Retaliation limits of 1:1 or land:land were developed by clans and provide a framework within which diplomacy between clans can take place. But, of course, people get used to the idea and, as here, want retalling rules to have relevance on solo servers.

There is some relevance to 1:1 retals in tourney or express. Because, whether because of an inate sense of fairness or from familiarity with the alliance server approach, people are much more likely to accept a 1:1 retal w/o flying off the handle.

But that is it's only relevance. There is no right to a retal written into the game. It is enforced (on the alliance server) by clans organising themselves to enforce their policy and negotiating around their policy. To elevate the idea from something used in a clan context to something built into the structure of the game would be entirely new - and very destructive of the psychological aspects of solo play.

The reason Ebert makes his suggestion is that he likes to netgain. And he is good at it. As a netter he likes to play techer and he is fair at that. But a techer must protect his land as well as anyone else. If he chooses to go light on units to keep his expenses down he should not be surprised when he is grabbed - whether once or multiple times. If he wants to be in a position to threaten dire consequences to anyone who doesn´t politely stick to policies which would allow him to net in comfort then he will do well to play Indy or some other strat which allows him to punish his opponents more effectively than he feels he can playing techer.

The point is that it is not up to the programming of the game to protect netters, it is up to them to use skill in exploiting the programming, and the psychology of their fellow players, to the freedom to netgain successfully.