Awww, come on, Killas!  If you're going to defend my thesis that opper/banker wars are absolutely one-sided... at least quote a recent post that actually presents the reason why! 

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > AnarchyAngel wrote:

> I don't think balance would be an issue. If a small partax can get spells across on a larger banker then more power to him. The larger player has the advantage of building more wizards more quickly.

Absolutely untrue.
1: The opper chooses the moment of the strike.  If a family, for example, just jumped a resourcer, the opper can choose that moment to take advantage of the resource dedication.
2: Considering relative science burdens, a wizzie opper will generally have smaller research requirements, and therefore more construction science (needing only construction and perhaps resource science depending on whether they produce their own octo), compared to the pop banker (income, construction, welfare).  Result?  The opper will most likely be building wizzies quicker (from a time sense) than the banker.
3: Banker wizzies have to sit there idly for defense.  This has a couple implications:
A: It means it can be actually slightly cheaper to unleash an offensive army than it is to build a defensive army, depending on other circumstances.  If the banker wants to defend himself against attacks that would be stopped by 2 million defensive wizards, I would need to buy the 2 million wizards (expensive in itself), then have them sit around while I pay 2 million in upkeep for them every tick (that's 48 mil per day lost just on upkeep).
B: It means my defenses are relatively known.  Let's say you've got infils on me, and have had them for the past 4 days.  You would have a good idea of my wizard defenses and, as a result, could calculate whether or not you could successfully undertake the attack.  Even if you don't have infils, though, you could use the soft op trick (soft ops require half the wizzies that hard ops do to be successful, generally, so if you can successfully hit a soft op at 40% of your wizzie count, you can probably get the hard op through).  So you have an empirical method of determining what is a proper wizzie count to build.  The banker, on the other hand, is more or less guessing.
C: Worst case scenario, you're a bluff.  I'm a banker, and my fam is about to go to war.  We get spy on targets on your family, and see that you have enough octo for 4 million wizzies.  Assuming our opper doesn't want to fight, and assuming I'm our family's biggest banker, it would probably be a good idea for me to put somewhere between 2 and 3 million wizzies for defense, which would be enough to give you plenty of trouble getting through (I'm not sure on the exact ratios, but let's assume that's true for this purpose).  You, however... don't really need to do a damn thing.  Sure, you have the octo.  However, you could just as easily sit the war out, letting the other pop banker waste 2-3 million gc per tick in upkeep, plus the gc required for those wizzies to build, for a relative daily loss of 48 mil gc for the banker to... 700k octo decayed.  Or better yet, jump your wizzies, scaring their banker into jumping his own defenses... then spend your ops closing attacker portals!  The attackers will give that octo-hoarding pop banker the dirtiest glares ever!  So the opper doesn't actually need to op in order to beat a banker.

This thread is like saying "Weaken attackers fleets and let us ecowhore more"

Even if you make a spell like OH more difficult, a jumped pax will still pass a CF banker, but maybe at least he would fail some more.
But at least maybe they would not pass 3/3 without any fail.
Anyway if u watch pax vs CF banker its no chance for the banker, same as attacker vs banker but when someone starts to use hard ops, the opped fam can op back the same. So fam vs fam it's not unfair.