[ok] Fleet commonality changes - combined thread

[gazzz0x2z]

I don't pay for a click to win, Cornishman. I want tough choices. I want to be forced to painful, interesting decisions. Removing the damn thing would just mean the more time you play, the more you win. Just yet another grinding game. Just another Empire & Puzzles. No thanks.

My suggestions is to have far more warnings about the consequences of your acts.

[Cornishman]

Hey Gazzz - I don't want a "click-to-win" game either. I don't have a lot of time to devote to the game. I keep hearing this old rhetoric that the game is apparently hanging-on to dear life all thanks to this ridiculous commonality penalty. Where's the proof of that IN THIS GAME. (I hear lots about other games - I don't care about other games. Those telling us how other games malfunction due to "click-to win", please do us all a favour and stop trying to apply that directly to this game without a shred of evidence for it!)  This game has so many great facets to it I hardly believe the 1 saving grace is this fleet commonality penalty. Sami is hardly likely to ever remove fleet commonality penalty and replace it with nothing. You make no comment on the many alternative solutions that others or myself offer. Just stuck fixated on this commonality. No appetite to try some new tactics?  Just content to continue to go around and around in the same old tactical manner? - come on mate - I know you're better than that.

Thanks to this commonality penalty, about 80% of all the aircraft types we could choose from hardly ever get used. Thanks to it when we swap out a fleet of say 300x 732A for a new fleet of 733 then we are forced to either endure eye-wateringly ridiculous cost escalation whilst we run 4 fleets for a few years, or like most of us are unrealistically forced to do, we amass hundreds of planes sitting waiting on the tarmac till the day comes we can swap them all our in one go. And other unrealistic situations result too - God It's crazy !

It says something that I'm actually having more fun writing in this thread and fighting this cause than I get actually playing the game anymore !

How about suggesting an alternative solution - we regard you as very well versed in this game so I'm not detracting from the respect we have for your knowledge here Gazzz, but if in life we don't innovate, then we just stagnate.

[Karl]

This was previously posted by me in another part of the Forum.  I offer the following:

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]

I insist that if we ever get connecting flights, we could fill a 738 on a route that in the present system can only be served by a CRJ2.

The commonality penalty would arguably be not necessary anymore, as the need to get different sized aircraft to chase every route pair in the present system will disappear in a connecting flight demand system. Would there still be a need for a smaller aircraft? You could argue that there would, but absolutely not to the extent that the present demand system needs it. Players only flying medium sized aircraft could still also be successful.

[Cornishman]

I insist that if we ever get connecting flights, we could fill a 738 on a route that in the present system can only be served by a CRJ2.

The commonality penalty would arguably be not necessary anymore, as the need to get different sized aircraft to chase every route pair in the present system will disappear in a connecting flight demand system. Would there still be a need for a smaller aircraft? You could argue that there would, but absolutely not to the extent that the present demand system needs it. Players only flying medium sized aircraft could still also be successful.

Yes mate, I believe removing the penalty, but implementing other pre-requirements and strategies maybe like this is what we need. Yes, smaller planes still would have a place. If I'd like to run an airline from say Panama, then at PTY I can have my big airline there with a mix of ATRs 737 747 757 767 and maybe 1 or 2 Concordes for special routes. then I could also have my regional fleet at the other bases like EAJ / BOC / DAV and CHU where I could use all sorts of small planes to benefit the best route economics. How exciting could that be, opening up the possibilities that players could choose to operate from all sorts of other countries that currently are rarely touched. Yes, I too still want a tough challenge and so welcome other tough measures around this. To the few folk who are concerned to prevent a click-fest - I agree with that concern, but I'm sure there's an easy way already to limit how many planes per day can be bought / scheduled / etc to keep that part fairer.

[ArcherII]

I just don't want to replace a fabricated feature that regulates the game in some way, with another feature or features to specifically aim for some desired mechanic within the competitive aspect of the game. It can become a true rabbit hole.

[DanDan]

i personally agree with some of the other opinions here:

in my opinion, the game is not making any effort to be realistic currently. to do this, i would introduce price-sensitive customers. certainly, connecting passengers would be a great deal; but maybe for the time being it would suffice to let customers switch to flights on different days. different routings with multiple stops would be opening up new markets.
that would open up so much potential for the need to manage schedules better. better options in flight quality and transparency in this would help open such issues to not-so-hardcore-players.

click to win is certainly not where one wants to go - but the creation of a rule that makes the game so unrealistic, instead of giving the game further depth by creating a more realistic challenge is not what i want to play. making the game on purpose annoying to the gamers is certainly not going to help it; and i think the player numbers reflect that.

[DanDan]

Is there any news on this? Any changes done in the last years?

[NZelenkova]

You can find any change logs on the forum or even ask Sami himself. I do believe the initial idea of very similar aircraft from the same manufacturer being integrated into the same commonality did occur as I've been away for a number of years and yet I see for example that the Boeing designs that actually originated in the final days of McDonnel Douglas before the merger are now in the MD family.

As for breaking away from the base system into something more realistic, that's been discussed for decades but doesn't seem to have feasible solutions. I'm still pretty happy as it is as pretty much any country with multiple domestic airports will have a decent opportunity for small aircraft. The only reason people don't start in countries like Tanzania is because you can't conquer the world from there. But you can set up a base in all three airports successfully flying small aircraft where no one else will on top of serving the modest international connections.

[Sami]

This set of updates is being rolled out; thread closed, pls post feedback here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,94430.0.html