I've just done one turn for Ostrig. didn't have time to sort out a proper replacement before he left but are people ok for me to find a sub whilst Amask is away? I'll be able to explain what's going on to them well enough. and half of ostrig's troops are really mine anyway
me playing Ostrig won't be too different to him playing these next few turns much though tbh as we have been in touch and I more or less know what he's got in mind.
A sub solves all issues!
Not so much for now, but for exploring the principle ... I think in some cases, having two allies played by one particular player can potentially create a coordination advantage, when the two civs border each other, or share a border with a common enemy. The answer may be to have the uncovered civ played by a member of the alliance that is more distant, where the two civs are less likely to be having joint maneuvers, which is really what the issue is, in my view. Plako covering pianoland pending a sub would have been the option closest to this principle, for example.
Generally, I think having a civ in AI mode is to be avoided in pitboss, and few things are worse. My suggestion to kick Amask to AI was really tongue in cheek, only designed to devilishly poke Morgan with a dose of his own medicine,
conceptually, not in reality.
(You can tell when I am poking fun by the appearance of the small print! )
Now, if plako feels he is at some disadvantage, even if small, from Kaleb being the one to handle Amask's civ, isn't it worth exploring having a different alliance partner play the turns? If that is less advantageous to your alliance than Kaleb playing it, well, then isn't that the point? I suppose one could use as reference, what choice is most like Amask playing for himself, which might be the neighbor, and might lead to chosing the sub creating a small advantage to the sub creating a moderate disadvantage. While that is fairest for the team with the missing player, may not be so fair for the opposing team. And if getting a sub is the ideal goal, isn't that always a relative disadvantage vs. original player continuing (other than issues of player game skill), and against any alliance member continuing?
If my goal in pitboss were to win games personally, I could have hung up my mouse years ago!
I play hard for the team I am on (doesn't is always boil down to teams?), but in other areas, I tend to think that the benefit of the doubt should go to game balancing choices. Keep the game as competitive as possible for as long as possible. So in a choice between which alliance gets disadvantaged by a subbing choice, my philosophy would tend to put the burden on the dominant alliance.
I don't think anyone is really going to get twisted up about how this plays out, but I have found that discussions like this are good to align players' expectations about how to handle situations that arise, and make for a smoother future of the current game and future games.
dV