Is there any benefit to attacking a neutral with more units?

Are you still going to have that 70% chance to lose a unit if you're doing a 50 vs 1 battle?

If you attack and capture a neutral with 3 instead of 4 are you going to lose more units overall?

No. The two calculations are completely independent.

Attacking with 3vs2 bears the risk of missing the capture. If you miss the capture, 1 army will remain, and you have to attack it once again, thus losing 0,7 army more on average. This might look like nothing, but it is sometimes helpful to remember in terms of micromanaging and early expansion especially in 1vs1 games.

You lose (on average) 70% of the number **of defenders**.

With default kill rates (or, more to the point, with defence kill rate greater than offence kill rate) attacking with fewer attackers than there are defenders is almost always a bad idea, since you cannot possible capture the territory and you'll lose more armies than your opponent. As long as you have more attackers than there are defenders, the more attackers the better; you are *not* putting any more armies at risk (since, for all possible settings, *x* defenders cannot possibly kill more than *x* attackers anyway). Of course, it's still entirely possible those additional armies could've been more useful somewhere else.

Guys, his question was solely whether a 10 on 2 would be better than a 4 on 2 in standard kill rates with 16% which of course makes zero difference.

Guys, his question was solely whether a 10 on 2 would be better than a 4 on 2 in standard kill rates with 16% which of course makes zero difference.