Special Rules World (Post Yours Ideas)

[Curse]

AW650 is actually an exceptional good aircraft.

[NovemberCharlie]

Was not aware of that. Replace with something else and same idea 

[BD]

Restrict number of HQs to a fixed number.

[Iqonik]

My dream world would be called 'Greed...Build the biggest Monopoly airline.'  It would be full world from 2005-2025, there would  50 players, everyone starts off with a loan of 100 million, fuel prices never go beyond $100, immediately base out of 6 airports with unlimited aircraft, and there's a limit of 3 airlines allowed to based at any particular airport.

Ahhhh...a dude can dream! 

[JJP]

I had been playing Game World #4 The Jet Age and discovered something interesting.

One thing I noticed is there are some awesome, very interesting prop planes (Vanguard, late Brittania, DC-7C, Starliner, Electra, etc) that come out in the late 50's and early to mid 60's that receive little to no orders because the jets have already arrived (everyone wants those 707s and Caravelles!).  It would be interesting to have a game that delays the arrival of the introduction of jets for 1 - 2 decades (e.g. instead of Comet coming out in '58ish, it arrives in '68ish or later).  These prop planes offer myriad choices, even on long haul 4K nm+!!  Without jets, players would have to look at these interesting choices of prop planes.

It would be interesting to see the use of these planes in an early game without the benefit of switching over to jets until early 70s (first deliveries). 

[Sami]

There are some minor new rules and features that will be tried out in the new Euro World: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,52618.0.html

[LemonButt]

There are some minor new rules and features that will be tried out in the new Euro World: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,52618.0.html

On the rule changes, it would make more sense IMO to change the basing rules to have a maximum of 300 aircraft at unlimited additional bases with no more than 100 aircraft at each base.  This would mean a small airline could have 10 additional bases with 30 aircraft each.  There would have to be additional tweaks made to staffing etc, but the net result would be the same for large airlines and give smaller airlines more options.

[ezzeqiel]

This is amazing...

We say slot system needs to be a free market one; sami says it's unreal.
We say terminals would be a nice addition to the game; sami says it's unreal.
We say airports numbers are related to RL airlines that don't exist here so we should change it; sami says it's unreal


Now, we say let's make a Special Rules World with all those things changed; sami says too much coding.


It'd be easier to just close the forum...

[Sami]

Don't put words in my mouth, I have never said any of that.  I have posted two messages to this thread and said nothing even remotely like that, so stop spreading these pure lies, thank you.

It seems that you obviously have no idea about the magnitude of development and especially testing required for some of the ideas posted here (like terminals, which is planned). I said like this earlier:

The next small world will be in Europe. But in reference to this thread, anything special you'd like to see? (that requires minimal coding efforts; most of the things talked here earlier are major system changes that won't be built for a single scenario)

And, like posted in news the euro world will have one special new feature first exclusive only to it. But it is still under works (got one other very urgent task which needs to be done first, non-aws stuff..), so more about it later.

[Xflash]

I have another idea.
A Speedworld. 10 min a day from 1970-2020. No baselimit open a base whereever you want. Baselimit to keep the base 10 planes.
10 cr to join and 2 cr a week for this

[LemonButt]

I have another idea.
A Speedworld. 10 min a day from 1970-2020. No baselimit open a base whereever you want. Baselimit to keep the base 10 planes.
10 cr to join and 2 cr a week for this

That means 6 months go by every day.  It also means you'd have to be online nearly 24/7 to have anywhere near a remote chance of success as if you decide to sleep for 8 hours, an aircraft can remain idle for 2 months and you'd be losing a ton of money/opportunity (you'd have to be away from AWS for more than a full day IRL in normal game worlds to do this).  IMO 35 minutes is the perfect day length.

[Sami]

The server/system is not designed for that kind of speed, and it most likely won't cope with it..

[Xflash]

That means 6 months go by every day.  It also means you'd have to be online nearly 24/7 to have anywhere near a remote chance of success as if you decide to sleep for 8 hours, an aircraft can remain idle for 2 months and you'd be losing a ton of money/opportunity (you'd have to be away from AWS for more than a full day IRL in normal game worlds to do this).  IMO 35 minutes is the perfect day length.

I have no problem with this. AWS is more timefriendly then the most other Browsergames.

The server/system is not designed for that kind of speed, and it most likely won't cope with it..

Too bad.. what about 20 min? Would the system work with this speed?

[ezzeqiel]

Don't put words in my mouth, I have never said any of that.  I have posted two messages to this thread and said nothing even remotely like that, so stop spreading these pure lies, thank you.

