AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Long game worlds (1950-2030)  (Read 7833 times)

Offline Pilot Oatmeal

  • Members
  • Posts: 700
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2011, 07:17:42 PM »
1950-2020 is just under 12 months with 20 minute days. Or 9 months with 15 minutes. Dunno about 15, but I think 20 would still work ok. 10 hours away for sleep/work/etc is still only 1 game month for your airline to look after itself.

I'd still happily play the first long game world even if I knew it wasn't getting any updates past current 1.3, that future small improvements, and the big future changes (cargo, city based demand, hub & route options) would all only apply to later starting games.

more updates would be nice though, I'm sure at least small airline compatibility would be very nice, almost a necessity

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2011, 07:19:13 PM »
Is there anyone that really doesn't find this game desirable?

I really don't want to be doing that many D Checks and fleet conversions because all of those slots would possibly be gone.   For instance, when you change a route from a DC 6 to a DC 8, you have 1/2 the travel time but more than double the turnaround.  

I dont know, it just seems like this is the game that will end up having a fraction of its starting number of airlines.   Plus, you simply can't start a 1950 scenario with many players.  There's simply not enough demand.  Are you going to allow more airlines into the game as it goes on?

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2011, 07:56:04 PM »
Is there anyone that really doesn't find this game desirable?

Myself, for the same reason I've noted before, and the same one you have as well...

It's simply too hard (or rather 'arduous') to rotate your fleet.

In almost every game-world, the game dies off when fleet renewal time rolls around as its mind-numbing to have to manually reschedule 200+ aircraft.  Now imagine that 'time' rolling around 2 or 3 times over the course of the game.  There'll be no one left playing 40 years into it for the last 30 years.

I also can't see it working with allowing 500+ people into it right off the bat as demand is far too low.  But if you do the staggered opening thing, you'll get the same problem of a dead world.  People aren't jumping into open worlds once the competition is more than 2 or 3 years old.  Now imagine if the competition was 20 to 30 years old.

I'm sure there'll be people interested in it.  I just don't think there'll be very many.  If you start in '65 I'd be surprised if there's more than 100 players left come 1990 with a full 4 decades of game-time to go.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 08:00:06 PM by Sigma »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2011, 07:57:55 PM »
The point is that once this gets going there will not be any 'game world starts', apart from the 'server reset' (= scenario reset and start again from 1950s/1960s). Meaning that everyone should get prepared for the idea of joining an existing game world instead of starting from scratch.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2011, 08:25:47 PM »
1950-2020; 17,5 months with 30 min days and 20,5 months with 35 min days :P

I would opt to start from 1965 or something like that instead. Keeps us out of the DC-3 flood at least.

The biggest disadvantage I see here is we cut off the whole prop usage. First jets are already available or available very soon.

I know you said it's not possible to change gameworld day length during a running gameworld, but maybe a 25 minute day would be a good way to go.


Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2011, 08:31:40 PM »
I think if we have city-based demand and people can "create" demand through a connecting pax model, the sky is the limit.  People could base somewhere in South Dakota and have the potential of turning their HQ into the largest airline in the world.

I can see the boredom factor kicking in for some and the fleet rotating/upgrading a pain in the butt for most.  I do think the game should be more strategic when it comes to fleet management though, which would mean consistently higher fuel prices.

Also, IRL the C/D-checks are flight-hour based.  It would be nice if they were in AWS as well.  I am currently going through a bunch of D-checks on aircraft in DOTM2 and it's really not a big deal.  I plan on flying the same aircraft for the entire game and considering I got almost every aircraft new, they won't be >20 years old by the end of the game.  I think this is where the strategy comes in for long game worlds--flying aircraft that are economically viable for the next 20 years.

The big problem, in my opinion, is the explosive growth.  It took Southwest Airlines 35+ years to go from 1 aircraft to 500.  Even longer for Delta and the other big boys.  Growth should be stunted enough that it takes 35+ years to grow to 500 aircraft.  Right now, even in unfavorable conditions (high fuel/interest rates) it can be done in about 5 years.

As a sidenote, with games this long, the cumulative alliance scores are going to end up worth more than the variable scores.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2011, 01:59:31 PM »
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2011, 02:19:09 PM »
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2011, 02:47:42 PM »
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.

Also, any player worth their salt will own 100% of their fleet after 20 game years.  This would essentially be replacing leases with retirement payments, making it a non-issue (although it would be nice to have the retirement modeled).

