Vote for the time frame of the next Game World #4

[Sami]

In reference to the latest news posted to the site, how long the next Game World #4 (starting June 13th) should be?

All other comments and wishes welcome too!

[kberry]

My vote's in but I have another related question... Will there be another Regional Challenge in the future? If so, how soon can we look forward to it? Thanks and keep up the great work Sami.

[Niv44]

Also keen on another Regional Challenge soon!   

[Sami]

Yes, the intention is to run mini games from time to time too.

[11Air]

1. More important is that the active games are in different decades.
2. Running into 2030 seems to be a pretty benign era for the games so far, time for some random volcano's affecting all the world zones at some point?

[Zombie Slayer]

A big reason going past 2020 is boring is the 4th type penalty. No one wants to replace a fleet of 737s with C-Series jets because, at 800 or so frames, it costs $300 million a month in commonality penalties. If one of the many feature requests dealing with fleet renewal were to be added to the game, it would bring a lot more excitement to the period from about 2015 to the end of the game. The ideas are:

"Like Types" (ie all DC-9 variants count as one, so DC-9, MD-8X, MD-9o, 717 are one group)
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,40746.0.html

"Auto Convert" (ie no need to manually reschedule routes from, say, 737 to C-Series, just use the transfer schedule function)

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html

And somewhere in the forum is a thread about marking a fleet type for retirement, and as long as the moving average number of frames in the fleet of that type is declining at a predetermined rate (maybe equal to the average number of frames a player can get new each year of the new type) there is nto a penalty for the outgoing type.

[bdnascar3]

A big reason going past 2020 is boring is the 4th type penalty. No one wants to replace a fleet of 737s with C-Series jets because, at 800 or so frames, it costs $300 million a month in commonality penalties. If one of the many feature requests dealing with fleet renewal were to be added to the game, it would bring a lot more excitement to the period from about 2015 to the end of the game.

+1

[Zombie Slayer]

And just to add to this, I understand why the penalty at 4 types grows as the fleet does, even though IRL economics of scale would say it would decrease. It is a metric in place to make uncontrolled growth impossible. The problem is it has the opposite effect in 80+ year games where multiple fleet renewal cycles are necessary. The options for players become either use obsolete equipment from sometime between 1970 and 1985 for 50 years or wait fro 300, 400, 500 or more frames to be delivered before sitting down and switching all those frames out in a single sitting which could take 10+ hours. Something needs to be done to fix this problem as it has a very negative effect on game play.

[Infinity]

End doesn't matter so much, but beginning in 1970 please. The fleet changes are just too much of a PITA without tooling.

[schro]

I think the 2030's should be the end for sure, otherwise, there's no point to having the 787, A350, 77X, neo/max and other newer generaitno planes. As for the start, the 60's should be avoided - pick either the 50's or 70's. The 50's are great because all of the prop era planes are still in production allowing for multiple strategies to be utilized and in the 70's, props don't matter anymore. Game starts in the 60's are difficult as most of the 50's era props (that are still commercially viable) are out of production, leaving fewer strategic paths to profit.

And just to add to this, I understand why the penalty at 4 types grows as the fleet does, even though IRL economics of scale would say it would decrease. It is a metric in place to make uncontrolled growth impossible. The problem is it has the opposite effect in 80+ year games where multiple fleet renewal cycles are necessary. The options for players become either use obsolete equipment from sometime between 1970 and 1985 for 50 years or wait fro 300, 400, 500 or more frames to be delivered before sitting down and switching all those frames out in a single sitting which could take 10+ hours. Something needs to be done to fix this problem as it has a very negative effect on game play.

In GW1, I had ~850 planes in service when I was to nuke the DC9s and exchange them for MD80s. I had about 130 DC9s when I started the conversion, bringing my "in service" fleet to about 980 planes. During the transition, my fleet commonality costs went from 26m/month to 295m/month. For those playing along outside the game world, that incremental $270m per month was about 5 months of pre-tax profits at the time. Basically, if I spent more than a real life day on that transition of 130 planes, my airline would have been bankrupted. Luckily, I got it knocked out in an hour and I've had to feed my mouse cheese constantly to help it get better.

End doesn't matter so much, but beginning in 1970 please. The fleet changes are just too much of a PITA without tooling.

Isn't that part of the game though? Over expand before a big transition and get stuffed, or play it conservative?

[Zombie Slayer]

Isn't that part of the game though? Over expand before a big transition and get stuffed, or play it conservative?

Yes it is, and as I said the penalty is needed to prevent runaway expansion. In a game under 50 years, you can get by with a single transition most of the time, and that single transition can also occur before 600+ planes pile up. In a game from 1950-2020, the transition to "modern" planes wont happen until at least the mid 1980's. meaning you have to play upwards of 35-40 years before this transition. Keeping your fleet under 250 or so planes for that long in any major airport is not really possible. That is why some sort of change is really needed to make these transitions just possible, not even easier. A tool to transfer schedules to a different type would be nice, but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy.

