Lately, I have been seeing this situation in my games. I see a tactic involving the exchange of 2 pieces for two pawns and a rook. It seems to be one of the easier tactic to conceptualize. I mean, usually during the early middle game, the rooks are just sitting on some corner so it tends to attract some tactica themes. I've won all my games having this theme, but I cant shake the feeling that somehow this type of exchange isnt as advantageous as I think it is. The classical value of rook is 5pts + 2pts(pawns) so it should be better than 2pieces(3pts each == 6pts). I tend to keep in mind this numerical values, but I'm at the point in my chess "career" where I dont actually believe such things anymore. I mean, two pieces in conjunction with each other is very strong..
Well anyway, I guess Im gonna keep on doing the exchange as long as I win.
In many positions it makes sense to sacrifice the exchange (rook for minor piece) if you can get a pawn and something else, say the initiative or damage to your opponents pawn structure. Therefore, many players consider B or N + 1.5 pawns = R. If this is true then a Rook may actualy be 4.5 pts instead of 5.
Using this value, R+2P = 6.5 while 2 minors = 6. So perhaps the exchange is slightly favorable to you. However, you better make sure your rook is already active and has something useful to go after. Also, I would be hesitant to make the exchange if it left my oponent with two trong bishops.