Crossbows vs. Arbalasters

[m52nickerson]

Yes, of course. The pavise is a massive help in the missile duel (+3 shield against missiles). Have a pavise unit and one without shoot it out and you´ll notice the difference.

Actually, I wouldn´t consider that as a pro argument. Basically it means that in most situations youßll have to place your Arbalests in the first line to get them to shoot at all, only when you´re fighting on rather steep slopes you´ll be able to put them in the rear. Placing the missiles in the first lines, however, means that the number of shots they´ll take will be limited before they have to be retreated behind your melee troops (where they can´t shoot) or moved to the flanks (which is risky, as they´ll be unprotected, especially from cavalry attacks). Archers, on the other hand, can shoot overhead your melee troops even on flat ground, although they lose some accuracy due to being unable to see their targets.

I just leave my Arbs out front and then have my CMAA move up to engage and charging forces.

[Empirate]

Even a few volleys killing many enemies right before the melee starts will give you an edge in said melee. I usually don't like my archers firing into the melee, anyway: You create as many friendly fire casualties as enemy, and you're not particularly accurate on the whole. The question of flat vs. high trajectories isn't even a question in my tactical book: flat is always superior, as the only situations in which high trajectories could be a help are also situations in which I don't want my missile troops to fire at all.