IMO better: num_attackers / num_defenders. Prevents 1M invaders cheese.
Actually, I had (att / def * 25%) originally for that reason, but most of the time it would have been useless because if you had equal numbers you should win the battle, so I changed it. Your formula makes more sense because normally to lose you must have less than half the troops, so you would get something like 1-50% depending; if you "almost win" the battle, you have a decent chance of the effect working, otherwise the chance is small, but I agree the troop count is important to include in the formula.
Good points. I'd just "shuffle" them a bit. IMO the good civs should get influence bonuses, as they're so convinced in ther righteousness. So most influence bonuses you mentioned for neutrals should go to good. Being good they should have limitations with planet invasions: only those tactics that don't damage planets should be available to them. And they should get significantly more help (money, tech, ships) from good or neutral civs when in war with evil civs.
I was struggling a bit with this concept, trying to keep some of what was already developed. However, it makes more sense to me for Good to be "diplomatic influencers". They are active with other races, but in positive activities like trade, diplomacy, influence, etc, avoiding war when possible. I think Good AIs should want to help each other when stronger evil AIs attack a weaker Good civ.
Neutral I view as reclusive. They philosophize, research, but don't like to get involved with other races. They are hard to subvert. I think they should have the defensive specials "to protect from the chaos of outsiders" and productivity boosters, especially research, as they are very focused. They want to advance their society without being bothered by others.
Good: Influence, Diplomacy, Planet Protection, Spreading the Goodness, Defending Against Evil.
Neutral: Research, Defense, Influence Protection, Social Improvement, Efficiency.
Evil: Weapons, Ships, Soldiers, Victory at any Cost, More Weapons.
Relations between alignments:
Good-Good : ++
Good-Neutral : +
Good-Evil : --
Neutral-Neutral : +
Neutral-Evil : -
Evil-Evil : +
Since MCC will not give 100% boost to their econ evil should get other boost to their econ: discount on weapons (10-30% lower costs), an evil-only single "wonder" that gives percentage from trade and tourism from all civs (they actively support pirating) and early one-per-civ "wonder" that gives them 2-5% from economies of good, neutral and minor civs (organized criminal gangs). However their planets should always be in danger of revolt, not like in current game, where disabling minors practically prevents revolts. The lower the approval, the higher the probability of revolt, starting with 0.0% and adding .2% for each 10% below 100% approval (so a planet at 50% approval would have 1.0% chance each turn. Only planets with Civ Capitals would be immune. If a planet would revolt, it would lose 25-50% of the pop and 0-3 buildings (civil war), and became independant (no civ would own it). It would not produce anything and it's queues would be emptied. Taking it back would require invading. A one-per-civ "wonder" would reduce the chances of revolt to 1/4.
I think that Evil should have several ways to boost military production beyond other races, but at a cost (perhaps morale). Evil takes a gambit of increased power at the cost of social stability. They should get some revenue sources to help fuel the war machine, but there are always risks associated with this. Every boost creates more problems, so there is a tradeoff. Evil should also be at risk of the Good influence, so while they can take planets from others, keeping them may be difficult, as the population wants to live a better life than slavery. I don't think they should lose planets directly to revolts (unless using some buildings that give power with this risk, at the player's discretion); I think it should be temporary disruption of production and control, but return the planet afterward. Makes for a chaotic game for Evil players, but War is chaotic in nature.
Overall, the current design of alignments doesn't really give distinct advantage/disadvantage types, just some bonuses (of which the MCC is the worst off-balance, but a bug anyway). Alignment should affect play-style more, like choosing a specilization for the race to complement their inherent abilities. For instace, Good is better at Diplomatic/Influence victory, Neutral at Technology Victory, and Evil at Conquest Victory.