[-] Increased start capital for later starters

[Alien]

Sami wrote in one of his posts, that there are enough slots open in different games, that are more or less half done. I for myself decided not to join any of those, as You have hardly a chance to compete against the big airlines with Your small 2 aircraft airline. All the good airports are already crowded, and from the smaller ones, the good connections are flown by Your competitors as well. Specially in the EU, or US, where the big ones open bases in the second rate airports, You have hardly a chance to be successful. (Well, successful is a question of definition, but I won't spend my credits on an airline, where I can successfully operate 4 regional props with hardly any chance to grow.)

To ease the situation for late starters, I would suggest an increase of the starting capital. The amount is discussable, but I would suggest 20 - 50% per year. I know, there will be a lot of answers now, that the starting situation should be the same for everyone, but it cannot be. The starting situation for someone, who starts two hours later is no longer the same, as for the player, who starts just in the first minutes.

Best greatings
Alien

[Alien]

I have to add one thing:

To make the extreme growth of some airlines a little bit slower, I would substantially increase the number of managers necessary with additional bases and lots of aircraft.

BG
Alien

[JumboShrimp]

I have to add one thing:

To make the extreme growth of some airlines a little bit slower, I would substantially increase the number of managers necessary with additional bases and lots of aircraft.

BG
Alien

I don't know if you ever tried additional bases.  The penalty is alreay in place, and it is far more than what would be reasonable, IMO.

The effect is that the very best players still manage to grow, good players manage to stay afloat after opening additional bases - barely, because the profits are gone.  For everyone else (those who can operate an airline well enough to get to the point of opening a base) the high overhead of additional base is #1 reason of bankruptcy.

[Sigma]

I have to add one thing:

To make the extreme growth of some airlines a little bit slower, I would substantially increase the number of managers necessary with additional bases and lots of aircraft.

BG
Alien

There's a more than 30% penalty in salary requirements for each additional base you have.  So, if you have 3 bases vs 1, every route you open requires more than double the number of people to operate.  And it doesn't just apply to new routes, it applies to every route you've got -- so, for example, if I were to open a 2nd additional base in the Alliance Challenge game right now, it would cost me $20M per week just for the privilege of opening it not even counting any additional people I'd hire as a result of new routes there, which is far more money than I'd ever make on it.  It's really quite staggering and is a leading cause of bankruptcy of players, in particular since this additional cost you'll be incurring isn't mentioned within the game at all.

As for your original point, though I see where you're trying to get, I don't think it'd solve any problem.  The problem with new players entering the game late has nothing to do with money and everything to do with predatory business practices by incumbents.  No amount of money (well, nothing short of a massive hoard of billions) is going to make you survive when you move into a base with an airline worth billions who floods every route you open on.

[JumboShrimp]

As for your original point, though I see where you're trying to get, I don't think it'd solve any problem.  The problem with new players entering the game late has nothing to do with money and everything to do with predatory business practices by incumbents.  No amount of money (well, nothing short of a massive hoard of billions) is going to make you survive when you move into a base with an airline worth billions who floods every route you open on.

Maybe Swiftus could write a new chapter: Guide to newbs - fastest way to bankruptcy.

1. Start at airport with profitable incumbant who is flying all the profitable routes
2. Lease a jet as your first a/c - the bigger the better
3. Fly your jet on the bussiest routes - To ATL, LHR, ORD, LAX etc.
4. When selecting the first route, make sure you select one that has at least 100% demand met, even better 200% or more.

...

5. If you avoided most of the points 1 through 4 and failed to end up in bankruptcy, open a 2nd base at the earliest possible moment.

[minerva]

As for your original point, though I see where you're trying to get, I don't think it'd solve any problem.  The problem with new players entering the game late has nothing to do with money and everything to do with predatory business practices by incumbents.  No amount of money (well, nothing short of a massive hoard of billions) is going to make you survive when you move into a base with an airline worth billions who floods every route you open on.

Granted there needs to be something else done to alleviate predatory practices on the part of existing airlines, but I for one agree that players starting later in the game ought to have more capital.  For one thing, basic inflation is not modeled into the start-up capital, so players starting more than a few year's after the start date are at the further disadvantage in that their start-up capital goes less far than those who began the game at the start. Later starting players are at a competitive disadvantage given that many, if not most, really profitable routes will already be filled.  Beyond the blind luck of starting right after a major player has lost interest and left the game leaving a major port empty as a base, the only compensatory advantage of starting later (ie after more than 35% of the game is over) is that the used a/c market is likely to have lots to choose from.  Predatory big airlines need to be dealt with, but beyond that there is a case that leveling the playing field mid game requires late starters some more cash to gain a foothold.

[Sigma]

For one thing, basic inflation is not modeled into the start-up capital, so players starting more than a few year's after the start date are at the further disadvantage in that their start-up capital goes less far than those who began the game at the start.

Actually, on this point, you are incorrect.  The startup capital increases monthly based on the same inflationary pressures that exist in the game-world itself.  Everyone starting at any time during the game gets exactly the same start-up capital when adjusted for inflation.

[schro]

Actually, on this point, you are incorrect.  The startup capital increases monthly based on the same inflationary pressures that exist in the game-world itself.  Everyone starting at any time during the game gets exactly the same start-up capital when adjusted for inflation.

While the are indexed to the inflation index of the game that runs the costs/revenues/etc within the engine, I don't think they're well indexed to true inflation, which is defined by the declining purchasing power of currency over time.

Operational costs and revenues are pretty consistant, but given the market driven pricing for aircraft, the most popular models are always at the top of their price band, even late into a game - thus, those that started early paid market/below market rates for planes, while those that join late typically pay more of a premium for the plane.

A great example is the affordability of the 77W to a new airline that starts circa 2010 or so in any game world. The Swiftus guide to bankrupcty would only need one step - Lease a 77W and fly it on a route that has unmet demand. The leasing cost will destroy you very quickly every time

[Sigma]

Operational costs and revenues are pretty consistant, but given the market driven pricing for aircraft, the most popular models are always at the top of their price band, even late into a game - thus, those that started early paid market/below market rates for planes, while those that join late typically pay more of a premium for the plane.

True, but any startup relying on purchased planes for its very first aircraft is doomed anyway, particularly if they're trying to nab one of those high-demand models you speak of.

After the first plane, startup capital becomes a virtual moot point because your profits will far exceed any marginal increase in startup capital to account for aircraft price inflation.

[minerva]

Sigma, thank-you for the correction on the inflation-adjusted start up money: I hadn't noticed there was any increase in start up, mainly because I haven't started early and then restarted much later into the game (or remembered the initial amounts).  I'm glad that it is modeled.  

However, I think Schro was pointing out that even leasing more popular models is more difficult later in the game for new start-ups because market pressures on such planes move beyond regular inflation.  I agree, and that was part of my original point.  

Even discounting predatory practices, unless one opts for a total backwater, for a late start up to be competitive with any established airlines it needs reasonably modern and efficient aircraft.  Starting with ancient airframes works at the beginning of a gameworld because pretty much everyone is forced to; later in the game a new player has to contend with established airlines with up-to-date fleets. I realize you can build a top-20 airline late in a game with the money now provided: I managed to do it in my first game, Euro Challenge 2.  I think it maybe harder to do so now.  All I am suggesting, is that it might help later start-ups (particularly newer players) to get a foothold in a scenario if they were able to afford some better a/c from the get go. I may well be wrong, and I trust more experienced players and player-developers to point out why.  There has been a lot of whining about the playability of the game after the first few game years on a number of forums and I'm trying to be constructive.
  

[Sami]

Higher start-up capital is already modeled, it goes up with the inflation.