What she meant may be that facing the armies who are used to fight with bows, the english archers were never mentioned as the determining factor.
Another way to phrase it: Agincourt is the failure of the French Men-At-Arms and Heavy Cavalry to win over predominently Archers English army, not the triumph of the archers over heavy infantry and cavalry. I am not saying that heavy infantry should automatically win over archers, pointing out Agincourt as the counter example. I would give another example: Saladin army won over well armored Cruisaders.
But to give English archers, the Longbowmen, a stat (and allow upgrades) such that they could fight at par with Men-at-Arms and win in melee is a travesty.
eh, she did reply faster than I :P
Bookmarks