I don’t understand this argument at all. “It’s difficult to use, so you make less of them?” What does this have to do with skill or micro? If anything, this is evidence that you need more skill to use infantry. High-risk high-reward strategies and units are for high-skill players.
This is trivially true of all units. In fact, cavalry has the lowest need for awareness, while monk and siege need the highest.
Let’s say you have a ball of arbs. A single onager shot can flatten them. And, you don’t get any warning before the shot happens. This means you always need to watch out. The same is true for infantry.
Cavalry on the other hand has way more HP, and are never flattened in one shot (unless your opponent has like 10 onagers). Also, what do you do with cavalry against onagers? You just run upto them and destroy them. With infantry or archers, you need a LOT more skill, any 5-year-old can work with cavalry.
Check out this link of Viper killing mongol onagers with halbs:
https://imgur.com/a/GsTGgkJ
Anybody could have done this with knights/hussars. To pull this off with halbs, especially under a castle? You need the viper for that (or a 2000ELO+ player at least)
There are a few other video and circumstances I can remember, I’ll post them if I find them/if I have time
Think of infantry play like chess. For each move you make, you give 2 moves to you opponent if they are a cavalary player.
This only applies to like 20 people out of the 20,000 people actively playing every single day. It doesn’t work as an argument for the community.
Also, infantry battles would be way more fun to watch with bigger armies. Every modern war game has infantry as like 90% of their population. Are none of them fun to watch?