I think Kafein knows all this. It's just his duty as a lobbyist to make cav/shielder appear as weak as possible while blowing up ranged effectiveness to epic proportions in his tales. Like a lawyer defending a murderer with all his skill although he knows that he is guilty, he does it because it his job.
Way to ignore everything I say. What about I say you can't handle people that tell you your game is not flawless and therefore shouldn't be listened to?
I just don't make points about why ranged is fine get a shield lol and use tactics because other people already do it, and I feel fixing issues in favor of ranged would not improve the game as much as fixing issues that are right now giving them an advantage. Do I say ranged does too much damage ? No. Do I say their COF is too tight ? No. Do I say it is too difficult to kill a cornered archer or xbow guy ? No. Somehow I'm the most biaised lobbyist yet I only argue very specific stuff about ranged classes and their "counters".
You sure you aren't downplaying the effectiveness of shields just a bit? I mean what gametype are we talking about here? On siege ranged can be annoying as hell, but any group of shielders will be laughing all the way to the flag as the ranged just hunt kills and lose multi. And that's for ranged defense, we know how useless they are in attack.
If shields
counter range in that scenario, when do ranged guys die? Also the shielders won't laugh when suddenly they will have to defend themselves in melee around the flag while being shot at. Do shielders have any more protection against projectiles than other melee classes when in combat? Not really. Catching an arrow with an inactive shield is extremely rare, and interrupts you nonetheless.
For battle i find cav and shielders eat ranged alive, unless there are major slopes to negate cav but then the shielders are still effective - unless surrounded by kiting ranged. Well... i know no heroes want to hear this, but it doesnt matter what class you are or what class they are, typically if you get surrounded 1 vs many you will die (unless they all suck).
That's simply not true. If I try to kill two archers as shielder and they are not moronic I will systematically die. If I try to kill two 2h heroes, I have my chances, moronic enemies or not.
I certainly found my shielder gens far easier than any other (5 shield skill), and other than strat sieges i barely gave ranged any notice since they never really troubled me (I also became hugely inactive because i find shielder playstyle so boring, but that's just me and nothing to do with ranged). Cav can kill ranged in flat maps, shielders 1 on 1 are a match for any ranged unless they fall for a point-blank shot as they lower their shield, the ranged will never have as-good stats as the shielder in melee, if they win then it's directional blocking and skill. Ranged kiting is a shitty playstyle, i agree, but the way to counter it is the way to counter any class that just runs away and delays - cav, teamwork and ranged. If it is true that shields offer no defense against ranged, that is not something i have experienced.
Sure, a shield provides adequate defense against ranged as long as you are not getting crossfired. But when it comes to actually helping your team and eliminate ranged enemies, a shield is far from being enough.
I often hear it said that the issue with ranged is the number of them, not the individual stats, well we still have far fewer ranged than native, crpg is still a 2hand heroes dream compared to native, and if we're considering balance on the grounds that a single infantryman has no sure counter to fighting 3 ranged at once i really don't see the validity. There is no gameplay counter to fighting multiple of any class who team up on you, situations like that come down to 'skill', no small amount of luck, and the multiple opponents being idiots - this applies for ranged aswell. I'm sure you've killed plenty of ranged as an infantryman, we forget those occasions the moment we do it - we kill a ranged, move onto the next target or dodge more ranged, not even a passing thought - but of course the far more memorable occasions will be when they kill you and cause you to rage for the next few minutes as you spectate them hoping to see another melee come punish them. Memory is biased like that.
This is where you are incorrect. Fighting a melee 1v3 comes down to builds, equipment, skill and luck, but mostly skill. "Fighting" a 1v3 against archers (and even worse against xbows) comes down to luck, movement speed and armor, mostly luck. Yeah sure some ninja guys evade one or two arrows on occasion, but dodging "skill" doesn't go much further than that. I don't even need any special equipment to win a melee 1v3. Give me something that can block and does reasonable damage and I'll be happy.
You always have a decent k/d when i see you, far from being helpless i think, what you describe about having to hide from ranged and having no way to fight them seems far removed from the reality of your actions in EU1 and EU2, if you're not careful i'll sneak on with an alt and spectate you, taking sexy screens of you killing ranged 
It's easy to feed off each other's hype on forums and build it up until ranged sound like unbeatable gods supported by biased game mechanics, who can outrun every specialised melee class, ignore all shields (which are 'tiny' apparently, grab a bigger one!) and have unsurpassable skill in melee aswell. Logically we know that isn't the case, when we actually play the game and join EU1 or EU2 and start playing we see that isn't the case, but on forums suddenly shields are made of tissue paper and every single archer and xbower are as good as the best you've ever had the misfortune to fight, there are still very few *really good* ranged, they're just the memorable - and annoying - ones, and when we post on forums we imagine every ranged is as good as those annoying few, because memory is biased like that.
Actually, if I was really struggling with the game people would avoid addressing my points by telling me to L2P. Now they avoid addressing my points by telling me I'm a lobbyist instead. It seems there's always a good reason not to listen.
About shields specifically, the reason I have been again (this isn't new) complaining about shield coverage is because I have been using shields again in a vain attempt to make ranged characters quit EU2, and therefore found myself precisly in those situations I'm describing, like two shielders vs two archers, or getting shot through my shield. This is not theorycrafting. Those things are also the reason stopped trying to act as a ranged counter with equipment that obviously does not let you be that. The best use of shields in siege is in melee, pushing up ladders. When it comes to ranged, the most sensible thing to do is to keep hiding.
