Finally something I know a bit about.
I'm going to call you out on this- misinformation is not cool. I know that you're trying to talk about sensible mechanics, but your suggestions do NOT remotely reflect reality. The goal, ofc, is not to reflect reality but make a fun game. However, if we use reality as inspiration, the information you've provided is very misleading and wrong.
BOWS
NOTE: All bows are rendered nearly useless if the enemy has a shield and they see the user drawing to fire.
Crossbows: Useless unless you know how to load, which takes 10 minutes to learn (nearly useless at level 0 skill, big jump by level 1). After that further training doesn't help too much (minor increase per level). Also long range shots are difficult because of the crossbow body getting in the way (huge drop off in hit% at range). Slow to load. Very slow (say 2-3 turns to reload). Also the crossbow tends to slow a man down more than other weapons.
Bows: Intuitive, start off with a pretty good effectiveness (okay at level 0). Practice helps a TON (good increase in effectiveness per level). Maybe a bit shorter ranged than crossbow, but at the same range they are easier to hit something with (greater hit% at range). Quick and easy to load.
Long Bow: Intuitive but takes a lot of strength to use correctly. Otherwise see 'bow'. Historically it was hard to field these units as the weapon is hard to draw and actually hit something with. This was not a skill issue so much as a strength issue (this is controversial, do not take my word for it. Try one...)
I'm assuming the following definitions- A Long Bow is essentially anything greater than 100 lbf, where as a Bow offers around 50 lbf (normal for hunting).
On Reloading-
A bow can be fired non-randomly (I will not use the word 'accurately') at about twice the rate of a crossbow. A crossbow can notch 2-3 bolts in a minute, whereas bows typically run 3-6. At those speeds, the archer will suffer exhaustion during aiming and greatly reduce his/her accuracy. Note also that a crossbow can be reloaded while in cover and fires first. An archer has to draw and fire from a standing position. It's generally a 1:2 ROF rule though.
On Range-
A simple crossbow exceeds a hunting bow significantly. Longbows were historically classified as artillery. A yeoman that can land an arrow in a 1.5 radius circle from 150 yards away was considered masterfully accurate. On the other hand, a simple crossbow can easily hit a range of 300 yards at a similar degree of accuracy. An Italian Cranequin was restrung and found to have a range of 500 yards (cranequins are, however, slower to fire).
On Accuracy-
Archers have to consider wind, the archer's paradox, firing angle, gravity, and pulling force to hit anything beyond 30 yards. A crossbowman doesn't even need to know what those things are to accurately hit something beyond 30 yards. At short range, the crossbow is more stable and strikes with significantly greater force. Crossbows don't suffer from elastic hysteresis, which pretty much definitively makes them more accurate.
On Experience-
The Italian Peninsula housed what was probably the most renowned crossbow culture in history. Due to the geography and preferred tactics, crossbow handling was a status symbol- whereas other places in Europe considered it a weapon of peasants. Italian Crossbow mercenaries, however, dominated nearly every battle they were involved with. They used more complicated crossbows, but were also just more knowledgeable about striking objects. Comparing the crossbow to the bow is some what ridiculous in terms of training. Archery used in combat was reserved for a caste or class of individual that could afford a lifetime of devotion to the weapon. Crossbows
require no such dedication.
On Handling-
The crossbow is definitely a heavier and clumsier weapon.
On Damage-
The Bow or Longbow doesn't remotely compare. Arced shots rely on terminal velocity for their damaging force. An arrow cannot penetrate metal armor with terminal velocity. The flex and force of arrows is also insufficient to reliably penetrate a breastplate a mid-range. A crossbow, on the other hand, has much less of a problem. The closer the enemy, the easier it is to kill. A reinforced poplar shield will probably stop a mid-range bolt, but at closer range it's going to cut through.
Final Thoughts-
Crossbows vary greatly in utility. From a poisoned dart gun to a gastraphetes, crossbows are designed for particular purposes, ranges, and field conditions. Above, I talk mainly about the common crossbow you'd expect in the medieval period. However, a crossbow can be designed to fit any purpose. Bows have a lot of variety as well, but that variety plays little role in damage output and ROF. Lastly, a Crossbow is useful to everybody.
Unless you come from an Archer class, it isn't a weapon that you would pick up for anything other than hunting game.
Hand Weapons
Mace/Club: Very easy to use (good ability at level 0). Skill doesn't help that much, more of a strength and footwork weapon (little effectiveness increase per level). Largely ineffective against armor, but also does not get stuck in armor which is cool. Very easy to make and pick up off the ground.
The formal Mace was used to knock-out nobility so that they could be ransomed. It was considered a weapon of respect and fairness because you didn't kill your opponent with it. That does not mean, however, that it wasn't effective vs armor-- it is designed to fight against armor! The mace became the ceremonial weapon of the Vatican and Royalty for the reasons above.