To further limit growth, I think some form of "terminals" needs to be implemented.  If an airport has 3 terminals, you break up the slots so each one is equal.  Therefore, if an airport has 100 slots/hr, one airline can't take up all 100 slots in the 500 hour.  They would be forced to utilize those overnight slots.  If they want to expand to another terminal, it's just like opening a new base except the fleet commonality penalty isn't there and the staff costs are a bit lower.  There should also be a feature where airlines can fund terminal expansions.  If you want to pay $100 million to build a new terminal exclusively for your own use, let them do it.  Essentially, 50% of the slot pool would be reserved for airlines based at an airport and the other 50% would be distributed across the rest of the terminals for incoming flights.  This means 50% of the slots at LHR would be reserved for airlines flying to Heathrow and the other 50% would be for airlines flying out of Heathrow.  The competition would be much greater and opportunity cost would be a bigger factor for players.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2011, 02:50:35 PM »
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.

Maybe small airlines would be exempt from it because the staff turnover is so high (I.e. using it as springboard to other companies or pilots using it to build hours) that they never stay on for long enough to collect pension for example 15 years.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2011, 09:31:23 PM »
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)

Looking forward to it.

I think the very first long game world should have quicker days, 20 or 25 minutes, so we'll reach and notice any major issues more quickly. Such as how easy/hard it will be to start a new airline 20 years in, what the production lines are like at that point.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2011, 09:43:30 PM »
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)

One thing that will be a necessary by-product of longer game worlds is that they will not be as full several years (decades) into the game as the same game world just starting.  There will not be 650 airlines in year 2000, like in a new MT world.  So I would just free up the remaining 100-200 survivors to do more, as far as more bases, more aircraft per base.

One issue will be constant fleet replacements.  Of course there are costs to it.  I would make the cost of extra fleets more gradual for every fleet, rather than the current, barely perceptible increases from 1 to 3 and from 4 up, with one huge increase from 3 to 4.

Offline chiveicrook

  • Members
  • Posts: 187
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2011, 09:50:38 PM »
To make fleet transitions easier it would be excellent if "move schedule" function allowed schedules to be moved between different fleet types presenting player with "recommended" adjustments or "conflicts". That way instead of manual complete rescheduling we could just adjust a few things (unless planes were drastically different and player had 18 hours utilization ;) ).

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2011, 10:02:36 PM »
Maybe one day when the "advisors" are created  ;D
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2011, 10:07:46 PM »
One issue will be constant fleet replacements.  Of course there are costs to it.  I would make the cost of extra fleets more gradual for every fleet, rather than the current, barely perceptible increases from 1 to 3 and from 4 up, with one huge increase from 3 to 4.

And another massive jump from 6 to 7.

The problem isn't even the big jump from 3 to 4, the problem is that the % size of the jump increases as your airline gets bigger.

A big airline running 4 fleets, and replacing all 4 with 1 fleet each, is going to be running 8 fleets for at least a couple of years. Airlines that big should have plenty of cash on hand for doing that, but it would still be much better if commonality wasn't so counter-intuitive, if there actually were economies of scale, rather than the opposite.

It would be much much better if commonality costs for each fleet were independent, with a discount if you only have 1 or 2 fleets for smaller airlines. First plane of a fleet = very expensive to maintain, thanks to needing mechanics/pilots trained for that plane, parts for that plane, etc, etc. But then more planes of that type add smaller amounts to total commonality.


One other issue around fleet replacements, and something that would be very desirable in general, is the ability to reassign pilots between classes for a small cost. For example, the obvious replacement for a large fleet of Sud Caravelles would be something like the BAC 1-11  or F28. But if you do that, you're going to have a lot of surplus large pilots, and need a lot of new medium pilots. If you replace a CV-340 fleet (3 pilots) with any of the newer 40-50 seaters (2 pilots), you'll have a lot of surplus medium pilots. The ability to take surplus pilots of one type, and pay a one-off fee to make them pilots of a different type, would be great. At the moment, the only options are to fire them and take the CI and morale hit, or pay them to do nothing for as long as it takes to have planes for them to fly, if you ever do.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2011, 10:20:40 PM »
And another massive jump from 6 to 7.

The problem isn't even the big jump from 3 to 4, the problem is that the % size of the jump increases as your airline gets bigger.

A big airline running 4 fleets, and replacing all 4 with 1 fleet each, is going to be running 8 fleets for at least a couple of years. Airlines that big should have plenty of cash on hand for doing that, but it would still be much better if commonality wasn't so counter-intuitive, if there actually were economies of scale, rather than the opposite.

It would be much much better if commonality costs for each fleet were independent, with a discount if you only have 1 or 2 fleets for smaller airlines. First plane of a fleet = very expensive to maintain, thanks to needing mechanics/pilots trained for that plane, parts for that plane, etc, etc. But then more planes of that type add smaller amounts to total commonality.

Exactly.  Commonality should be what it is in real world - discount for having number of aircraft in common, rather than somewhat random penalty (going from 3 to 4 fleet types), and pretty much no discount for large number of common aircraft.

