False : Archers will cause more people to take shields if possible or alternatively more ranged / cav (if a flat map)
Shielders will cause 2h's to take axes if they have any intelligence to negate the protection via shield
2h's will cause an increase in ranged (in previous patches throwers)
Cav will cause people to take high ground and be more aware / take pikes? (in theory at least 
)
Archers : Do not force me to take a shield (it helps, but it's def not a req to fight archers, 2h can be considered "weak" vs them tho), allows me to pick whatever weapon I want to use, I can roam the map freely and ninja them, stick with the group and slug it out in a melee fest, or maybe aid my team in placing ladders or w/e, point is, I have a bunch of options. Same thing for my team, everyone and their playstyle can be effective.
Shielders: Do not force upon me a certain type of equipment, can be beat with any weapon (
pure archers will have a harder time, but can atleast run away). I can feint them, crush them with a hammer, break their shields with an axe or whatever. I can flank, I can stick with the group, I can camp (for whatever reason...), - again a bunch of options. Same thing goes for my team, once again everyone and their playstyle can be effective.
2h/poles: I can beat them with any weapon of choice, (no class is really "weak" against them, shielders vs axes only plausible example). I can flank, stick with the group, camp, ninja etc... No playstyle restrictions. Same thing goes for the team, no special class or playstyle is needed (except for maybe skill? :p).
Cav then: Forces either me or teammates to use pikes for defence, force me/my team to use ranged to actually bring them down. Disallows major flanking or ninja, forces my team to stck together in a big blob, can not be ran from, encourages camping (boooring....+delay)... (Unsupported with pikes, infantry with shorter weapons are helpless, archers (non-roofcamping!), are weak to them due to lack of block and bump, 1h-shield cav is also very weak against lancers and HA...)
I think you get the point.
The ideal scenario being I was fighting cav? this was on a pretty open map though i admit the trees helped initially as i moved towards my own team to support. And if i can deter cav from the back of some nicely grouped infantry, providing a relatively standard area to cover, just some awareness on my part and some assistance from archers did the job.
Yes, the ideal scenario: There were few cav, you had archer support, you had a pike, your teammates stayed together... I wasn't talking about the "scene" (the map) xD
I make my point It doesnt take a large amount of wpf in polearm (if any) or powerstrike to effectively deter cavalry, so you can very feasibly take a 1h/shield with a war spear (and dont say thats not long enough because I use a warspear on foot and cav very rarely try anything if you point it at them) or additionally a 2h/ war spear. You dont have to fully dedicate yourself to the cause to make life a lot harder for cav. Cav need specialisation to become capable cavalry, while almost anyone can be an effective cav deterant / spear wielder with no specialisation.
FYI, warspear gets outranged by heavy lance head-on (needs to be fixed imo), and while the combo does not need lots of wpf, it takes up 3-4 slots (and you need atleast 1 shield skill, unless you want your shield to break after 1 hit), and urges you to go down the 1h-shield route (awlpike works much better for the purpose, but then you are almost forced to use a 1h).
Yes, he just avoids your hoplite... He forces you into a strict playstyle, you force him to avoid your closest perimeter. (not really since your warspear is too short, but I'm presuming it's an awlpike here)
Cav does not need specilazation to become effective... The only difference between a dehorsed rider and dedicated melee inf is IF...
