Fleet Number

[KestrelAIH]

Does anyone know if there is a plan to make the number of fleets penalty a little more realistic? In the real world many successful airlines use multiple feels to cover all markets (e.g. BA), but in this game with a fleet of 300 aircraft having a 4th fleet is untenable. This means for example in an area that has a market for short island flights all the way through to longhaul (Eg Indonesia) you end up artificially having to limit your market. I totally get the penalty for extra fleets but it is absolutely daft that the by introducing an extra type your existing type costs can TRIPLE. This seems to be a very unrealistic feature. (I'm a real world aviation professional)

[Wagster]

There are discussions about it: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,27714.0.html

[knobbygb]

I agree that this needs to be re-thought but I don't agree that things become "untenable".  You'll see that many, if not all the largest airlines operate at least four to six fleet types quite successfully.  I for one always end up with at least six or seven and still manage to make a very good profit.  In fact, I'd say that with a large fleet (300 as you say) it's almost impossible to stick to three fleet types anyway so I just bite the bullet and have as many as I need.

[schro]

The commonality trout slapping is not aimed at simulating reality but rather a game play balancing function. It forces strategy decisions to be made and followed through on in order to survive..... it also contains the growth rate of my small regional airlines as a result. It's annoying as a player, but it also wouldn't be fun to have a handful of huge airlibes in each world grow like weeds and make it no fun for the average player.

[gazzz0x2z]

The commonality trout slapping is not aimed at simulating reality but rather a game play balancing function. It forces strategy decisions to be made and followed through on in order to survive..... it also contains the growth rate of my small regional airlines as a result. It's annoying as a player, but it also wouldn't be fun to have a handful of huge airlibes in each world grow like weeds and make it no fun for the average player.

This, from a player that is good enough to eat all the USA market if given enough freedom(i.e. enough fleet groups and no limits for planes outside HQ). Those two rules, punitive 4th fleet group costs, and hard-coded limit on planes outside HQ, are designed for game balance, not for realism(they are all but realistic). They are really useful. They force you into making strategic choices. They force you into interesting choices. You cannot cover everything. You cannot go from the 777 to the metro, with 737, Ejets, and ERJs in the middle. You must either go small, which gives you more survivability in frequency wars, but less potential, or go big, with the reverse situation : lot of potential, but more vulnerability in frequency wars.

@KestrelAIH : if you get what you want, Schro is going to eat you for breakfast. With a MD90-55 sauce. Me too, by the way, would be on his plate. Realism is good, but only up to a point, in a game.

[Andre]

Nah. To hell with the commonality penalty. I'll take on schro.