I fail to see the distinction.
The distinction is quite clear though. Cheaper offense means cheaper imperians, cheaper swordfighters, cheaper clubmen, cheaper axefighters, etc. Cheaper troops also includes cheaper praetorians, cheaper spearfighters, cheaper paladins, cheaper phalanxes.
And offense is already cheap if you raid -- my hammer pays for itself to keep building, as well as much of it's upkeep.
Not everyone raids as much as you do and considering the lack of fighting, people like you are too afraid to lose their cheap hammer in an attack.
Assuming they pick the correct village then yes, 2 full anvils can stop 1 full hammer.
You're very unlikely to every hit 2 full anvils, as very few anvil players will send their entire anvil to someone.
In kingdoms most players are happy to send their entire anvil to someone else when they see that an attack is coming in in ten hours, especially considering that everyone around them is in the same kingdom/alliance. Even if this is not the case, if a lot of people send a few thousand troops, your hammer does not stand a chance.
It doesn't take that much. But what happens to their DP production when it is spread across 5 targets?
You simply do not spread your defense across 5 targets, but centre it in the most valuable or the most likely real target.
Besides, this has nothing to do with the topic. There is a problem of a lack of fighting. The problem is not that people are unable to guard their villages from attacks.