing automatic instant combat and i think it's much much better balanced. Lost many battles like this as CSA, with detailed i am truly invincible against union AI. 

Used to be invincible too but have modded USA to have more manpower, more money, more weapons etc and its really tough fighting now in detailed (The federals even took Richmond ). What i dont like about instant is the ai too often will be sending nearby forces as reinforcements when i want those forces to stay in place to occupy a specific province. This way the instant resolve can make my long time planning obsolete cause ai will leave other territory undefended even when its only minor attacks in the adjacent province. Also it's always fascinating to see the shocking killing ratios of my elite units and i will only get those when fighting detailed mode.

[Conny D]

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman



Remeber that you can reassign generals. If you put your highranking generals to units behind your battle line or assign them to supply waggons they will have a better chance to survive although you will not get all the bonuses from them.

Thx for the hint, no more hand to hand combat for Army commanders any more (at least for human controlled)

[ericbabe]

Material bonuses for the AI on higher difficulties is a very standard thing to do in wargames.  AI researchers have been trying to develop AI routines for the game "Go", a game with much simpler rules and a much simpler set of game states than almost all wargames for the last 30 years.  To date, the best Go algorithm in existence only scores the ranking of "weak amateur" in Japanese Go competitions.  That particular algorithm was put together based on a library of thousands of games of Go played by human Go champions, and took the team of researchers years to create.