I don't care about historicity of gameplay - the game is divergent as soon as you unpause - but the game should *start* at a historical point. For England and France, it very much doesn't.
Political Situation
England and France had a truce 1444-1449.
Brittany is independent when they should be a French vassal. The Marshal of France is a future Duke of Brittany at game start (and begins as a French general...), and Brittany was decisively on the French side by 1444.
Most of France's starting vassals weren't that independent at game start and shouldn't be vassals. It would be like having the major lords of England start with their territories as vassals to England rather than just being part of England. (And while the struggle to unify France did involve a number of noble rebellions that had to be put down by force, these would be better modeled by some scripted events - it's not like the vassals ever seriously rebel against France - they just get quietly absorbed). Some of them, like Bourbonnais, don't even make any sense from that perspective.
Technology
The longbow has been a primary English weapon of war since at least the reign of Richard I. The importance of the longbow was reflected in the *requirement* that peasants train with it, and the frequent archery tournaments to reward skill with the bow - all of which form the cultural backdrop against which the Robinhood tales were originally told (unsurprisingly set during the regency of Prince John while Richard was away on crusade). During the HYW, the longbow featured prominently in a number of English victories, not least Poitiers and Agincourt. It's galling that the unit type isn't available until Mil Tech 5, and that *France will generally beat the English to it*.
Man-at-arms is inappropriate as a unit name for anything other than the starting infantry, and even then it's almost anachronistic by 1444. A Man-at-arms is a noble or one equipped by a noble as part of his retinue while fighting on foot - and was the typical infantry of the early and mid hundred years war. For example, Poitiers... One of the things which changed during the HYW was the professionalization of the military, which displaced the man-at-arms in favor of professional soldiers. Starting in 1444, this should already be accomplished! Man-at-arms should not be a technological 'advancement'!
(Similarly, the landsknecht, a copying of the formation of the Swiss Pikemen, comes way too late. Swiss Pikemen already exist at game start, having demonstrated their prowess as early as the late 13th century. Moving the Landsknecht to mil tech 5, and starting the Swiss with the equivalent unit under a suitable name (Reisläufer?) would seem appropriate. Also, letting other European nations hire the Swiss units as mercenaries...).
Cannon were successfully (Formigny in 1450) and decisively (Castillon in 1453) used in combat, and significantly contributed to sieges (reconquest of Normandy in 1449-1450, notably Rouen, Harfleur, Honfleur) at the end of the Hundred Years War. Not being available until military tech 7 puts them shockingly late. Considering the campaign of 1449-1450 is the first military action after the game start date (remember, there's actually a truce from 1444-1449), one can only suppose that cannon were available at or shortly after game start. (Especially when Jean Bureau's major claim to fame is making France's artillery the most effective in the world).
Military Situation
Force limits are way too high, and England is decisively outnumbered relative to France + all the faux vassals, which isn't historically accurate at all.
The major battles of the HYW featured *every available soldier* the respective sides could muster and afford to put into the field, especially on the french side (who weren't fighting overseas). Castillon featured no more than 10k on each side. Even assuming some additional capacity of either side to, in desperation, maintain larger armies, that suggests force limits of ~15 total for each side at game start (that includes France's vassals!).
France, in particular, had their population depressed from constant banditry by mercenary companies while the fighting had subsided, and the English balked at funding the war. Significant local autonomy at game start for both of them (and most of the world, for that matter) would be appropriate, or a negative modifier to FLs that would be removed by military technology advances.
Both England and France have been in frequent combat for over 100 years as of game start, and should begin with army tradition capable of producing their starting generals with some regularity.
People
England's starting generals make no sense:
Richard Neville - born November 22, 1428 - as of game start, he isn't yet 16, and won't even be knighted (much less given command of anything) until April 22nd, 1445.
Henry Percy - Slain at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403! At least I assume this is supposed to be Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, since he was actually a notable commander in the Scottish theatre of the HYW. If it's meant to be Henry Percy, 2nd Earl or Northumberland, he's not particularly noteworthy as a military commander at all. If it's meant to be Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, it would be better to refer to him as Lord Poynings (he won't be elevated to Earl until his father's death in 1455), and as of 1444 it's unclear that he ever commanded in battle.
Richard Plantagenet - I'm assuming this must be the 3rd Duke of York. While appointed to Lieutenant of France after the death of the Bedford in 1435, Richard doesn't seem to have ever led troops in the field. Certainly he was politically prominent in the lead-up to the War of the Roses and afterwards, but as a military commander his notable field command isn't until the Battle of St. Albans (1455).
