Remove the distance demand limitations within CBD

[Tha_Ape]

In the current system, cargo demand drops drastically beyond 8000nm.

This is very similar to what happens within the old system (intl until 2400nm if on a different continent, LH beyond 3400 on the same continent).
In this old system, it leads to absurdities like the huge demand between Oslo and Kuwait, and tiny demand between Oslo and Dubai.
But this is the old system, and these limitations were there for a good reason in this system.

However, repeating this kind of thing in the new CBD system is, in my opinion, something that should be fixed.
Example: SIN has good cargo demand to SEA, SFO, LAX, but beyond this it drop drastically as we're past the 8000nm line. ORD is not worth flying to, nor is the N-Y area, for example.
On the other hand, to Europe, a SIN-Jersey route is more than profitable. JERSEY! 164.000 inhabitants on the whole Channel Islands.
But what makes more sense? Flying SIN-ORD or SIN-Jersey?

Thus, to remedy this, I'd propose to instead set tags on countries (like Australia already has, or so it seems), or even better, tags on country pairs that are considered too far away from each other to have some real cargo between them. But not to have a country cut in two because that 8000nm line gets in the middle. SIN is one the major cargo hubs IRL, and so are the US, but in the game only the west coast is worth flying to.

To back this, here's a few docs:
 - USA ranking as 4th cargo market for SIN airport, on page 5 http://www.changiairport.com/content/dam/cacorp/partnership/media/H138814_Changi%20Cargo%20Brochure%2032PP_200Wx190H%20R4%20HR_compressed.pdf
 - SIA cargo (not belly cargo) serving Dallas http://www.siacargo.com/network.asp

Thanks.

Note: comparing SIN real markets vs game demand

          REAL LIFE                       AWS
1            China                         Japan (38 daily flights)
2          Australia                    Germany (17)
3         Hong Kong             United Kingdom (13)
4       United States                 France (12)
5            India                         Italy (11)
6           Japan                          USA (8 - only 1 beyond the 8000nm limit)
7         Indonesia                     Spain (4)
8         Germany                    Denmark (3)
9           Korea                       Belgium (3)
10   United Kingdom                Korea (3)

Remarks: in AWS, Indonesia is inexistent, HKG nothing close to n°3, Australia might be worth 1 single 757PF to SYD within 20 years, China's demand is so spread out that even SIN-Shanghai is barely worth it, etc.
China is at 1 daily (barely profitable)
India at 0
Indonesia at 0
Australia at 0
HKG at 2

[Tha_Ape]

Another remark, IRL only 2 European countries are in the top 10, while in AWS there are 7 of them. And from 8th and 10th, they go 2nd and 3rd.

This is no complaint about cargo in SIN: just like I did in previous GW#2, I barely use the country I'm playing in to observe some behaviours and see if they are highly unrealistic / improbable or quite ok.

Obviously, in some cases the system needs unrealistic aspects to work (or to be enjoyable as a game), but when I think they are not needed or think they could be replaced by something else, I say it.

And in this case it even seems pretty easy to do: as said in the previous post, countries already have specs (cargo is not just GDP x pop.), so the idea is just to put them in relation.

Theoretically, this could be 200x200 countries, 40.000 relationships, but with a series of filters (distance, type of economy and manufactured goods, local tradition of air cargo like in Japan, importer and/or exporter country, etc.) it should summarize to 10-20 types of relationships.