The phrase common sense is not a mathematical term and cannot be arbitrarily conscripted into such service. We live in language for communication and I ask that you respect it as such. Common sense is what the commons agree on as sensible. In that regard looking at math you would still not fall into the majority if you need to explain your point away. Some try to use the phrase to indicate what THEY believe OTHERS *should* find sensible, but that's just a sick way of thrusting their bias out as though it were somehow carrying more weight than it should.
In terms of math, as was pointed out in another thread, there is no love for math or history at all, only superficial resemblances of such. One can construct an argument for realism or one can construct an argument for whatever the hell you want, but one can't do both reasonably. I deconstructed the math behind distance and time (spacetime!) and it doesn't hold up at all. Warriors run at about 30 miles per hour (making a hare pant in exhaustion) in full gear across miles of terrain. Either archers fire their arrows dozens of miles or catapults fire huge boulders every 10 seconds or so. Food I find amusing as well. The average horse eats about 15 pounds of food per day (non-warhorse), so horse + rider = 18 food units per hour. An archer eats 9 food units per hour, or half of a cavalry unit (man + horse). That means on average an archer would be eating atleast 8 pounds of food per day. Fat albert shootin ya with arrows (oh and archers still run about 35 miles per hour). The game is just not that complex that it is bound by coherent rule strictures. It's pretty much balance by off the cuff markings.
I also don't understand the argument that the developers love math and balance and structure their game play around that and there's no way they put no planning into the production of their game BUT they also put zero planning into the barbarian aspect of the game and it just happens to throw all of their game out of the magical balance they set up.
I agree that barbarians were poorly thought out, but I don't agree with the reasoning used to get there nor the verbage used to make it seem plausible.

