Almost 3 months after release, what's your favorite difficulty and why?

[wrongbanana]

Also, is there a "standard" difficulty in H2H?

When I was just starting to learn how to play, I played on Iron because I felt that it was the most hardcore and realistic thing you could do in the game and I thought that if I learned to play on Iron all the other difficulties would be easier for me and I could play any difficulty any H2H opponent would want.

However, I've come to the realization that the game is very different depending on which difficulty you choose (I am very prepared to be wrong about this so please correct me if I am). So I would like to ask this wonderful community the question in the title so that as I continue to refine the way that I think in the game I can do it in the right difficulty to be competitive and have the most fun. I have not yet played H2H but I am reaching the point where I will be wanting to play against a real person soon.

Thank you all very much in advance! I love this game and the community on this forum. I check it often to read the latest discussions of the about how the game works and I have learned a lot that has helped me fight the good fight in the hedgerows.

I am aware that there are already several threads on this topic, but I believe that there has not been one for a while so I wanted to create a new, more up-to-date one thinking that over time people's opinions could change on the subject.

Thank you all again!

wrongbanana

[TheVulture]

I don't play on Iron because I figured out early on in CMSF that for me, relative spotting of friendly units was just an annoyance. All it meant was that I had to make more clicks to get the information I was using - it didn't stop me using 'god mode' knowledge of friendly units in the slightest.

I stick to Elite now out of habit, but can make much the same argument about always seeing enemy units as generic infantry markers - I pretty much always click on them to see what they are and remember, so the only practical difference between elite and warrior for me is that I'm making the interface less user friendly by plyaing on elite. So i may start playing warrior one of these days.

There is of course no 'right' level to play at. Play at the level at which you most enjoy the game. Masochistically playing at Iron difficulty because you think you ought to play the 'most realistic' when you just find it annoying is self-defeating.

[wrongbanana]

Thanks, TheVulture! I was starting to come to the same conclusion myself. Sometimes it just makes it seemingly unnecessarily difficult to use the interface.

However, there is something to hearing a firefight between a completely out of contact team or squad and an unseen enemy in the heat and confusion of an advance, and trying to regain C2 with them to "get them out of there." It adds that layer of realism and depth. But I believe this happens on Elite so you are probably right, Iron is a little masochistic.

Thanks again!

wrongbanana

[Broadsword56]

Ordinarily I would prefer Iron, if I could just play the role of the overall commander and let the AI run the battle below that level. But confining myself to a single role and requiring C2 to every unit seems excessive, since the game also requires me to play every small unit commander's role at the same time.

[slysniper]

For game play, I think iron and elite is two much for h to h, not just the info and command links. but the long delays for arty and stuff. I think these levels are good for those that want to take it to the farthest levels but for general enjoyment by the majority, it is not the level to pick. I prefer warrior, but I think veteran is very similar except it speeds up the first aid the troops give.

As for information about enemy units they give about the same out, which really is not much in general, your memory still is more important as to what you have actually seen. So if you do not like the first aid impacting the game. If you want helpful data and speed in play, Veteran is best. if you want a more realistic time of actions but do not want to make it as long and as boring as real life times, then warrior is best. If wanting to play with lack of info, long time for events to unfold for it to be more like real life and managing units to stay in command is you thing. Then elite and iron are there. I would just suggest that you make sure both sides like them settings.

For me, I dont. The game becomes very boring, but that is just me. but I think there is plenty of others that would agree.

[womble]

Mr Vulture speaks the truth. I went straight to Warrior from Basic, because it seemed the highest level of FOW that won't actually get in the way of me managing my units. Elite and Iron just add embuggerance to an already idiosyncratic interface. They add no difficulty to the actual tactical play - artillery delays are the same for both sides, so what you lose on the swings you gain on the minimum gap between enemy fire missions from the same tube.

[Erwin]

There appears to be little difference between WARRIOR and ELITE other than the advantage someone with a photographic memory would have. IRON introduces stringent C2 issues. But, as soon as you deselect any unit you get to see where all your units are anyhow. So, it always seemed like the mode for masochists who have the discipline never to deselect a unit (or who avoid looking at the screen at those times).

From the manual:

WARRIOR

Warrior is similar to the Veteran setting but introduces more realistic time

delays for a number of tasks and events. Hardcore players will favor this

setting. The following special rules apply:

- Enemies appear as generic “Enemy contacts” until they are

positively identified by your forces on the battlefield

- Treating wounded soldiers takes a realistic amount of time

- Artillery and air support take a realistic amount of time to arrive

ELITE

Elite is IDENTICAL to Warrior with only one difference:

- Enemy infantry icons are always the plain “soldier” type, regardless

of their armament or function

IRON

Iron is an optional setting that goes even one step further than Elite, and introduces

special restrictions on what the player can do and when. While even

more realistic than the other settings, this option introduces a number of

interface limitations which might put off the casual player, so it is strictly an

optional choice.

- Friendly units need to be spotted just like enemy units. If you have

a friendly unit not in line of sight or in contact with another friendly

unit, then the only way to find this unit is by either re-establishing

contact with another friendly unit or by clicking through the chain...

[GreenAsJade]

Having thought that Elite or Warrior would be the "right thing", I'm heading in the direction of Veteran right now. The "realistic" amount of time for arty makes things very difficult, and it is not clear that scenarios are designed with this in mind.

