Yes and no.
England was the only country of that time which gave their archers a special even elite status. So yes, speaking about English troops archers were indeed a crucial part of their warfare. And English archers were also known for their great discipline and training which allowed them to even fight in close combat.
In most other parts of Europe like the Empire, Italy or France archers were indeed considered auxiliary troops which should support knights and men-at-arms of even the melee infantry. For the biggest part of Europe not English warfare and tactics but French warfare and tactics - relying on cavalry attacks and heavily armored men-at-arms - remained the main inspiration for troops and tatics until the mid of the 15th century. I don’t say that archers and crossbowmen (which were even considered more worthy than archers in Italy for example) were unimportant, not at all. Quite on the contrary, there were a crucial part of many armies of that time and they were that effective that at the end of the 14th century most armies even had mounted light infantry and archers (known before from the Hungarians and the Middle East troops and Arabs). But nevertheless they most often couldn’t fight alone and they lack serious attacking strength. It’s also worth to mention that in Germany and the Empire panzerreiter or renners were considered the most powerful force on the battlefield, rootet in the French tradition of heavily armoured knights. These knights often formed orders and were available for hire coming with up to three additional mounted warriors for each knight. Of course crossbowmen (often guarded by an additional soldier with a big shield) and archers were able to fight against them - often shown during the 100 years war - but that was dependant of the situation. The dominance of the archery was seen in the battle of Agincourt, yes, but in the mid 15th century battle of Formigny heavily armoured French men-at-war crushed a big force of Englishmen who greatly outnumbered the French by several cavalry attacks. This was possible by clever field tactics. A clever strategy could always win the day, no matter which troops you had available… 
Maybe the battle of Nicopolis of 1396 in which Sigismund himself led European crusaders against Ottomans and Turkmans is the best example of warfare and tactics which may be present in the game. Although many sources seem to greatly exaggerate the numbers of combatants it clearly seems that the mounted men-at-arms were still the most important force of central European forces at that time. But of course each army consisted of many different troops, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, archers and infantry. Together they offered various strategies and possibilities…
Maybe “auxiliary troops” is the wrong word. What I wanted to say was that archers didn’t play that a big role in the warfare of continental European forces up to the mid of the 15th century (or up to the usage of gunpower on a larger scale on battlefields). Crossbowmen and archers were important factors on the battlefield but on the continent of Europe often less important than heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms.
