So, being generally on the fringes of the Development process, mostly reporting bugs and such, I've started to hear a lot of craziness about balancing both Archers and Lancers that I'd feel amiss if not putting my personal thoughts to the public. So here we go..
==========================================
Archers
There has been a lot of talk about how powerful (overpowered) archers can be, often followed by references mostly into European medieval history (minus England) that attempt to support some process for serious nerfs to Archery in LIF.
And although I love the historical card as much as the next enthusiast, I fear the calls to nerf archery often result in suggestions that are simply.. well.. absurd. To say that Archery (and for that matter Cavalry) where not extensively used in the feudal era is to severely limit the study or samples to a few select civilizations. Which definitely would not include the great "exception" card, the Mongols, whom where arguably the most successful space grabbers through military conquest in that era.
So, Archery. Without pulling out spreadsheets and playing classic balance games, lets first look at logistics of Archery within the game that are not represented within the real world.
1. Archers can not reasonably wear many types of protection and have the range of movement or strength necessary to draw a bow and fire accurately. It's a trade off, that gets a little more sticky when we get into crossbows. However, for archers that means although you may be able to put out a lot of potential DPS, you definitely do not want to take damage and thusly need line units, defensive fortifications, or use hit and run tactics.
2. The cost of Arrows currently in LIF is 1 Feather and 1 Billet for 10 Arrows. A small civilization can easily produce an aggressive amount of arrows for little cost, mostly by using easy to amass materials.
3. The ability to carry 2000 arrows alone is an impressive feat. Add in the ability to be wearing chain, holding sword and shield, and likely a bow as well, and you've got nothing short of a miracle. In defensive fortifications, the posture would make sense to have access to an abundance of materials.. however it logistically gets a bit more grey in the field.
My Suggestion: Armor limitations have already been put on Archers. If there are any other needed nerfs to Archers, I think it's somewhere between point 2. and point 3. By increasing the economic cost of arrows or reducing the amount of arrows archers can carry without needing external supply lines, Archers on the field become situationally useful due their expense and logistics instead of defacto answers.
=========================================
Cavalry
I've heard a lot of pain about lancers and nerfs to Cav that include a wide spectrum of "damage limitations", "lance fragility", and "attack angle limitations". What I find interesting about many of the arguments brought up against lancers (and mostly lancers being used in terrain that is advantageous for lancers), is that the Horse is almost never brought up.
A combatant loaded down in plate and cavalry weaponry, generally really likes to be on his horse. Which common sense would say, you either put yourself in a position to make him ineffective, knock him off his horse, or kill his horse. The first two are well represented in the game, the last one, not so much.
My Suggestion: If nerfs to Lancers/Cavalry become factors that the development team is looking to invest into. I'd like to suggest looking at the intense amount of effort it takes to kill or maim a horse. Horses should have their own bleed effects and injuries no different than a player. Although, especially unarmored horses, should be significantly more fragile.
By reducing the tankyness of horses, Lancers will need to pick more intelligent fights or risk being dismounted far from friendly elements in slow and immobile armor. This also adds an economic burden on civilizations the rely on heavy cavalry by increasing the turnover of their horse supply.
==========================================
In conclusion; I don't want to say "this is op" or "that is op". I believe a very small fraction of the playerbase understands the mechanics well enough to reasonably make those assertions. However, feeling how the game plays, I'd like to suggest that if nerfs are needed, that development look into the merit of the above suggests to aid their balancing brainstorming.
=)