[Tuidjy]

> All "hits" are not equal.

I know that, which is why I have divided them into kills and damaging hits, and
have displayed the average damage.

> It's better to keep it simple

We have computers so we can crunch the numbers. We have brains so we can
analyze results. This is simple.

> and leave out the random numbers, imo.

No, we should not, because the spread is very significant. I know that my
intuition misleads me when I think about open ended dice. I am pretty sure
yours is no better.

> Against 14 protection and over, the arbelest is the clear winner.

Did you bother reading what I wrote? How the Hell can you say that it is a
clear winner when pure numbers are ambivalent, everything else favors the
crossbow, and protection 14 units are not the what the arbalests will most likely
be shooting at, unless you count your own troops?!

> Even against 12 protection, it is better than any other as has been shown.

What has been shown? Against an enemy of infinite health and protection 12 the
freaking longbow has three times as many landing hits, and 54% chance of dealing
an average of 5.49 points of damage. The arbalest hits have a 89.3% chance to
deal an average of 9.39 points of damage. The hard numbers slightly (6%) favor
the longbow, and every single assumption, including the one about infinite
health, favors the arbalest! Math and English, do you read them?!

> It's just that the common knowledge is a little off in this case.

And you know this because the Pantocrator has spoken to you? Players that are
much better than you think otherwise, Ulm loses in duels no matter how well
you stack the deck in their favor, has no answer to heavy blesses or tramplers,
the numbers speak against them, no one has any suggestions for any late game...

But YOU know the common knowledge is off? I do not have a beef with
people who point out that MA C'tis and Agartha need help. But you keep talking
and talking, and have not advanced any arguments but bad math.