About the Crécy scenario

[Dux Limitis]

If most of the sources claimed the Genoese were fall back in disarray quickly after been outmatched by the longbowmen,then trampped down by the French MAAs,that means it's most likely the truth of initial phase of the battle.

Yes, we agree. They attack, take some volleys and retreat. But i think, that we dont agree about the reason, why they were retreating. Most of sources (and i think, that you too) think, that Genoese were just cowards and want to flee. Some sources (and thats also my oppinion) thinks, that faced with a significant advantage of enemies, those professionals want to retreat in order to fight in more equal circumstances, which looks like an reasonable decision.
No matter what the truth is, there were trampled.

But you should know,there's not only the Froissart claimed so(He's the representative though),there're multiple sources from that time claimed the same(Not only from the chroniclers)including some I didn't list here

Yes, of course. But i think, that reading any of chronicles/historicians we must filter they words with logic, objectivism and cohersion, because they often bend the truth, use untested sources, they rewrite one from the other and sometimes they are tools of paid propaganda. Not all in those books is true.

And don't forget,even they were proffesional mercenaries,but they were still lowborns in the eyes of the nobles,as the transcripts of their dialogues revealed.Same as the Free Companies,the nobles usually regarded them as pillagers and bandits,as their heralds were generally looked upon with disdain by the others.

Thats why there were trampled with no remorse. But that doesn't change the fact either, that they were professionals known and appreciated throughout Europe for their skills.

About how to simulate the "trampling" effects in the game,I think the Cronos09 has already given us a good example.

Yes, maybe technically it is possible, but also dangerous. Always when my knights are behind them, they will flee? That is an inflection for the second side, because they limit my maneuverability (i must avoiding my own unis). Making such changes creator must remember about some kind of balance.

So,to conclude,the Cronos09's version is an overall more reasonable and accurate version of Crécy than the official(Trampling effects are specially for this scenario only so you don't need to worry about them).About the Genoese,I never denied that they're proffesional mercenaries with skills,but that still didn't affact how the nobles regard them,"Replaceable hired rabbles(I took the "rabble" word from the transcript)",might suit them well.That's more likely why they been drove into battle hastily without rest and prepares,and were trampled down with no remorse as you said,when the king was dissatisfied with their performance.

[Athos1660]

“War is mainly a catalogue of blunders” (Winston S. Churchill)

[gribol]

So,to conclude,the Cronos09's version is an overall more reasonable and accurate version of Crécy than the official(Trampling effects are specially for this scenario only so you don't need to worry about them).About the Genoese,I never denied that they're proffesional mercenaries with skills,but that still didn't affact how the nobles regard them,"Replaceable hired rabbles(I took the "rabble" word from the transcript)",might suit them well.That's more likely why they been drove into battle hastily without rest and prepares,and were trampled down with no remorse as you said,when the king was dissatisfied with their performance.

One player prefers more historical accuracy, another prefers more overall balance in scenario.
It doesn't mean that either of them is more or less right, because "De gustibus non disputandum est"

[Dux Limitis]

So,to conclude,the Cronos09's version is an overall more reasonable and accurate version of Crécy than the official(Trampling effects are specially for this scenario only so you don't need to worry about them).About the Genoese,I never denied that they're proffesional mercenaries with skills,but that still didn't affact how the nobles regard them,"Replaceable hired rabbles(I took the "rabble" word from the transcript)",might suit them well.That's more likely why they been drove into battle hastily without rest and prepares,and were trampled down with no remorse as you said,when the king was dissatisfied with their performance.

One player prefers more historical accuracy, another prefers more overall balance in scenario.
It doesn't mean that either of them is more or less right, because "De gustibus non disputandum est"

I'm not the only one that prefers historical accuracy,just one of the fews.

And think about it,if the game always put the historical accuracy in the second place when meet such cases,I'm afraid this game finally has something common to the Total War.

[Redpossum]

Well, well, well! This discussion certainly became spirited, didn't it?

Why can't there be two versions of the scenario, say the Historians version and the Gamers Version?

[edb1815]

So,to conclude,the Cronos09's version is an overall more reasonable and accurate version of Crécy than the official(Trampling effects are specially for this scenario only so you don't need to worry about them).About the Genoese,I never denied that they're proffesional mercenaries with skills,but that still didn't affact how the nobles regard them,"Replaceable hired rabbles(I took the "rabble" word from the transcript)",might suit them well.That's more likely why they been drove into battle hastily without rest and prepares,and were trampled down with no remorse as you said,when the king was dissatisfied with their performance.

One player prefers more historical accuracy, another prefers more overall balance in scenario.
It doesn't mean that either of them is more or less right, because "De gustibus non disputandum est"

I'm not the only one that prefers historical accuracy,just one of the fews.

And think about it,if the game always put the historical accuracy in the second place when meet such cases,I'm afraid this game finally has something common to the Total War.

Despite your misgivings about this scenario FOGIIM has almost nothing in common with the TW series, thankfully. I suspect that if you researched board games, miniatures games and computer games covering the HYW you'd find some variations in each version of Crecy. Fortunately FOG has a battle editor so you can make your own version. Any game company has to balance the official version in some way if the historical outcome would make it impossible to win for the player. However that does not in itself turn the game away from the primary goal of historical accuracy in the main. TW indeed, the antithesis of the FOG series.

[Dux Limitis]

Well, well, well! This discussion certainly became spirited, didn't it?

Why can't there be two versions of the scenario, say the Historians version and the Gamers Version?

Well,I think the Cronos09's already made a historical version although it's from community,not the official.It's a bit hilarious the official still being so stubborn at their version after a long discussion about the historical accuracy(Seems in the second place now)and the game balance,so I think the discussion is over.

[MaxRobespierre]

Hey Cronos09! Could you share that google drive link to your modded version of the Crécy scenario again? The link is dead.

[Cronos09]

Hey Cronos09! Could you share that google drive link to your modded version of the Crécy scenario again? The link is dead.

Hello! I sent you a message. See your PM box.

[wzfcns]

More than the issue of the Genoese collapsing because of the rain and the French charge (which I call a historical scenario), I was concerned with the historical circumstances to which the script was responding. After all, when I was a French commander I did not order the French cavalry to attack their own crossbowmen. It was just a chance event that happened in history, just as I wouldn't agree that King Harold had to be killed by arrows in every game of Hastings' campaign to be considered an adequate reflection of history. As long as the historical circumstances in the game are realistic (troop strength ,position, terrain, etc.), I think it's within acceptable limits.
So my biggest problem with this scenario is that I don't think the French troops should have used late medieval units at all, namely these fully armored knights. Although plate armor was already in use when the Battle of Crecy took place, the French knight armor in this battle is clearly not comparable to the Battle of Agincourt. While the French knights at Agincourt only had to lower their helmets to defend themselves from the British arrows, the French at Crecy were clearly unable to do so, and they were still supposed to have the same level of defense as the knights in the pre-1350 script.
Of course, from a more macroscopic point of view, I am not satisfied with the armor reflecting the era of plate armor in FOG2. The difference in armor effectiveness between plate armor (300) and mid-medieval (250) knights in the game is only 50 points, which is a relative increase of 20%. The difference between mid-medieval knights (250) and early knights (100) in the case of both wearing Chainmail is as high as 150 points, a relative increase of 150%.
At this rate I think the plate armor knight (at least after the battle of Agincourt it) must have at least twice the armor of the mid-medieval knight, not counting the horse armor.

[Paul59]

So my biggest problem with this scenario is that I don't think the French troops should have used late medieval units at all, namely these fully armored knights.

The scenario uses the Fully Armoured Men-at-Arms model, but their armour rating is reduced to 250 (the same as the 13th century Knights) by a scenario script. This is explained in the scenario introduction.

[wzfcns]

So my biggest problem with this scenario is that I don't think the French troops should have used late medieval units at all, namely these fully armored knights.

The scenario uses the Fully Armoured Men-at-Arms model, but their armour rating is reduced to 250 (the same as the 13th century Knights) by a scenario script. This is explained in the scenario introduction.

Then there's nothing wrong with this part.
I don't think "accurate" mean we have to add all the events in history.
Like I said, King Harold didn't need to be killed by arrows in all of Hastings' games, so the French cavalry storming their own crossbowmen isn't an element that needs to be recreated.
As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough.

[fogman]

"As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough."

Very often, strength, deployment, and terrain are the things we know least about, if at all. We know more about events within battles so they become historical markers. Without those historical makers, it's just a custom battle between two specific army lists.

[Dux Limitis]

So my biggest problem with this scenario is that I don't think the French troops should have used late medieval units at all, namely these fully armored knights.

