Something that always sort of bothered me with the balance of ranged characters in Total War games is the balance between Archers and Crossbows. In short, crossbows should have a higher initial cost and a lower upkeep cost when compared to their Archer counterparts.

The higher recruitment cost of Crossbows is a result of the cost differences to equip a Crossbow versus an Archer. More importantly, the higher upkeep cost of Archers was due to the skill required to be a proficient Archer being far greater than what was needed to operate a Crossbow. Skilled labor costs more.

This change in skill requirements meant that ranged units could now be fielded from the unskilled peasant class, making the cost of labor lower and the pool of recruits larger. When the supply of soldiers is vastly increased and the required labor skill decreased, the only considerable limiting factor of fielding Crossbows becomes the ability to manufacture equipment.

Once the input cost of producing an initial supply of Crossbow equipment is dealt with and cost to produce additional equipment is reduced with manufacturing improvements, the Crossbow historically becomes the back bone of medieval ranged regiment.

Even though the Archer has a MUCH higher rate of fire and could be considered a more effective soldier individually, the cost advantages of the Crossbow meant the shortcomings of the Crossbow could be mitigated by just fielding more. This is what happened historically, and why Popes of the 11th and 12th centuries condemned the Crossbow's use.