Why is defending worth half as much xp?

First, here is how xp is worked out, if you didn't already know.


With this in mind, the question is simple...

Why do you think attackers are generally rewarded with more xp than defenders, for the same risk? (In other words, I'm asking why a 4 is used for the attacker, but a 2 is used for the defender. There is a deliberate bias in favour of the attacker for some reason. Keep in mind defense bonuses are factored into R already)

I would prefer not to weigh in with my opinion just yet - I'd like to see what you think.

Another related question is this.

Do you think it's fair that first strikes do not affect xp?

The Drill promotions, for example, improve battle odds for the first striker, but they do not reduce the xp that would be earned from battle.

I'm not certain, but I think it has to do with battles usually favoring the defender. Considering the ratios of attackers vs defenders and the defense bonus advantage the defender typically has, which often requires the attacker to have (a: tech superiority or b: bring boucoup suicide collateral damage units), war weariness by design favors the defender. I suspect the battle XP gains are intended to discourage protective trait civ turtelling.

It obviously have to do with defensive bonuses(nevermind that colleteral is way better than defensive bonuses could ever hope to be) and the fact that the one being attacked(as in having opposing troops comming into his land) can chose to attack or defend.

Experience is a relativly minor aspect of civ as such it doesn't actually matter all that much.. The fact that first strikes doesn't affect XP is certainly irrelevant, any small boost to drill is good though as it is usually weaker than combat(due to a lot of units ignoring first strikes and the fact that it just give more odds).

Well I guess the aim is to balance the game, like oyzar said, defenders gain too many bonuses, if the defenders get the same xp bonuses, that might be exploited, say you would piss off an aggressive AI and then lay on defence with offensive units like swordsmen, let them roll over you, with the def. bonus, you would get mighty xp...

Also in real life, generally a good conquer ratio would be 3 to 1, so if you would defeat a 20 stack SoD, with swordsmen and axemen, then with the huge xp you earned, you might easily use them to counter, which AI would do the same to you...

The warring would really become "a good offence is a good defence" noone would attack another...

Well that is my 2 cents, if I am mistaken in assumtion of the game mechanics, feel free to correct me...

In real life being part of an attacking force is typically more dynamic and revealing than being part of a defending force... I think.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I think some of you are forgetting or not noticing that defense bonuses are taken into account when finding the xp the combatants should win. It may be my fault for not putting the question properly. Basically I'm asking why there's a 4 in the formula for the attacker, but a 2 in the formula for the defender. I've got a few different ideas why it may be.

However I think this might be on the money:

Woodreaux said:

I suspect the battle XP gains are intended to discourage protective trait civ turtelling.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't want to chime in with my opinion yet but I think a few of you are on the wrong track. Perhaps an example would help.

On flat ground and with no bonuses, two units of equal strength will each have 50% odds of killing the other. However the defender will earn 2xp if victorious whilst the attacker gets 4xp if victorious.

Another example.

Let's say we have a spear vs. a sword, again on flat ground and no bonuses.

Case 1:
Spear attacks sword
Spear has 10% odds, and would earn 6xp
Sword has 90% odds, and would earn 1xp

Now reverse the roles

Case 2:
Sword attacks spear
Spear has 10% odds, and would earn 3xp
Sword has 90% odds, and would earn 2xp.

Notice in both cases, the odds don't change, but the xp each would earn do change. In this situation, it is in both units best interest to initiate the attack. So if a spearman ever gets chased down and cornered by a sword, and neither have defense bonuses, the spear should attack the sword before the sword attacks him, even though the odds are bad. This example hopefully demonstrates that there is an intentional reward for being the unit to do the attacking.

IMHO it's because 1 regular (non-blitz) unit can earn "unlimited" XPs during 1 turn in defensive combat with multiple attackers, so the 4-vs-2 XP rule is implemented to avoid super fast creations of uber defenders.

DanF5771 said:

IMHO it's because 1 regular (non-blitz) unit can earn "unlimited" XPs during 1 turn in defensive combat with multiple attackers, so the 4-vs-2 XP rule is implemented to avoid super fast creations of uber defenders.

Click to expand...

Nice. That is one of the reasons I had thought of.

