About the Crécy scenario

[Dux Limitis]

Recently I've played the Crécy scenario in the new DLC's epic battles,but I found there's one thing that contrary to the history:those Genoese crossbowmen in the scenario.Multiple historical sources claimed they were routed in the initial phase of the battle then trampled or cutted down by French MAAs in the order of the king when in flee.

The Chronicle by Jean Froissart reads:"At this the English archers took one pace forward and poured out their arrows on the Genoese so thickly and evenly that they fell like snow. When they felt those arrows piercing their arms, their heads, their faces, the Genoese, who had never met such archers before,were thrown into confusion. Many cut their bowstrings and some threw down their crossbows.They began to fall back.Between them and the main body of the French there was a hedge of knights, splendidly mounted and armed, who had been watching their discomture and now cut o their retreat. For the King of France, seeing how miserably they had performed, called out ingreat anger: ‘Quick now, kill all that rabble. They are only getting in our way!’Thereupon the mounted men began to strike out at them on all sides and many staggered and fell, never to rise again. The English continued to shoot into the thickest part of the crowd, wasting none of their arrows. They impaled or wounded horses and riders, who fell to the ground in great distress, unable to get up again without the help of several men."

Jean le Bel's account:"The officers of the crossbowmen and the auxiliaries and Genoese (who) ordered their men to advance, and to go ahead of the lords’ battalions initially and shoot at the English. They advanced so close that they were soon exchanging dense volleys, and it wasn’t long before the Genoese and auxiliaries were thrown into disorder by the English archers and started to fly."

Sir John of Hainault(A participant of the battle):"But the great lords’ battalions were so fired by their rivalry with one another that they didn’t wait for each other but charged in a jumbled mass, with no order whatever, trapping the Genoese and auxiliaries between themselves and the English, so they couldn’t flee but fell under the charging horses and were trampled by the seething horde behind – they were tumbling over each other like a vast litter of pigs. At the same time the English archers were loosing such awesome volleys that the horses were riddled by the dreadful barbed arrows; some refused to go on, others leapt wildly, some viciously lashed and kicked, others turned tail despite their masters’ efforts, and others collapsed as the arrows struck, unable to endure.Then the English lords – who were dismounted – advanced and fell upon these men, as helpless as their horses."

But in game,as you see in the pics,the Genoese are really tough(One of them took a full arc round but still held firm),even you routed some of them but the most still left,and some of them even breach into the town of Crécy,which is hilarious,later on they fight alongside the French MAAs.And,if you wasted too many ammo on them in the initial turns you may not have enough ammos to shoot the MAAs,because the longbowmen only have 5 turns of ammo.I think if they really acted like that in history,the Philip VI won't order theirs excutions.

So I think better adjust the scenario for a bit,like:
They'll break after a volly and won't rally.
Or(If the first one is impossible for the programming),give the longbowmen 10-15 turns of ammo so they can rout the Genoese meanwhile got enough of ammo left for the MAAs.

[Paul59]

Recently I've played the Crécy scenario in the new DLC's epic battles,but I found there's one thing that contrary to the history:those Genoese crossbowmen in the scenario.Multiple historical sources claimed they were routed in the initial phase of the battle then trampled or cutted down by French MAAs in the order of the king when in flee.

The Chronicle by Jean Froissart reads:"At this the English archers took one pace forward and poured out their arrows on the Genoese so thickly and evenly that they fell like snow. When they felt those arrows piercing their arms, their heads, their faces, the Genoese, who had never met such archers before,were thrown into confusion. Many cut their bowstrings and some threw down their crossbows.They began to fall back.Between them and the main body of the French there was a hedge of knights, splendidly mounted and armed, who had been watching their discomture and now cut o their retreat. For the King of France, seeing how miserably they had performed, called out ingreat anger: ‘Quick now, kill all that rabble. They are only getting in our way!’Thereupon the mounted men began to strike out at them on all sides and many staggered and fell, never to rise again. The English continued to shoot into the thickest part of the crowd, wasting none of their arrows. They impaled or wounded horses and riders, who fell to the ground in great distress, unable to get up again without the help of several men."

