Funny that all of you start talking about a strategic simulator. Does this mean that when it comes to simulating pre-modern warfare you are far more interested in the operational level than the battle?

I can foresee a few issues if the simulation would be truly historical (i.e. historical events can but do not need to happen ingame). For example, you control the French army during the Hundred Years Wars game leading to the battle of Poitiers. The French King pursued the English who could not join up with the Duke of Lancaster while the French are able to achieve that. The English are starved as their supply lines are cut. As a player you would then assume that victory is in your pocket but in real life it proved to be a disaster for the French army.

During the Wars of the Roses, forces were largely identical in composition. A game covering that period wouldn't provide you with any stats (I wouldn't like to see that anyway) so what would indicate the odds of winning? Numerical superiority didn't say a lot as plenty of battles were won by the smaller army.

So when fortune needs to be fickle if you want to simulate history, would it annoy you that you cannot control the outcome, just nudge it a bit?