Not that the Battle of Hastings represents some exhaustive and exclusive list of what weapons were in use during combat up to this point, but one of the major historical artifacts that shows us how they were armed and armoured in that battle is the Bayeaux Tapestry, and for what it's worth it does depict archers with bows which are about as long as the bodies depicted carrying them.
Either way, I'm perplexed that you resolutely believe the longbow was not used in military combat when it had been around for thousands of years at this point and the bow was not something unusual on any battlefield -- archeologists often find arrowheads at the sites of battles for a reason. You'll have to explain why you believe this because to me it makes no sense and seems to show a very exclusive and narrow lens on history. Welsh and English history is not the world's history, and certainly not even the actual history of any of the cultures depicted in the game.
Sure about that bow lenght?
Some individual could have used it. But there were not armies that widely used them. Maybe because longbows take quite lot of training to use. Many years just to build required strenght. Because they were not widely used there was no need to counter them. One or two longbowmen in the army doesn't make any difference. Few thousand and knighs started to fight dismounted.
Bows were used in battlefields yes, but there is huge difference between few unarmored peasants using weak simple bows and few thousand trained professionals using longbows.
It's very well documented that their horses wore some rather heavy barding -- could you show me what sources you're operating by?
I don't think you know horses as well as you are asserting here. Warhorses were still in use during the time of gunpowder, when the stimuli that would spook the farmhorses you seem to be referring to were far less dissuasive to warhorses. Further, warhorse breeds are often known for their aggression, aggression they are bred and trained for. It's like you don't think thousands of years of history regarding cavalry warfare didn't happen.... Is it safe to say you want the game a certain way, and you're just arguing for that even if your arguments aren't actually based in historic fact?
Yes horse bardins are documented when we speak about 14th century and later times. And early cataphrachs in east of course. But if you check, for example, that Bayeaux Tapestry you mentioned, you don't find horse armors there.
It is totally different to hear loud noise than get wound. Cavalry warfare did happen, but horses were not tanks. If they would William's cavalry would have just runner over Harold's army in Battle of Hastings, but they didn't. And of course if horses would have been tanks French would have easily won Battle of Crecy. What could few longbows do against tanks.
This applies to human characters, too. A single arrow can hit a vital spot and kill the target instantly. Also, not many people just take an arrow from a warbow and shrug it off to keep fighting -- if we're to apply your rule for realism, then the player should react to taking even a single arrow, because people generally did. Of course that would be silly and people would complain about the game working that way.
Yes, unarmored human should die to arrows. One good hit should be deadly. That is why armors were used. Longbows could pierce chainmail up close, but even then armor would take most of the energy and wound wouldn't be even nearly as deep as it would without armor. From farther off even longbows couldn't piece chain mail and when it doesn't pierce it doesn't do any damage. Not enough force to cause damage without piercing so yes, if it wouldn't pierce anyone would be able to continue fighting. With adrenaline they wouldn't even feel it at all. Lesser bows like those peasant bows couldn't penetrate heavy armor. Of course they can still be deadly if they hit eye or something like that. And that should be risk with open helmets.
Armours do exist, and arrows do too. They did a rather tremendous amount of damage back then. I really don't see reason to your reasoning, other than that you have a way you like to play and in spite of all logic and historic fact you want the game redesigned to make your way of playing more powerful. But there's a reason cavalry and archers were fielded along infantry. The lore in the game's main quest even talks about a decisive battle being decided primarily by an ambush involving two lines of archers shooting down an entire army fielded by the Emperor...all his legionaries and everything.
You don't agree and you have an opinion, but honestly I think you and I can leave it at this unless you have some evidence you'd like to support your claims with. Otherwise I just see a difference in opinions, and you and I don't have a tendency toward respectful discussions. In that case, let's see some evidence because more unsupportable claims are a waste of time.
In game armors doesn't exist. They are just textures. 2 arrows or few strikes from 1h sword and that heavily armored guy goes down.
You speak about evidences? Seriously? So you have some evidence about tank horses. How horses run over line of pikes or something? Or horsed running over anything other than peasant armies. How about unarmored horses they used 10th-11th century?
Or maybe you have some battle records from 10th-11th centuries where archers were decisive factor? Longbows maybe?