Larger penalty (not just dollar-wise, but percentage wise) with larger fleet is completely counter-intuitive, and probably a bug (which was never officially submitted).

One other issue around fleet replacements, and something that would be very desirable in general, is the ability to reassign pilots between classes for a small cost. For example, the obvious replacement for a large fleet of Sud Caravelles would be something like the BAC 1-11  or F28. But if you do that, you're going to have a lot of surplus large pilots, and need a lot of new medium pilots. If you replace a CV-340 fleet (3 pilots) with any of the newer 40-50 seaters (2 pilots), you'll have a lot of surplus medium pilots. The ability to take surplus pilots of one type, and pay a one-off fee to make them pilots of a different type, would be great. At the moment, the only options are to fire them and take the CI and morale hit, or pay them to do nothing for as long as it takes to have planes for them to fly, if you ever do.

That sounds like a great idea to have this sort of "retraining" fee to re-assign pilots.  It should be relatively easy to do.  Sami mentioned he had some ideas on training and hiring staff, but this should be a good stop-gap measure.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2011, 10:43:06 PM »
Idea:

Office -> Staff Training

Convert X (number entry box) (drop down small/med/lrg/vlrg) pilots to (drop down small/med/lrg/vlrg) pilots.

OK

Confirmations page displays showing number retrained and cost. Possibly before and after staff numbers.

2 options:

Simple is that an inflation adjusted one off fee is paid for the type rating such as $50-100k per pilot and they are reclassed instantly.

More realistic is that staff training costs increase to represent the same price per pilot but they are trained gradually and your bills on income statement is higher until transition is complete. I foresee problems with auto staff hiring or hiring pilots from the transitioned class potentially.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2011, 05:51:15 PM »
I just had an epiphany that could make the long game worlds work.  I was reading Allegiant's November 2011 report: http://ir.allegiantair.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=630313 and they have a metric of "average stage length" or "average flight length".  We could easily generate this statistic in AWS using ASK (last 2 weeks) divided by weekly flights * 2 (last 2 weeks).  Then, every airline would have an average value for "available seat kilometers per flight" (ASKPF).  After this, there is a sliding "legacy carrier costs" to cover retirement and social costs that is a multiplier of current staff costs.  To make small regionals actually viable, we take the current staff costs and cut them in half for everyone as the benchmark base rate.  If there are 100 airlines in a game world, the airline that is #100 in ASKPF sees no increase in staff costs.  It then climbs exponential to the #1 airline where the staff costs are quadrupled (we are cutting staff costs in half, so it would essentially be double what it is right now).  The multiplier would be staff costs * 4^(x/n) where x = rank and n = number of airlines in the game world.  Essentially, the theory is the larger the plane and the longer your average route is, the more prestigious your airline.  Even in AWS, you can't start out with a fleet of A380s--you have to build up to it.

Example airlines in MT6:

Dantes Air @ LHR: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/11/
Company Value: $2.8 billion
ASK: 6192 million
Flights: 3274 * 2 = 6548
ASKPF: 945632

My airline at SFO (Fabulous) versus the regional guy at SFO (Blue Horizon):

Fabulous Airways @ SFO: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/178/
Company Value: $10 million
ASK: 2226 million
Flights: 2738 * 2 = 5476
ASKPF: 406501

Blue Horizon @ SFO: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/1000
Company Value: -$2 million
ASK: 10 million
Flights: 340 * 2 = 680
ASKPF: 14705

If you look at the routemaps for these airlines, you'll see that Dantes is easily 2x the "prestige" and "legacy-caliber" airline that I am--he has more routes and they are much longer with much bigger planes.  Comparing the two SFO airlines, Blue Horizon can use all the help he can get lowering his costs as he is running small EMB-120s.  We've been complaining about the viability of small airlines for the longest time and this would solve it.  Cut staff costs in half and small airlines flying smaller aircraft shorter distances start to become viable (okay--the 19 seaters may still be unprofitable, but at least the 30 seaters aren't).  This would encourage airlines, especially starting out, to fly the shorter routes with smaller aircraft to keep costs down and expand faster.  While being #1 is nice, it will also be very expensive.  This will force airlines to grow more organically.  Most of the older airlines started out with crop dusters flying 100 mile routes.  In AWS, they start out flying from LHR to JFK with a 300 seat L1011.  Even airlines growing organically today start out flying a 737 domestically.

This may only be one piece of the puzzle, but it solves part of the problem by making regionals viable and throttling the growth of the largest airlines.

forsberc

  • Former member
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2011, 10:29:30 PM »
good idea lemon.

Offline jamier

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2012, 01:04:10 PM »
I would love to see the costs for a regional airline reduced. I keep trying to start a truly regional airline but it is just not possible with the costs that are associated with it.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.