take this scenario as an example:
Assume fog and that neither of us knows the others position.
After running the calculations, a long time ago I came to the conclusion correct strategy here was to either:
1. attack with 4+ armies one of my first orders.
2. if i can't afford 1, delay as much as possible and attack with 3.
The reason is:
If I attack with 3, that will leave 2, which he will capture if he attacks with 3+. If he already attacked with 3, I'll take it from him. Clearly when attacking with 3, you want to delay.
If I attack with 4, that will leave 3, so he has to attack with 5+ to capture it. BUT if he has already captured it, I will only win if he attacked with 3. If he attacked with 4+ he will hold. This means if I attack with 4, I want to be the one to attack the neutral first = early order.
If I attack with 5, that will leave 4, so he has to attack with 6+ to capture. If he has already attacked, I'll win if he attacked with 4 but lose if he attacked with 5+. So again, with 5 it's better to go first.
Same is true as you keep going higher.
I can understand people who haven't worked this out delaying their 5's and 6's etc, but I see some really good players doing it. Are they making a mistake or am I missing something?