Jean le Bel's account:"The officers of the crossbowmen and the auxiliaries and Genoese (who) ordered their men to advance, and to go ahead of the lords’ battalions initially and shoot at the English. They advanced so close that they were soon exchanging dense volleys, and it wasn’t long before the Genoese and auxiliaries were thrown into disorder by the English archers and started to fly."

Sir John of Hainault(A participant of the battle):"But the great lords’ battalions were so fired by their rivalry with one another that they didn’t wait for each other but charged in a jumbled mass, with no order whatever, trapping the Genoese and auxiliaries between themselves and the English, so they couldn’t flee but fell under the charging horses and were trampled by the seething horde behind – they were tumbling over each other like a vast litter of pigs. At the same time the English archers were loosing such awesome volleys that the horses were riddled by the dreadful barbed arrows; some refused to go on, others leapt wildly, some viciously lashed and kicked, others turned tail despite their masters’ efforts, and others collapsed as the arrows struck, unable to endure.Then the English lords – who were dismounted – advanced and fell upon these men, as helpless as their horses."

But in game,as you see in the pics,the Genoese are really tough(One of them took a full arc round but still held firm),even you routed some of them but the most still left,and some of them even breach into the town of Crécy,which is hilarious,later on they fight alongside the French MAAs.And,if you wasted too many ammo on them in the initial turns you may not have enough ammos to shoot the MAAs,because the longbowmen only have 5 turns of ammo.I think if they really acted like that in history,the Philip VI won't order theirs excutions.

So I think better adjust the scenario for a bit,like:
They'll break after a volly and won't rally.
Or(If the first one is impossible for the programming),give the longbowmen 10-15 turns of ammo so they can rout the Genoese meanwhile got enough of ammo left for the MAAs.

In the English player scenario the Genoese Crossbowmen have reduced quality and protection ratings, in the French player scenario they also have only 1 turn of full ammo.

I considered more draconian disadvantages, but at the end of the day the scenario has to be a challenge, and without a decent contribution from the Genoese crossbowmen the French (especially the AI French) don't have a chance.

[Dux Limitis]

Recently I've played the Crécy scenario in the new DLC's epic battles,but I found there's one thing that contrary to the history:those Genoese crossbowmen in the scenario.Multiple historical sources claimed they were routed in the initial phase of the battle then trampled or cutted down by French MAAs in the order of the king when in flee.

The Chronicle by Jean Froissart reads:"At this the English archers took one pace forward and poured out their arrows on the Genoese so thickly and evenly that they fell like snow. When they felt those arrows piercing their arms, their heads, their faces, the Genoese, who had never met such archers before,were thrown into confusion. Many cut their bowstrings and some threw down their crossbows.They began to fall back.Between them and the main body of the French there was a hedge of knights, splendidly mounted and armed, who had been watching their discomture and now cut o their retreat. For the King of France, seeing how miserably they had performed, called out ingreat anger: ‘Quick now, kill all that rabble. They are only getting in our way!’Thereupon the mounted men began to strike out at them on all sides and many staggered and fell, never to rise again. The English continued to shoot into the thickest part of the crowd, wasting none of their arrows. They impaled or wounded horses and riders, who fell to the ground in great distress, unable to get up again without the help of several men."

Jean le Bel's account:"The officers of the crossbowmen and the auxiliaries and Genoese (who) ordered their men to advance, and to go ahead of the lords’ battalions initially and shoot at the English. They advanced so close that they were soon exchanging dense volleys, and it wasn’t long before the Genoese and auxiliaries were thrown into disorder by the English archers and started to fly."

Sir John of Hainault(A participant of the battle):"But the great lords’ battalions were so fired by their rivalry with one another that they didn’t wait for each other but charged in a jumbled mass, with no order whatever, trapping the Genoese and auxiliaries between themselves and the English, so they couldn’t flee but fell under the charging horses and were trampled by the seething horde behind – they were tumbling over each other like a vast litter of pigs. At the same time the English archers were loosing such awesome volleys that the horses were riddled by the dreadful barbed arrows; some refused to go on, others leapt wildly, some viciously lashed and kicked, others turned tail despite their masters’ efforts, and others collapsed as the arrows struck, unable to endure.Then the English lords – who were dismounted – advanced and fell upon these men, as helpless as their horses."

