A good reason for ETOPS; Misuse of frequency feature;

[Jona L.]

My point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic. Rather remove a few, such as the commonality punishment.

I disagree on that one. It IS a BIG cost jump for airlines to have fleets of different groups (IMO a contributing factor to Air Berlin's financial crisis (and hopefully soon BK)). There should however (as often feature requested) be part-commonalities such as B757 - B767 ones, or B737classics -B737NG ones, that would reduce gaps if you use these partly-commonal aircraft types. Adding 5 B744 to a fleet consisting of a couple of different Airbus types (say A300, A320 and A330) would be a hell of a lot of cost for the airline.

To list a few points: You need different parts, and replacements in storage for smaller maintenances thus need more storage which means more cost for maintaining the storage house, you need more mechanics for the new types, otherly trained pilots, more CC staff (a CC may only be certified for 3 a/c types), etc.

I like the earlier game versions where capacity did have an impact on results of MS. Since this game doesnt, then what other options does one have to survive?

It was even worse formerly, where there was no limit at all (now it is only a lot too high) and not the time-gap requirement. If you had 10 flights departing at the same time you still won over someone with 5 flights spread over the day.
What I preferred about previous games though, was that you could easier lock an airport slot-wise and thus stop the usage of such small planes, because people needed to fill demands with the few slots they had or they found.

Unfortunately, and this is my opinion only, this game doesn't offer enough options for different strategies, which would make the game more enjoyable (I believe) for more players.

Talking about the difference of a game and a simulation - There are people searching for realism (such as me and seemingly you), and there are people who search for a simple way of entertaining themselves (I feel entertained by it as well, just I need realism in such stuff), and I think these people are the majority here (at least the loudest shouters, as we have in this topic).

Maybe splitting these groups into different scenarios: "Normal" and "Realistic" ones would be a probable solution but one that would result in additional cost, which is not yet being covered...

IMO there should be no base limitation, I do think a type limitation based on # of AC is healthy. No airline can operate with 10 different planes having one of each. It mimics real life in a good way and makes you pick a strategy, you can go for long hauls, regional or whatever type airline you want. and potentially become the biggest regional airline in the game. if that's what your strategy is.

+1 on no base limit (I'd prefer no limit on number of bases AND number of aircraft at a base);

Why block players to kill themselves? I think this is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and make it a bit more challenging to stay profitable.

Or running an LLC, where price becomes more important than seat comfort and what not. At the end of the day, demand is based on price and price alone. If flying was free everybody would fly, people fly with airlines that offer lower cost but don't offer the same service or quality.

Price should indeed become more relevant, same as seating quality, so that a crappy seat requires a low price to get filled, and that people pay more for a better seat. I disagree that price alone makes the demand for three reasons: a) Consider travellers for companies who HAVE to fly, and when company pays it will be rather Lufthansa then Ryanair; b) People who travel in a higher class (C or F) cannot fly most of the LCCs as they don't offer such; last but not least c) people (like me) who care more for service and quality prefer airlines as Lufthansa to Ryanair anyways.

Also in the end, if you fly RYR and buy all the stuff that you get for free on normal carrier (such as DLH) (23Kg of Baggage; 2 drinks and a Sandwich on SH / 4 drinks and warm meal (or breakfast or dinner, up to time and direction of travel); reserved seats (on RYR you have free choice); and the Taxi/Train into the town you actually want to go to) you will be cheaper to fly DLH or other "Full" carrier than to fly RYR.

removing the used marked entirely would also be more beneficial, because right now people who F5 and spend ungodly amounts of time monitoring the used market get rewarded significantly. it's redundant, unfair and so far away from real life as you get.
in reality any airline in the world can get their hands on any used equipment they want.

Indeed, airlines can get to any aircraft they want ILFC, Boeing, Airbus and many more offer a lot of used planes for leasing and buying off them.

F5ing and Auto Refreshing have been made a lot harder (as it feels for a non-F5er), and will be nearly fully tweaked by the new feature in that regard.


cheers,
Jona L.

[Jona L.]

So you don't have any further arguments, or why did you stop replying?!

It was going on so well.... now the power is out, I feel the urgency to write a lot at the moment, so give me reasons to do so

[Curse]

Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten!

