Changelog and Previews comment thread

[JumboShrimp]

Much simpler solution suggestion - get rid of this much disliked, over-protection of the meek absurd commonality costing model altogether, that sees the most ridiculous cost multiplications (often costs increase over 10x  ) when you have a decent airline and you adopt 4 or more fleet types. It ruins the game reality. Nobody ever uses half the aircraft types such as Concorde, since you couldn't have too many of them and that takes up 1 of the precious 3 types.
Perhaps a better idea is to limit the number of small / medium flights that can be slotted at airports as airports progress up the "infrastructure" and "traffic" levels.  That would stop these slot-hogs that successfully (and completely unrealistically) base hundreds and hundreds of silly little prop planes at places like LHR / JFK / CDG etc.

Rewarding fleet commonality (and discouraging lack of commonality) in aircraft is one of the things that makes this a "strategy game", rather than just a click fest to get your aircraft in the air.

[Cornishman]

Rewarding fleet commonality (and discouraging lack of commonality) in aircraft is one of the things that makes this a "strategy game", rather than just a click fest to get your aircraft in the air.

Well that is technically a correct statement, not unlike declaring there is a strategy in the relatively clever way a hamster manages to negotiate every tread he takes in that hamster wheel . . . we're all just going around and around here like hamsters in a wheel with every new GW and the same old restrictions -> therefore using the same old tactics. It eventually becomes a rather tired and worn-out strategy when other strategies could be adopted to freshen things up a bit.

Again - so many complaints about this - don't you think we could do with a new challenge?

[Flying_ace65]

But fleet commonality is not really rewarded either, 737s are not all grouped (I know IRL classics needed updates to get them more in part with NGs, but this can be an aircraft upgrade in game); the 757-767 was created with the concept of commonality, but again not a thing in game; smaller commonality groupings for training and other expenses are not in the game at all and lastly the Dornier Jet is just being punished for actually being a common type. So the argument for it being correctly implemented it's not really there.

And if you want to talk about strategy avoiding large fleet changes to circumvent the commonality penalty makes it so trijets (MD-11 I'm looking at you) are still being ordered in masses thru 2035, same with 737 classics, DC-8s and many others like this, because it's easier to stay on the same fleet for 50 years and pay a higher fuel bill, than to even attempt a fleet change.

A strategy game that attempts to simulate the real world need to have rules to achieve this, but those rules should be things like ETOPS to have a better reason to have to go to tri/quad jets to cross oceans and then transition to twins when ETOPS become a thing or manufacturers discontinuing an aircraft because the new shinny airplane will take its production line and many other things that have been mention here, but not strategy based on arbitrary rules, with no foundation IRL, to protect a group of player that could be protected in other ways as Cornish suggests; a real life restriction is min and max pax capacity on flights to airports, restricting turboprops from operating at certain peak times or even banning them from an airport all together or something else that is a mixture of reality with our own thing, but not the arbitrary rule we have now.

[gazzz0x2z]

The fact that the penalty is undocumented is indeed problematic. OTOH, lowering it, or even erasing it, would lead to horrible consequences (big boys would be even bigger). I fully agree with Jumbo. That's a rule that forces you to THINK.

A proper warning system, when laying your hands on new airplanes (no matter the way you odo that), could tdo the job. After all, I have a warning when I set up a 321-200 on a 40 demand route. I could have one when ordering a TU204 while already flying 320s, MD80s and B733s.

Hundreds of silly props... well, that's another topic. I've been guilty once, 350 S2000s in MAD, for not even 20% of market share. There was no slot despair that time, so I don't think it was evil. It could have been, indeed. There is some punishment, still. In the same game, I had 10 S2000 flights from MPL to ORY, for 600 demand, and was crushed by ORY's 733s. I did set up 4 daily Y42D flights instead, things went much better. Yep, Y42D. real single aisles would have been even better, of course.

Said another way, there are mechanics against abuse of props. Slot costs also are a protection. I did pay mpore than 5M$ for slotting one daily route from ATL, in current speed game. Settign up a 30-seater in those conditions is insane (RoI would be several years, just to pay for the slots). But trouble is the same : some of those mechanics are not easy to spot for the beginner (slot costs certainly are obvious. Penalty beyond excessive frequency is not. Fleet commonality is a slow, quiet killer).

[Cornishman]

Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.

Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all.  There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets?  I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years.  Loads of us do. It's no longer clever!  TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.

over and out

[knobbygb]

Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.

Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all.  There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets?  I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years.  Loads of us do. It's no longer clever!  TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.

over and out

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Fabian]

Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.

Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all.  There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets?  I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years.  Loads of us do. It's no longer clever!  TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.

over and out

Agree

[Flying_ace65]

Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.

Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all.  There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilizing only 3 fleets?  I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years.  Loads of us do. It's no longer clever!  TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.

over and out

Very well put, the "feature request" at least from my observation is getting less and less post, I believe it to be for a lack of change or implementation of any suggestion, but even more than that I've seen that not even a one word reply is obtained (I would like to assume that they are still read, but with no response I don't know if that threat is just being largely ignored). Also on the point of old tactics, I left the game for years and when I came back I saw very little change (apart from cargo) and even with the changes that did happen (which many were hidden) using the same old tactics from years ago, I've had 2 very good airlines, were my biggest challenge has been the lack of management tools we have to achieve the way I want to run my airlines, creating a mass of menial and repetitive task to achieve the desired outcome that I can only do because I have more time and patience to do it than others, so it feels like going to the gym to do reps in a very boring and monotonous way, rather than playing a dynamic and fun sport to achieve the same result, just having significantly more fun while doing it. (not the best metaphor, but it's what came to my head now).

I can appreciate that what we are asking for requires work and time, but after years of waiting I feel that something could have been achieved and regrettably it feels like being in a rut of which many don't want to get out from and very little is being done to do so. 

[Sami]

Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organisation (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.

The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.

[Flying_ace65]

Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organization (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.

The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.

Thanks for this info, I will definitely check it out.

[Cornishman]

Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organisation (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.

The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.

Will do Sami - You must please accept my comments are not "criticisms" because as I said clearly above - we LOVE this game, but we do need new tactical challenges. Just making the same old tactics over and over is not much challenge any longer. So I appreciate that you do care about this.
Thanks

[knobbygb]

While we have Sami engaged, can I ask the simple question - is City Based Demand ever actually going to happen?

[Sami]

For pax, it would really need the flight connections too, which I have performed a feasibility study already, so that is technically doable.

[JumboShrimp]

Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.

Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all.  There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets?  I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years.  Loads of us do. It's no longer clever!  TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.

over and out

3 fleet limit before (lack of) commonality charges start to accrue is in fact a clever way to limit unchecked growth.

I have (more than once) posted the famous "Chesterton Fence" quote (look it up) as a reply to people who want to do away with something without knowing its utility, without fully considering the consequences of removing it.

And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function.

[JumboShrimp]

For pax, it would really need the flight connections too, which I have performed a feasibility study already, so that is technically doable.

Cargo is always a good place to start, since it is 90% the same, and can be tested widely without breaking the pax system.

I think the key requirement for the flight connections is that it would be dynamic, without player having to specify anything, that the system finds the best connections in the background.

But a better place to discuss would be in the Feature forum, under its own topic.

[knobbygb]

3 fleet limit before (lack of) commonality charges start to accrue is in fact a clever way to limit unchecked growth.

I have (more than once) posted the famous "Chesterton Fence" quote (look it up) as a reply to people who want to do away with something without knowing its utility, without fully considering the consequences of removing it.

And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function.

Personally, I've never suggested just doing away with it - merely to try a game without to see what happens. 

In fact, the converse to what people think could be true.  There's actually no evidence that the fleet limit benefits anybody. It's just always been "known" that it protects smaller players but we have no comparison or actual evidence. I really don't think it does! It certainly doesn't check unlimited growth for the really big airlines - I NEVER stick to three fleets and ALWAYS finish in the top 3 or 4 airlines (when I play seriously and don't merely experiment). What it does is tie the hands of "second tier" airlines who are big enough for the penalty to really bite, but not big enough to have almost unlimited cash. They are the ones (say in 5th to 15th place) that could provide some actual challenge to the big airlines and make the games more interesting, but they are stopped from doing so.

The "small" airlines aren't big enough to feel the benefit and the big ones are too big to feel the penalty.

I kinda think it's like taxes work in real life. The government (particularly a left wing one) will harp on about taxing the rich more and helping the poor, but all that happens is that the middle-ground people lose out, because they're the ones working hard and paying most of the tax, while the rich get richer and the poor struggle along as before. But it's "known" that they are good for the poorer people so they get voted in every 10 or 15 years, have exactly zero benefit and then get kicked out again.

[gazzz0x2z]

Well, I KNOW what I would be doing at my HQ - currently ATL. There is a smaller player there, with barely 30 planes, who survives because I can"t afford medium planes.

OTOH, the rules shall be really, really, really better indicated. An opponent of mine did reach quickly 300 planes, with 12 fleet groups. He didn't survive 11/09, of course. And it shows the other argument, which noone never answers : if you kill the commonality penalty, winning will just be a matter of clicking more. The tactics this guy did apply will be suddenly working well. The more time you'll spend, the more you'll earn. End of strategy. Nothing to think about, just be a zombie.

[Zombie Slayer]

Nothing to think about, just be a zombie.

That's where I come in.   

[Karl]

Personally, I've never suggested just doing away with it - merely to try a game without to see what happens. 

I have participated in other aviation simulations before fleet commonality was introduced.  Before fleet commonality, every big airline got bigger and bigger by flying every and all types of aircraft and engines.  Fleet commonality helps keeps the simulation from into turning into free-for-all.  While real world airlines do not have such a penalty. they do pay a higher price for maintenance, facilities, stocking parts, employee expertise, etc. when they have huge, varied fleets.

On the other hand, I would like to see if we can find a way to help ease the fleet commonality regulation in two ways:

1.  Allow an airline to have a limited number of air framers and engine suppliers in both a mainline fleet and a commuter fleet - say2 or 3 of each type.

2.  To find some way (in very long scenarios) to ease the penalty when transitioning from one fleet type (especially from props to jets) to a more modern type.  This would, I believe, go a long wat to lessen the number of bankruptcies and help all players ease their airline away from props - which in this game seem to prevail many decades beyond their real-world counterparts.

[ArcherII]

If, if, if. And when we get connecting flights along with CBD for pax, all this issues with limiting the amount of fleet types would not be really needed. The demand model would work diametrally different than it does right now, where we have a set amount of demand out from the airports we are based in, which would mean that some routes would call for a lower sized model (or larger).

Anyways, if if if if we get the connecting flights in the mid term, trying to "solve" the commonality issue would be a waste of time.