[Thierry]

Hello, here's a viewpoint from the other side of the hundred years war, i.e. a french point of view.

This discussion is very interesting, specially applied to our most beloved game.

I don't claim to be a specialist or autorithy on historical matters, but it's a subject that interest me and I read a lot about it...

Factors not taken into account into DOM III :
- In dom3 you're playing a bit like a modern monarch or dictator. In that view, the french army was far more 'medieval' than the english one. Cohesion was low and the king or its marechal had few control over most of the troops. That can have dramatical impact
- Knights : france had far more knights than england and it was assumed that superior knight force means ensured victory. In fact it was those same knights that caused the first major french disastor. Eager to proove themselves and loots bounties and ransom, they attacked against the king order and without any plan or cohesion... The french king wanted its troop to fight only the next day, with a global plan, but wasn't obeyed. They attacked without waiting, in complete disordered waves.. When the french (italian in fact, from Genes) arbalest guy got routed, the same knights charged them, considering them traitors, adding to the confusion.
- Against that, Eduard III was in far better control of his troops and could apply a good overall plan. Generally it's considered he was a very apt tactician.
- Crossbow vs bow ? Well in DOM3 crossbow fires every other turn, vs every turn for bow. Reality seems that bows fired 6 to 12 arrow per minutes, while crossbow managed only 4. So the rate of fire could be 1 against 3. Add to that it add rained and the ropes of crossbow and arrows were not made of the same stuff : the crossbow one was far less resistant to water.
At Crecy the crossbow guy were sent already tired while entering battle (see knights charging up there) (encumberance of crossbow ?) and their armor had not arrived.. they went unprotected.
- Is the bow superior ? Well crossbow got banned by the church. Because of it's efficience ! The opinion I forged through various sources (I admit it's an opinion !) is that crossbow is more powerfull, more precise that the longbow. But it's far more exepensive, fires less often, and is also less suited to be used in mass. Anyone played 'fire the flag' with indirect fire with bows ? In war you're not targeting someone with the bow / crossbow. It's more a 'saturation' fire. In that crossbow was no more efficient. But, to protect a castle with a small garrison, a crossbow is far more usefull : it's more skirmish fight with few guys and you can target someone. There I guess crossbow is AP, more precise and you get more time to reload while being protected... On the field, I doubt crossbow is AP and as efficient...

Dom3 :
- Make some knights berserk !
- Add tactical advantages for great leaders. Not only + moral, but att / def ?
- More diverse maps, so that you can have shock points, etc.. A choice to fight now in bad conditions, or wait for better one with the risk of having your adversary flee (in crecy the english were trying to get back to england IHMO and french was pursuier).
- Crossbow should be less usefull in large maps, but more in castle assault or small engagment
- You don't have complete control of troops. Well in dom3 you get mad tartarians, a bit like french knights ?