First of all and before everything, I did not mean that you was easy. I said not once, that you fought good. I was referring ONLY to comparison between the two types of economics. I will say it once more - you proved worthy opponent on the field.
More like an example of what happens when you manage to replace your rival's ally with your next door neighbor ...
Come on Sommerswerd, don't put it that way. Every semi- reasonable player would have taken over you and your absolutely empty cities from the back centuries ago at first place. Even SilentConfusion was prone to do this (after respecting your turns in advance before canceling the NAP)
Second, as I told you, I have nothing to gain from Dick attacking you except that I will lose few cities to him now, which are rightfully mine. He is doing this against my express will. Furthermore your cities are nearly empty - I take them without any serious resistance, so I dont need his assistance at all.
I've lost as many cities to dick76 as I have lost to you, and you've been paralyzed outside my borders for centuries.
As far as I know he took 2 cities from you at all and I took 9 or 10 in the last offensive and like 20 in the whole war
I was not exactly paralyzed, just waiting my semi-good cottage+GP economy to drive me to a tech advantage over your spy economy that will save me 30-40-50 dead soldiers. What would I say to their mothers other way?
I fight third war in a row - thats the last 700 years non-stop fighting. On 2 fronts some of the time.
That's part of the game, and its interesting that you raise this question as you incited my other neighbor to attack me while we was at war with you.
I hope this all is because the misunderstanding, that might be I cause about the "easy wining". It was only something I thought about the different type of economics. And even there I might not be correct as Niklas said
No bad feeling intended mate.