Thread: Round Length
View Single Post
Unread 2 Apr 2009, 21:55   #78
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Round Length

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
Not really, people are using this round as there base for that argument. When the round length had hardly anything to do with the wars (except dictating how long CT/ND could fence (play both Asc/Omen) before we stopped our war and hit them).
U answered your own point, Longer rounds encourage wars because there is more time for alliances to fence to the top... then look like they might run away with it; forcing a war against them, followed by a lull in hostilities characterized by roid racing in which another gets to the top; forcing a war against them... this pattern is consistent for most rounds, take r29 Denial got ahead followed by a Major war then asc overtook and were faced with a four alliance coalition. If r29 had been longer those four... plus the nuterals particularly Audentes, would have had to fight longer and harder because the idea of asc on top for 4/5 weeks would have been intolerable.
Politics will tend to expand to fit the size of the round.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote