After Jet Age...

[psw231]

  Mid 50's till mid 80's, Early Days + Jet Age +/- a bit.

[schro]

Too long for the game system or too long in real life?
You can make it 20minutes/game day to shorten it.

The servers can't keep up with that speed game clock in a large world from what I understand.

[slannoy]

The servers can't keep up with that speed game clock in a large world from what I understand.

Not only the servers but the players also. Most of us can't be every hour front of their screen to look at their companies. 30min day give us  +/- 1.5 month by real day and +/-one year a week (or short of). Not to quick not too slow.

[Dave4468]

USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.

With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.

[losgatitospeligrosos]

USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.

With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.

That'd be a difficult game. Couldn't have many players either.

[raptorva]

USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.

With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.

I'd definately give that a shot too.
Been wanting something like that a while to force people to use the Soviet aircraft only (not like in current games that have ended and just passed in MT2 where a Moscow based airline ordered 30+ Boeing 737-300's... )

[TranceAvia]

is there anyway the purchase price could be effected by location. such as soviet countries getting cheaper eastern aircraft but western builds would be higher priced due to import tax?

[L1011fan]

1965-1978 time frame, regional jet travel scenario, keep it to 2/3 months. Keep it low on the props and concentrate on 727/727/DC-9/BAC-111/Trident. no more than 300 people please.

[ban2]

1955 till 1979 full world, nice to run a fleet of electras and other 4 engine props

[GDK]

Wow.... Everyone got a nice idea. 

[Dookz]

Early days. Random hub airport anywhere in the world. Size 4 and 5 for your HQ.

[[ATA] APB Airlines]

i would just like the worlds to be 300 people i will deal with the rest of the rules

[GDK]

Yes, many people like 300 players game. But the issue of 'will it affect the game' is still to be discussed. Peoples are having different opinion on that.

[ban2]

why not have 2 game worlds one of 500 and the other 300, some people seem to prefer the easier 300 whilst others like me prefer the 500.

[[ATA] APB Airlines]

truthfully i am at the point of saying just star a world. i dont care what now it has been a week of saying we should do this that and the other thing.

[L1011fan]

would prefer not to have a game where jets are not available right away. I get REALLY bored with having to start out with props. I say no earlier than 1965 with full compliment of twin and tri-jets available at the time and some props for those who really want them. The Lockheed Electra was the best and to be applauded, but I'd rather go right into the game and be able pull out a DC-9 or 727 right from the start. I'm still routing for the scenario during the height of the regional airline era with some Trident/DC-9/737/727/BAC-111/and Caravelles. For props I'd say make a lot of F-27's available. Popular during the era for the low density routes. And maybe some Electras too. PSA use fly Electras from KBUR/KLAX to KTVL for years. Lets have a game that also keeps moving instead of having to wait for jets as proposed by another player.

[L1011fan]

truthfully i am at the point of saying just star a world. i dont care what now it has been a week of saying we should do this that and the other thing.

Oh well! Thats how ideas are hatched. Don't come into this topic any more then.

[L1011fan]

Yes, many people like 300 players game. But the issue of 'will it affect the game' is still to be discussed. Peoples are having different opinion on that.

Shouldn't really except for downsizing double hub requirements. I say 10 planes for a double hub in a shorter game. Thats really the only difference I can think of.

[Sigma]

Shouldn't really except for downsizing double hub requirements. I say 10 planes for a double hub in a shorter game. Thats really the only difference I can think of.

Of course it affects the game.

That's far too few people for a full-world scenario and makes the game super-easy... for a portion of the players.  People always want to point at the number of players in a world as some cause for their failures, but fewer players makes the game-world even harder for those that already have a hard time with the game.

In a game-world with a lot of people, people begin treading on one another a lot sooner.  This increases competition, stifles margins to at least slightly more realistic levels, and slows growth as a result.  This creates a much more balanced world of comparably-sized airlines in a healthy competition.  The one downside is that late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at.

In a game-world with fewer people, those who really know how to play the game well explode out of the gates and can increase in size at a much quicker pace because they can grow much more before ever stepping on someone else's toes.  They've got bases popping up all over the place before the vast majority of people even hit their stride.  This, in effect, causes there to essentially be more players because there's more bases popping up all over, and bases from people making a much larger margin than they could be in a world with more players.  More margins means means more ability to knock others out with far greater ease.  Soon the game is dominated by a relative handful of players controlling the vast majority of the world's traffic, each so large that they could never hope to take one another out.

In the end, fewer players doesn't mean that you're increasing your odds of getting an unoccupied base that so many people think it does.  Instead it only greatly increases the odds that your base will be occupied by someone with a mammoth airline at some point in the near future, whether it be a result of the new base system, or them using it as a ABCBA route if that feature were to come back.  You're much better off in a more populated world where, chances are, you and your in-base competitior started at the same time, are more likely to be on the same footing, and your combined capacity is more likely to deter expansionists.

And this isn't just conjecture or something on my part.  If you've ever looked at the game stats, you can see exactly that.  In the larger worlds, the players are much more tighly packed together in terms of their overall stats.  In smaller worlds, there is a massive disparity between the "top" handful of airlines and everyone else.

[psw231]

Of course it affects the game.

That's far too few people for a full-world scenario and makes the game super-easy... for a portion of the players.  People always want to point at the number of players in a world as some cause for their failures, but fewer players makes the game-world even harder for those that already have a hard time with the game.

In a game-world with a lot of people, people begin treading on one another a lot sooner.  This increases competition, stifles margins to at least slightly more realistic levels, and slows growth as a result.  This creates a much more balanced world of comparably-sized airlines in a healthy competition.  The one downside is that late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at.

In a game-world with fewer people, those who really know how to play the game well explode out of the gates and can increase in size at a much quicker pace because they can grow much more before ever stepping on someone else's toes.  They've got bases popping up all over the place before the vast majority of people even hit their stride.  This, in effect, causes there to essentially be more players because there's more bases popping up all over, and bases from people making a much larger margin than they could be in a world with more players.  More margins means means more ability to knock others out with far greater ease.  Soon the game is dominated by a relative handful of players controlling the vast majority of the world's traffic, each so large that they could never hope to take one another out.

In the end, fewer players doesn't mean that you're increasing your odds of getting an unoccupied base that so many people think it does.  Instead it only greatly increases the odds that your base will be occupied by someone with a mammoth airline at some point in the near future, whether it be a result of the new base system, or them using it as a ABCBA route if that feature were to come back.  You're much better off in a more populated world where, chances are, you and your in-base competitior started at the same time, are more likely to be on the same footing, and your combined capacity is more likely to deter expansionists.

And this isn't just conjecture or something on my part.  If you've ever looked at the game stats, you can see exactly that.  In the larger worlds, the players are much more tighly packed together in terms of their overall stats.  In smaller worlds, there is a massive disparity between the "top" handful of airlines and everyone else.

Very well said Sigma.