I have heard - from different pp from different alliances - that retal policies were often unfair. I agree. Why not have a universal retal policy that would bind all clans - barring retal policies concerning allied clans (in which case, the retal policies doesn't matter, as it becomes internalized, and not externalized).

because then you would eliminate a reason for war =P

the moment universal retal policies are enforced by the game itself,

is the moment the game loses a majority of it's playerbase

years ago retal policies were 1:1, 3:2, etc but nowadays those are 80% l:l or something like that.

I disagree LI. Clans go to war not because of that, rather because of too many grabs or because of clan tensions (including political).

Forgotten, that doesn't even make any sense. Read your statement and tell me that makes sense. It doesn't make any whatsoever.

Forgotten's post has the most merit in this thread. There are multiple reasons why it is a mistake to have a retal policy introduced as a game mechanic. Since there is no chance of this ever happening I will not spend time to elaborate further.

midevil.chaos, LaF warred SOL last reset over their non-acceptance of 80% L:L. SOL lost the war and adopted the policy change that LaF desired. As a result, SOL has caused less conflicts with other clans this reset, as players are able to retal for their land instead of to some archaic policy.

What retal policies specifically do you (and those you are listening to) find unfair? Different alliances on different servers enforce different retal policies to different effectiveness. If you take that away, what exactly differentiates one alliance from another?