[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Agema

1&2) I'm not sure anyone argued that longbows are more powerful or more penetrating than crossbows, most people who have stated an opinion agreed crossbows were. Longbows were certainly more powerful than your average bow.

You might want to check the OP again.

3) All medieval weaponry was mix and match, obviously the English would have some crossbows. However, if you want to suggest the longbow was just about money, I'd request evidence. The battlefield doctrine of massed longbows suggests is was viewed as a battle winner in its own right, not just an alternative way to sling a few missiles.

Simple logic would show you that it is unlikely that longbows would be chosen because of this so called "battlefield doctrine." First of all you have to understand that longbows were everywhere and they are very very old. Found in India, Africa, the Americas and were used by Vikings even before Wales. To assume that everyone didn't know what one was and ignored this supposedly awesome weapon is to assume that everyone including England were a bunch of...goobers. Secondly, to claim that it is a battle winner is dubious. One need only look forward in time during the imperialistic ambitions of European nations such as Britain at the Battle of Assaye where they went against old school Indian longbowman with so called "slow weapons with little trainings" and soundly womped them over and over and over again. This is DESPITE the so called awesomeness of the longbow and DESPITE the fact the Europeans were armored in nothing but a goofy BRIGHTLY colored uniform with a silly hat. If the longbow was that awesome that would not happen. If you want to look at the period itself you only need to explore some battles other than the same two which are spammed on the internet ad nauseum which are too hampered by outside factors. Patay where the longbowman outnumbered the French knights and despite being their PEW PEW PEW powers couldn't do jack diddly and got their English booties kicked. Or the battle of Constance where xbowman tore them a new one when they weren't hampered by idiotic French leadership. Or the Hussite Crusades who's angry religous fantatic Xbow and gunman scared the English mercenary commander so bad he fled to the clergy and never returned to the battlefield...ever...again.

4) People have said a crossbowman needed little training to fire his weapon well, but that does not mean they thought crossbowmen were usually ignorant rabble.

Again the OP and you just implied it right here. LOL. I'm pretty sure I tried to stress "easier" and not "little training to fire well." First of all to be pedantic you don't "Fire" a bow, cross or otherwise, because no "fire" is involved like in firearm. Secondly, while they could shoot it they wouldn't do it what I would call "well." A crossbow itself could weigh up to 25 pounds. If you were not trained you wouldn't even be able to hold it level.

5) No. Fully drawing most bows, including modern sporting longbows, can be readily accomplished by a healthy adult. A brief google tells me they have draw weights of about 200N, which would equate to lifting 20kg if my rusty physics serves me well. An English/Welsh longbow had a draw weight maybe 600N (60kg) or more. Now also think about doing that 6-10 times a minute for a few minutes - it's not easy. Sure, flatbows were better (the cheap and easy manufacture of English longbows has also been mentioned before). But so what?

The rate of shooting is something that is the MAXED out element and no one would do that for the same reason no one would spray all their bullets like...well...Machinegun Joe from Deathrace. It is not difficult. It is not special. You saw these kind of archers everywhere. If they were as difficult as some people make them sound on the internets this would not be the case. As for last statement I find it amusing how you claimed there was no evidence for longbow cost above but answered your own question here. If they didn't need the dough they could have spent more cash on making a less poopy longbow. Since they didn't is a pretty good indicator that every coin was important.

* * *

"Longbow fanboy" suggests you think some people have some ideological or emotional investment in supporting longbows, and I don't think anyone here does. They were superb weapons, and some people may freely wonder whether they might be underpowered in the game without being referred to as "fanboys".

What else could there be but "emotional investment" when someone is trying to pump up their value within a strategy game? Instead of the same generic Mickey Mouse history discussion that occurs on any game, movie, pencil and paper RPG set remotely in this time period actual figures from battles within the game should be discussed to suggest parity. I also noticed you tried to sneak in a "superb" in there. No. There's nothing special about them. A bow is a bow is a bow. There is no magic that makes longbows "stronger" than other bows although there characteristics that define it simply calling them "superb" is highly deceptive.

Edit:
I've seen the megathread on Somethingawful and have perused the forums, yes. I saw this thread and it is a litmus test of mind when judging a fantasy game. I've found that games with good range weapon parity tend to be good overall while games full of Longbow fanboyism tend to be crap.