Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting

[vitongwangki]

I don't feel to guilty if I've earnt that sandbox...  

Esp. when my airline has bigger company value than one not inside sandbox  

[JumboShrimp]

The 200% limit isn't a clearcut number (because demand isn't a clearcut number, because you're not sure exactly what seating arrangement your alliancemate has, etc), and I'm 99% certain the system doesn't automatically pick it up the way it does 200% from a single airline (I *think* LFPO-LLBG in JA has over 200% between my 2 flights and western global's 2 flights. I'm not sure though.) So any violation of it would need to be reported & manually looked at, and there's plenty of scope for saying 'we thought we were only at 190%/I reported them because I thought they were over 200%'. Simply saying that 2 airlines in the same base can't share a route is far less ambiguous, should only be correctly reported, far quicker to check if it gets reported, and not open to misinterpretation.

You may be right, I am not sure if the 200% limit is system enforced, or just a written rule.  There may already be 75% of the code there to extend the oversupply rule to alliances.  If it is (extended), none of the moderators would need to get involved.   The same procedure could be followed (alerts sent, and possibly routes closed).  All the "Oversupply" threads disappeared once system started enforcing the rule, and that is probably the best way to handle it, not to waste Sami's and other moderators' time...

[JumboShrimp]

I would say if in some large airport, 200 planes isn't enough to serve half of the demand. I think the limit should lift up in some big airports (maybe top 50 airports?)

I agree.  The limit should be lifted for large airports, or removed completely.

[alexgv1]

I agree.  The limit should be lifted for large airports, or removed completely.

As it stands, you can base up to 300 aircraft at 3 other airports (100 each). Working on Jona's thread (multiple bases in one airport), how about you can base 300 planes altogether, and decide how many base airports to put them in, all in one or other end of the extreme, 1 in each of 300. This allows a player to dominate more than one large airport (outside of HQ) but also allows smaller airlines to grow bigger by having many bases.

[stevecree]

You may be right, I am not sure if the 200% limit is system enforced, or just a written rule. 

It is a system limit Jumbo. Cross the 200% threshold and the anti-monopoly crew send you nasty messages demanding you reduce within a month - or they'll do it for you !

[JumboShrimp]

As it stands, you can base up to 300 aircraft at 3 other airports (100 each). Working on Jona's thread (multiple bases in one airport), how about you can base 300 planes altogether, and decide how many base airports to put them in, all in one or other end of the extreme, 1 in each of 300. This allows a player to dominate more than one large airport (outside of HQ) but also allows smaller airlines to grow bigger by having many bases.

That would be a step in a positive direction, but I would still prefer limits increased or completely removed.

The change from 1.2 to 1.3 was a positive one.  Removing the basing restrictions and increasing the limit to 100 (in addition to lowering the crushing overhead increase) had only positive effects.  Top airports are no longer fortresses, and there is more competition all around.  I don't think it had any negative effect.  Increasing the limits further (or removing the limits alltogether) would only bring more of the good thing.

And there is still the limit of delivery rate of the aircraft.  If an airline over-expands, it is likely to crumble under its own weight, as more efficient airlines compete with it...

[JumboShrimp]

It is a system limit Jumbo. Cross the 200% threshold and the anti-monopoly crew send you nasty messages demanding you reduce within a month - or they'll do it for you !

I know about the single airline limit.  But Sanabas and I were wondering if the same limit works across airlines that are in the same alliance.  If the system does not enforce the limit on per alliance bases, it could be expanded to do so.

[stevecree]

Ahhhh sorry...I get you now.

[Sigma]

I know about the single airline limit.  But Sanabas and I were wondering if the same limit works across airlines that are in the same alliance.  If the system does not enforce the limit on per alliance bases, it could be expanded to do so.

It's not presently system-enforced, no.  Alliances supplying over 200% of demand require a manual complaint be filed.

[Miller11]

Another option would be that in the top 40 airports only 1 Alliance member is allowed (except in main hub i.e Alliance 1 airline 1 main hub LHR alliance 1 airline 2 can also set up a 2nd base in LHR) thus giving some form of protection in every Airlines main hub. In all other cases within the top 40 airports there should be no A/c limit as this will allow competition but at the same time stop the targeting of an airline with the intention to bankrupt them.

[JumboShrimp]

Another option would be that in the top 40 airports only 1 Alliance member is allowed (except in main hub i.e Alliance 1 airline 1 main hub LHR alliance 1 airline 2 can also set up a 2nd base in LHR) thus giving some form of protection in every Airlines main hub. In all other cases within the top 40 airports there should be no A/c limit as this will allow competition but at the same time stop the targeting of an airline with the intention to bankrupt them.

Why should huge airlines have this protection if small airlines don't have it?  If a small airline has 50 aircraft and somebody comes in with 100, I think that airline has a tough competition.  Why should not a big airline face the same level of competition?  And the same level of competition for 500 aircraft airline would be facing 1000 aircraft (from whatever source).