The scenario uses the Fully Armoured Men-at-Arms model, but their armour rating is reduced to 250 (the same as the 13th century Knights) by a scenario script. This is explained in the scenario introduction.

Then there's nothing wrong with this part.
I don't think "accurate" mean we have to add all the events in history.
...................
As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough.

Actually,what you said is called the historical authentic,not historical accurate.Like the Mr.Fogman said,we know more about events within battles so they become historical markers.Without those historical makers,it's just a custom battle between two specific army lists.

[wzfcns]

The scenario uses the Fully Armoured Men-at-Arms model, but their armour rating is reduced to 250 (the same as the 13th century Knights) by a scenario script. This is explained in the scenario introduction.

Then there's nothing wrong with this part.
I don't think "accurate" mean we have to add all the events in history.
...................
As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough.

Actually,what you said is called the historical authentic,not historical accurate.Like the Mr.Fogman said,we know more about events within battles so they become historical markers.Without those historical makers,it's just a custom battle between two specific army lists.

In fact it should be called having a special Army list, special terrain, special deployment.
The historical event I would simulate: Sir Stanley's betrayal of Richard III at Bosworth Plain.
Historical event I would not simulate: Richard III personally storming the flag of Henry Tudor.
In the game the player is already in command position, so I see no need to simulate the subjective actions of the historical commander. It is the objective factors beyond the will of the commander that have value for simulation.

[Dux Limitis]

Then there's nothing wrong with this part.
I don't think "accurate" mean we have to add all the events in history.
...................
As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough.

Actually,what you said is called the historical authentic,not historical accurate.Like the Mr.Fogman said,we know more about events within battles so they become historical markers.Without those historical makers,it's just a custom battle between two specific army lists.

In fact it should be called having a special Army list, special terrain, special deployment.
The historical event I would simulate: Sir Stanley's betrayal of Richard III at Bosworth Plain.
Historical event I would not simulate: Richard III personally storming the flag of Henry Tudor.
In the game the player is already in command position, so I see no need to simulate the subjective actions of the historical commander. It is the objective factors beyond the will of the commander that have value for simulation.

Then did you find your words are contradict with your previous sentences?

You said"More than the issue of the Genoese collapsing because of the rain and the French charge (which I call a historical scenario), I was concerned with the historical circumstances to which the script was responding. After all, when I was a French commander I did not order the French cavalry to attack their own crossbowmen. It was just a chance event that happened in history, just as I wouldn't agree that King Harold had to be killed by arrows in every game of Hastings' campaign to be considered an adequate reflection of history. As long as the historical circumstances in the game are realistic (troop strength ,position, terrain, etc.), I think it's within acceptable limits."

And"As long as the strength, deployment, and terrain of both sides are realistic, I think that's "accurate" enough."

And"The historical event I would simulate: Sir Stanley's betrayal of Richard III at Bosworth Plain."

What you didn't realize is the Genoese break off from the engage with the English then trample down by the French Men at Arms is also an important historical event of the Crécy.Same as what you said you'll simulate the Sir Stanley's betrayal if there's a Bosworth scenario.Without the key event of the battle,the battle will be and only can be a custom battle between two specific army lists,it's not historical "accurate".

[fogman]

"The historical event I would simulate: Sir Stanley's betrayal of Richard III at Bosworth Plain."
That would not in itself be an event in the scenario since you'll have to decide at the start of the game whether Stanley's troops are part or not of Richard's army.

"Historical event I would not simulate: Richard III personally storming the flag of Henry Tudor."
Actually, I would and had. It's a defining moment of the battle. And it's not anything 'personal' either. It's like not enticing the French to attack at Agincourt. Agincourt wouldn't be Agincourt, or Crecy wouldn't be Crecy if the French player can decide to just sit.

[Dux Limitis]

Sorry. I made a mistake with the VC in the modded version of the scenario. Now I fixed it. Yandex link is the same (I uploaded the fixed version today).
Google drive link with the fixed version (available upon request).

Excuse me for disturbing you after this long, honorable mister. I have recently bought a new laptop at my school. I want to download this scenario to my new laptop, because my tabletop computer, which has this scenario, is at my hometown, which I'm currently unable to access. I want to download this scenario to my laptop, but unfortunately, this link is dead. Could you please re-upload this scenario, or better, upload it to the in-game scenario downloader, which will make it easier to access for everyone?

Many thanks for considering my request.