[-] Expand commonality to "Like Types"

[JumboShrimp]

Possibly a bread and butter mainline type, a cargo type, an intercontinental type, and a fourth type for fleet replacement purposes.

Third fleet type is for fleet replacement purposes 

[wilian.souza2]

I've just spent 5 credits peeking GW3 for possible future replacements for mw current GW2 fleets... just to find out I won't be able to do the strategy I planned! 

[Tha_Ape]

Doesn't your alliance have an "all aircrafts data" file?

[wilian.souza2]

Nope...

[Alpha]

Or in order to ease out the pain of fleet transitioning, could we allow 4th type to be added into the fleet for a short grace period, with exponential costs (more steep than what the game currently has) after such grace period.

I imagine it would be a formula which the increase in costs would kick in more aggressively as fleet number increases but at the same time lengthens the grace period based on the average number of planes in the other 3 fleets.

This will prevent (a) airlines in countries with limited number of airports being choked to death by the increased costs; (b) large airlines exploiting the increased number of fleet types to kill competitors; and (c) provides sufficient (but not excessive) time for airlines to update their fleet one by one rather than in one go.

For example, I think it is fair to double (or even quadruple) the costs for 4th type penalty going beyond 3 and a grace period (during which the 4th type penalty will be ignored and the 4th type will only be counted as if there was no penalty) which would be slightly less than the time required for the airline to acquire the average number of planes in their fleet.

Say an airline has an average of 100 planes across its 3 fleets, and the player can get a plane belonging to the 4th type ~5/month brand new from the manufacturer, the grace period would be less than 20 months (say 15 - 18 months, since players may grab some second hand or with help of alliance members)

[Zobelle]

As a current 4 fleet operator, I personally see no reason cost should go up 70%+ if replacing like aircraft.

Medium -> Medium, Very Large -> Very Large, etc.

We should expand on proposed manufacturer affinity to go forth to like types for at least a 3 year grace period on raised commonality costs at the current average acquisition rates for airlines that don’t have a bunch of alliance help and can’t replace a whole fleet on an accelerated timeframe.

[Dagobert]

Hi everyone,

as a Rookie how just entered a Beginners World of Airway Sim, I just tried a couple of things out before heading to the new GW4.

I had 1 A318 and 2 CRJ900 totalig kUSD 415 and - apart from expanding those types - wanted to try out some small cargo plane. So I went for a Saab 340 (and at the same time was delivered with a new CRJ900). As I read about commonality I expected it to rise, but look at the results:

• My sole A318 jumped from 211k to 810k.
• The 3 CRJ900s jumped from 204k to 875k.
• The Saab is at 386k.

So by adding one fleet with 1 plane and another plane my costs increased from 415.000 USD to 2.070.541, so approx. 500 %! And we are not talking about 4 fleets, but only 3!
Just to take one example that shows how crazy this is: Crew training for the A318 (still the one, not more) jumped from 57k to 230k! For the same crew and the same plane! Sorry, but that does make no sense at all... 

As far as I read the commonality is there to avoid big airlines buying every kind of aircraft and then dominate the market. I get this for "bigger" fleets that means everything above 50 planes or so. It should be there to save noobs like myself. But if I look at those figures above you will lose lots of "young" airliners by sending them into bankruptcy...

For a more personal note: I would really like to create a airline with several different types of aircrafts - not to dominate all markets, but to have different kinds of types. It is somehow frustrating to see that I have to focus on 2 or 3 plane types. It even gets me thinking if I really want to spend money for the game - which I really want because i love the economical simulation.

Suggestion: Increase maintenance costs only with growing numbers within one aircraft type. E.g. Lufthansa still has one old Junkers Ju 52 flying. This should cost only the base maintenance for that plane plus some admin overhead. If I start building more than 3 fleets with each fleet more than 5 planes or so - perhaps even depending on aircraft size - start increasing costs dramatically. But not as early as it currently is.

Cheers,
Dagobert

[JumboShrimp]

Adding first aircraft of new type should have disproportionately larger cost.  Since maintenance and training are modeled in AWS to be all in-house, it means that the airline has to acquire spare parts, and train staff for the new fleet type.

