In the first scenario if my test unit depleted its arrows I stopped the trial even if the enemy had arrows left. Reason: when I campaign and I exhaust all the arrows I withdraw the unit and don't leave it to be riddled with projectiles just to 'make if fair'. If I shoot you with a machine gun, while you fire back with a bolt action rifle, I don't stand around waiting until you shoot 300 rounds just to make us even. The longbow relies on increased rate of fire to match crossbows. That is the historical accuracy everybody is fussing about. I'm not going to nullify that by having them wait around to take hits after they can't fire back.
AND

@ZachPruckowski

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
I wouldn't have let my longbowmen stay within range of the enemy if they were out of arrows. Why should the test?

That was my thinking exactly
The problem with these stances is that in reality, that isn't what you'll be doing, unless your dumb you'd keep them around as a light flanking unit. So in reality they would be taking all the extra arrows.

(Except of course you probably wouldn't engage in an archery duel anyway in a real battle.)

In addition I was under the impression this thread was indenting to test the outright killing power of both units. Unless you let the Crossbowmen expand all their arrows your not getting a fair comparison their anyway.

In effect, for this to be a scientific test you have to apply the same conditions to both units, so if you let one exhaust it's arrows, you have to let both exhaust their arrows.