Battle of Crecy Field 1346

kujalar · Post by **kujalar** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:08 pm

This is the book I was referring to. It is actually about poitiers but it has a great chapter of Crecy and some other battles.

http://www.amazon.com/VICTORY-AT-POITIE ... 1844159329

If interested you can also check my scenarios. They can be found from

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=e87d94d8 ... 9654%21142#

With that Crecy I assumed the Edward has 3 divisions. One commanded by Black Prince which propably did the most fighting, one division left to Black Prince and one division in reserve with the Edward. I also left some camp guards to the rear because I thought the English cannot manage without them. (there are lots of French)

The French battle plan is easy. They see the banner of Edward and charge straight at the shortest way with their cavalry, trusting their numbers and ferocity.

Hardest part with the terrain was the slope. I put some trees there and made the slope more rough, otherwise the French would just gallop through it from where it is easy. I thought the scenario needs some terrain which channels the attack

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:26 pm

kujalar wrote: [snip/snip] Hardest part with the terrain was the slope. I put some trees there and made the slope more rough, otherwise the French would just gallop through it from where it is easy. I thought the scenario needs some terrain which channels the attack

Agreed. And I also agree that one must make well advised and intelligent "takes" on what actually must have happened, to make the scenario both playable and reasonably faithful to history. To further complicate matters, here's an old quaint battle map I just found on the internet.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecymap.jpg

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:36 pm

BTW, thanks for the link. I missed that book on Poitiers when it came out last year. I agree with the blurb, Poitiers was a battle of stunning importance and lasting impact, yet has not received the same "press" as Crecy and Agincourt.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:47 pm

I finally settled on what I hope is an acceptable (?) approximation of the historical map/order of battle. Difficult to research this one. Every map seems to be substantially different from the next one. One of the maps even depicted Crecy wood to the rear of the English position! Anyway, Version 3.2 is up now. I'll stop now before I take to drink.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40593264/Crecy%20Zip.zip

kujalar · Post by **kujalar** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:56 pm

I tried this scenario. Very good scenario.

When I compared to my own version I was ashamed how my French are a mess around the battlefield and a pain to move.
Maybe I should try to do a new version myself too. I also noticed that now it is possible to give bowmen portable defences in editor. Maybe those ditches are overkill with portable defences. (in earlier version of the editor it was not possible to give portable defences)

Your French propably have too much commanders and there should not be inspired leader (3 flags) commanding the French.
I think not every named noble should be commander. Propably max 3 leaders / side should be enough.

ZeaBed wrote:I finally settled on what I hope is an acceptable (?) approximation of the historical map/order of battle. Difficult to research this one. Every map seems to be substantially different from the next one. One of the maps even depicted Crecy wood to the rear of the English position! Anyway, Version 3.2 is up now. I'll stop now before I take to drink.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40593264/Crecy%20Zip.zip

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:50 pm

kujalar wrote:I tried this scenario. Very good scenario.

When I compared to my own version I was ashamed how my French are a mess around the battlefield and a pain to move.
Maybe I should try to do a new version myself too. I also noticed that now it is possible to give bowmen portable defences in editor. Maybe those ditches are overkill with portable defences. (in earlier version of the editor it was not possible to give portable defences)

Your French propably have too much commanders and there should not be inspired leader (3 flags) commanding the French.
I think not every named noble should be commander. Propably max 3 leaders / side should be enough.

ZeaBed wrote:I finally settled on what I hope is an acceptable (?) approximation of the historical map/order of battle. Difficult to research this one. Every map seems to be substantially different from the next one. One of the maps even depicted Crecy wood to the rear of the English position! Anyway, Version 3.2 is up now. I'll stop now before I take to drink.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40593264/Crecy%20Zip.zip

Thank you kujalar. If it's any consolation, I don't think that there's anything to be done with the meandering and disorganized French in this battle. For some reason, when moving forward, the van tends to tarry while the other columns, even the rearguard, move ahead. The historical accounts I've read of this battle describe the French attack as pretty much uncoordinated, so I guess it all evens out.

As far as ditches being overkill, I beg to differ although visually it looks like too much detail in the map. Ohterwise, the armored horse lancers would just plow through the dismounted knights in a frontal attack. The English archers also need to resort to their portable stakes if they're going to be expected to hold on long enough to rain all those arrows on the French. A frontal attack by the French will ensure them the same fate as in the original battle. Finding their way behind the English lines is difficult, but not impossible. There are two routes for this.

Yes, the French have too many leaders. I just wanted to separate them into four "waves", with King Philip leading the rearguard. I will revise that though and post yet another version, with some minor changes, yet again. As I wrote before, this is indeed a challenging, "learning" scenario.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:35 pm

Well, never say never again, as they say. Version 4.0 is on tap, reflecting kujalar's suggestions on command quality. I'd not realized that an 8-hex command range meant an "Inspired" leader and a 5-hex a "Field" commander. I've played this latest version from several "angles" until I was reasonably happy with the relative balance between playability and the meagre and frequently contradictory historical descriptions of this battle, together with the varying levels of reliability of these accounts.

kujalar · Post by **kujalar** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:38 pm

French horses were not well armored during the Crecy. So you could set French knight armored so that the arrows hurt them more and make them less effective in melee. I think one of the lessons from Crecy was that the cavalry needs more armor.