But in game,as you see in the pics,the Genoese are really tough(One of them took a full arc round but still held firm),even you routed some of them but the most still left,and some of them even breach into the town of Crécy,which is hilarious,later on they fight alongside the French MAAs.And,if you wasted too many ammo on them in the initial turns you may not have enough ammos to shoot the MAAs,because the longbowmen only have 5 turns of ammo.I think if they really acted like that in history,the Philip VI won't order theirs excutions.

So I think better adjust the scenario for a bit,like:
They'll break after a volly and won't rally.
Or(If the first one is impossible for the programming),give the longbowmen 10-15 turns of ammo so they can rout the Genoese meanwhile got enough of ammo left for the MAAs.

In the English player scenario the Genoese Crossbowmen have reduced quality and protection ratings, in the French player scenario they also have only 1 turn of full ammo.

I considered more draconian disadvantages, but at the end of the day the scenario has to be a challenge, and without a decent contribution from the Genoese crossbowmen the French (especially the AI French) don't have a chance.

Yes,but the reduced quality and protections seems not working well(Just like why sometimes the raw units can perform well than expected),as most of them won't break if you don't spend a hell of arrows on them,and for French,I tried it for once,even they have reduced quality and a turn of ammo etc. but can still managed to breach on the English right flank(The town,even the AI knows how when I'm playing the English).And I remember it is possible to modified the morale statements as I saw in some scenarios,like the Ascalon and the Laupen.

[Paul59]

Recently I've played the Crécy scenario in the new DLC's epic battles,but I found there's one thing that contrary to the history:those Genoese crossbowmen in the scenario.Multiple historical sources claimed they were routed in the initial phase of the battle then trampled or cutted down by French MAAs in the order of the king when in flee.

The Chronicle by Jean Froissart reads:"At this the English archers took one pace forward and poured out their arrows on the Genoese so thickly and evenly that they fell like snow. When they felt those arrows piercing their arms, their heads, their faces, the Genoese, who had never met such archers before,were thrown into confusion. Many cut their bowstrings and some threw down their crossbows.They began to fall back.Between them and the main body of the French there was a hedge of knights, splendidly mounted and armed, who had been watching their discomture and now cut o their retreat. For the King of France, seeing how miserably they had performed, called out ingreat anger: ‘Quick now, kill all that rabble. They are only getting in our way!’Thereupon the mounted men began to strike out at them on all sides and many staggered and fell, never to rise again. The English continued to shoot into the thickest part of the crowd, wasting none of their arrows. They impaled or wounded horses and riders, who fell to the ground in great distress, unable to get up again without the help of several men."

Jean le Bel's account:"The officers of the crossbowmen and the auxiliaries and Genoese (who) ordered their men to advance, and to go ahead of the lords’ battalions initially and shoot at the English. They advanced so close that they were soon exchanging dense volleys, and it wasn’t long before the Genoese and auxiliaries were thrown into disorder by the English archers and started to fly."

Sir John of Hainault(A participant of the battle):"But the great lords’ battalions were so fired by their rivalry with one another that they didn’t wait for each other but charged in a jumbled mass, with no order whatever, trapping the Genoese and auxiliaries between themselves and the English, so they couldn’t flee but fell under the charging horses and were trampled by the seething horde behind – they were tumbling over each other like a vast litter of pigs. At the same time the English archers were loosing such awesome volleys that the horses were riddled by the dreadful barbed arrows; some refused to go on, others leapt wildly, some viciously lashed and kicked, others turned tail despite their masters’ efforts, and others collapsed as the arrows struck, unable to endure.Then the English lords – who were dismounted – advanced and fell upon these men, as helpless as their horses."