I have not and will not participate in this thread. It would be nice if it's not always I who all fingers point to when it's about who flamed around or made swiftus cry.

[16:00:29] schro: You got quoted by swiftus in it
[16:01:02] schro: then one of the mods told you to stop flamebaiting
[16:01:41] Curse: I'm this awesome, I get warned for threads I'm not actually posting in

[schro]

A320family is neither as fast (.79 vs. .82 on A330/40, and .85 on B777, additionally A320 uses a lower flight level resulting in an even lower GS), nor is it as comfortable, headspace, overhead storage and seating width are a lot smaller then on widebodies; also flying characteristics of A320 are less stable than the heavier (thus harder to influence) widebodies, resulting in less comfort.

The A320 series is wider than the 707/727/737/757, two of which types have been used in regular transatlantic service. As a general rule, the A320 is more comfortable from a passenger experience perspective than the Boeings.

I totally agree with you. I'm just stating facts here. Point is, the A321 can't make a trans-cont flight with normally expected payloads. At maximum payload, the range of a 321-200 is aprox. around 2400nm. Fwiw max range and ETOPS don't always correlate. Doesn't matter if you can meet etops and don't have the range to get to your destination if there is some head-wind. Thus isn't the A321 a realistic plane for transatlantic operations.

The 321-Neo should be able to do transcons and short transatlantic flights when it launches.

The true difficiency in my mind is that headwinds are not factored when computing range. The A321-200 can do eastbound US transcons all day long, its just the westbound that gives it trouble (as flight times can differ 2 hours between the two directions).  For this reason, you'll see MD83s and MD88s flying west coast to Hawaii in the game, when they'd end up in the ocean a few hundred miles away in real life....

a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.

I don't think there is any reason to call using planes for routes it wasn't "designed" for improper. An airline should utilize its assets in the best way to maximize its profit for its shareholders. If this means that A321's should be flying TATL with a stop in Iceland, then so be it, but when you look at the real world, the beancounters have determined that it is not the best course of action to maximize the company's profit.

The reason the "improper" use is so popular is that it is far more profitable to fly large narrowbodies on long haul as they offer similar per-seat economics as widebodies from an operational perspective while costing about half as much per seat from a leasing/purchasing perspective. If this change needs to be made, why not entice players with better economics for more "proper" use?

[swiftus27]

I have not and will not participate in this thread. It would be nice if it's not always I who all fingers point to when it's about who flamed around or made swiftus cry.

Why am I getting pulled back into this thread??

You shouldn't have been warned.

Just realize when I asked the same question in a previous thread, you gave me a completely douchebaggy response.

[Jona L.]

Why am I getting pulled back into this thread??

You shouldn't have been warned.

Just realize when I asked the same question in a previous thread, you gave me a completely douchebaggy response.

Keep it on topic, boys, clear that in PMs (quoting only swiftus, because of simplicity, as the use of the forums is crap on a mobile device)

The A320 series is wider than the 707/727/737/757, two of which types have been used in regular transatlantic service. As a general rule, the A320 is more comfortable from a passenger experience perspective than the Boeings.

The 321-Neo should be able to do transcons and short transatlantic flights when it launches.

The true difficiency in my mind is that headwinds are not factored when computing range. The A321-200 can do eastbound US transcons all day long, its just the westbound that gives it trouble (as flight times can differ 2 hours between the two directions).  For this reason, you'll see MD83s and MD88s flying west coast to Hawaii in the game, when they'd end up in the ocean a few hundred miles away in real life....

I don't think there is any reason to call using planes for routes it wasn't "designed" for improper. An airline should utilize its assets in the best way to maximize its profit for its shareholders. If this means that A321's should be flying TATL with a stop in Iceland, then so be it, but when you look at the real world, the beancounters have determined that it is not the best course of action to maximize the company's profit.

The reason the "improper" use is so popular is that it is far more profitable to fly large narrowbodies on long haul as they offer similar per-seat economics as widebodies from an operational perspective while costing about half as much per seat from a leasing/purchasing perspective. If this change needs to be made, why not entice players with better economics for more "proper" use?

The point about the 707 is, that at it's time it was the biggest plane available (besides DC-8 being about equally sized) thus nothing else COULD have been used. Also the demand in those times were lower, thus no too big need to fly larger planes.

