You are right that the upgrades coming out are not exactly compelling... But if you have 10 years left to use some of the less than killer aircraft (A350, B787), they may warrant more attention than they get in ATB.
Sure, I'll grant you that. I'd buy some if I had 10+ years usage on them, but I've always ignored in them in past games because you just don't get enough life out of them to warrant the extra fleet group. For someone who tends to have the fleets that I do (100-200+ of a model), I prefer not to upgrade to a new model unless I know I can replace all my current one -- and that takes about a decade now with the delivery schedules (which I'm a fan of despite the long-term planning, actually because of
I guess one way to get that replicated in AWS is in a longer, say 30-40 year game time game world, which Sami does not want to start under 1.2. Maybe under 1.3
Well, the problem with these long game-worlds is, as mentioned here earlier, they go stagnant really
quickly and the aircraft replacement process is way too arduous. Only once have I successfully done a full fleet replacement on almost 200 aircraft. In long game-worlds we have played, you get a huge bunch of bankruptcies later in the game as airlines BK that let their airlines idle because of boredom and/or the daunting prospect of large-scale fleet modernization. That said, I've yet to think of a better way to do it myself, so it's no hit against sami not doing something to fix it.
BTW, do you think it would make sense for AWS to use real life caps for aircraft like 737-NG and 321? Here is what I found out yesterday:
For what my opinion is worth -- it depends. First of all, I think we should use a combined
cap for 737 and NGs -- so you can have 40 total, but demand might dictate you have 30 NGs and 10 regulars being produced. Initially it'll be heavy on the regulars and, as time goes on this should slide over towards the NGs. In a perfect world we'd even be able to upgrade our orders much like real-life, but there's a good reason we took that feature out here.
But we can't look at a real-life cap and make it match. The reason I say "it depends" is because I don't think we should raise up the cap on A320s to 40 any more than we should lower
the rate of F100s to [whatever] simply because, in real-life, it wasn't a particularly popular aircraft. Capacity should fluctuate with demand both up and down, and it shouldn't "cap" at all, but rather continually increase around a maximum lead-time that sami can determine -- but I'd choose 3 years at the absolute minimum. So whether it should go up to 40 like real-life or not entirely depends on whether our queue is as long as real-life or not.