@Bruce - Okay, there are a couple of problems here. First, I think you'll find you're taking a combative angle and implying you are disagreeing with my statements when mostly you aren't. You are absolutely right that arbalests had extreme range, but so what? We are not discussing arbalests, we are discussing standard crossbows, and specifically those represented in the game, something an arbalest most certainly was not. The arbalest was the pinnacle of the crossbow, not an early model, so to speak. I do concede however, that I perhaps should have pointed that out.
I think you'll find you agreed with me in your second point. You basically just said a longer version of what I said. All your points but one amount to them being easier to use, not better. You're right, they offer superior armor penetration which was an actual superiority, everything else about them, however, was ease of use, not quality. As you yourself said, they are slower to fire and despite what you claim they indeed did have inferior range, albeit partly because of the way they were used. Bows were fired in arcs as bombardment, crossbows were fired in shorter range in straighter arcs. Your point about siege is important, however. This is why they were mainly used for this and less so for open field engagements. I don't know how you can disagree with that without historical ignorance.
As for your third point, you read into my comment something that was not there. I didn't say they were inbred hicks that used them, I said they were easier to use, exactly what you said. Longbowmen trained their whole lives. Crossbowmen, not so much, because, as you rightly point out, they didn't have to. This was the advantage of the crossbow. It was easier, exactly what I said. Again, you are reading implications into my statements that are not there. It's true that crossbowmen became more and more relied upon as time went by, but this was a slow transition over time, and yes, after awhile crossbowmen became the norm over longbowmen in mainland Europe. So? If you compare the first hand accounts you'll see the French were slaughtered by English longbowmen thousands at a time. You can go read first hand accounts of French soldiers talking about how they came to fear the sound of the arrows in the thousands raining down on their lines and how they could find no shelter from them. They also couldn't respond in kind very well. Why? Inferior range. If I recall correctly, I believe they referred to the sound as that of a horde of bees descending upon them. You'll find historians who specialize in this era crediting it as England's main advantage.
Your final point about the reason for missing in the game is well made.
*Edit* Seeing as this started as merely my attempt at correcting a couple of statements made and is not directly related to balance, I'm not going to bother with continuing this back and forth if indeed Bruce does respond.
