I've had two hours sleep, so I'll keep this one short. You gave an interesting read. The thread was initially about raze, so we may find it easier to follow in a separate post since you've brought together issues from suggestions made by Realest in his other thread.
The more acres the nubs have, the more acres the middle kingdoms can get and the more acres the elite kingdoms will harvest from them which will throw them into contention for that top spot faster. Removing the extra acres from the paradise spell has forced the top kingdoms to fight for their spots, why not have the extra acres in the game which will allow everyone on a whole to get larger, quicker. That is one of the criticisms of the game that growth simply takes to long to happen.
You're describing this effect too narrowly. The game is relative, so the discrepancy between the Kingdoms would be somewhat comparable to the present. An increase in daily acres would obviously bring more acres into the game, but to what extent will all Kingdoms being larger have an effect upon the top?
I'm not sure what you mean by the paradise spell having had its extra acres removed? The spell itself is intact, just it has been linked to the exploration pool.
This is one of those moments where I should be careful what I say, because I think I mentioned elsewhere before that I don't want to be too explicit in talking about the top, not just for personal considerations but also those of others.
Regarding razed or chained provinces, with specific attention to the Kingdoms you've mentioned, Playboys, Seasons and Sanctuary are all highly competitive and I don't believe that just because they're sitting on a handful of razed provinces that it makes them as weak as you may initially suspect. Obviously, they will want those provinces to grow back as soon as it's viable to do so, but why should they require additional assistance? They're fully aware of the short-term damage their conflicts will have yet there's still an incentive there for them to war. There are advantages and drawbacks to every situation and I suspect the players behind those provinces are also decent enough to grow back of their own accord. Post raze, it is - perhaps - not so optimal for them in the medium-term, but I don't believe it stops them from responding to further engagements.
You can't make it too easy for people or dumb-down the game.
As to changing minimum time - One of the problems with wars is that it is very hard for one kingdom to actually get significant gains from it - this age Secrets is sitting pretty at the #2 position and have not warred, in the previous ages the kingdoms that generally were able to avoid war the most ended up doing the best.
I just spent ten minutes thinking about how to respond to this carefully and after typing several different things I've decided to simply say that I have to disagree entirely with the analysis that its difficult to get gains from wars.
It would be irresponsible for me to say why this is the case.
I suppose I could cite BIO as an example of a Kingdom that's warred up recently and they finished 3rd or 4th a couple ages ago.
I'm all for destructive wars, but a third day simply isn't feasible with considerations to the top and the bottom. There is such thing as being too destructive.