It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Well, the problem if you have a syntax where you Sanction Raid for <1-5>, you're essentially reducing the risk instead of increasing it for the attacking city, so it's not really a gamble. Basically that's built-in insurance to limit the potential reward of the defending city. I could understand front-loading the XP reward for the defenders (the XP bonus for expelling the attackers within the first 2 rooms destroyed is much greater than expelling them after the 4th room is destroyed) instead of a linear reward scale but I do not think the attacking city should need that type of insurance.