You're assuming that it's an absolute difference that matters, and not a relative difference, or do you have evidence that it isn't?

ie.

Absolute difference = (defence(unitB) + (exp)) - (attack(unitA) + (exp)).

In which case, the experience does fall out. ie. Compare defence(unitB) = 10, attack(unitA) = 15, at exp 0,4 and 8.

(10+0)-(15+0) = -5
(10+4)-(15+4) = -5
(10+4)-(15+4) = -5

However if there is a scaling factor, then experience might matter.

Relative difference = ((defence(unitB) + exp) - (attack(unitA) + exp))/(defence(unitB) + exp)

Same numbers

((10+0)-(15+0))/10 = -0.5
((10+4)-(15+4))/14 = -0.3574
((10+4)-(15+4))/18 = -0.287778

Now this could be shown theoretically - higher stat units, with the same absolute difference should take longer to kill if the final number is relative, rather than absolute.

ie. same equation as above, try pairs of 10/5,15/10,20/15,25/20, gives differences of -1,-0.5,-.333,-0.25.


I might do a few trial runs to see if this is true - certainly it would make more sense to me, although they would have to do somethign to get around the divide by zero issue - maybe that is why the minium defenseive value is zero, with them getting around it by making the denominator (defence(unitB) + 1) or something.