GaJ

[LJFHutch]

I can't bring myself to play anything with less than realistic times (arty, healing etc) and almost always play on Iron because it's the most realistic, even if it can at times be annoying when you're trying to select individual units one by one. To me CM seems built for maximum realism and that's when it's the most enjoyable.

- Oh, and I was like this in CMSF

[DavidFields]

I am on Warrior, and like it. I want the realistic arty times, but don't want the needless clicking. As it is, it is a little "gamey" in WEGO to click on most of your units to see what they see. But since it actually matters which units see what, I can live with that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Warrior. Elite and Iron appear to have little relevance in WEGO, where you can click around the map to your heart's content.

But I do like having the full arty delay times we get in Warrior. Those delay times are the only thing holding artillery back from completely dominating the gameplay, IMO.

[Ranger33]

Never liked Iron because of the friendly spotting.

I played CMSF entirely on Elite and started that way in CMBN, until one day I gave Warrior a shot and never looked back. Generic infantry markers are silly, since (currently) you can just click the icon and tell a rifle squad from a MG ammo team at 1000m. What's the point?

[Pheid]

I play elite because Iron seems to just be extra hassle rather than extra difficulty. Now if Iron got rid of the info you get when you select enemy units...

[Sublime]

I used to play veteran. But my internet connection kinda sucks and since I play RT it'd be hard for me to get back to PBEMs. tho I'll give it a try since I have done one since CMBB days... (anyone want to msg me)

But I tried warrior a couple of weeks ago and thats the best setting imho

[ASL Veteran]

There actually is a difference between Iron, Elite, etc even for We Go. The range at which you maintain C2 is reduced the higher the difficulty level you play at. So there is both a visual effect from when you click on units and a C2 effect which gets harder to maintain at higher levels.

[womble]

There actually is a difference between Iron, Elite, etc even for We Go. The range at which you maintain C2 is reduced the higher the difficulty level you play at. So there is both a visual effect from when you click on units and a C2 effect which gets harder to maintain at higher levels.

Oh good. Another deficiency in the manual. How the fudge is anyone supposed to know this is the case? How did you find out? C2 distances are already woolly enough that unless they're stupid-short, I doubt you'd be able to tell in the general course of play.

[z1812]

I find warrior to be a good balance for realism and enjoyment.

I remember trying CMSF on the highest difficulty and it just seemed cumbersome.

[RockinHarry]

I´m that kind of guy, thinking most realistic level game play is best, so I´m on Iron mode since the demo and never tried any other. I actually like the relative spotting friendlies and also have no probs with C2. This setting tells me alot about CMBN spotting and C2 rules and as well helps me designing scenarios, which needs full understanding of how the game works under the hood. Might be I´ll switch to lower levels for testing purposes occasionally, to reflect player preferences and play balance.

The full unit type ID of enemies when clicking their icons bugs me as well. I´d expected to see just generic unit types (infantry, tank, truck...), but not whether it´s engineers, a MG and such. That´s not that "iron" I had hoped for, but generally I like this mode for mentioned reasons.

[c3k]

Elite for me.

[AstroCat]

Definitely finding the best balance of UI/fun/realism for me has been the Warrior level.

[A Canadian Cat]

I am on Warrior, and like it. I want the realistic arty times, but don't want the needless clicking. As it is, it is a little "gamey" in WEGO to click on most of your units to see what they see. But since it actually matters which units see what, I can live with that.

+1

After reading the manual and my initial exposure to the game I concluded that Warrior was the way to go - maximum realism for arty etc without introducing additional pain points (that don't have other values) when managing my guys. I am currently playing an PBEM game that my opponent started on Iron and I have to say my conclusions are absolutely correct:) All it did was take me longer to play my turns because I had to keep selecting nothing so I could see where my other teams were so it was a net negative to the game.

I would love to see Elite changed: Right now contacts show the simple infantry symbol and display the squad name and number when you click on it. Instead I would like the contacts to show gun, tank, infantry etc. only and when you click on it you don't get *any* more information. I hate the fact that in Elite my guys cannot tell the difference between an AT gun and a squad. And I further hate that my guys can tell that the guys over there are the amo bearer team for the 2nd machine gun team. WTF my guys should be able to tell the difference between an AT gun and a squad but they should not be able to tell the difference between and HQ unit and a scout team or squad or an amo bearer team.

[G. Smiley]

For me, Warrior.

[Sarge]

Iron for me... the difficulty isn't a problem in PBEM, i've got the time. and it helps keep place holders in my mind... like 'last i knew 3d platoon was on hill 102'... but as mentioned earlier, Iron still gives too much info.

a Tank.. or Light Armor would be enough till positive ID can be made... same for Infantry.. just 'foot soldiers' till .. till a PW is taken!

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I play iron with some opponents, warrior with others and i´ve never run into a "Oh i wish I had played this on another setting"-moment.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There actually is a difference between Iron, Elite, etc even for We Go. The range at which you maintain C2 is reduced the higher the difficulty level you play at. So there is both a visual effect from when you click on units and a C2 effect which gets harder to maintain at higher levels.

My testing has been unable to find any such difference. The distance from a Pl. HQ at which a squad loses it's voice C2 contact icon is typically 7 action spots in both Warrior and Iron. The distance at which the visual icon changes from near to far is 13 action spots. This is on flat grass.