Still it seems a bit strange because assuming the attackers are attacking at good odds, the defender should usually take some damage before they win too many consecutive battles. Problem is, like you said, the occasional unit which survives 2 or 3 miraculous battles in a row will gain huge xp, and become a near-invincible unit.

But initially the AI (I'm talking unpatched vanilla AI) was stupid enough to send in units a few at a time, never enough to take a city down, just enough to get smashed and give the defenders a chance to level up fast. I reckon in the initial test runs of AIs against each other, they probably found the "turtle" civs were having too easy a time defending against the attacking civs. Now we're left with this odd bias.

Consider also, that more often than not, units that are defending are in home territory, so they have the opportunity to heal between turns. The attackers on the other hand don't. So another possible explanation is that attacker's get this bias because the healing bias is against them. Also, keeping in mind what I call the promotion-heal (from promoting a unit) this will benefit the injured attackers more.

Levgre said:

In real life being part of an attacking force is typically more dynamic and revealing than being part of a defending force... I think.

Click to expand...

Using real life to defend things in Civ IV is treacherous and weak grounds, and will remain so until the entire game is changed. Rifles and muskets would have to stop firing through stone fortifications and armies would have to be able to move further than they do across several years .

I think DanF's explanation nails it. Offensive forces that invade others territory are already at an extreme disadvantage, having to plod through tiles without using roads while defending forces get to pick whether to attack or defend, with time to reinforce.

TheMeInTeam said:

Using real life to defend things in Civ IV is treacherous and weak grounds, and will remain so until the entire game is changed. Rifles and muskets would have to stop firing through stone fortifications and armies would have to be able to move further than they do across several years .

I think DanF's explanation nails it. Offensive forces that invade others territory are already at an extreme disadvantage, having to plod through tiles without using roads while defending forces get to pick whether to attack or defend, with time to reinforce.

Click to expand...

the problem is when someone invade they usually do it with a large stack. the later the game the bigger the stack. it is only in the earlier part of the game that only a few units are sent at a time.

I suppose one thing is that they want people to be aggressive. But, another thing is that the defender has potentially a lot of advantages: 1) He can be fortified; 2) defensive bonuses from terrain; 3) city improvements (e.g. walls, castles) and cultural defense bonus; 4) automatically the best defender is chosen to defend a particular unit which attacks while the attacking unit does not get to choose who it attacks. Those are a lot of advantages for defending units, so it makes sense to give a bonus to attacking units.

dirtyparrot said:

I suppose one thing is that they want people to be aggressive. But, another thing is that the defender has potentially a lot of advantages: 1) He can be fortified; 2) defensive bonuses from terrain; 3) city improvements (e.g. walls, castles) and cultural defense bonus; 4) automatically the best defender is chosen to defend a particular unit which attacks while the attacking unit does not get to choose who it attacks. Those are a lot of advantages for defending units, so it makes sense to give a bonus to attacking units.

Click to expand...

All those defensive bonuses (1, 2 and 3) already diminish the number of xp the defender earns - it is already reflected in the lower value of R. What I've been trying to say is that isn't reason enough.

The fact that on open ground with no defensive bonuses, the xp earned still favours the attacker, seems to demonstrate this (refer to my example in post #7)

But your fourth point, that the best defender can be picked automatically, is something I hadn't considered and that is new to the discussion. It's interesting you said the attacker does not get to pick who to attack.

In some way, I think it's fairer than you describe. The attacker does get to pick who to attack with, and the defender sort of gets to pick who to defend with. Because of the way units counter each other, if the attacker could pick which unit to attack, the whole point of counters would be lost - it would be pointless building anything but the most generalist of units (longbows, riflemen etc.).

The "best defender" rule means, in my opinion, that giving your attacking units bonuses against certain opponents rather pointless, whilst the opposite is true of defenders. For example, a unit with Cover attacking a city in which there is an archer and some other unit will probably face the other unit, making the Cover promo useless. I know that real-life comparisons are not truly applicable to the game, but surely no real commander would send his cavalry to attack pikemen if there were archers to be skewered?

If you could pick, then it would make attacking too easy. Why bother ever building a spearman, then, unless your opponent is only attacking with chariots/horse archers? Any opponent axe would just crush it.

The main point is if I'm defending, I have everyone together. So my pikeman, axeman, and archer are standing next to each other, so when you ram your cavalry into my formation, the pikes are the one who end up beating you.