'While a knight was largely protected from an arrow, unless it struck a joint in his armour, his horse was highly vulnerable, particularly in the head, neck or back.' - from http://www.britishbattles.com/100-years-war/crecy.htm

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:42 pm

kujalar wrote:French horses were not well armored during the Crecy. So you could set French knight armored so that the arrows hurt them more and make them less effective in melee. I think one of the lessons from Crecy was that the cavalry needs more armor.

'While a knight was largely protected from an arrow, unless it struck a joint in his armour, his horse was highly vulnerable, particularly in the head, neck or back.' - from http://www.britishbattles.com/100-years-war/crecy.htm

The unit characteristics menu differentiates only between Heavy Armour and Armoured. I assumed that meant the knight's armour; it was not clear to me that this difference would include the battle charger. Although that would make sense, horse armouring is not specified in the characteristics. Since I've won a bit more often when playing the English (as long as they remain defensive and positional for most of the battle), this consideration of French armour had not entered my calculations until now.

BTW, I've ordered that book on Poitiers that you recommended. Indeed, it seems to be a good one. Thanks again for the tip.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:39 pm

I just received the book on the Battle of Poitiers, written by Christian Teutsch and published by Pen & Sword. The map of the Battle of Crecy is the same one depicted in wikipedia which was taken from this link in the US Military Academy website: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/Atlase ... _crecy.gif

The other maps that the Pen & Sword book uses to describe the development of the battle, however, vary considerably from the dean.usma.edu. map. He seems to rely a lot on Froissart (which I suppose is inevitable, up to a point), but not exclusively. At the end of the day, anyone who wants to game this battle must make some pretty judicious choices.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:34 pm

Last version! Honest! I've tried to adapt/include aspects of the version of Crecy in the book Victory at Poitiers, which I recently bought after kujalar suggested it. But I've also tried to keep an eye on playability and balance (as far as that is possible in a battle like Crecy). I hope to soon become a recovering Crecy scenario design addict.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40593264/Crecy%20Zip.zip

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:00 am

Updated.

This version, through its different and frequent iterations in this thread, strives to represent a composite/adaptation of the many traditional and disparate historical scenarios available for this battle. Few sources agree on positioning, order of battle, sequence of events, etc. Even the length of the battle is in dispute. So inference and a sense of balance and playability are needed. As previously noted, this is a fascinating but difficult battle to game. I recently provided a separate version incorporating the battlefield analysis and research of Christopher Teutsch in his recent book. That one is probably more historical (as far as that is even possible), but I think that this latest version of the one offered in this thread is more playable. And at the end of the day, who knows - it's in the eye of the beholder, historian or player. That's my take away from this experience!

This thread's latest update does incorporate some "new" aspects which I consider solid: for example, the mounted archers that Edward III relegated to the reserve and the approximately 1,500 dismounted knights and men-at-arms surrounding the Black Prince on the English right wing, with Warwick and Chandos in his close support. But Teutsch's clearly defined defensive semicircle does not appear in this one, and only the crossbows have prepared ground in front of them. The tactical considerations, however, remain very similar among the two versions I've posted in this sub-forum. The high number of turns in both versions is justified by the fact that the Battle of Crecy most probably did span two days. The last failed French attack took place in the morning of August 27th, after Philip's full complement, the remainder of his foot soldiers I suppose, finally arrived from Abbeville.

In both versions a Double Moves setting should be used. Fog of War, with both armies approaching a valley, is useless here.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:06 am

And thanks kujalar, for recommending that fine Teutsch book! On the internet I managed to find a blog page from 2008, displaying photos and text of Major Teutsch's visit to the Crecy battle site in preparation for the book.

Micha63 · Post by **Micha63** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:56 am

Thank you for your work, really a good scenario.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:41 am

Micha wrote:Thank you for your work, really a good scenario.

And thank you for the feedback. It was fun to game my first FoG battle, but I developed a bit of an obsession! Given its historical premise, any scenario designer of Crecy will find a true challenge in the game 'balance' department.

Micha63 · Post by **Micha63** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:13 am

Its really a great fun to create scenarios and see it works. I do this for 2 years for a game "People General ".

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:01 pm

Updated, to reflect additional information received in French Order of Battle.

Schweinewitz · Post by **Schweinewitz** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:48 am

Thanks for your work, ZeaBed! Will try that scenario soon.

ZeaBed · Post by **ZeaBed** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:58 pm

Schweinewitz wrote:Thanks for your work, ZeaBed! Will try that scenario soon.

Please give me your feedback and suggestions. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. One source I consulted did include "20,000 -25,000 other infantry" in addition to the mounted knights and the crossbowmen for the French. To me, some regular infantry ultimately makes more sense than just knights, crossbowmen and a intractable sea of "peasant levies." I think kujular (sp?) had the right idea with the infantry units he included in his version. Of course, with all these units at play, the battle is humongous. The English should be the human player, as this side must rely on prepared ground and its positional advantage into fairly late in the game. According to Christian Tetsch's research, in the book kujular recommended, this battle actually lasted into the following morning with the last French attack, and the ensuing French rout.