Sir Scarfalot Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 34 minutes ago, Micchan said: Next time the nap 1 month, 3 is a lot Considering the length of the war, even 1 month seems like a lot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Raphael Posted September 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Considering the length of the war, even 1 month seems like a lot... *tinfoil hat* This war was just an excuse to extend a sphere-wide NAP between HM/Swamp/tCW so that they can strike at Quack and/or Rose with impunity. The 90 day NAP was the goal, the 10 day war was the price. Edited September 4, 2020 by Roberts 1 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartarus Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 On 9/3/2020 at 10:30 AM, Seb said: it could be argued that this was a small global as it left out more than half of the important alliances but I would still consider it a global war as it was still pretty sizeable. Oh no doubt it was a sizeable war, for sure. It just depends if there were 10 or more alliances in the top 20 range before they lost score for it to be truly classified as a global. Again, either way it was a big war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 Two round wars weren't all that atypical back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollocks Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 It’d be ultimately healthier for the game for this war format to continue, 2 to 3 round wars with an 1-3 month NAP afterwards. The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts