AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Fleet commonality experiment  (Read 768 times)

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5032

The person who likes this post:
Re: Fleet commonality experiment
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2019, 11:39:39 AM »
...
Does that help clear my position?

A lot. And actually makes much more sense now :)

I actually agree on the "don't make something twice part, more than a bit.
But also sustain that we should try to find small tweaks (that don't need a complete rework of the system) that can improve the playability until CBD-pax comes in. And select the proposals based upon this criteria.

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1182

The person who likes this post:
Re: Fleet commonality experiment
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2019, 12:25:41 PM »
So the first of my 787-9 fleet have arrived to replace the 403x 777s I have and I thought I'd set just one into operation to see what it would do to my figures. Here is the mind-boggling crazy result:

Before - with 3 types):
757  Fleet monthly cost: 28,283,069
777  Fleet monthly cost: 62,834,004
EMB Fleet monthly cost: 26,280,545
Cost of all Engines :       20,287,459
Total monthly cost:  $ 137,685,077

Experiment - with 4 types (just 1x new 787 added):
757  Fleet monthly cost: 409,005,440
777  Fleet monthly cost: 908,839,203
787  Fleet monthly cost: 12,326,574
EMB Fleet monthly cost: 380,029,444
Cost of all Engines :       20,323,434
Total monthly cost:  $ 1,285,780,371

= IMPOSSIBLE !  I am forced to wait to allow every one of the new 787s to arrive and do nothing with that growing fleet for about 5 or 6 years before then swapping the whole lot over in 1 go. = CRAZY

There are some great comments from folk here. Whatever happens THIS NEEDS FIXING. This above scenario leaves me feeling there is no more fun in this.  I absolutely love the idea of having a "Designated Retirement Fleet" allocation. You could even say that not a single new route may be added to that aircraft type while the switch happens. We could get a warning just like the "Route Oversupply" warning currently happens, so the punishment could be that your routes are all dropped if you infringe.  I'm not against having a measure to curtail "abuse" of fleet size and type, but this system is so restricting it kills my desire to play another GW next time... and I don't want that to be the case - the core of this game is so excellent and again I say, please don't take me as being all negative, but if something needs fixing imo, I tend to shout out about it.

Offline knobbygb

  • Members
  • Posts: 784

The person who likes this post:
Re: Fleet commonality experiment
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2019, 03:41:18 PM »
Yes, I also understand Sami's "three mountainloads" of work too and that's why I rarely rant - I'm certainly not one of the monthly ones! I just wanted to clear that up, but at the same time say I'm slowly falling out of love with AWS.  This time around I really did consider just not starting another long game world.  Instead I jumped in part way into a game, at a deliberately difficult time and set myself the challenge of only using piston/turboprops for the whole of the rest of the game. 

A good  point is raised above about not fixing this now when such a big change is on the horizon with CBD. That makes sense. Does nobody agree with my suggestion of an experimental penalty-free game though? That's pretty much ZERO development time. OR what about at least dropping the penalty for the last 20 years of a regular game to keep people interested. By that time there's pretty much only big, well established airlines left anyway. An utter bloodbath could be a LOT of fun...

The talk of 'golden tickets' and the like makes sense, but it somehow seems even more contrived, unnatural and unrealistic.  Surely there is a more real-world way to allow huge companies to exist alongside small ones. Can't it just be done with a sliding scale of tax increases or something?  At least we're all understand being taxed!

After nearly 9 years it's a shame I and, it seems, a few others are considering quitting just when things should be getting "good".

EDIT: re-reading I saw I use the word 'penalty' a few times. That made me think... isn't the current fleet commonality penalty to AWS a bit like VAR is to football/soccer? Yes, it's MEANT to make things fairer but has the disconcerting side effect of spoiling the game for many.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 03:55:24 PM by knobbygb »

Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4540

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Fleet commonality experiment
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2019, 06:36:26 PM »
An idea I had the other day, and it's similar to GrayAnderson's, is this.

Designate a fleet as "retiring", allow commonality costs to raise a bit, but not as punitively as they currently do(5-10%?). Could even add a requirement forcing the fleet to reduce in size 1 plane a month or 12 a year or whatever. This would allow someone to phase in a new fleet, much like is done in real life, replacing old planes with new ones. As opposed to how things are done now, which DanDan and schro have already gone through, or by putting themselves at a disadvantage and playing with 2 fleets so they can phase in a fleet change without penalty.

Myself a d several others pitched ideas similar to this as long as 6 years ago. It has sadly recieved precisely zero attention from TPTB.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Fleet commonality experiment
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2019, 09:01:21 PM »
I'd be up for starting a new GW which is penalty-free and a potential blood-bath  :laugh: as per your suggestion knobby.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 09:06:44 PM by Cornishman »

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.