# Why would one player ever need more Army units in a battle than their opponent?

I am learning the rules of Risk, but am failing to understand why, during a battle, one player would ever need more Army units than their opponent?

According to the rules of risk, during a battle each player compares their highest dice rolls. The player with the lowest roll of the two removes one unit from the battle. The players then compare their next highest rolls (if they have rolled more than die).

My misunderstanding can be explained in the following two scenarios I have created.

In both battles, the attacker rolls 2 die and the defender rolls 1.

## Battle 1

In battle 1, the attacker has the highest roll and so the defender removes one of his units. Now the defender has no more dice and so there is no defending die to compare the attacker's 2nd die with. The attacker wins this battle.

## Battle 2

In battle 2, the defender has the highest 1st roll and so the attacker removes one unit. As by the rules, the players should now compare their next highest dice. The defender does not have a next highest dice, only the one which they have already used in the battle. So what happens here? Am I right in thinking that once this stage is reached, the defender can reuse their die that have already won during this battle? And so 'Battle 2' would now look like:

Now, the defender wins again and so the attacker has lost all his units in the battle. The defender wins this battle.

## Battle 3

Here is a 3rd scenario following the logic I have proposed:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Is this the correct process in which battles should be played?

• Battle 3, part 1 is not possible in standard Risk. The defender can never roll more than 2 dice. Mar 31, 2016 at 20:38