That makes no sense whatsoever.
Does armor have more importance than weapons for CS calculation and recruitment costs? 'cause if I understand correctly, a unit with 45/65 is superior in every way to one with 65/45?
No one claims it makes sense, only that it is what currently takes place.
Note that the previously mentioned CS correlation only holds true for ranged combat, and it is not the complete story for ranged hits. Ranged combat hits are a function of both the units CS and the units weapon %. The concept I believe is that CS increases with training and cohesion, and those changes should result in better combat effectiveness. Armour affecting the hits is a side affect of this.