But in game,as you see in the pics,the Genoese are really tough(One of them took a full arc round but still held firm),even you routed some of them but the most still left,and some of them even breach into the town of Crécy,which is hilarious,later on they fight alongside the French MAAs.And,if you wasted too many ammo on them in the initial turns you may not have enough ammos to shoot the MAAs,because the longbowmen only have 5 turns of ammo.I think if they really acted like that in history,the Philip VI won't order theirs excutions.

So I think better adjust the scenario for a bit,like:
They'll break after a volly and won't rally.
Or(If the first one is impossible for the programming),give the longbowmen 10-15 turns of ammo so they can rout the Genoese meanwhile got enough of ammo left for the MAAs.

In the English player scenario the Genoese Crossbowmen have reduced quality and protection ratings, in the French player scenario they also have only 1 turn of full ammo.

I considered more draconian disadvantages, but at the end of the day the scenario has to be a challenge, and without a decent contribution from the Genoese crossbowmen the French (especially the AI French) don't have a chance.

Yes,but the reduced quality and protections seems not working well(Just like why sometimes the raw units can perform well than expected),as most of them won't break if you don't spend a hell of arrows on them,and for French,I tried it for once,even they have reduced quality and a turn of ammo etc. but can still managed to breach on the English right flank(The town,even the AI knows how when I'm playing the English).And I remember it is possible to modified the morale statements as I saw in some scenarios,like the Ascalon and the Laupen.

As I said, I considered the current state of the scenario necessary for a challenging game. I could easily design a Crecy scenario where the English player just sits back and shoots the French army to pieces, possibly it would be more historical for some people, but how many players would enjoy it? A balance has to be found between recreating history, and designing a fun challenging game.

[Dux Limitis]

In the English player scenario the Genoese Crossbowmen have reduced quality and protection ratings, in the French player scenario they also have only 1 turn of full ammo.

I considered more draconian disadvantages, but at the end of the day the scenario has to be a challenge, and without a decent contribution from the Genoese crossbowmen the French (especially the AI French) don't have a chance.

Yes,but the reduced quality and protections seems not working well(Just like why sometimes the raw units can perform well than expected),as most of them won't break if you don't spend a hell of arrows on them,and for French,I tried it for once,even they have reduced quality and a turn of ammo etc. but can still managed to breach on the English right flank(The town,even the AI knows how when I'm playing the English).And I remember it is possible to modified the morale statements as I saw in some scenarios,like the Ascalon and the Laupen.

As I said, I considered the current state of the scenario necessary for a challenging game. I could easily design a Crecy scenario where the English player just sits back and shoots the French army to pieces, possibly it would be more historical for some people, but how many players would enjoy it? A balance has to be found between recreating history, and designing a fun challenging game.

I thought the game always placed the historical accuracy at the first,that's the main difference between the FoG and the other digital Ancient/Medieval strategy games on the market,shouldn't those epic battle scenarios been designed for simulations?If we insist to strike a balance between the "historical" and "fun",then I think it will be no better than the Total War games at this point(Historical authentic,not accurate).

[ZeaBed]

Dux Limitis: I concur completely with your assessment. The Genoese are too strong and their inexperience facing longbows, their exhausted state and the impact of the sudden if short rain on their bowstrings (they tightened) are not reflected correctly in this scenario. Also, there were surely not as many Genoese crossbowmen on the battlefield as is generally accepted in some accounts. There probably weren't close to that many in the entire kingdom of France at the time. I forget where I read that King Edward had made provision for more than enough store of longbow arrows as was needed to last much longer than five turns. Five turns, as you pointed out, aren't even enough to get rid of the Genoese in such strength and mettle as they are depicted here. The prepared, sloping ground does not seem to present as much protection or advantage as it obviously did in the original battle. That too should be reflected a bit more accurately. Simply put, this scenario is in dire need of an overhaul. It does not even provide balance as opposed to historical accuracy as the strength was not leveled but shifted massively to the French. Certain historical conditions that characterize the very significance of a Crecy scenario should, in my humble opinion, be observed.

[SimonLancaster]

I quite like the Crecy scenario as a battle. It is very tough to win for the English even against the AI. A good challenge. I think it would be too easy just to sit back and fire arrows away.

