Battle of Crécy: the battlefield was on a slope

I just would like to point out that I am quite shocked to learn that Crécy was fought on a slope. So the historical battle scenario in M2TW with its flat ground was not accurate.

In the actual battle, the French had to charge uphill, and the English longbowmen were arranged in zigzag wedge formations, so each French unit was hit by arrows from both flanks. Also, the French had Genoese crossbowmen with crossbow range of 200-220 yards who had to fire uphill; the English had longbowmen with range of 320 yards firing downhill. The English slaughtered the Genoese with the extended range (both the longbow range plus the hill slope), and French cavalry charging uphill had exhausted horses by the time they reached *longbow range* of the English, and were cut down.

The French did 15 to 16 charges (suicidally brave, by the way), none of them reached within hand-to-hand of the English mainline. Until I read that, I always thought Crécy was as portrayed by M2TW: the battlefield on a flat ground, with French charging into the English ranks and going hand-to-hand.

Hopefully, the terrain of the historical battles in ETW will be accurate. Perhaps not the exact landscape, but if the battle is on a slope, and the slope was the decisive factor that characterized the battle and its result, then please have the virtual battle on a slope as well, and not a flat ground.

Meh, if they made the Battle of Crecy like it was in History, it wouldn't be any fun. The thing was more of a massacre than a Battle. There will ALWAYS be a trade off between historical accuracy and playability, and if you want a great game, playability will prevail.

Everything you wrote is right, except the battle in M2TW is Agincourt, not Crecy. :laugh4:

Historical accuracy doesn't seems to be too much concern for CA, just as Ratwar said; playability always previls at the expense of historical accuracy. The least historically accurate battle in Medieval II in my opinion was the Battle of Grunwald, while the battle of Otumba and seige of Setinel was unheard by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quintus.JC

Historical accuracy doesn't seems to be too much concern for CA, just as Ratwar said; playability always previls at the expense of historical accuracy. The least historically accurate battle in Medieval II in my opinion was the Battle of Grunwald, while the battle of Otumba and seige of Setinel was unheard by me.

---

I think CA choose playability for a few good reasons. The first is that too much focus on making the game historically accurate could result in a very boring game (if done badly). The second is probably that there is so much disagreement over what counts as 'accurate' that they'd upset someone no matter what they did. Thirdly is the fact most gamers would pick a game with great features and mechanics over a game that was merely very accurate (I know I would). The majority of 'casual gamers' probably have very little historical knowledge anyway (sadly).

I do think TW games have managed a resonably good balance between realism and fantasy. Sometimes they slip up though (Rome's dual wielding ninja and Med 2's panzerphants :laugh4:).

CA have done away with historical battles completely in the next game, so maybe then never liked them that much to begin with?

Apologies if the above sounded rant-y, just pointing out CA have a hard job and they do try)

Also I agree with Flavius Merobaudes. Wasn't the battle Agincourt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

Also I agree with Flavius Merobaudes. Wasn't the battle Agincourt?

---

The battle was obviously Agincourt as it says clearly in-game and with Henry V and with no cannons involved, but lets keep our focus on the point he was trying to make. I thought Agincout was very nicely done by CA, the terrian and the rest are all quite excellent, but Grunwald wasn't half as good.

While combining the thought of playability V.S historical accuracy. Playablity win hands down, and I think most of us thought that CA did a pretty good job considering the membership we have here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quintus.JC

The battle was obviously Agincourt as it says clearly in-game and with Henry V and with no cannons involved, but lets keep our focus on the point he was trying to make. I thought Agincout was very nicely done by CA, the terrian and the rest are all quite excellent, but Grunwald wasn't half as good.

While combining the thought of playability V.S historical accuracy. Playablity win hands down, and I think most of us thought that CA did a pretty good job considering the membership we have here.

---

I really enjoyed Agincourt when it was released as the Med 2 demo. I played it over and over again, enthralled by the pretty graphics and (unfortunately obviously scripted) AI.

Agincourt really shows off the potential of Med 2, with large, mixed arms forces, a visually appealing and interesting map, and an intersting tactical situation. It's a shame that very few of the battles in-game actually live up to it. :no:

My favourite battle however was Potavia (I think it was called that, the one with the pikemen and cannon emplacements.) The cannons on hills surrounded by spikes, and the interesting positioning and composition of the forces made that battle incredibly fun. :2thumbsup:

Both of the battles in the demo were excellent. Agincourt was probably my favourite, the battle was very intense and playing it for the first time is a big change from Rome, the graphics and the in-game strikes from the units were all superb. Pavia offered a wider range of units, ranging from heavy cavalry, Pikemen, two-handers and arqubusiers, and obviously the cannon as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius Merobaudes

Everything you wrote is right, except the battle in M2TW is Agincourt, not Crecy. :laugh4:

---

Yes, I am sorry. Really. I realized it the day afterwards. I also looked it up in the demo. I made a mistake. It was Agincourt that was portrayed, and not Crecy.

CA should have done the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in the Kingdoms expansion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ollicompolli

CA should have done the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in the Kingdoms expansion...

---

Couldn't agree more, I thought they really messed up the battle. Grunwald was one of the classical battles of the Medieval period. :knight: