[-] Allow only Very Large, Cargo Only aircraft carry Heavy Cargo

[JumboShrimp]

Only for the sake of game playability:

Given that the system gives overwhelming advantage to Large cargo aircraft (vs Very Large aircraft), that has no parallel to RW, in order to restore some reasonable balance, Large Aircraft should be prevented from carrying Heavy Cargo.

[Zobelle]

Disagree. You’ll kill the 757 cargo with that.

[JumboShrimp]

Disagree. You’ll kill the 757 cargo with that.

The way the system allocation works is that it is either

757F

or

767F, A300F, A332F, DC-10-30F, DC-30-40F, MD-11-10F, MD-11-30F, MD-11F, 777F, 748F

It's not even a close call.  The same way 757 broke AWS for pax, 757F breaks AWS for cargo twice as badly. 

Or, more accurately, AWS allocation overwhelmingly favoring smaller and smaller class aircraft over larger and larger class aircraft has a side effect of obsoleting an entire class of aircraft, in this case, Very Large cargo aircraft. 

I would much prefer fixing this root cause (allocation by flights), but if that's not happening, any bandaid would be welcome to make flying Very Large Cargo aircraft viable.

[Tha_Ape]

I'd rather introduce a marginal class of cargo that only VL aircrafts can carry. Seems much more reasonable.

I mean, look at the post I just made on the general forum. An An-178 (basically an An-148) can carry 2 maritime containers. Damn! 2 f***ing maritime containers in a medium-class aircraft! For the sake of game playability and simplicity, this won't most likely be implemented, so don't ask HC not to be carried on large-class aircrafts. Look for another solution to that problem.

And buy yourself some SAM to shoot down every 757 that you see, since it seems to be your target of choice

However I don't see you close to a BK because of the 757.

[JumboShrimp]

And buy yourself some SAM to shoot down every 757 that you see, since it seems to be your target of choice

757, because it uniquely exploits the biggest weakness of AWS allocation system, in that it obsoletes the entire class of aircraft - by exploiting the allocation of pax and cargo by # of flights.

The effects of other fleets and other aircraft have been smaller, and some of the biggest exploits have been addressed by either of series of bandaids ("too small", tech stop, too many flight) and by moving certain classes of aircraft from medium to large of from large to very large.

For example using BAC 111 aircraft used to be considered almost an exploit.  Sami moved it from Medium to Large to nerf it.   Using 757F is 2 times the exploit of BAC-111.

But all of it has a root cause in allocation by # of flights.  As long as 38k cargo capacity 757F is allocated EQUAL amount of cargo of 2x to 3x as large, 2x-3x as expensive, 100k capacity Very Large Aircraft, this exploit will be used to BK companies who play AWS based on what they think real world would dictate, rather than by gaming the game by using aircraft that exploits weaknesses of AWS.

[Tha_Ape]

I know your arguments and argumentation. Didn't experience everything (didn't experience the 757, not inside my fleet or from a competitor), but I wrote about my own experiences and observations.

However, repeating over and over again the same exact things won't make the others listen more to you. Wether your are right, wrong, or halfway doesn't matter. You should try to get Sami's ear in another way. Really. Otherwise you'll look just obsessed and not worth considering.

Try to get the passion out of it. That last proposal you made was the 1st thing that came to your mind and mostly irrational. You're capable of much more than that, I know it for a fact from reading other posts you wrote.

[Talentz]

I mean, look at the post I just made on the general forum. An An-178 (basically an An-148) can carry 2 maritime containers. Damn! 2 f***ing maritime containers in a medium-class aircraft!

That's because it is a military aircraft. It started out as a civil cargo concept, then turned into a military application.

Anywho, no need to nerf the 757F (which would also nerf every other Lg aircraft). The 757F works great in MH, smaller markets. US/EU are the perfect playgrounds for it. However, once you start going beyond 5000nm/100k+ kg cargo routes, the 757F is really not that OP.

To counter that strategy, you just have to fly pax as well to level the frequency benefit out. I'm fairly sure the system doesn't care if the flight is cargo only or not. Each frequency is counted separately so if your going against 2x daily tech stopping 757F, then a 1x daily cargo and 1x daily pax/cargo (combi/pax+belly) will even that out.

Of course that's tailored towards a LH route with pax plus cargo...


Talentz

[Cedric3108]

I think the root of the problem is, that out-right aircraft size and the capability to carry certain sizes of cargo don't go hand in hand as they do for passengers. Following the given example, the AN-178 (being a medium aircraft) can carry bigger bulks of cargo than a B777 passenger version can do in the cargo hold. It can actually carry the same size of containers a B777F, just not as many of them. I think the classification system as a whole doesn't work for cargo, since the size of the aircraft and the size of cargo it can carry don't necessarily correlate.

[Tha_Ape]

That's because it is a military aircraft. It started out as a civil cargo concept, then turned into a military application.

Turned out to be used mostly for military applications, but also got civilian customers.
Anyway, I understand the refusal and don't complain that much. I just wanted to state that some small A/Cs carry HC, so why prevent the large class from doing so.

Hence another possibility, a 4th class of cargo only for VL class. Would be quite marginal, but could ensure that LH cargo don't get spoiled.

However, when I look at large cargo airlines operating LH ops, they are doing more than good. So even that proposal might be useless (and thus the ranting about the 757F as well).

[Talentz]

I think the root of the problem is, that out-right aircraft size and the capability to carry certain sizes of cargo don't go hand in hand as they do for passengers. Following the given example, the AN-178 (being a medium aircraft) can carry bigger bulks of cargo than a B777 passenger version can do in the cargo hold. It can actually carry the same size of containers a B777F, just not as many of them. I think the classification system as a whole doesn't work for cargo, since the size of the aircraft and the size of cargo it can carry don't necessarily correlate.

True, but attempting to match real world is next to impossible. There's many variations and different types of cargo that would need to be modeled. Not to mention how the system calculations space inside, different floor density for cargo allowed ect, ect.

It's just not worth it. Much like pax, it needs to be kept a bit "simplified".


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

That's because it is a military aircraft. It started out as a civil cargo concept, then turned into a military application.

Anywho, no need to nerf the 757F (which would also nerf every other Lg aircraft). The 757F works great in MH, smaller markets. US/EU are the perfect playgrounds for it. However, once you start going beyond 5000nm/100k+ kg cargo routes, the 757F is really not that OP.

1. Distance makes no difference
2. As long as the system allocates equal amount of cargo (100% of revenue) to an aircraft that is 33% of cost of Very Large aircraft, I am really curious what your definition of what Over Powered means.    300% efficiency is not overpowered enough?
3. FedEx is flying Very Large aircraft just fine over MH, without having to worry about someone showing up with a Large aircraft and emptying their Very large aircraft

To counter that strategy, you just have to fly pax as well to level the frequency benefit out. I'm fairly sure the system doesn't care if the flight is cargo only or not. Each frequency is counted separately so if your going against 2x daily tech stopping 757F, then a 1x daily cargo and 1x daily pax/cargo (combi/pax+belly) will even that out.

You cannot combat it if AWS artificially created 200%-300% efficiency of 757 vs Very Large Aircraft.

Cargo is new, and very few people have discovered, and have employed this exploit, does not mean that its not imminently coming. 

I am curious what happens when we have double tech stopped A321s flying with 200% profit margins of single tech stopped 757F, 600% profit margin of 777F.

Because the system only recognizes (arbitrarily) the double tech stopped A321 as 1 flight, single tech stopped 757 as 1 flight, non-stop 777F as 1 flight.

[JumboShrimp]

I know your arguments and argumentation.

The post about An148 being able to carry 2 containers just gave me an idea how to go the opposite direction, to create a band aid that would let Very Large Aircraft survive in AWS.

There is always an option of revising AWS, away from being aircraft size (and even class) agnostic, to make it neutral, rather than being biased in favor of smaller aircraft and smaller class size), but banning Large aircraft from carrying Heavy Cargo is a quicker fix.

And the system would not have to SAM all of the 757 out of the sky.  Just allocate 90% HC next year, 80% year after that all the way down to zero in 10 years (when incidentally, 2 more 757 like weapons arrive in GW3).

After the phase out, 757 can still engage in frequency wars with other large aircraft on the 2 other cargo classes, and Very Large Aircraft will remain viable in AWS.

[Talentz]

Im not going to argue every point I disagree with.

There's too much cargo demand in the world to be 757 tech-stopped and frequency bombed. At some point, an airline just can't grow that big with a single aircraft fleet. It's just impractical and quite laughable.

Yes, on a smaller scale the 757F is ripping you a new one. But there's no way your opponent can keep pace with you and maintain profit margins at the same time. Just out grow and watch competition makes mistakes/get bored then die.

It's pretty much what we all do.

Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

Im not going to argue every point I disagree with.

There's too much cargo demand in the world to be 757 tech-stopped and frequency bombed. At some point, an airline just can't grow that big with a single aircraft fleet. It's just impractical and quite laughable.

That's exception rather than rule.  I would guess that 95% of players are playing at airports that certainly don't have too much demand.

For example, it does not apply, 100% of airlines below US Mexican border to Patagonia, 100% of airlines in Africa, 100% of airlines in Euro-Asia east of German border and West of Japan, Korean Peninsula, 100% of airlines in Australia, Oceania.

Yes, on a smaller scale the 757F is ripping you a new one. But there's no way your opponent can keep pace with you and maintain profit margins at the same time. Just out grow and watch competition makes mistakes/get bored then die.

It's pretty much what we all do.

When I am thinking about a potential problem / exploit, my thinking is:

"What could the most skilled, most talented and most dedicated player do with this exploit"

rather than thinking

"Maybe the guy using the exploit will just get tired of winning"

[Talentz]

when I am thinking about a potential problem / exploit, my thinking is:

"What could the most skilled, most talented and most dedicated player do with this exploit"

rather than thinking

"Maybe the guy using the exploit will just get tired of winning"

Good post. I would change a few things though to match my thinking as well...

"What could the most skilled, most talented and most dedicated player do with this exploit game mechanic"

"Maybe the guy using the game mechanic will just get tired of winning"

to

I'll use my superior experience and knowledge to defeat this strategy; Showing them: much to learn, they still have...

Then let the gameplay speak for itself, either way.


Talentz