I think someone mentioned to me that Agincourt doesn't have a lot of tactical decisions to make.. Again, I think it is important to make these battles challenging. Just sitting back could be quite boring without a few little challenges!

[Dux Limitis]

Dux Limitis: I concur completely with your assessment. The Genoese are too strong and their inexperience facing longbows, their exhausted state and the impact of the sudden if short rain on their bowstrings (they tightened) are not reflected correctly in this scenario. Also, there were surely not as many Genoese crossbowmen on the battlefield as is generally accepted in some accounts. There probably weren't close to that many in the entire kingdom of France at the time. I forget where I read that King Edward had made provision for more than enough store of longbow arrows as was needed to last much longer than five turns. Five turns, as you pointed out, aren't even enough to get rid of the Genoese in such strength and mettle as they are depicted here. The prepared, sloping ground does not seem to present as much protection or advantage as it obviously did in the original battle. That too should be reflected a bit more accurately. Simply put, this scenario is in dire need of an overhaul. It does not even provide balance as opposed to historical accuracy as the strength was not leveled but shifted massively to the French. Certain historical conditions that characterize the very significance of a Crecy scenario should, in my humble opinion, be observed.

Finally,someone who knows what I talked about,I'm glad to see someone who thinks same about this.

I think to be a historical game,you need to make it historical accurate as possible.Besides,this is not because of the technical reasons or something,just because of the scenario designer wanna make this historical scenario more "balance" for the both sides.

[Dux Limitis]

I quite like the Crecy scenario as a battle. It is very tough to win for the English even against the AI. A good challenge. I think it would be too easy just to sit back and fire arrows away.

I think someone mentioned to me that Agincourt doesn't have a lot of tactical decisions to make.. Again, I think it is important to make these battles challenging. Just sitting back could be quite boring without a few little challenges!

Perhaps we treat it in different ways,you treat it as a game,more challenging or more decisions to make can make you feel more happy,but I treat it as a battle simulator(As indeed,the rule sets are based on historical effects,same as the epic battle scenarios),and,if you like the battles which don't give each sides sightly advantages or disadvantages,why don't just play the custom or random battles?I found most of them are challenging but still can win at last(Like the Native Irish versus High Medieval Anglo-Irish,early 14th century France versus Flemish etc. All of them are based on the history).

If those historical battle scenarios are not intend to be historical accurate(And they could have done it,they don't have any technical reasons on it),I can only say it's no better than the Total War games' so called "historical battles".

[Athos1660]

A balance has to be found between recreating history, and designing a fun challenging game.

… A balance between history, fun and… myth.
If the battles of Azincourt or Crécy were too easy in game for the English, they would lose all their mythological dimension. The fault, in this case, of Shakespeare (and a few others) :

'And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers’

The same applies to other battles and other nations.

[ZeaBed]

I quite like the Crecy scenario as a battle. It is very tough to win for the English even against the AI. A good challenge. I think it would be too easy just to sit back and fire arrows away.

I think someone mentioned to me that Agincourt doesn't have a lot of tactical decisions to make.. Again, I think it is important to make these battles challenging. Just sitting back could be quite boring without a few little challenges!

Perhaps we treat it in different ways,you treat it as a game,more challenging or more decisions to make can make you feel more happy,but I treat it as a battle simulator(As indeed,the rule sets are based on historical effects,same as the epic battle scenarios),and,if you like the battles which don't give each sides sightly advantages or disadvantages,why don't just play the custom or random battles?I found most of them are challenging but still can win at last(Like the Native Irish versus High Medieval Anglo-Irish,early 14th century France versus Flemish etc. All of them are based on the history).

If those historical battle scenarios are not intend to be historical accurate(And they could have done it,they don't have any technical reasons on it),I can only say it's no better than the Total War games' so called "historical battles".

The rationale for the Crecy scenario as it stands is to make it more playable and interesting by balancing some battle factors. In fact, it does not balance the scenario at all. It merely overbalances it in favor of the French. So instead of "sitting back and watching" the English annihilate the French with their longbows, we now sit back and watch the French wait out the Genoese until English missiles are diminished to Low, and attack. Since the prepared ground (is there prepared ground at all?) and the stakes are basically ineffective protection, the French win even at a Sergeant level of difficulty for the English. So what price playability?