[JumboShrimp]

Following up:

If there was no aircraft limit at bases, you could conceivably limit number of airlines from one alliance basing somewhere.  But even that is cumbersome.  Suppose there is no one at an airport, and Airline A and Airline B from the same alliance open bases at the same airport.  Airline A has fleets good for short haul, Airline B has fleets good for LH.  Now even something as innocent as this would be prevented.

A good guiding principle to whenever anyone says limit is to say: wrong unless proven otherwise

We just end up with absolutely crazy situations we have now such as inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada.  Or inability to refuel at places that were the real life refueling airports.  We ended up there because people called for limits and nobody said wrong unless proven otherwise

[minerva]

We just end up with absolutely crazy situations we have now such as inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada.  Or inability to refuel at places that were the real life refueling airports.  We ended up there because people called for limits and nobody said wrong unless proven otherwise

Not questioning your principle, just your example - IS there an 'inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada'? because I thought it was established through a previous thread that right now, regardless of how an airport is classified, that limit does NOT exist.  And the 'western Canada' thing makes no sense, unless you actually mean the Eastern Canadian Arctic.

[JumboShrimp]

Not questioning your principle, just your example - IS there an 'inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada'? because I thought it was established through a previous thread that right now, regardless of how an airport is classified, that limit does NOT exist.  And the 'western Canada' thing makes no sense, unless you actually mean the Eastern Canadian Arctic.

This is kind of sidetrackig from the original subject, but that is exactly what I meant.  I went through just about every airport West of Ontario, and the airports are either "Large" (with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit disallowing refueling a certain "Large" airports, "Small" (some with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit, and there are some in-between (medium, significant), none with runways long enough.

And for extra measure, add to this area the US North West with no very large aircraft refueling....

For those can't picture how large this area is, it is approximately area of the entire Europe + Ukraine + Belarus + big part of Russia where because of made up limitations, it is impossible to refuel a very large aircraft.  (Well, there is one, Winnipeg, which is so close to Ontario and US border that it does not count).

[Tujue]

- Airline or alliance may not directly target another airline on his routes.
  - Now this is where it gets tricky. I know that you guys at alliances are directly trying to compete with each others and try to take each others down. And partly this seems to have crossed the limit of good taste already. So I would wish a bit better standing from alliances to this matter.....

  - However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too, this was made clear to both parties. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him.

Going a bit off topic from the original issue.

Sami, with my airline in Jet Age #5, I have filled all possible routes C-46's up to 630 NM. However, with the delivery of my Tu-104's, I am launching flights already flown by 'foreign' airlines first, before launching flights to other destinations. When I read the rules you stated above, I became unsure about my move. Would like to know if it is against the rules or not?

[stevecree]

If I had my ideal AWS world I must admit it would be first off long in length...I hate growing an airline so big and then the game just finishes with no credit given in the long run for performance, but thats another issue !   I would then be very happy if the game was also restriction free as regards to number of a/c allowed at bases.  I used to love ABCBA routes also but I maybe pushing my luck  

This may all point to a world running that is advertised as "hard" as there is no hiding behind slots, or 100 a/c limit, purely for the more seasoned player...an "Elite" world so to speak    If you enter then expect all you get and be prepared for a fight with the strongest surviving.  In a game like this if I fell then I would be fully aware by entering the world in the first place that it may happen, and would take it on the chin and try and be better next time.   That type of world would have me hooked as I love the competition that AWS provides and the challenge of outwitting, out tech-stopping, out frequency or what ever else it takes (within the laws) to ultimately defeat opponents.   We have beginners worlds - why not expert worlds ?  It would certainly stop this type of debate.

[minerva]

This is kind of sidetrackig from the original subject, but that is exactly what I meant.  I went through just about every airport West of Ontario, and the airports are either "Large" (with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit disallowing refueling a certain "Large" airports, "Small" (some with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit, and there are some in-between (medium, significant), none with runways long enough.

And for extra measure, add to this area the US North West with no very large aircraft refueling....

For those can't picture how large this area is, it is approximately area of the entire Europe + Ukraine + Belarus + big part of Russia where because of made up limitations, it is impossible to refuel a very large aircraft.  (Well, there is one, Winnipeg, which is so close to Ontario and US border that it does not count).

Sorry but this is incorrect.  First, you CAN refuel Very Large aircraft at ports rated only for Large or lower, if the airfield is long enough.  The previous threads on this established that, rightly or wrongly, you can do this now in JA5 (and presumably in other games).  Dozens of airlines are doing just that.

Second, while granted you can't refuel at Vancouver or Calgary, there are NO restrictions on plane size at the following western Canadian airports in order of decreasing size (runway lengths follow):

Edmonton 3353m
Winnipeg 3353m
Victoria 2134m
Kelowna NR 2225m
Saskatoon 2530m
Regina 2408m
Thunder Bay 1890m

If the runways are rather short on some of these it is because of location or the fact that most of them are small cities and large towns.  The restricted airports are for tiny communities that would never expect to see very large aircraft (although as noted, if the runway is long enough, you can refuel on them).