Sword: As effective as an axe at level 0, but less effective against armor at low levels. Slashing is NOT effective against armor. Not at all. At higher levels thrusting is perfected and then you can take on armor very well. Most swords are also good at parrying melee attacks, especially Japanese swords. Axes are useless in that role. Historically swords were very expensive, but so superior that everyone coveted them.
Slashing is not effective? The reason why European swords are straight-edged is specifically for HACKING through armor! Curved-swords, like those used in the Middle East, were for fighting unarmored opponents-- because the blade stays connected with the target for the duration of the stroke- dealing significantly more damage (Arabs didn't wear heavy armor because it was impractical in the environment). Arabs did have superior metallurgical practices though, and could make a scimitar that could flex at nearly a 90-degree angle on a downward strike-- which basically means h4xing through shields. Point is, the "broad" edge of the sword was designed to give you a wide edge to hack through armor.
Two armored opponents may resort to pugilism or stilettos to fight one another, but they wouldn't toss their swords away before doing so.
After metallurgical practices improved in europe, they were able to produce heavy armors with hardness comparable to a sword, causing bladed weapons to occasionally ricochet. This resulted in the rise of popularity of Maces and Mace-like weapons (particularly the war hammer), as they were more effective against armored opponents. The sword was still effective and the preferred weapon.
Halberd/Polearm: Massively popular during medieval times for the foot soldier. Almost as easy as a good axe to produce, these death on a stick weapons were also fairly easy to use effectively. Used in 2 hands, with good length, an advanced user could not only slash (level 0), thrust through armor (low level technique) but also snare with the hook and pull knights off horses or trip up armored men (higher level move). The issue is that shields were not often used with this weapon, so bow fire could really do a lot of damage.
Massively popular, but not typically used- they are NOT as easy to produce and were incredibly expensive* to field properly. I'll have to recheck my sources- but as I recall, You might have halberdiers in the hundreds compared to pikemen in the thousands. Halberdiers (as a formal unit) would be equipped with medium-classed armor-- A plate helm with a wide brow and shoulder armor, and either scale or a breastplate. Long and mid-range archery was useless against them. Arrows at terminal velocity cannot penetrate plate.
*The difference between a shaft and a lance are humongous. A halberd must be set on a reinforced staff of high quality wood as it must be able to withstand the force of a cavalry charge (in contrast with pikes, which don't necessarily need to be reinforced unless you don't have the right type of wood- you also don't care if a pike breaks from receiving a charge). An axe shaft can literally just be a chunk of wood, a bundle of sticks, or a hand-carved branch.
SOME OTHER WEAPONS
Flails - Have a great range and radius of attack, but require a ton of dexterity to use. Useless at lower levels of skill. Very good against unarmored assailants. Very weak versus armor.
The flail's usefulness extends into cheating shields and disarming opponents on a successful parry. Very weak versus armor? They fulfill a similar role as the Mace, in that they effectively knock an armored opponent out very easily. Jointed weapons acquire a lot of additional power from centrifugal force.
Short Swords - A surprisingly hard to use weapon. Low level use includes slashing, which is largely ineffective with this weapon, at mid level one starts to learn the thrusting and kill/critical areas on the enemy. The elite level users could use this to parry melee blows, but only the elites. The movie Gladiator is a surprisingly good show of this. Note that this weapon is short and super accurate to wield, so an unsuspecting enemy can very easily get critted just like a dagger.
This is silly. If someone was sent back in time and picked up a short sword, this still probably wouldn't be true. A short sword is easier to understand, easier to handle, and better weighted. Your reference to Gladiator is somewhat true- but a Spatha is far superior to a Gladius for that kind of fighting. Regardless- the main advantage of the Gladius or Short sword is attack speed- you can stab 3 times faster than another weapon can slash. The range makes this less of an obvious advantage in duels.
If found yourself in a duel during the medieval period and you weren't a trained fighter, you'd almost always want to go with a Short Sword and Buckler.
Great Weapons - Huge clubs, Great Swords, No Dachi and the like. These are low skill weapons. Practice as much as you want and you'll not get better at using them. They are all about strength, not skill. So level gain yields little additional effectiveness. They are of medium effectiveness against armor, but not due to thrusting. These weapons are nearly useless for thrusting. They are just so heavy they can stun an armored enemy, who can then be dispatched in a variety of ways.
No offense, but this was painful to read. The primary role of two-handed greatswords is anti-cavalry via THRUSTING (they would be used IN pike formations!!!). The secondary role is infantry superiority (against other pike formations- similar usage to halberdiers). They were incredibly complicated weapons to use, and provided insane field advantages. Look at the following picture from a manuscript-- Notice how the swords are being used. There is a great deal of complexity and finesse in how these weapons are handled and used on the battlefield. No'Dachi are similarly elegant.
The sword can be held by the blade such that the hilt can be used to disarm and parry- this would be done very quickly, with moves fluidly gliding between a variety of stances.
What you've said only really applies to "Huge Clubs"- whatever those are. And you'd better not be disparaging the grace of a maul.