[Dux Limitis]

I quite like the Crecy scenario as a battle. It is very tough to win for the English even against the AI. A good challenge. I think it would be too easy just to sit back and fire arrows away.

I think someone mentioned to me that Agincourt doesn't have a lot of tactical decisions to make.. Again, I think it is important to make these battles challenging. Just sitting back could be quite boring without a few little challenges!

Perhaps we treat it in different ways,you treat it as a game,more challenging or more decisions to make can make you feel more happy,but I treat it as a battle simulator(As indeed,the rule sets are based on historical effects,same as the epic battle scenarios),and,if you like the battles which don't give each sides sightly advantages or disadvantages,why don't just play the custom or random battles?I found most of them are challenging but still can win at last(Like the Native Irish versus High Medieval Anglo-Irish,early 14th century France versus Flemish etc. All of them are based on the history).

If those historical battle scenarios are not intend to be historical accurate(And they could have done it,they don't have any technical reasons on it),I can only say it's no better than the Total War games' so called "historical battles".

The rationale for the Crecy scenario as it stands is to make it more playable and interesting by balancing some battle factors. In fact, it does not balance the scenario at all. It merely overbalances it in favor of the French. So instead of "sitting back and watching" the English annihilate the French with their longbows, we now sit back and watch the French wait out the Genoese until English missiles are diminished to Low, and attack. Since the prepared ground (is there prepared ground at all?) and the stakes are basically ineffective protection, the French win even at a Sergeant level of difficulty for the English. So what price playability?

I totally agree with what you said,but unfortunately,the designer seems very satisfied with his design of this scenario,so I think it won't be change unless the lead developer agrees with the Crécy scenario needs an overhaul.Really shame about this.

[ZeaBed]

Well, we had our say and pointed out something we thought was obvious. So we have yet another scenario, like Cannae in the Ancients FoGII, that paradoxically is unbalanced on one end for trying to avoid unbalance on the other. Lol. The road paved with good intentions leads to a one-way street. The word counterproductive comes to mind. Oh, well...

[Paul59]

Well, we had our say and pointed out something we thought was obvious. So we have yet another scenario, like Cannae in the Ancients FoGII, that paradoxically is unbalanced on one end for trying to avoid unbalance on the other. Lol. The road paved with good intentions leads to a one-way street. The word counterproductive comes to mind. Oh, well...

Results from beta testing did not show that the scenario is balanced in favour of the French. In fact only one loss was reported, and that a very tight game on Duke. Many victories were reported for the English player on all difficulty levels, including Prince.

[Dux Limitis]

Well, we had our say and pointed out something we thought was obvious. So we have yet another scenario, like Cannae in the Ancients FoGII, that paradoxically is unbalanced on one end for trying to avoid unbalance on the other. Lol. The road paved with good intentions leads to a one-way street. The word counterproductive comes to mind. Oh, well...

Results from beta testing did not show that the scenario is balanced in favour of the French. In fact only one loss was reported, and that a very tight game on Duke. Many victories were reported for the English player on all difficulty levels, including Prince.

"Victory"means nothing here,the most important thing is those historical effects and events could be represent correctly or not.If you talk about the victory,I had a France victory with 36% of my army routed under the baron difficulty(It's the mediocre difficulty I think),from the French side's point of view I can say the battle is shifted massively to the them(Tough cannon fodder Genoese and the English ammo is not enough),they didn't even stand a chance in history.The battle was lost before it's started to them.

[Paul59]

"Victory"means nothing here,the most important thing is those historical effects and events could be represent correctly or not.If you talk about the victory,I had a France victory with 36% of my army routed under the baron difficulty(It's the mediocre difficulty I think),from the French side's point of view I can say the battle is shifted massively to the them(Tough cannon fodder Genoese and the English ammo is not enough),they didn't even stand a chance in history.The battle was lost before it's started to them.

