Lets say we have a Red team with 1000 members and a Blue team with 100 members.
After a year Red team has killed 50 Blue members and the Blue team has killed 50 Red members.
Despite both teams killing the same amount of people how truthful is the following statement
Blue members were 10 times more likely to die
Technically, it looks correct where Blue members had a 1 in 20 chance of dieing and Red members a 1 in 2 chance of dieing. Resulting in Blue member being 10 times more likely to die.
However, it feels like the statement hides the fact the populations were dieng as a direct result of their interactions with each other. The Red team was unable to take advantage of their higher population so could be seen to be weaker as a result and the opposite could be said about the Blue team who could be more dangerous by kiling the same amount with less.
Is there a more truthful way in presenting the statistics and would I be able to learn more if I had results over multiple years where the populations changed over the years?