The 'West' in North America is vast and relatively unpopulated.  It is closer to Russia than Europe.  That 'real world fact' is rather well incorporated into AWS.

[JumboShrimp]

Sorry but this is incorrect.  First, you CAN refuel Very Large aircraft at ports rated only for Large or lower, if the airfield is long enough.  The previous threads on this established that, rightly or wrongly, you can do this now in JA5 (and presumably in other games).  Dozens of airlines are doing just that.

That's a change I was unaware of.  I don't follow JA5 threads.  Apparently the change was made back to normal, but nobody in MT5 was aware of it, unless they followed JA5 threads.  I have been flying way out of the way unaware of this change...

Second, while granted you can't refuel at Vancouver or Calgary, there are NO restrictions on plane size at the following western Canadian airports in order of decreasing size (runway lengths follow):

Edmonton 3353m
Winnipeg 3353m

Winnipeg I did mention.  Edmonton I originally dismissed when I saw it was Large, and at one point I was unaware that there was a set of allowed large and disallowed Large.  I found about that later, and did not revisit every single airport (a very time consuming process, since you have to actually try to creat a route and fail).  And that is another point of made up limitations and cut offs.  Everybody can understand that you may not be able to refuel at LHR, JFK, NRT.  But Calgary???  Portland?

Victoria 2134m
Kelowna NR 2225m
Saskatoon 2530m
Regina 2408m
Thunder Bay 1890m

If the runways are rather short on some of these it is because of location or the fact that most of them are small cities and large towns.  The restricted airports are for tiny communities that would never expect to see very large aircraft (although as noted, if the runway is long enough, you can refuel on them).

Yes, these runways are too short, but I am not questioning those.  I was questioning the airports with long enough runways that because of a random limitations became off limits.

The 'West' in North America is vast and relatively unpopulated.  It is closer to Russia than Europe.  That 'real world fact' is rather well incorporated into AWS.

Yes, I was not asking for AWS to conjure up airports where there are none in real world.  Just asking to be able to use airports that are already there with sufficient runways, unless we know for a fact that there is some real world restriction preventing airlines from using the airport.

Which is part of my general outlook about limits:  Don't place random limits on AWS and then after enough outcry slowly relax them (Case in point HNL for tech stops, small airports for very large aircraft techstops), and still leave it there for, of all places Calgary.  There should be no sweaping limits, only individual limits where it can be proven that limits exist in real life.

[minerva]

I don't disagree with your general point, but the simple fact is that AWS is always going to be artificially limited in some ways unless Sami can magically sum up the huge amount of time and program effort needed to incorporate far more variables than those included right now.  For instance, sticking with runway length: AWS does not currently account for improvements over time.  Very few airports had 3000m runways in 1960, for instance.  Even LaGuardia didn't get its current meagre 2000m runways until 1967.  Yet in JA5 everyone benefits from the modern lengths.  I'm not complaining about this.  But given the inability to model all the variables that are out there in the real world and over time, it strikes me that calls to have no limits are no less flawed/artificial than having clear, transparent rule-based ones.  So yes, lets not go crazy on the limits, but also let's recognize that SOME are there to due to ease of programming and playability issues. 

[JumboShrimp]

I don't disagree with your general point, but the simple fact is that AWS is always going to be artificially limited in some ways unless Sami can magically sum up the huge amount of time and program effort needed to incorporate far more variables than those included right now.  For instance, sticking with runway length: AWS does not currently account for improvements over time.  Very few airports had 3000m runways in 1960, for instance.  Even LaGuardia didn't get its current meagre 2000m runways until 1967.  Yet in JA5 everyone benefits from the modern lengths.  I'm not complaining about this.  But given the inability to model all the variables that are out there in the real world and over time, it strikes me that calls to have no limits are no less flawed/artificial than having clear, transparent rule-based ones.  So yes, lets not go crazy on the limits, but also let's recognize that SOME are there to due to ease of programming and playability issues.  

Agreed.  Gathering of data is one of the biggest challenges, so we just use what can be obtained.  But as far as limits, one of the misplaced ones (tech stoping) actually took extra programming efforts to put in place, and then to remove.  The same with basing limitations at top airports.  It took time to put in place, later it became clear that it was totally counterproductive and created fortresses where large airlines were untouchable from the outside.

With numerical basing limits (where this all started), it is not outside of the realm of possibilities that for game playability reasons you may want to put them in place if some problems develop.  But it was never tried without the limits.

A different limit - aircraft delivery rate - I can understand (for playability reasons).  It was tried without, and was determined that it un-balanced the game.  So I am not saying I am against all limits, I am just for the bare minimum that is determined after a problem develops, or the game goes in an undesireble direction, out of balance.

In a game that is dynamic and open, other players will counterbalance things.  Why not give that a shot first before system imposed limist are put in place?  We may find out that the limits were never needed in the first place...