Admitted B757 is a point, but I think swiftus will agree with me, that they are the ultimate medium-long-haul route busters. Though they are a bit larger than A321 at least in AWS.

I disagree about their comfort heavily! As a regular customer to DLH's short haul fleet I must say that 733/5 and CRJ7/9, even their AT42/72s BEAT their A320. Germanwings A319 are less comfy than RYR's 738 (which are both in all HD).


Your point about the TUSA flights tells enough already... So I say: model in the winds and crashes, and let them fall into the ATL or the PAC (talking of MD8X to Honululu)   - enough cynism -

Talking of A321 NEO is a different topic though. Though the problem is the same actually, but we shouldn't speculate about a plane that is not in AWS so far (IIRC).

Well, why they shouldn't use them: 40% esthetically reasons, 40% because unrealistic (as named above more than often) and 20% because it is just not kind towards people trying to run a serious airline.


Cheers,
Jona L.

[swiftus27]

okay, will alllll of this conversation something needs to be decided:

1.  Do you go for more realism?
2.  Do you continue as-is with the current setup?

We can debate all day about the ancillaries.

[Kadachiman]

3. You play the game with what the developer has given you

If the fuel consumption of a 747SP drops significantly below that of a A321-200 in V1.4 ... then we will all be F5..ing the Boeing used market instead of the Airbus used market  

[swiftus27]

3. You play the game with what the developer has given you

Isnt that the same as #2?

[Kadachiman]

Yea I guess it's close to a 2

Basically what I am saying is ...if the developer changes the game...then I and many others will change their strategies to suit....as to me this is a game.

I can't ever see myself taking this on as a Real Life Sim ...and comparing plane XYZ in this game with it's real life counterpart is pointless....as wayyyyyy to many variables are not taken into account to make me think of it as a Sim.

To me it will always be...a really great strategy game...it could be trains instead of planes..as long as it has enough playable parts to it to make it interesting..it's good by me.

[Jona L.]

okay, will alllll of this conversation something needs to be decided:

1.  Do you go for more realism?
2.  Do you continue as-is with the current setup?

We can debate all day about the ancillaries.

1. YES for sure I want such, or stop calling it AWS and call it AWG (Sim = Simulator = NOT a game --> so call it a game, if it isn't realistic)

2. I basically have to because as of today AWS is the best offer on the market, but I would leave immediately if there was an offer with more realism even at a higher price.

3. You play the game with what the developer has given you

If the fuel consumption of a 747SP drops significantly below that of a A321-200 in V1.4 ... then we will all be F5..ing the Boeing used market instead of the Airbus used market  

3. See reasoning of "2."

Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).


Anyhow, you should GET REAL we don't talk of B747SP vs. A321 as they aren't operated at the same time (okay, B747SP might be used by some 3rd-world countries still, but I think Olympic ceased operations anyways (will need some time for you guys to understand))
My point is a B744 (about 2x the size of the 747SP) or B773 (same size) or at least an A300/330 sized plane (--> ~1.4x the size with ~30-40% of fuel usage or B747SP) [All about 2-3 decades newer than 747SP] versus A321.
Which is about the difference between an DHC-6-300 and a B737-800, and the DHC-8 user would be hated if he used the plane on a 700PAX/day route, so why can't I hate the ones using A321 on 5500pax/day routes?!

END of post....

Jona L.

P.S. I think we are hitting a spot here... I have my point (with good reasons) and you have your points (with quantitative reasons)

[Kadachiman]

Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).

I'm actually not an F5er Jona, it was merely a phrase I used as I have seen it used here often.
You can check with Sami if you want and you will find that I have NEVER used F5, I rely on the refresh the page button, and have NEVER received the 'refresh too many times screen' that others have mentioned.

Anyway, yes I understand your frustrations as I would probably be a bit peeved as well if I understood the world of planes and the SIM didn't fit in with my understanding.
So you have a fair enough point, but we are coming at this discussion from different angles  

PS - I actually have respect for you as a player as you run one of the biggest and more efficient airlines in all game worlds I have seen, so hopefully over time your opinion of me will change.  

[Jona L.]

Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).

I'm actually not an F5er Jona, it was merely a phrase I used as I have seen it used here often.
You can check with Sami if you want and you will find that I have NEVER used F5, I rely on the refresh the page button, and have NEVER received the 'refresh too many times screen' that others have mentioned.

