Which AP ranged unit?

[Geezer57]

Which ranged unit does better damage against armored units: Longbowmen or Crossbows? In my English campaign I came to the point where both units are available to me...

Whenever you can get them, you should consider using both. I like Pav Arbs up front, backed up by Longbowmen right behind. They each do different things well, and combined will outkill and outlast either type alone.

In a fast-moving attack, substitute regular Arbs for the Pavs - in defense or methodical attack, the Pavs are fine. If I could only have one type of foot missle troop, it would probably be regular Arbs. They seem to have the best balance of armor-piercing firepower, endurance, and mobility - but then, that's seldom a choice you have to make in this game.

[Wizardofthedribble]

longbows all the way! I find that all other kinds of ranged units do not fire quick enough to inflict worthwhile losses on the enemy before they close to engage my front line in hand to hand combat.

I do not use ranged units against other ranged units, preferring to rout them with fast cavalry once their protective screen is pinned down, so archers etc become somewhat redundant in my battles once it really kicks off, and hence Longbowmen are my kind of men.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm the same, the ranged duel is a fettish people here seem to have. Its possibly the most idiotic idea I have ever come across. Two sets of guys with bows shooting at each other while the knights look on and laugh.

Cav round the back is the way to deal with archers. Archers should be preserved because they are the only ones who do damage at range.

[matteus the inbred]

I'm the same, the ranged duel is a fetish people here seem to have. Its possibly the most idiotic idea I have ever come across. Two sets of guys with bows shooting at each other while the knights look on and laugh.

you can laugh, but this sort of thing happened all the time. Crecy in 1346 saw Genoese crossbowmen being decisively outshot by English longbows. In the Wars of the Roses, many battles featured archery duels...particularly Towton in 1461 (where clever use was made of the wind direction by the Yorkists). Also at Shrewsbury in 1403, where Hotspur's archers forced the Royalist archers to withdraw.
It does seem rather suicidal though, and i've always considered missile duels to be a waste of my archers...they're better used to wipe out enemy combat units. As you rightly say, cavalry should deal with archers.

I prefer longbows with maybe some pav arbs as the ultimate 'missile curtain', but otherwise i like normal arbs, as they can perform better in wet weather and can kill half a unit in one volley if they've got decent valour. It's easy to get fixated on using loads of archers, the AI does it a lot and is then left vulnerable to being slaughtered by small elite cavalry units.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm aware duels did happen but in many cases it was only when it was one sided. Duels are definately a waste. I fight English style. Archers and Bills, with a little light and a little heavy Cav.

[katar]

i find pavs and arbs to be of no real use to me.

sword, spear, pike and bill for assault.

longbows for indirect fire support.

cavalry for flanking and pursuit.

when i`m attacking an enemy line i have my archers moving behind the assault line providing indirect fire in support of them.

if its a slugfest then the xbows would be ok, but in a fast battle getting the troops into a firing position asap is important.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not to mention doing as much damage as quickly as possible.