As far as the increase of the costs of existing fleets, there is also another commonality related issue, which is when an airline has less than 75 aircraft and adds a 3rd type.  This type of penalty gets phased out when the airline has over 75 aircraft.

[Zobelle]

Yeah that <75 penalty should go the way of the dodo as well.

[Dagobert]

Adding first aircraft of new type should have disproportionately larger cost.  Since maintenance and training are modeled in AWS to be all in-house, it means that the airline has to acquire spare parts, and train staff for the new fleet type.

Ich agree: costs for a new plane type should be very high! And they should increase admin costs as well. But quadrupling the costs of the other aircrafts makes no sense to me.

As far as the increase of the costs of existing fleets, there is also another commonality related issue, which is when an airline has less than 75 aircraft and adds a 3rd type.  This type of penalty gets phased out when the airline has over 75 aircraft.

Very good to know, thx! But again: why?! 

[JumboShrimp]

Number of decisions of how the game behaves is for playability and balance.

The primary reason the fleet commonality works the way it does is to limit growth and size of large airlines and to protect smaller airlines from being squashed by larger competitors.

If a larger airline can add (without any penalty) a medium aircraft (fleet) and a cargo (fleet), then there is no niche left for a smaller competitor sharing a base.

[Zobelle]

Number of decisions of how the game behaves is for playability and balance.

The primary reason the fleet commonality works the way it does is to limit growth and size of large airlines and to protect smaller airlines from being squashed by larger competitors.

If a larger airline can add (without any penalty) a medium aircraft (fleet) and a cargo (fleet), then there is no niche left for a smaller competitor sharing a base.

Plenty of base to go around.

[Dagobert]

Number of decisions of how the game behaves is for playability and balance.

The primary reason the fleet commonality works the way it does is to limit growth and size of large airlines and to protect smaller airlines from being squashed by larger competitors.

If a larger airline can add (without any penalty) a medium aircraft (fleet) and a cargo (fleet), then there is no niche left for a smaller competitor sharing a base.

Agreed. How does this fit with having a penalty below 75 (or in my case: 5) planes? It does not limit any large airline but hurts (ruins) the very small competitors it should have "saved" in the first place.

[JumboShrimp]

Agreed. How does this fit with having a penalty below 75 (or in my case: 5) planes? It does not limit any large airline but hurts (ruins) the very small competitors it should have "saved" in the first place.

I know you were only testing things.  But in a regular game, there is no rational reason to have 5 aircraft of 3 types.

As far as initial growth (still below 75 aircraft), if you can get aircraft from 3 fleet groups, you can grow faster than if you can get aircraft from only 2 fleet types.  You can still get 3 fleet types, it will just cost a little bit more in maintenance.  The 3 fleet under 75 penalty is not very harsh, when you have a normal number of aircraft something like 3 fleets x 15 aircraft in each.

[MuzhikRB]

well, generally I support the idea of 4th fleet penalty.

but it really required to be tweaked:

1. if the 4th fleet is from the same manufacturer and the size ("small/medium/large/vlarge) like 737-200->737-300, then penalty should be let say 25% of base level and should not increase due to AC number growth.
 Explanation: it will push the player to choose - either stick with big guys (boeing/airbus), long waiting production lines and high prices per AC, but with lower commonality OR pay usual commonality but be more flexible.

2. Commonality penalty may increase due to fleet number growth but at the same time it should start decrease let say after 6-12 month after starting new fleet. Decrease should increase by time passed. and may be 5 years later should be stopped at 50% level from start.

[JonesyUK]

Hi everyone,

as a Rookie how just entered a Beginners World of Airway Sim, I just tried a couple of things out before heading to the new GW4.

I had 1 A318 and 2 CRJ900 totalig kUSD 415 and - apart from expanding those types - wanted to try out some small cargo plane. So I went for a Saab 340 (and at the same time was delivered with a new CRJ900). As I read about commonality I expected it to rise, but look at the results:

• My sole A318 jumped from 211k to 810k.
• The 3 CRJ900s jumped from 204k to 875k.
• The Saab is at 386k.

