A sword guy running at archers should never get near them if cover was not used.
They also invented this thing called armour.
Not sure how good your history is but, arrows could penetrate most kind of armors, not plate of course but that is why we came up with the crossbow.
So no, bows did not have much penetrating power, and crossbows were not more powerful than bows. Take it from a renaissance European history major.
Not to mention supplying archers with enough arrows in a prolonged engagement presented huge problems in logistics for a moving army. You don't want to be hauling literally tons of arrows for months just to stick most of them into the ground after 30 min of continuous firing. That's why archers had always been part of an auxiliary rather than the main force since the Roman time - they weren't designed to do most of the killing. They were mostly there to annoy the enemies and provoke them into doing something stupid like charging into a defensive position.
On the other hand, for gameplay reasons it's probably better to have more power parity between an individual archer and a melee swordsman. After all, we are not playing Total War: Original Sin. It's a game with low number of combatants where each should be tactically useful in their own right.