Assuming the 3rd Earl of Northumberland, all of these English generals seem to have been chosen for their prominence during the War of the Roses, which isn't until 11 years after game start!
The English generals should be:
John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury - pre-eminent general of the end of the HYW, and the main English general on the continent from 1435 onwards. He should exceed any French general in stats, especially in shock. (He was renowned for decisive aggressive assaults). As of 1444 he was undefeated in the field as commander. Should also get a siege pip (he trained and equipped his soldiers for besieging fortresses).
Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset - A military commander from 1431, led the recapture of Harfleur and lifted the Burgundian Siege of Calais in 1436, Lieutenant of France as of 1444, commander at Formigny in 1450 (1st major battle after the 5 year truce from 1444-1449).
I suppose Richard Plantagenet is an acceptable 3rd choice, lacking a better alternative. He at least held political office with military responsibilities prior to 1444.
France has the right generals, but every one being superior to the English generals makes little sense:
Arthur de Richemont: While he is Marshal of France, he's also a noble of Brittany, so including him as a French general seems odd. Shouldn't exceed the 'average' (non-Talbot) English generals in stats. Should not get a siege pip.
Jean Bureau as the best statted general in France seems quite a stretch, much less the best general between France + England. He was France's Master Gunner, who only had overall command in a single engagement (Castillon in 1453). High fire makes sense, but not high shock - he should be weak on that stat. And he should have a decent siege stat. (See also: technology - as an artillery commander who accomplished a number of firsts with cannon, including participating in the first battle where they significantly contributed (Formigny), the first significant use of cannon in sieges (including Rouen in I think 1449), and commanding the first battle where they were decisive (Castillon), the lack of cannon for him to command is silly).
Jean Poton de Xantrailles - seems to be most notable as having been a companion of Jeanne d'Arc. Being among the 'worst' of the French commanders is appropriate, but shouldn't exceed the English, like Arthur de Richemont. Should not get a siege pip.
Jean de Dunois - should probably be Jean d'Orleans or Jean, Batarde d'Orleans, either of which would be more recognizable. As a significant commander in the reconquest of Guienne and Normandy, being slightly above the average 'English' commander is appropriate, but he shouldn't exceed Talbot.
Political Situation
England and France had a truce 1444-1449.
Brittany is independent when they should be a French vassal. The Marshal of France is a future Duke of Brittany at game start (and begins as a French general...), and Brittany was decisively on the French side by 1444.
Most of France's starting vassals weren't that independent at game start and shouldn't be vassals. It would be like having the major lords of England start with their territories as vassals to England rather than just being part of England. (And while the struggle to unify France did involve a number of noble rebellions that had to be put down by force, these would be better modeled by some scripted events - it's not like the vassals ever seriously rebel against France - they just get quietly absorbed). Some of them, like Bourbonnais, don't even make any sense from that perspective.
Technology
The longbow has been a primary English weapon of war since at least the reign of Richard I. The importance of the longbow was reflected in the *requirement* that peasants train with it, and the frequent archery tournaments to reward skill with the bow - all of which form the cultural backdrop against which the Robinhood tales were originally told (unsurprisingly set during the regency of Prince John while Richard was away on crusade). During the HYW, the longbow featured prominently in a number of English victories, not least Poitiers and Agincourt. It's galling that the unit type isn't available until Mil Tech 5, and that *France will generally beat the English to it*.
Man-at-arms is inappropriate as a unit name for anything other than the starting infantry, and even then it's almost anachronistic by 1444. A Man-at-arms is a noble or one equipped by a noble as part of his retinue while fighting on foot - and was the typical infantry of the early and mid hundred years war. For example, Poitiers... One of the things which changed during the HYW was the professionalization of the military, which displaced the man-at-arms in favor of professional soldiers. Starting in 1444, this should already be accomplished! Man-at-arms should not be a technological 'advancement'!
(Similarly, the landsknecht, a copying of the formation of the Swiss Pikemen, comes way too late. Swiss Pikemen already exist at game start, having demonstrated their prowess as early as the late 13th century. Moving the Landsknecht to mil tech 5, and starting the Swiss with the equivalent unit under a suitable name (Reisläufer?) would seem appropriate. Also, letting other European nations hire the Swiss units as mercenaries...).
