In 1.2, how will Country break ups be simulated on Hubs

[yevgeniy]

Here is a question,

  The theory is that in 1.2 you will be able to open hubs anywhere within your country or perhaps later within the EU.

The question is what happens when a country such as Yugoslavia or USSR falls apart.
Take for example USSR, lets say my main hub is Moscow, but I have a 2nd hub in Kiev, do I loose that hub now, any compensation?

Personally I think that eventually all the planes based in that hub should be split off as a sub airline, and either become a computer run airline (that will slowly fail), or give a player a chance to take it over.

This would not be unfair, since everyone more or less knows the country they are based in, and what will happen, (and if not, well there is Wikipedia).

What do you think?

[Sami]

Haven't actually even thought of that... 

Airline split-ups are not possible. But options are a) move planes to player HQ and close hub, b) keep hub open.

[yevgeniy]

I think Close hub is the most realistic option, but you should have a warning at least one year ahead of time.

[Kontio]

Keep the hub open, obviously. It's really great that all geopolitical changes in relevant history are modeled but please remember that this is a game that is supposed to be fun. Having one hub closed because it is no longer in the same country as your primary hub is not fun.

As for getting an advance warning about these changes, it is hardly realistic to get a message in your inbox that says that in exactly one years time the citizens of Whateverstan are going to incite a revolution and consequently one of your hubs will fall in the to be established country of New Sweden.

[jchaves]

Keep the hub open, obviously. It's really great that all geopolitical changes in relevant history are modeled but please remember that this is a game that is supposed to be fun. Having one hub closed because it is no longer in the same country as your primary hub is not fun.

As for getting an advance warning about these changes, it is hardly realistic to get a message in your inbox that says that in exactly one years time the citizens of Whateverstan are going to incite a revolution and consequently one of your hubs will fall in the to be established country of New Sweden.

as long as the second hub remains under the classification it has before. As far as I understood, the second hubs aren't allowed in major class 5 airports. Some class 4 airports are upgraded when countries split and those airports suddenly become the most important airport of the new countries.

[Sami]

citizens of Whateverstan

...


Yep, perhaps the "vote" is that the HUB will just stay open. It's the most easiest solution (for a lazy coder like me too), and the country break-ups are quite limited (Yugo and CCCP mainly, as mentioned).

We can see how it works out in the first v.1.2 worlds then. Basically one could exploit it by creating HQ to Moscow and then HUB to Tallinn and Kiev for example which then eventually will be independent states and in such case the EU/same country HUB rule is not in force for him anymore for these bases, which in theory puts the players in a bit of different positions. But I believe all the country breakups will generate rather limited new markets and there is no real chance of getting large-scale gain on planning such moves ahead (or by accident). ...but let's see to this again in 3-4 months when there's some play experience on these.

[Dookz]

...


Yep, perhaps the "vote" is that the HUB will just stay open. It's the most easiest solution (for a lazy coder like me too), and the country break-ups are quite limited (Yugo and CCCP mainly, as mentioned).

We can see how it works out in the first v.1.2 worlds then. Basically one could exploit it by creating HQ to Moscow and then HUB to Tallinn and Kiev for example which then eventually will be independent states and in such case the EU/same country HUB rule is not in force for him anymore. But I believe all the country breakups will generate rather limited new markets and there is no real chance of getting large-scale gain on planning such moves ahead (or by accident). ...but let's see to this again in 3-4 months when there's some play experience on these.

How does this impact a scenario where colonies and deconolizations are involved? Does this mean an airline that starts out in Hong Kong in the 80's can create a secondary hub in the UK or would they behave the same way they do in v1.11 with maybe the exception of flag changes?

[Sami]

Colony/Autonomy (etc) is not part of the parent country in this relation. (it's considered a single country only if the name is the same .. can't think of any such case really)

In v.1.2 country update the country naming "... colony of.." is actually removed. The country relations can be seen from country info pages (previews on that later).

[type45]

as long as the second hub remains under the classification it has before. As far as I understood, the second hubs aren't allowed in major class 5 airports. Some class 4 airports are upgraded when countries split and those airports suddenly become the most important airport of the new countries.

just a little question on HUBs......is that a limit on 2nd hub? I think I do not saw this rule in any post......many real airlines have hubs in 2 or more large airports......

[Kontio]

just a little question on HUBs......is that a limit on 2nd hub? I think I do not saw this rule in any post......many real airlines have hubs in 2 or more large airports......

I don't remember seeing this from sami either, but could be wrong. In any case, it would be good if 2nd hubs were limited to smaller airports. If that was not the case it would just enable even faster growth of the big airlines.

[jchaves]

just a little question on HUBs......is that a limit on 2nd hub? I think I do not saw this rule in any post......many real airlines have hubs in 2 or more large airports......

I'm not sure, all I know about second hubs is just by reading other people posts. I did already a forum search but couldn't find any official post. I thought it could be only in the same country and not in a major hub.

[jchaves]

I don't remember seeing this from sami either, but could be wrong. In any case, it would be good if 2nd hubs were limited to smaller airports. If that was not the case it would just enable even faster growth of the big airlines.

Agree with you, Kontio. It would be the same as major hubs, everybody wanting to set a second hub in EGLL, for example. Doesn't seem to work.

[d2031k]

I'd like to think the costs involved in setting up second hubs would follow some sort of exponential graph, whereby a second hub at a size 5 airport would be twice (for example) as expensive as a size 4 and therefore 4 times as expensive as a size 3 and so on...

Otherwise, as pointed out above, everyone will just second hub at the largest bases.

[type45]

this can be a way lead to huge airlines, but remember smaller airlines can also be able to join the market by collecting moneys from their 1st HUB and fight with others in the big airports

[Kontio]

this can be a way lead to huge airlines, but remember smaller airlines can also be able to join the market by collecting moneys from their 1st HUB and fight with others in the big airports

...and lose because the bigger airlines are making more money.

[d2031k]

this can be a way lead to huge airlines, but remember smaller airlines can also be able to join the market by collecting moneys from their 1st HUB and fight with others in the big airports

That is true but this can work the other way too, as an airline based at LHR for example, with no slots left might decide that they want a second base at BRS or NCL and dump their new aircraft orders there.  I guess we'll have to see if say 5 smaller bases are more effective than 2 large or 1 large and 1 medium.

[jchaves]

I'd like to think the costs involved in setting up second hubs would follow some sort of exponential graph, whereby a second hub at a size 5 airport would be twice (for example) as expensive as a size 4 and therefore 4 times as expensive as a size 3 and so on...

Otherwise, as pointed out above, everyone will just second hub at the largest bases.

Yes, there should exist some serious (and maybe permanent, not just a one time expense) costs to face in opening a second hub. If not, will be just a disguised and easy way to turn the v.12 rules and fly second legs.

[d2031k]

Yes a monthly cost for upkeep etc.  It would definitely have to attached to airport size, as otherwise small bases would be overlooked.

I'm sure the workings have been provisionally set out already by Sami, but the anticipation is really growing   The dynamics of places like the EU when members join will be fascinating.

[jchaves]

Yes a monthly cost for upkeep etc.  It would definitely have to attached to airport size, as otherwise small bases would be overlooked.

I'm sure the workings have been provisionally set out already by Sami, but the anticipation is really growing   The dynamics of places like the EU when members join will be fascinating.

lol, yes. Sami is just making us to suffer each time he posts a preview. I'd like to start a v1.2 world right now.

[Dookz]

I'd like to think the costs involved in setting up second hubs would follow some sort of exponential graph, whereby a second hub at a size 5 airport would be twice (for example) as expensive as a size 4 and therefore 4 times as expensive as a size 3 and so on...

Otherwise, as pointed out above, everyone will just second hub at the largest bases.

I don't fully agree with this kind of implementation if this will be the setup. While I think the cost of setting up a second hub should depend on the size, it should not heavily depend on the 5 major classification of airports we have in the game because it would be too broad. Consider that there are many Class size 3 and 4 airports that are just short of becoming Class 4 and 5 respectively and some Class size 4 and 5 airports that just barely made past the upper limits of what Class size 3 and 4 are respectively. Perhaps factoring in the size of an airport based on passenger percentage as well (this number already exists and appears when you hover your cursor over the colored passenger bar) would give a better representation than just the 5 classifications alone.

Take UK for instance. There are 13 airports classified as (5) Large. On the top-end of the spectrum of Class size 5 airports at 100% is obviously Heathrow, followed by Gatwick at 87% and Manchester at 77%. There are 7 more Large airports before we get to the bottom-end of the Class size 5 spectrum. Finally, the bottom-end of the Large airports are Belfast 47%, Liverpool 45%, and East Midlands 45%. Below that are the Class size 4 airports that starts with Aberdeen at 44% at the top-end of the Class size 4 spectrum. If this is factored in the costs, then the outcome is Heathrow will cost a little more than Gatwick and alot more than Liverpool and the cost difference between Liverpool and Abeerden is minimal. If it is based on the 5 classes alone then setting up a base in Heathrow would cost the same as setting up a base in Liverpool and creating a hub in Liverpool would cost so much more than setting a hub in Abeerdeen.