Anyway, yes I understand your frustrations as I would probably be a bit peeved as well if I understood the world of planes and the SIM didn't fit in with my understanding.
So you have a fair enough point, but we are coming at this discussion from different angles 

PS - I actually have respect for you as a player as you run one of the biggest and more efficient airlines in all game worlds I have seen, so hopefully over time your opinion of me will change. 

Well, it was a) a little poke ( ) and b) rather to knock out your arguments right away...

Anyhow, when I came here I had only few knowledge about planes and a bit more about economics. It took me about 6mth to get into the business and now (after >2yrs) I kindof need new challenges, and the current state is a) too easy and b) not simulative enough for ME, I know there are people who don't play here for the sake of simulations, but for the sake of enjoyment (which for me is the same). I also know that we come from different angles, I feel the headwind in this post, and it showed me that I am neither alone, nor in the majority with my opinion. I hope that more people will join my p.o.v. though.

Well, yes, I do pretty well run most of my airlines and in most cases I care for things that don't even matter much in AWS (such as fleet commonality which is in my eyes only 15% as strong as it should be, thus airlines running only 2 fleet types get not rewarded enough). But I think the well commonalized fleet gives me more strength in times of fuel spikes...
Your airline(s) never stroke my eyes, thus I have no opinion of you at all, so nothing to become changed.

cheers,
Jona L.

[alexgv1]

I think ETOPS would be cool and there was a little discussion in feature requests. Sami said it wasnt feasible because:

This isn't a feasible request since 1) we are not modeling airways, flight routes or anything in such way. The route is always a great circle route, added with some extras to cover the routings & vectors

Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.

[vitongwangki]

Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.

I do agree the operations now is just too simple, introducing more detail would hard for Sami but it could bring a lot of challenge and interest here.

And if the competition model/algorithm improves, it would be great. 

[Sanabas]

Well, why they shouldn't use them: 40% esthetically reasons, 40% because unrealistic (as named above more than often) and 20% because it is just not kind towards people trying to run a serious airline.

I think this is a poor choice of words. My DotM airline is a serious one. I've put a lot of effort into it, and I'm very serious about reaching some of the goals I've set for myself in terms of revenue, number of destinations, etc. I'm also flying ATRs 2000 nm, F100s 3000+ nm, a320s 5000 nm, and 757s 4000 nm direct and 7000+ with tech stops. I'm serious about reaching my goals, I'm not serious about conforming only to what I think real airlines do. If anything, I'm serious about seeing what I can do that may not be practical for real airlines. I like how complicated my route map looks.

The implication that anyone running an airline on a model different to the one you want isn't playing seriously is one that makes it much easier to unilaterally dismiss your other views.

+1 on no base limit (I'd prefer no limit on number of bases AND number of aircraft at a base);

Why block players to kill themselves? I think this is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and make it a bit more challenging to stay profitable.

What happens to people who don't want to build a multi-billion dollar airline, or who start the game 5 years later than everyone else? Currently, the worst that can happen is a bigger airline opens a base at their airport, and can stick 100 planes there. 100 planes isn't enough to fill most big airports, it still leaves plenty of scope for non-monster airlines to operate. Allowing the monster airlines to fill as many airports as they can acquire planes for will remove most of that.

2. I basically have to because as of today AWS is the best offer on the market, but I would leave immediately if there was an offer with more realism even at a higher price.

Admittedly the price is a LOT higher, but if you want 100% realism, then why not just start your own airline? It doesn't matter how realistic a simulation game gets, it's still going to be a game.

Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.

I agree that the operations being more of a logistical challenge would certainly increase my interest. I just don't think ETOPS will help with that, as it won't change operations at all, you'll still simply need to check if a plane can fly route x, and how many pax it can carry, same as now. All that needs to be changed is the algorithm that assigns pax, which shouldn't be hard to do from a gameplay perspective, may or may not be difficult from a programming perspective. Split the demand into smaller blocks of time, allow them to carry over into other blocks, keep the penalties for land/takeoff at night, increase the preference for quicker flight time, increase the preference for no tech stop. No more problems with frequency bonuses, routes that fly 2-3 x a week become viable, and setting up your schedule takes more thought & planning.

[Jona L.]

