I finished both generations with a k/d of about 3, let's not even mention sieges. I never had problems with awareness from either cav or inf because I didn't tunnel vision on one target (it's like an argument of "I'm bad - that's why we need buffs") and knew how to use the "view outfit" button.
I stopped playing an archer because I found the gameplay boring and withdrawn from the real action which is melee.
Also fuck defining by realism and don't state opinions as facts. A good or even a decent archer is better to be had on your team than a good or a decent anything else.
A k/d of 3:1? As full archer? I don't buy it. I remember when the nacrpg site was up and kept track of KDR, the highest KD for archers was like 2.5:1 or something. You're either lying, you got a bunch of kills in melee instead of archery, or you're a much better archer than you think. Or maybe with the larger battles in EU you are able to grab a bunch more peasant kills I don't know.
Also - Comparing melee swings and arrow hits doesn't really work, yes melee can be blocked, but it's much easier to get head shots, much harder to dodge swings, and you can attack much faster while in melee. Plus even an amazing manual blocker probably won't outlast a high level shield taking arrows, a huge counter to lone archers.
To others: The reason I made this thread was to cut through some of the crap flying around, not to serve as a magnet for it. Stop making claims about archery being OP, loomed archer being OP, whatever, without bringing something to the table. I'm serious, I would love if we could get some more concretes in this thread instead of bitching.