Who decided that archers should be rendered defenseless and die the second cavalry reach them? If the whole point of cav is to counter archers, how come they do so well against infantry too? Doesn't that mean infantry should beat cav every time?
The biggest flaw in your argument, though, is saying that archers are doing good by sticking together. That's part of the problem. Archery has been nerfed to such a point that the only way to remain viable is to cluster together as many as possible and fend off any attackers that way. Meanwhile you've got cav and infantry (especially agility built) that are perfectly capable of playing without the help of anyone else assuming they don't run in to a mob of people.
Unfortunately, archery hasn't been god-mode for several years. Cavalry has always held that torch with the ability to kite with long lances and still remain combat effective when dehorsed.
I dont know why you always compare yourself to inf and cav
Archers are a support class designed to kill at a distance, not to do cartwheels around cav or duel with inf, ffs youre not legolas. You dont see pikemen running around trying to solo 2h or shielders do you?
Besides, with all that jumping it was virtually impossible to kill archers 1 on 1 as cav (unless you surprise them from behind, which works on every class). You needed something like a warhorse to have a decent chance. Ive had many a horse killed underneath me while learning that lesson.
And archers are not rendered defenseless when faced with cav, you have your 0-slot 1h. In case it escaped you cav are supposed to be effective vs all kinds of inf (except spearmen ofc), since a horse cost 1300+ in upkeep and is vulnerable to archers until that split second moment when it actually reachers you.