I think this is a poor choice of words. My DotM airline is a serious one. I've put a lot of effort into it, and I'm very serious about reaching some of the goals I've set for myself in terms of revenue, number of destinations, etc. I'm also flying ATRs 2000 nm, F100s 3000+ nm, a320s 5000 nm, and 757s 4000 nm direct and 7000+ with tech stops. I'm serious about reaching my goals, I'm not serious about conforming only to what I think real airlines do. If anything, I'm serious about seeing what I can do that may not be practical for real airlines. I like how complicated my route map looks.

This is exactly what I aim against, in real life no airline would do that because it is a) completely unprofitable to do so and b) barely any passenger would stay aboard an ATR for 8hrs and more including a tech-stop. And I want AWS to give back the figure - meaning: in AWS there should be the same as in real life "designed optimums" (as of Real Life B777-200LR was designed to fly 10000NM routes and is designed to be most efficient on 8000NM+ flights, in AWS if you'd use it on such routes you'd be of the doomed).

The implication that anyone running an airline on a model different to the one you want isn't playing seriously is one that makes it much easier to unilaterally dismiss your other views.

Just because I shot off all your yet brought up arguments you reduce it to the personal factor now? Certificate of Poverty!
I do not call other airlines unserious blindly, just those (as yours) that misuse some features that were built in for other reasons (e.g. the small plane preference of PAX to save smaller airlines). I do accept other business models of course, as long as they don't a) misuse features; b) slot-limit an airport without a necessity (e.g. A321 out of LHR to US destinations) and c) remain in a frame that can be called realistic.

What happens to people who don't want to build a multi-billion dollar airline, or who start the game 5 years later than everyone else? Currently, the worst that can happen is a bigger airline opens a base at their airport, and can stick 100 planes there. 100 planes isn't enough to fill most big airports, it still leaves plenty of scope for non-monster airlines to operate. Allowing the monster airlines to fill as many airports as they can acquire planes for will remove most of that.

Option a) Start the game at day one (24hrs time for that )
Option b) Learn to play, I joined JetAge#2 (the second "#2" JetAge) 65% through into a filled HND and became a top-20 airline before the end of the game...
Option c) Choose smaller airport?! Of Course the first page of airports in the world (sorting by size) is full after 5 yrs. You shouldn't try to start in LHR after 5yrs unless there was a big BK (leading us to next option)
Option d) Wait for a big airline to BK (happens more often than you may think, so many players have "real life commitments" [The right people know what I mean, the others don't need to know what this hints at])

Admittedly the price is a LOT higher, but if you want 100% realism, then why not just start your own airline? It doesn't matter how realistic a simulation game gets, it's still going to be a game.

It is on my planned tasks for my life, yet I am only 18, and not yet through the 13yrs of school we have in Germany, to follow a Master-Study of Logistics. Also I am planning to work for the only really good airline in the world [Lufthansa] first, before I will show Willie Walsh how to rule LHR ; seriously I am planning to run an airline in the coming future, maybe not LHR but you will see, and in case I am still here I will let you know

cheers,
Jona L.

[RushmoreAir]

I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.

What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"?  He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only.  That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.

[Sanabas]

This is exactly what I aim against, in real life no airline would do that because it is a) completely unprofitable to do so and b) barely any passenger would stay aboard an ATR for 8hrs and more including a tech-stop. And I want AWS to give back the figure - meaning: in AWS there should be the same as in real life "designed optimums" (as of Real Life B777-200LR was designed to fly 10000NM routes and is designed to be most efficient on 8000NM+ flights, in AWS if you'd use it on such routes you'd be of the doomed).

Just because I shot off all your yet brought up arguments you reduce it to the personal factor now? Certificate of Poverty!
I do not call other airlines unserious blindly, just those (as yours) that misuse some features that were built in for other reasons (e.g. the small plane preference of PAX to save smaller airlines). I do accept other business models of course, as long as they don't a) misuse features; b) slot-limit an airport without a necessity (e.g. A321 out of LHR to US destinations) and c) remain in a frame that can be called realistic.

Nothing personal about it. I'm just pointing out that after you used (and later apologised for) pejorative language in your OP, you're doing it again, this time saying that airlines who pay more attention to game mechanics than exactly what happens in real life aren't serious. If you want to say that the way I run my airline shouldn't be viable because you don't like it, no worries. There are things I'm doing that I don't think should be viable. But if you want to say my airline is a joke/I'm not taking the game seriously because you don't like the way I run it, that is going to be counter-productive, that is going to make me for one respect you far less.

