I would like to rebuttal...
First off i agree 100% that attacking is much harder than defending.. warfare for the last 2000 years has proven this... but note these figures:
Bish Deaths 47652 divided by 2 (representing a 2 front war) = 23826 vs Knits or Rooks
Now lets use the same factor for Rooks
Rook Deaths 28776 divided by 2 = 14388
Now check this out....
23826 divided by 14388 = 1.66
So what your saying is attacking allows for 1.66 factor of death...
Now under traditional warfare with exception to the routes that happened back in ancient warfare (Alexander vs Darius comes to mind; and new technology WW1 Invention of the machine gun combined with trench warfare Etc.....)
If we all are using similiar technology (war planes) this factor of 1.66 is obserd.
Note this is very generous stating that they is no gang banging of the rook armies by knits and Bish.... "which we all know is not true just check the resets" at a miminum I feel a +10% modifer of forces on the Rook Front but we dont even need to factor that becuase its moot.... without that factor its still 1.66...(holy fraking expletive)
So what people are saying is that the rooks dont attack at a factor of 1.66...
we all know that is a very high number of non attack. Thats Everest huge....
And even if its +/- .30 for (Attack strength) which is alot for error even with that our K/D is still higher...
I could put alot of research into it but this is just some quick figures.
To me its clear as bell who the best are, at least if we were counting attrition....
To the untrained or those who dont know their history or the history of warfare then these numbers may sound skewed...
DoctorYo