Cannon were successfully (Formigny in 1450) and decisively (Castillon in 1453) used in combat, and significantly contributed to sieges (reconquest of Normandy in 1449-1450, notably Rouen, Harfleur, Honfleur) at the end of the Hundred Years War. Not being available until military tech 7 puts them shockingly late. Considering the campaign of 1449-1450 is the first military action after the game start date (remember, there's actually a truce from 1444-1449), one can only suppose that cannon were available at or shortly after game start. (Especially when Jean Bureau's major claim to fame is making France's artillery the most effective in the world).
Military Situation
Force limits are way too high, and England is decisively outnumbered relative to France + all the faux vassals, which isn't historically accurate at all.
The major battles of the HYW featured *every available soldier* the respective sides could muster and afford to put into the field, especially on the french side (who weren't fighting overseas). Castillon featured no more than 10k on each side. Even assuming some additional capacity of either side to, in desperation, maintain larger armies, that suggests force limits of ~15 total for each side at game start (that includes France's vassals!).
France, in particular, had their population depressed from constant banditry by mercenary companies while the fighting had subsided, and the English balked at funding the war. Significant local autonomy at game start for both of them (and most of the world, for that matter) would be appropriate, or a negative modifier to FLs that would be removed by military technology advances.
Both England and France have been in frequent combat for over 100 years as of game start, and should begin with army tradition capable of producing their starting generals with some regularity.
People
England's starting generals make no sense:
Richard Neville - born November 22, 1428 - as of game start, he isn't yet 16, and won't even be knighted (much less given command of anything) until April 22nd, 1445.
Henry Percy - Slain at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403! At least I assume this is supposed to be Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, since he was actually a notable commander in the Scottish theatre of the HYW. If it's meant to be Henry Percy, 2nd Earl or Northumberland, he's not particularly noteworthy as a military commander at all. If it's meant to be Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, it would be better to refer to him as Lord Poynings (he won't be elevated to Earl until his father's death in 1455), and as of 1444 it's unclear that he ever commanded in battle.
Richard Plantagenet - I'm assuming this must be the 3rd Duke of York. While appointed to Lieutenant of France after the death of the Bedford in 1435, Richard doesn't seem to have ever led troops in the field. Certainly he was politically prominent in the lead-up to the War of the Roses and afterwards, but as a military commander his notable field command isn't until the Battle of St. Albans (1455).
Assuming the 3rd Earl of Northumberland, all of these English generals seem to have been chosen for their prominence during the War of the Roses, which isn't until 11 years after game start!
The English generals should be:
John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury - pre-eminent general of the end of the HYW, and the main English general on the continent from 1435 onwards. He should exceed any French general in stats, especially in shock. (He was renowned for decisive aggressive assaults). As of 1444 he was undefeated in the field as commander. Should also get a siege pip (he trained and equipped his soldiers for besieging fortresses).
Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset - A military commander from 1431, led the recapture of Harfleur and lifted the Burgundian Siege of Calais in 1436, Lieutenant of France as of 1444, commander at Formigny in 1450 (1st major battle after the 5 year truce from 1444-1449).
I suppose Richard Plantagenet is an acceptable 3rd choice, lacking a better alternative. He at least held political office with military responsibilities prior to 1444.
France has the right generals, but every one being superior to the English generals makes little sense:
Arthur de Richemont: While he is Marshal of France, he's also a noble of Brittany, so including him as a French general seems odd. Shouldn't exceed the 'average' (non-Talbot) English generals in stats. Should not get a siege pip.
Jean Bureau as the best statted general in France seems quite a stretch, much less the best general between France + England. He was France's Master Gunner, who only had overall command in a single engagement (Castillon in 1453). High fire makes sense, but not high shock - he should be weak on that stat. And he should have a decent siege stat. (See also: technology - as an artillery commander who accomplished a number of firsts with cannon, including participating in the first battle where they significantly contributed (Formigny), the first significant use of cannon in sieges (including Rouen in I think 1449), and commanding the first battle where they were decisive (Castillon), the lack of cannon for him to command is silly).
Jean Poton de Xantrailles - seems to be most notable as having been a companion of Jeanne d'Arc. Being among the 'worst' of the French commanders is appropriate, but shouldn't exceed the English, like Arthur de Richemont. Should not get a siege pip.
Jean de Dunois - should probably be Jean d'Orleans or Jean, Batarde d'Orleans, either of which would be more recognizable. As a significant commander in the reconquest of Guienne and Normandy, being slightly above the average 'English' commander is appropriate, but he shouldn't exceed Talbot.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