Flying an ATR with decent quality seats 1800 NM on a route with 40 pax demand is something I don't have a problem with. Flying 3 daily ATRs (9 hrs+ with a tech stop) from UUEE-LEMD, and getting almost 60% of the market when my competitors are flying 1 daily MD82 and 1 daily 737-200 (6 hours direct) and getting 20% of the market each, that shouldn't happen. But as long as it does, I'll keep doing it.

I want some of the game mechanics to change, I've explained how I'd do it. I don't think insulting airlines who effectively use some of the game mechanics I don't like is a useful way to go about trying to get those mechanics changed.

Option a) Start the game at day one (24hrs time for that )
Option b) Learn to play, I joined JetAge#2 (the second "#2" JetAge) 65% through into a filled HND and became a top-20 airline before the end of the game...
Option c) Choose smaller airport?! Of Course the first page of airports in the world (sorting by size) is full after 5 yrs. You shouldn't try to start in LHR after 5yrs unless there was a big BK (leading us to next option)
Option d) Wait for a big airline to BK (happens more often than you may think, so many players have "real life commitments" [The right people know what I mean, the others don't need to know what this hints at])

I know how to play, thanks. Come and join DOTM at a near 100% full UUEE, my airline's only been there just under 6 years, you've still got 8+ years gametime to make a top 20 airline if you're good enough. 

The other options miss the point. I'm not talking about those players who want to build a massive airline. I'm talking about those players who want to run a smaller airline, who want to meet certain goals rather than just be as big as possible. LHR will have 2-3 big airlines HQed there, of course starting there 5 years in isn't going to be a great idea. But with unlimited bases and unlimited planes at bases, many smaller airports will have a big airline with an effective HQ there, and they won't be viable starting points either. Rather than having to worry about a big airline turning up with 100 planes, they have to worry about a big airline turning up with 250 planes and flooding all their routes. To use DOTM as an example, UBBB & UTTT are currently viable (though challenging) places to start an airline, they both have 70 of my planes based there, but there's no way for me to bring more capacity, there's no way for me to bring smaller planes if a competitor airline appears. Remove that restriction, and they'd be far less viable places to start because I'd already have more planes at them, and I'd be able to respond far better to what a competitor does. It's a gameplay change that will help make being a very large airline more viable, and being a smaller/regional/newer airline much less viable. It'll be even more pronounced when it's in a very long game world. It decreases flexibility of business plan, and again seems only based on personal preference.

As for option d, I assume that's a thinly veiled shot an DanDantes. Made in a post where you're complaining about me getting personal. 


If you want to be constructive, how about explaining exactly what changes you'd implement to achieve the results you want? So far, all I've seen is we should remove all restrictions on number of bases/number of planes, that we should add ETOPS (which will only change the range of planes, won't do a thing to address issues like my Moscow-Madrid flights) and that any bonuses for frequency should be removed entirely. So presumably pax demand will be filled purely based on number of seats supplied, modified by CI/RI and having flights at night. If I'm not correct about that, then please explain how you want pax to be assigned to planes. If I am correct, then please explain how you'd fix some of the very unrealistic things that model would introduce, such as making the best way to fill a route like EGLL-EGCC be with 2 daily a380s carrying 750+ pax each?

Or tell me what problems you see/what things you agree with when it comes to what I proposed earlier in the thread.

[Jona L.]

I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.

What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"?  He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only.  That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.

Though I like the suggestion I have to ask: What's the point of adding this stuff if only the 10% of top-players would use it?! Though I'd like to see more being done for the long term players than for the newcomers, as that took majority over the last year (at least it feels like it, and I've been talking to enough people who feel the same).
But thanks for your idea, Rushmore I appreciate that some people actually come with possible solutions.

Nothing personal about it. I'm just pointing out that after you used (and later apologised for) pejorative language in your OP, you're doing it again, this time saying that airlines who pay more attention to game mechanics than exactly what happens in real life aren't serious. If you want to say that the way I run my airline shouldn't be viable because you don't like it, no worries. There are things I'm doing that I don't think should be viable. But if you want to say my airline is a joke/I'm not taking the game seriously because you don't like the way I run it, that is going to be counter-productive, that is going to make me for one respect you far less.


