I don't want to see any crying here, i want to see facts, opinions and arguments.
Every ignorant my old friend can call anything which contains a bit of an opinion (and a negative attitude) whining/crying. Reall,y those Egyptians should stop whining about Mubarak
...so you can get a game balanced, the idea behind M&B was an authentic medieval fight simulator and authentic mostly means everything else than balanced, but that's just my opinion.
The problem is, that M&B was designed for single player, and so there was no need for balance, as there is no need to make chances equal for both the player and the AI. And, of course, medieval warfare was everything but fair. Warfare generally isn't fair, but I don't know any period where the differences between two fighters were that severe like in the middle ages between a peasant with pitchfork and a knight on charger.
Medieval society was a system of RANKS, and the higher your rank, the better your equipment for battle was. So you would basically need to make players having different ranks (= values!!!). The only way to achieve this would be by some kind of leveling system (which already goes against authenticity - you were born as peasant? Bad luck, you will die as one!), but this level system has a big issue: it is only balanced between the particular player and the game, but it's not balanced between one player and another. As soon as a fully armored knight on charger is on the map, you (the lonely peasant with scythe) don't care about how long this guy had to play until he reached this rank, how much gold he spent for his horse, all you see is that whatever you do, he has got an advantage over you. Which is frustrating.
Summary: an authentic medieval fighting game can never be fair, as the middle ages weren't fair. And unfair games suck.
This is why I (and most other people) voted for balance.
Poll