As I understand balance my use of it was entirely correct. If one action in the game creates a negative affect in another, then the game is unbalanced. I was not arguing for a continuing inequity, I was stating that there is in fact one - an unbalance to use the developer's words. IF we are able to utilize our tavern silver to purchase attack boosts that are available THEN we should also be able to use our tavern silver to purchase negotiating power on the same battle format. That would be a balanced system. As it stands, I do not see it as balanced.
As for your argument about the difference in negotiating at "higher levels," I fail to see the connection. That is the contradiction of which I spoke, using apples and oranges (a common enough analagy), but allow me to clarify and perhaps even to ask you to do so. If what you mean by "higher levels" has to do with an individual player's .... sorry, I'm stymied. What exactly do you mean? High attrition? The word attrition is bandied about too much and has been truncated - it's an attack/negotiating penalty. The penalty does not apply in the same fashion to negotiations as it does to attacks. Too many players have spent years tracking their progress and applied the math over and over and I'm certainly not here to gainsay them when they advise others to use their negotiations before their attacks due to the penalties accrued with higher attrition. Said penalties are observable in the number of goods you must choose from and also how many goods per turn not so different from the array of units that you will face and how many armies when attacking. To penalize those who choose or have little/no choice to counteract that rise in penalty as one continues to play is unbalanced. You needn't agree with me, it's your right.
I stand by what I stated earlier:
