Currently XP gained by units is in favour of melee units. They will typically get 5XP when attacking when compared to ranged units getting only 2XP for attacking. This doesn't seem like a good ratio to me, it's imposing an arbitrary limitation on the type of "worthy" combat based on the weapons they use. Why should being proficient with a bow mean less than being proficient with a sword? Defending against a ranged unit makes more sense to gain less XP than against a melee unit in my mind, but then again there isn't any true reasoning behind that either, just feels right. Let's take our skirmisher units. Gaining only 2XP each attack means they are going to take a VERY long time to get any promotions above what they get upon production. To get to a third tier promo means 15 separate attacks, which clearly are not likely unless you are at war and you retreat every other turn to protect yourself. This in turn stretches out the time between promotions. Melee units have a 150% advantage! What reasons do you see in NOT evening up the playing field so both types get the same, or at least closer to parity?