You should really check your posts before calling me a "liar"...

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,10508.msg51479.html#msg51479
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,24394.msg126263.html#msg126263

Building new terminals would have no effect on slot numbers (if that was your concern there). Runway capacity (etc) is usually what is the restricting factor...
...Sorry, but I suppose if you are so confident that the current system is bad, then perhaps you could try to dig up all the info on let's say how 50-100 largest airports in the world were developed (runways, aprons, terminals) in the past 50 years to determine the true capacity for each year. Remember also to take into account the atc and flying procedures, local rules etc. I think you can easily understand that obtaining such data is simply not possible... Well, that was a bit of sarcasm there...
...But AWS is not going to be "unrealistic" either by allowing airlines to build runways or anything like that either. It's a balance between various factors.

I'm sorry but my understand of airport development, is that they develop if they have a strong airline pushing for capacity... I'm pretty sure FEDEX came BEFORE Superhub in Memphis and UPS also came BEFORE Worldport in Louisville...

Also your "sarcasm" in that post is totally wrong... You don't have to fetch that data from the 50-100 biggest airports over the past 50 years, because that data correlates with RL airlines which DO NOT EXIST in AWS...


Maybe you changed your mind since... I have no way to know since the development road map is "secret"...

[Sami]

Nice way to dig FIVE year old threads that have absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread or anything what has been discussed here.

(or nothing to do with the latest discussion about the possible new terminals feature, of which an open recent thread exists in the feature forums.)

So won't even bother with the rest what you said.

[tcrlaf]

How about a "This Regulated World" game?
For instance, a North American game, reflecting the regulated US and Canadian markets prior to 1981, then a free-for-all afterwards, to say 2005?

Under the CAA, you had to bid to receive the rights to fly between point A and Point B. To maintain the rights, you had to start and maintain daily service within 6 months. Days not served could be awarded to other companies. If you dropped the line, or failed to maintain minimum service levels, it could be immediately re-awarded.

Only ONE airline was allowed to fly any given "small" route. You could tie any two, and sometimes 3 awards into a single flight, as well.
Ex. Hughes Airwest DC-9 LAX-Eugene-Medford-Redmond. They could run pax to any point on the route, or between them. Another example was United running a 727 LAX-Spokane-Calgary/Edmonton, because they didn't have direct rights. Two further examples would be TWA's IND-DAY-DCA trips. The examples are numerous,such as Eastern's DAB-JAX-LGA, because Delta controlled DAB-LGA, etc. The downline stops would have the appropriate penalties, of course.

"Medium" routes were allowed two, one from each city. For example, TWA held the MCI-LGA rights, while American held the LGA-MCI rights. Per the law, this was the max allowed to fly this route. Branniff wanted to establish MCI-LGA, and the slots, prior to deregulation, so they applied for and were awarded MCI-Terre Haute-LGA with two 727's per day.

"Large" or "Trunk" routes, such as JFK-MIA, LGA-ORD, or LAX-SFO, could have as may as four carriers, but capacity was tightly controlled. You couldn't just throw a ton of seats on the runs. If the capacity was already maxed out, you couldn't add more seats, or another flight.

International flights were just as tightly controlled, with only ONE airline allowed to fly any given route, with the notable exception of LHR, which allowed two from JFK and Boston. You could string together destinations to medium cities with a max of two stops, such as TWA's Athens-Tel Aviv, or the several South American routes.  Small international cities could be strung together, like Pan Am's several 3 stoppers in Africa, or Continental's 4 stopper's in Oceana, or Branniff's Central American runs.

You could do away with the "Flag Carrier" designation.
You could even add the element of the 5th Freedom hubs in Berlin, Tokyo, or Monrovia to the game.
And if you REALLY wanted to make things strange, you could "force" another carrier to pick up a route from a bankrupt airline, in their hubs.

Just my two cents...
I'd be interested to hear what others think??
And I realize this would likely be a coding nightmare.

[tcrlaf]

I should have added that for Medium routes, capacity limited to 75% for each carrier, or 125% if only one on the route.

If you are at 125%, and someone else begins flying it, you have to downsize to 75%. If you can't, it's your tough luck.

[Name_Omitted]

How hard would it be to randomize demand for a world?  It would change strategy entirley if, say LHR's demand was randomly assigned to Moscow (or Attu).

[JumboShrimp]

How about a special rules world without randomization?

7 day pattern: maybe
Randomization of demand: no

[Sami]

Randomization of demand: no

What did you mean with this exactly, not sure?