So by adding one fleet with 1 plane and another plane my costs increased from 415.000 USD to 2.070.541, so approx. 500 %! And we are not talking about 4 fleets, but only 3!
Just to take one example that shows how crazy this is: Crew training for the A318 (still the one, not more) jumped from 57k to 230k! For the same crew and the same plane! Sorry, but that does make no sense at all... 

As far as I read the commonality is there to avoid big airlines buying every kind of aircraft and then dominate the market. I get this for "bigger" fleets that means everything above 50 planes or so. It should be there to save noobs like myself. But if I look at those figures above you will lose lots of "young" airliners by sending them into bankruptcy...

For a more personal note: I would really like to create a airline with several different types of aircrafts - not to dominate all markets, but to have different kinds of types. It is somehow frustrating to see that I have to focus on 2 or 3 plane types. It even gets me thinking if I really want to spend money for the game - which I really want because i love the economical simulation.

Suggestion: Increase maintenance costs only with growing numbers within one aircraft type. E.g. Lufthansa still has one old Junkers Ju 52 flying. This should cost only the base maintenance for that plane plus some admin overhead. If I start building more than 3 fleets with each fleet more than 5 planes or so - perhaps even depending on aircraft size - start increasing costs dramatically. But not as early as it currently is.

Cheers,
Dagobert

Agree completly. The rule is completly unrealistic and goes against common sense. From a game play point of view it restricts the types you can feasibly use, restricting airlines to using the same 3 or 4 airbus/Boeing types. I played and enjoyed the game for years, but I find this so frustrating, its stopped me playing any more.

[DanDan]

correct me if i am wrong: the idea of the rule is basically, that big airlines have
a) more difficulty in replacing their fleet and accumulating a too big fleet
b) cannot specialize in too many fields, so to leave a niche open for others

therefore, why not make things more simple:
additionally to the three fleet groups, an airline can use a fixed amount of planes that are outside these fleet groups (20 maybe)
a big airline wont profit from this, because 20 planes more or less wont matter much, when compared to 500 planes in service. it may make fleet transitions a bit easier, but thats it.
new airlines on the other hand will be having an easier time to start up, because they dont have to wait for the right aircraft to appear, but use what they find

[wilian.souza2]

correct me if i am wrong: the idea of the rule is basically, that big airlines have
a) more difficulty in replacing their fleet and accumulating a too big fleet
b) cannot specialize in too many fields, so to leave a niche open for others

therefore, why not make things more simple:
additionally to the three fleet groups, an airline can use a fixed amount of planes that are outside these fleet groups (20 maybe)
a big airline wont profit from this, because 20 planes more or less wont matter much, when compared to 500 planes in service. it may make fleet transitions a bit easier, but thats it.
new airlines on the other hand will be having an easier time to start up, because they dont have to wait for the right aircraft to appear, but use what they find

Seems a good idea, but can potentially be abused by some players willing to target starting airlines - especially if they are opened by well known rivals!

[MuzhikRB]

most critical is to increase the limit of UM market purchases in later stages.

this limit is mostly needed in the start of the game. may be first 2-3 years. then the market already dried to 0 till companies become rich enough and start flying own fleets.

this limit is the most problem for big fleet changes and therefore limiting player strategy and push them to decrease number of fleet changes to a minimum.

My proposal - save UM limit for first 5 years for medium GWs (1997-2037) and first 10 years of long GWs.
then limit for each company should depend on how much personell it have to handle it.
this formula can be used: UM market limit = Round( middle level management / 100).
Currently in GW2 my company has 1111 mid level managers. it means my limit may be 11 ACs.

Having this amount for long period I may consider to replace some fleet just to have fun....

[gazzz0x2z]

What @MuzhikRB says. When a game is nearing end, one needs to make huge replacements, and the UM will be full anyways(unless the fleet type is tight, like the 787, but then you can't even use the standard 3 calls). I'd be more progressive in the capacity increase, like one more every 5 game years, but it would still be very important to be able to transition full fleets without the chore of connecting every 4 hours.