The time needed for archers to be stationary before taking a shot is already quite long and makes them quite easy to be picked off by Xbows and cav. If generally moving around would further decrease your accuracy, you couldnt even move with the main force anymore and shoot incoming cav when needed. This would simply cause archers to camp more. I played a game that has exactly those mechanics and everyone complained about it.
(...)
The real problem that most people complain about is simply the amount of ranged players and this can hardly be regulated by stats, without getting unfair. If "special classes" like archers, xbow and cav would require some sort of "qualification certificate" that has to be obtained in order to play the class, then I might see a fair way to put a class limit in the game. Some sort of tutorial/challange event ( which would need to be very difficult ) that needs to be completed, which proves you have the know-how to use equipment that needs a bit more responsibility than your generic melee class. But this again, I fear, is beyond the technical limits of the dev team/warband engine.
Accuracy sucks when moving too much. Dedicated Archers that play for months, years, however are skilled enough to adjust to the situation. Crossbows are usually a problem for them though. I agree with you.
To your second point. I'm totally against any class limits. People play the game to have fun and most of them chose a class they have fun with. Some people do ofc only play a certain class to win. I don't think that applies to most Archers though.
Archers play archers due to different reasons:
1) they like playing Archers in general, they love their bow
2) they can't do shit in melee, e.g. high ping, low fps
3) they can't do shit in melee, they can't block or time their attacks, have a bad footwork and don't even try to improve
4) they don't love being an Archer but like to shoot other people and like to cause dmg without being in melee (which can often be annoying)
5) they like to troll other people (easy thing in crpg)
6) they test each class every some days/weeks, they respec a lot or take another class every generation
None of those people should be denied to play an Archer or any other class. On my native clan's server they made an Archer limit before and people didn't like the idea at all (note that that also included crossbows of course as not every native faction has Archers). For example only 30% of the server population was able to play an Archer. When only 30 players were playing, it was less than 10 Archers. You would not like that, honestly.
I don't think that the idea of the OP really helps or would improve any situation.
I would myself start with adjusting crossbows a bit, by for example introducing a similar skill like Power Draw for Xbows. Why? Compare Archers and Crossbower's builds.
A common crossbow build is 15-24. They easily get 8 WM on 30. An Archer can do that too but he wouldnt get 6 PD with that build. On 30 he could get 18-24 of course, thats possible. He still would lack melee skills with such a build. A crossbower could still get 5 PS and sth similar as he doesn't need PD.
But also note that I'm generally fine with the game's balance since the HX got nerfed a bit. I got nothing against any ranged. Not even if the servers are crowded with them.
If many players play a certain class that can have 3 reasons:
1) the class is op
2) the class is perfectly fine because people enjoy playing that class
3) other classes are shit and not worth playing
4) to counter other classes, e.g. shielders think they have to play with a shield to counter Archers which is simply not true
I doubt its either 1) or 3). Playing an Archer itself is usually fun but infantry hates on them so much it often becomes annoying to be one.
Maybe its partly 4) thats why there are so many shielders on EU1. However its common that more shielders are actually played than 2h or pole.
