First of all, do you know that each creature has its own behavior pattern?

Any experienced player knows this. It allows you to inflict maximum damage before the neutral creature can properly attack. But this maximum is far from being 100% ("lossless"), if the player plays at a certain pace and buys time (days, turns) at the cost of losses, by attacking stronger guards as early as possible. Strong guards also mean that the neutrals are divided into 3-5 groups, which complicates attempts to move them around the map.

What troops do you usually defeat without losses on a given day? And if, instead of them, you attack those who are twice as strong on the same day? Or twice as strong again? And so on. Will you still come out without losses?

In general, if your strategy consists only of easy battles with neutrals (without losses), without using tanks, without focusing on ranged units or magic, then defense is not really needed. But in this case, you should not talk about whether the attack is sufficient, but about the fact that the defense is so weak (it's funny, right) that it is equal to a 5% skill.

For comparison, another attacking skill is much stronger - luck, which statistically gives up to +10/20/30% to any damage (not only ranged). And how do you compare attack to that? )
So, if you want to deal a lot of damage, increase either the base luck or the attack perks, but not the base attack, which is only an intermediate link to the perks, and is not even close to luck.

Giving 30% to "attack" without changing the perks is not my idea.

We've already talked about the perks: BB on level 3, incompatible with speed, retribution in leadership.

That is, my position is this: if the situation is not satisfactory, change the basic factor (skill) and adjust the consequences (perks) to it, and do not be afraid to change the factor just because the current consequences are incompatible with this change (imbalanced).