Flying an ATR with decent quality seats 1800 NM on a route with 40 pax demand is something I don't have a problem with. Flying 3 daily ATRs (9 hrs+ with a tech stop) from UUEE-LEMD, and getting almost 60% of the market when my competitors are flying 1 daily MD82 and 1 daily 737-200 (6 hours direct) and getting 20% of the market each, that shouldn't happen. But as long as it does, I'll keep doing it.

I want some of the game mechanics to change, I've explained how I'd do it. I don't think insulting airlines who effectively use some of the game mechanics I don't like is a useful way to go about trying to get those mechanics changed.

Well, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.
My main point is anyhow less that one (in this case you) overuses it but that it works out. It is simply unrealistic that it works, thus my point is: make it impossible to do impossible things here. Even the rise in slot cost doesn't help anymore, as those airlines too soon make enough money to cover this. And since the latest tweak in the LH income (was discussed earlier) a long-haul airline cannot cover these cost any near that fast.

I know how to play, thanks. Come and join DOTM at a near 100% full UUEE, my airline's only been there just under 6 years, you've still got 8+ years gametime to make a top 20 airline if you're good enough.  

a) I don't play USSR/former USSR states, neither to I play any country east of the German-German border and west of China (with the exception of countries south of the Himalaya (e.g. Dubai; India; etc.)

b) I don't play from airports under class 5 and from lower than 2nd page of whole world listing.

c) I dislike the current DotM

The other options miss the point. I'm not talking about those players who want to build a massive airline. I'm talking about those players who want to run a smaller airline, who want to meet certain goals rather than just be as big as possible. LHR will have 2-3 big airlines HQed there, of course starting there 5 years in isn't going to be a great idea. But with unlimited bases and unlimited planes at bases, many smaller airports will have a big airline with an effective HQ there, and they won't be viable starting points either. Rather than having to worry about a big airline turning up with 100 planes, they have to worry about a big airline turning up with 250 planes and flooding all their routes. To use DOTM as an example, UBBB & UTTT are currently viable (though challenging) places to start an airline, they both have 70 of my planes based there, but there's no way for me to bring more capacity, there's no way for me to bring smaller planes if a competitor airline appears. Remove that restriction, and they'd be far less viable places to start because I'd already have more planes at them, and I'd be able to respond far better to what a competitor does. It's a gameplay change that will help make being a very large airline more viable, and being a smaller/regional/newer airline much less viable. It'll be even more pronounced when it's in a very long game world. It decreases flexibility of business plan, and again seems only based on personal preference.

As for option d, I assume that's a thinly veiled shot an DanDantes. Made in a post where you're complaining about me getting personal.  

They don't miss the point, as you were talking of smaller airlines, which don't need to occupy an airport like LHR or CDG but can surely be happy with TXL, ARN, KUL, SYD, etc. - Stop talking about small airlines, or accept that my point is right.

What you say about "d)" is just your interpretation, which can be wrong or right, I will not comment.

If you want to be constructive, how about explaining exactly what changes you'd implement to achieve the results you want? So far, all I've seen is we should remove all restrictions on number of bases/number of planes, that we should add ETOPS (which will only change the range of planes, won't do a thing to address issues like my Moscow-Madrid flights) and that any bonuses for frequency should be removed entirely. So presumably pax demand will be filled purely based on number of seats supplied, modified by CI/RI and having flights at night. If I'm not correct about that, then please explain how you want pax to be assigned to planes. If I am correct, then please explain how you'd fix some of the very unrealistic things that model would introduce, such as making the best way to fill a route like EGLL-EGCC be with 2 daily a380s carrying 750+ pax each?

Or tell me what problems you see/what things you agree with when it comes to what I proposed earlier in the thread.

Admitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.
I do follow the removal of these techniques, though I must row back on the frequency a bit, as I didn't yet think of these short legs (I normally use EGLL-EGCC only as a gap-filler on my Long Hauls, and don't fly SH from LHR).

So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:

Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;

Reduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.

That from my side, I hope that the idea finds its friends (and if not the part about the bases, maybe at least the part about the freq-bonus).

cheers and a nice day,
Jona L.