From what I understand there are no such things as retal rules. Those who want to enforce 'any retal rules' are in a way saying 'if you don't do this I am threatning to war you'. It is either psychological warfare or a declaration of 'follow-up actions'.

There are general guidelines for what you shouldn't do (if you are trying not to piss people off that is)

1. Don't hit someone for 8000A when he hit you for 80A one month ago, that's going to piss them off. Sounds like a great idea, but will likely lead to war.
2. Don't hit someone more than once (even if you fail the first time). This goes in line with GDI protection.
3. Don't send stupid in-game messages following a hit such as 'this was just a landgrab, I truly am so sorry for the attack and I truly wish you the very very best for the remaining of the set, as I wish you all the best'. Best not leave a message at all imo.


As for making retals, the timing should not matter (72 hours in the old days was an indication that you will get roughly what you've lost plus a little extra). The idea wasn't so much the timing but the returns. People want to 'get even' not poke out two eyes after losing one. Needless to say though, if you hit someone prepare to lose a bit more than you've gained if they can make the retal...

You are bringing other alliances into it, Servant was basing his ranking of SOF compared to SOL. I am simply comparing the two alliances without involving other alliances. When discussing the stats i did not mention any other alliances apart from SOL/SOF. Arguments can be made both ways with regards to outside alliances, as you said, so if you remove arguments and look at facts, SOF is outperforming SOL in this war...

Despite receiving more hits, and having more countries killed, they have still outhit sol, this is not debatable, this is fact, therefor SOF is outperforming SOL...

If you disagree with this, you are being biased.

Colo's complaining about people undercutting tech prices, because that drives the tech prices lower than they could otherwise be based on simple supply and demand.

However, if the other part is what's confusing you, Colo is saying he puts out standing orders that are just below normal market rate to hopefully drive tech prices back up by having higher priced standing orders that need to be fulfilled. (Of course, I doubt this is too effective, since once his 1 point orders are fulfilled, they'd go away).

Make sense now?

yeah, supply and demand