[ChuckPerry]

but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy. - This 3 fleet limitation is unrealistic anyway.. What major airline only has 3 fleet's?

[Mr Yoda]

Hmmm... Emirates maybe (A330/340, B777, A380s), Singapore Airlines (B777, A330, A380), Cathay Pacific (A330, B777, B747). They are all doing fantastic. Thats excluding their sister airlines.

Southwest, Ryanair, easyJet all operate 1 fleet type but they don't count as they are LCC's.

I do think that 3 fleet type *rule* is ver odd because loads or other major airlines operate more than 3 fleet types yet they are very profitable. 

[Frederik]

Yes but what about British Airways with 9 aircraft types or Delta with 10.

and even the airlines you mention all have their subsidiaries (FlyDubai for Emirates, Silair for SIA or Hong Kong Dragon for Cathay to handle their short haul routes.

That their should be some sort of advantage of running a streamlined fleet - absolutely, but the magnitude of the penalty needs to be reviewed or one should be able to create subsidiaries (feeder/freight...)

[Mr Yoda]

Technically Emirates doesn't own flydubai or run it in any way. Both airlines are fully owned by the Dubai government. But the connectign traffic story is the same so it's almost exactly the same story as for SQ OR CX.

Creating subsidiaries will be anti-competitive and I don't think that will ever be implemented in this game. I still agree with you that the fleet veriation should be reviewed and changed hopefully.

[Zombie Slayer]

but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy. - This 3 fleet limitation is unrealistic anyway.. What major airline only has 3 fleet's?

I am not saying the 3 group "limit" needs to go. While not realistic exactly, it serves a needed purpose which is to limit uncontested growth. While IRL economics of scale would come into play and a fleet of 1000 planes comprised of 5 types would not have a large negative impact on the bottom line, in AWS the exponentially increasing penalty on that 4th type is a check on rampant growth.

The penalty was an annoyance when games were no longer than 30 years. It was not generally required to go through multiple fleet renewal cycles so once you selected your fleet for a game you just worked toward 3 types and tried to get there by the time you had 200-250 planes. Now, 40+ years into a game, a mature airline faces fleet renewal with upwards of 1,000 planes. Adding that 4th type is suicide as commonality will spike by 1200% (that is NOT a typo). In GW 2, that would cost me $800 million a month. I am one of the most profitable airlines in GW2, at least based on margin, making about $600m a month right now. So, renewing my fleet of 767's with 787's when they are launched would swing me from a $600m monthly profit to a $200m loss.

So, for play-ability reasons, and to make an 80 year game worth playing for 80 years, some mechanism to make normal fleet renewal not just painless but actually possible is REQUIRED. Any of the little things that would make it easier would just be added bonus (ie swapping to another fleet type without first modifying each route individually), but the big item on this list is some sort of a temporary suspension of any 4th type penalty during a predetermined retirement period.

[ChuckPerry]

In the years 1972-1976, PRIOR to the Delta/Western merger, Delta flew all three of the then available widebodies (747, L-1011, DC-10). They had ordered the L-1011 but due to production delays, they also took delivery of the DC-10. They also were flying the Fairchild F-27, Douglas DC-8, Douglas DC-9, and Boeing 727....and making nice profits.. that's what SEVEN fleets?   I guess they hadn't heard of the "three fleet rule" lol

The L-1011 was in Delta service from about 1973 to 1992, the DC-10 from about 1972 to 1987, and the 747 from 1970 to 1977.

The MD-11 was also in the Delta fleet from 1990 to 1996 so for a couple of years (1990-1992), Delta was flying two types of widebody trijets at the same time.

After National merged into Pan Am, Pan Am also flew the DC-10 and L-1011 together, along with the 747.

[Infinity]

I can't understand why everyone is voting for a 1950s start. Could some of you please tell me?

[avi8or]

I voted for it.

Whats the point if you start in the 70s or even 80s? You got your jet aircrafts, DC-8 Longhaul, 737/727 shorthaul. All you have to do is Collect as much planes as possible, then replace them with new generation Aircrafts like A320/737-300 and 767/A330 and thats it. YOu will keep them for another 20 years until you buy new planes of the same types to keep them another 20 years until the game is done. How boring is that?

If you start in the 50s you have to cope with lack of demand, lack of range, lack of speed etc. The A320 or 737 is not the only way to go. You can experiment and use exotic plane types, you can distinguish yourself from your competitors by having a whole different fleet serving the same purpose. not 737 vs 737, but maybe COMET vs DC-6 or even  DC-3 vs Martin 4-0-4 or wathever. The difference between you and your competitor will not how much time you pend for the game, but more focussed on your fleet startegy and choice.

[Sami]

One option is to do a long game from 1970s onward and then an "early days" minigame (like 1950s to 1970s)..?

For the commonality talk - please use feature rq forum's proper thread for this. I am looking for some concrete suggestions how to improve it in the future.