Medieval crossbows have a range of 350-400 yards but, you could only fire 2 bolts per minute. The crossbows were specifically made for taking out armored knights.
Longbows had a draw back up to 180lbs. a skilled (strong) bowman could closely match a crossbows accuracy and power

i understand that longbows are overall a better weapon than crossbows. Modern compound bows have more power and more accuracy (with skill) than compound crossbows. Due to the rather short draw back length of the crossbow it doesn't obtain as much potential energy with the pulleys both of the weapons have. The further you pull on a pulley, the more potential enregy you have for your shot (enhancing the original energy applied). As you draw back the bow the pulleys do more of the work, making it easier to draw back the rest. When the bow is drawn back completey little energy is required to mantain the postion.

1,000 bows vs. 1,000 crossbows... bows win 93% (that statistic was made up, but probably acurate)

Yet, for a time crossbows were more powerful and accurate (to a degree) than bows. Going back to Skyrim i think the strongest bow and crossbow should still be the same strength. The reloads for the crossbow would be extremely impractical for frantic combat. Someone said marksman perks shouldn't count towards crossbows as a penalty. I am fine with that. Maybe the game will have enchanted arrows but no bolts. There is no spellmaking in skyrim. One could assume there is no enchanting and you can only find enchanted weapons. If that is true then maybe no enchanted crossbows? Then the strongest crossbow and bow could still do the same amount of physical damage, while the bow does more damage overall (assuming the strongest bow is enchanted)

Longbows actually had equivalent power (to a point) the trick was getting a guy strong enough and skilled enough to hit a target at that range. Whereas any fool can pick up a crossbow, crank it back, and slowly pick a target, shooting a longbow requires you to hold it steady at full draw and pick a target quickly and release before your arm gets too shaky.

Longbows had an effective range of 220 yards against armored targets (crossbow was 350--400), they weren't as accurate heavy crossbows. Cross were popular among sick soldiers lol. but nonetheless it's a cool weapon.

I doubt that Bethesda would add crossbows. If they do they would make them reload faster.

Crossbows just change the Elder Scrolls gameplay too much to be implemented.

yea i'm guesing 5 seconds max..if they do add them, they won't bother with armor penetration

by add you mean bring them back right? they have been in every elder scrolls title except oblivion, they should be brought back in morrowind they did more damage but reloaded much slower than bows

I think the crossbows would very much suit the Dwenmer (slight of body; engineer a solution). In Morrowind there were only the Dwarven and Steel Crossbows.

exactly i think it's a mistake they should recongize. i suggested one handed crossbows you can dual wield but everyone hated on the idea

For some reason if I'm playing a guy who rolls with heavy armor, I prefer to use a crossbow as a missile weapon. I just don't see fully armored knights using a bow, it's a peasant weapon. This would also make sense as that kind of solider would not train with the bow as much as he would sword, mace, and lance, and would benefit from the pick-up-and-shoot style of the crossbow.

that seems... a bit gimmicky and a little to D and D for my taste, i dont even like normal weapon dual wielding because its unrealistic and impractical dual hand crossbows would be impossible to reload and impractical to use plus the range would be pitiful and the accuracy horrendous (the same as in real life)

yea shooting flames from your hands is realistic and glass shortswords doing more damage than iron warhammers makes sense. lol i understand the dislike i just thought it was a cool idea... (Demons Souls)

How is dual wielding normal weapons unrealistic? Dual wielding in real life allowed people to be able to always counter attack while blocking an attack from the enemy. There is always the ability to counter strike with dual wielding swords. Now dual wielding two handed weapons and crossbows would be unrealistic and impractical but normal weapons like axes and swords, no.

Crossbows were not really sniper weapons, just Bows you didn't have to reload all the time, if anything they were less accurate than longbows

I think once you decide to put in one handed crossbows (which is not too far fetched, especially in a fantasy game) there's no reason you couldn't wield two of them, or one of them and a melee weapon. The problem comes when you reload. There would definitely be a long reload penalty for having a crossbow pistol and a sword, and probably even worse for two crossbow pistols.

Most people don't like the idea because games have a tendency to streamline things so that dual wielding crossbows becomes just that...two crossbows at once. Whereas in reality, it's less than the sum of it's parts. Which means 90% have incentive to use one two-handed crossbow instead, instead of being at a disadvantage for not wanting to use something that's very "Hollywood" style fantasy.

you could counter just as easily with a sword and shield. Sure it might require brute strength if you used the shield. Deadliest Warrior proved that shields cause tons of blunt trauma. countering with dual swords might be easier since counter attacking would be the same regardless which hand you blocked with

deadliest warrior is a joke, there tests are entirely unscientific and the forces they match against each other are ridiculous, green berets vs Spetsnaz? common... one is a unconventional warfare unit and the other is a Counter Terrorism unit 1st SFOD-D would have been better vs Spetsnaz (Russians would have gotten wiped out). anyways the inaccuracies of Spike TV aside... the two full sized weapons is ridiculous a short weapon like a dagger and a sword is logical and has been done before but two long swords? not practical, and far slower than a sword and shield get Hollywood out of your head my friend, decapitations and dismemberment is also unrealistic in a realworld application... anyways crossbows are a logical alternative to bows and i agree that they should be slower yet stronger hitting, they just feel more at home in the hands of a burly warrior

Haha I remember that show. What a load of bull [censored] it was.

so were guns

qft

but that is a whole new can of worms...

Actually the Green Berets are a special forces unit like the Navy Seals, used for strategic warfare. Delta Force is a counter terrorism unit. And as jokey as DW is, watching that show in particular I'm not surprised, the Berets they had were all fat and cocky d-nozzles, and the Spetznaz guys were cool and professional, just smiled from under their shades every time the US guys threw some lame-ass insult.

Two longswords is an unlikely combo just because it's repetitive. Assymetrical combos are best because each weapon has a strength and a weakness. Sword dagger, sword axe, sword shield. BUT if you are alone on a battle field and only have one one handed weapon, it may not be a bad idea to pick up a second longsword if thats what you can reach. Some weapons like spear are best either alone or only with a shield, but you need at least a hand and a half sword to justify using it on it's own.

deadliest warrior is usually inaccurate with their dead pig tests followed by more dead pig tests

but they had a crash dummy from car tests, hooked it up to shock pads or something to measure how hard it was getting hit. needless to say you can kill someone with a shield bash. I've seen people get hit so hard with barefists.. 1 hit knock outs, when they come to, they puke and cry uncontrollably. depending on your fighting style shields can be far more effective than dual swords

thats exactly what i said unconventional warfare vs counter terrorism. green berets are like the SEALs, 1st Recon Div, etc.. Delta MARSOC and DEVGRU are all anti-terrorism and HVT units, Spetsnaz has more inline with tear 1 assets like Delta than the SEALs or Green Berets.

Except there are plenty of cases where extremely talented bowmen were capable of reaching 350 yards. The pure purpose for the Crossbow were ease of use and simplicity.

Let's do a quick rundown:

Long Bow:

Difficult to use to full extent, required lots of training
Capable of firing rather quickly
Required upper body strength
Low weight
Generally fairly efficient with the length of draw

Crossbows:
Incredibly easy to use
Slow firing rate due to long reload
Required little strength to operate
Bulky and heavy
Short draw so loosed arrows weren't as consistent

Really though they were pretty on par for lethality in terms of energy. However, crossbows are still a nice option (perhaps depending on how they incorporate things, Crossbows if implemented could require low Marksman skill and no perks of use, while a Longbow would require higher skill and possibly a perk to exceed the potential of the Crossbow). Dual wielding Crossbows? Definitely not.

Long bows are also easier to make, crossbows are easier to use.

I'm no expert but i'm guessing that longbows require much more training and practice.