[[B5]Londo]

My first post was obviously a bit hasty without thinking things through.
Because you need value in order to have ships to lose you still need to husband your fleet to a certain extent. Therefore People are unlikely to simply crash their fleet for no gain at all, to do so would give you a short term boost for a long term cost. Therefore lands are likely to be similar to xp lands atm but magnified. The attacker can be assumed to land regardless of the cost in ships so long as they still cap.

This being the case it presents a problem for defence which has to either;
A, aim to totally prevent cap, which as pointed out earlier is actually quite rare in the ordinary game because it requires many fleets and is usually unnecessary.
or
B, aim to fight a battle, whereby defenders gain score from their losses plus get salvage.
The problem is that in scenario A, you achieve what is the conventional aim of defence and save the roids but since the attacker will recall if he does not cap at all you lose out on the potential score gain from a battle.
In scenario B, the opposite occurs you fail to protect the roids but do successfully fight a battle and gain score. However in so doing the attacker has achieved his objective by both fighting a battle and securing the roids with which to build more ships.

Therefore either alliance defence aiming for scenario A accepts that it can defend much less because defence needs more ships, and is unattractive because it avoids battles. Or alliance defence is structured to fight battles but in so doing allows the enemy to achieve his objectives.
The alliance DC must therefore chose he either has a costly and unattractive defence model or accepts that he usually allows the attacker to win.