Time to Increase My Difficulty Level?

[leftguard]

So, this evening I've completed a Major Victory in my historical 106 turn campaign as the Central Powers, by getting my NM to 152 (with WE on just 14 and EE on 62), during the turn for early September 1916.
I've been playing on Sergeant difficulty in most of my Ageod games, but very rarely get the full major victory result as I did here. Perhaps I'm finally getting the hang of things

I've gone with Easy Supply off, and played with the large penalty setting for movement and combat for non-activated forces. I also use the attrition for moving forces rule. On average it's taken me an hour and a half to play each turn, by hitting the R and T keys to cycle through my available forces.

Next time I play (I'll be playing as the Russians), I'd like to adjust things to get a more likely 4 year war duration (although I have no idea how that's going to work out for the EE - I look forward to finding out!).

I'm thinking of allowing non-activated forces to be possibly locked in place. I know how frustrating this can sometimes be, as I've used it when playing PoN, but it might help speed up my turn times. I'm also considering adding attrition for non-moving forces, which I assume will make things a lot more static along the front lines.

The other big change would be stepping up the difficulty setting one notch. Can anyone give me some idea as to how the game changes when the difficulty is raised (are battle results skewed against me more, is attrition heavier, is supply more demanding, etc?). Any feedback gratefully received.

And thanks Ageod for making such a great game - I've played 2 TEAW campaigns now, and have 240 hours logged on Steam - where does the time go??

[Husaria]

Leftguard

My experience has been very similar to yours. With the same game settings I've won two campaigns, both with the AI set to Sargent. I am planning to step it up one level and wondering also what the impact will be.

I think I've read someplace that it does not help th AI win battles easier, but that it gives the AI more insight to your deployments (perhaps less FOW) so that it is better able to select places to attack.

I'd like to hear an answer to this also.

[bkosar19]

I'm about to quit my campaign as the Eastern Entente in the Guns of August Scenario. It's November 1916. The Central Powers NM is at 49, the Western Entente at 62, and my EE at 108.

I played on Lieutenant difficulty with small AI bonuses for detection and activation. Plus, I used historical attrition (player only) and the activation rule that can lock your forces in place if their leader fails his check. The latter in particular upped the challenge because many Russian commanders are practically useless with their stat ratings of 1 or 2.

Still, my forces were massacring Central Power armies with my routinely winning 4-5 NMP for lopsided victories. The AI was able to force me out of Warsaw with a 4500 PWR killer stack, but that stack is still just sitting in Warsaw doing nothing and has been months of game time. Meanwhile, the Western Entente are currently advancing into Germany and the Americans are just about to arrive. The Central Powers are doomed.

Sadly, Athena just isn't much of a challenge in Ageod's monster campaign scenarios even with boosts and player handicaps. Those scenarios require long-term planning as to strategy, leadership, replacements, and army composition and Athena doesn't do long-term planning. Its having a 4500 pwr army sitting idle for turn-after-turn was a depressing reminder of the limitations of the AI. (Also, apparently Athena doesn't recruit fighter squadrons. I recruited one that blasted the Central Powers recon planes from the skies. I kept waiting for it to be challenged, but it didn't happen).

I had a lot of fun with this campaign, but eventually the AI's inability to be a consistently able opponent over the long-term undermined my enjoyment. Ageod's AI just works better in smaller-to-mid-sized scenarios where it's not required to project a long-term strategy.