Zeabed was giving the impression that the scenario was very hard to win, even on Sergeant difficulty. I was pointing out that is false.

I know you would like a Crecy scenario where the French have no chance at all (and where is the replayability value in that?), but I think many players would not enjoy that.

[Dux Limitis]

"Victory"means nothing here,the most important thing is those historical effects and events could be represent correctly or not.If you talk about the victory,I had a France victory with 36% of my army routed under the baron difficulty(It's the mediocre difficulty I think),from the French side's point of view I can say the battle is shifted massively to the them(Tough cannon fodder Genoese and the English ammo is not enough),they didn't even stand a chance in history.The battle was lost before it's started to them.

Zeabed was giving the impression that the scenario was very hard to win, even on Sergeant difficulty. I was pointing out that is false.

I know you would like a Crecy scenario where the French have no chance at all (and where is the replayability value in that?), but I think many players would not enjoy that.

I think the replayability is the historical reenactment and the battle simulation(To me and a proportion of players who take regards on the historical accuracy),It's too bored to see such things from the papers and the pics only from one day to another,and it's digital version of a historical tabletop wargame,something that without historical evidences support should not apprear in the game from my perspective.I knew some players wanna have challenging gameplay experiences or something,but I think they can play the France in this case,try to find how to help the French army achieve the victory in such a desperate situation,nothing could be more challenging than this.

[MVP7]

Making a scenario that can only play out one way would be pretty pointless in a strategy game. If you want to see a battle happen just like in the history books you can watch a documentary or read a book.

There are also many different estimates of the contribution of the Genoese crossbowmen in the battle. I have seen plausible interpretations of the events ranging from a bloody shooting exchange between the crossbowmen and longbowmen that ended in the crossbows being routed, to the crossbowmen deciding to get their pavises from the baggage train before any significant shooting even started which the French knights misinterpreted as a rout.

[Dux Limitis]

Making a scenario that can only play out one way would be pretty pointless in a strategy game. If you want to see a battle happen just like in the history books you can watch a documentary or read a book.

There are also many different estimates of the contribution of the Genoese crossbowmen in the battle. I have seen plausible interpretations of the events ranging from a bloody shooting exchange between the crossbowmen and longbowmen that ended in the crossbows being routed, to the crossbowmen deciding to get their pavises from the baggage train before any significant shooting even started which the French knights misinterpreted as a rout.

I already read many,so I wanna see how did the battle exactly fight at that time in a dynamic display.I came to the game years ago because I found the FoG is the most historical accurate digital Ancient/Medieval strategy game on the market(For now),then get rid of the Total War which now compares like nothing except of the visual effects.

I take the historical accounts rather than assumes,especially there're multiple accounts about this from the 14th century including the witnesses so their initial defeat is well known.The blooy shooting exchange was impossible for them at that time as they didn't have pavises to protect them in the open,and longbow could shoot five above of arrows for every two bolts from the crossbow(Based on the modern tests).Besides,they suddenly deciding to fall back and get their pavises from the baggage train seems not likely too,as the French nobles already deny their requests about the rest and re-equiped just before the battle,so they can only get into the battle hastily later on without prepares(From the Chronicle by Jean Froissart:He(King Philip VI) had with him about fifteen thousand(As the ZeaBed pointed out at above,this number is not likely the true and the modern authorities put their numbers at six thousand at most,perhaps much fewer)Genoese bowmen who would sooner have gone to the devil than fight at that moment, for they had just marched over eighteen miles, in armour and carrying their crossbows. They told their commanders that they were not in a state to fight much of a battle just then.These words came to the ears of the Count of Alençon, who grew very angry and said: "What is the use of burdening ourselves with this rabble who give up just when they are needed!"While this argument was going on and the Genoese were hanging back, a heavy storm of rain came on and there were loud claps of thunder, with lightning etc.).
.

[ZeaBed]

Blast it. I just ran out of popcorn. Again: the scenario is unhistorical and it's basically not a historical scenario by that definition. It's a fantasy "what if" scenario and should be designated as such. It is unbalanced and inaccurate.