It's kinda unfair that archers have plenty of ugly items to choose from while infantry get all the good armors.
You can't argue that way.
What you decribed there was a professional, probably English longbowman. A professional, no levied peasant. (Which had mail and some stuff, too, I admit). Many of them were even mounted. (Which doesn't mean they fought from horseback).
There was a difference in "value" on the battlefield for certain troops. Knights and professional men at arms had the highest value, followed by professional infantry/sergeants on foot and probably professional archers. THEN all the levies came, the conscripted peasants and archers and the like.
The problem is: each player can only control one avatar. Which means, to balance the value of all players on the battlefield, all (comparable) avatars need to be of the same value. Please don't tell me I have to exlpain every player has to have the same value on the battlefield, at least concerning the starting conditions. Of course it's his business what he makes out of it with his skills.
But you can't simply put history into a game, because history was unfair, a game can't be, or it wouldn't be a game any more. A player who plays a knight can not be ten times or more as valuable as a player who plays a conscripted spearman. Sure, character level and equipment do make a (justified) difference, but game wise you can't put archers in brigandines when some infantry runs around only in mail. The game balance would be broken.
That's why I think the entire subforum is retarded.
