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

Poll

Should we request more OPEN SKIES AGREEMENTS

Agree with suggested - all 7 global Open Skies are needed in AWS
4 (26.7%)
Add only 1 more open skies - such as "African Skies"
2 (13.3%)
Add only 1 or 2 more open skies agreements
1 (6.7%)
Add other open skies agreements but with different control measure to those suggested
2 (13.3%)
Only keep EU Open Skies - no other open skies agreements
6 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Author Topic: [-] Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game  (Read 258 times)

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565
Anyone else a bit bored with "running around in the same old hamster wheel" here at AWS ?

I've suggested it before but giving it one last try after yet more friends and some members of our alliance tell us they're bored of the game and leaving because their chosen country is too restrictive and limiting to really do anything exciting with their airline. The solution:

OPEN SKIES AGREEMENTS

1. Keep the "EU Open Skies" agreement we currently have that enables EU countries to open bases in other EU countries.
2. In the 70' or 80's introduce "African Open Skies":-  You can have only 1 base in either South Africa or Egypt or Algeria or Morocco - then any other 9 bases in any other African country.
3. Similarly "Central & South AM Skies":- You can have 1 base in either Mexico or Brazil or Argentina - then any other 9 bases in any other Central or South American country.
4. Also "Caribbean Skies" any 10 bases in any Caribbean island country.
5. "West Asian Skies":- 1 base from either Turkey or Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar or Bahrain or Kuwait or Iran or Pakistan, then 9 from any other country.
6. "East Asian Skies" .... same principal from India eastwards
7. "Oceanic Skies": 1 base in Australia plus 9 bases in any other Oceanic country.

This way, players can create a fairly big airline with lots of interesting potential with numerous bases in so many areas that were never before possible. As an example:-  You open your 1st base in South Africa (RSA), then you have 1 choice - either open a second in RSA which then means you must stay for all 10 bases in RSA, or elect to not open any more bases in RSA and make all other 9 bases in any African country other than RSA, Egypt, Algeria or Morocco.

I can only suggest not only could this open up this game tremendously to so many other new types of airlines, so much more enjoyment for older players of this game, but also we may well see the usage of a wider variety of aircraft types than we currently have.

I can't bare the fact this game is becoming stale to so many folk I chat with who are all long timers here at AWS.... Please can we do something to liven it up!
Jack
« Last Edit: December 25, 2020, 01:43:34 PM by Sami »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 2222

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2020, 03:24:32 PM »
There have been several games where there are no political restrictions on basing.  All of the restrictions for bases are setup purely to limit the big boys from crushing the little guy.  I don't think there is a reason to define political restrictions other than maybe staying on the same continent (or maybe requiring you not to stay on the same continent) with Turkey/Russia getting some special handling.

I think a flavor of this implemented with subsidiary airlines: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,85282.0.html would open up the possibilities tremendously.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17095
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The person who likes this post:
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2020, 03:44:44 PM »
AirwaySim is intended to be a realistic simulation and the freedoms of the air are based on what has happened in the real life. There won't be any made up geopolitical deals in the standard rule set of the simulation.

EU is currently the only such common open marketplace which has been modelled but I've done research (and received info/suggestions) on other similar developments for example in Asia. (But finding out how all these work is not so straightforward always)

However, as noted, there are frequently special-rules game worlds with for example no basing restrictions at all.

The expansion via subsidiary airlines is the realistic way to perform this (i.e. your Mexican airline opens a completely new, but fully owned, company in USA and thus being able to enter the US domestic market - naturally some ownership rules do exist in real life, such that the majority ownership would have to be in the base country [this existed for a while in some Eastern European regions a decade ago], but it's not feasible nor reasonable to even try to model).
« Last Edit: August 24, 2020, 03:55:02 PM by Sami »

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4337
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2020, 06:02:36 AM »
Asian Challenge had no basing rule, and the few big boys there did crush everyone else, hence the game finishing with barely 25 players. I'm pretty sure it's not a good idea overall.

Plus there are so many differences between nations. I had to pay chinese wages & chinese taxes, and then opened HND & NRT, where locals were paying japanese wages & japanese taxes. guess who won?

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2020, 08:57:29 AM »
I quote: "hence the game finishing with barely 25 players"   -  Herewith my exact point !  A lack of diversity and ability to have fun with such a game.

Ok well, lets all just keep everything the same then shall we. Nothing new and exciting. about a hundred countries that never get an airline in them, a hundred aircraft types that never get any use.... as long as we keep everything just like RL    oh my gosh.......  it's like beating ones head against a brick wall here.  I'm intrigued about whether the ideas suggested by Sami for a subsidiary might work, but equally concerned at the cost of the complications making it unworkable for a relatively poor airline with HQ in - for example Guatamala, then trying to break into having an airline subsidiary in the USA.....  but lets see
sigh
« Last Edit: August 25, 2020, 09:35:09 AM by Cornishman »

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4337

The person who likes this post:
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2020, 09:48:38 AM »
had I been confined in China, I would'nt have killed that many players in Singapore & Japan.

Once, I played modern times in Algeria. There was one player in Morocco, one in Tunisia, and two in Egypt. Considering their performances & mine, I'd have been the sole survivor in Norther Africa, if the game had been open. Basing rules protect players.

Same in my WAW game : I dispatched 2 players in 55 years in Poland, then came the EU open sky rules, and I cleaned up ALC, ARN, and one or two other airports. Far more victims in 30 years of open skies than in 55 years elsewhere (even though the first years are usually the most deadly).

Playing in a limited area gives another kind of challenge. I4l playing in the emirates, right now. Very different from Saudi Arabia, with no domestic market, but a very strong market to Europe & Eastern Asia. Allowing thos to melt would make playing in the middle east a single, lone experience. While it's actually very different in terms of gameplay right now. Because of basing rules.

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Open up the potential for enjoyment and diversity in this game
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2020, 11:18:25 AM »
OK Gazz, I  100% get your point - a very valid point, that we need to "clip the wings" of very strong players like you and I can be. So lets take your exact example of the game you played in Algeria. By my suggestion you would have been able to do only one of these two options:
A: Have a home base in Algeria -> best base is certainly Algiers + 9 other bases only in Algeria.
or
B: Have a home base in Algeria -> best base is certainly Algiers + 9 other bases none of which can again be in Algeria (leaves lots of room for another player to capitalise on Algeria only) no bases then permitted in South Africa, nor Egypt, nor Morocco (the 3 other good potential African countries).  So your 9 other bases could be for example, Lagos, Luanda, Brazzaville, Entebbe, Nairobi, Windhoek, Kinshasa, Triploli, Khartoum.   How much fun could that be to connect up and open up this game!   By your same example and my same suggestion, your game where you based in China... therefore you would not have been permitted in another "high potential country" like Japan. You would have had the option to take 9 other bases in China, or only that one in China, plus 9 from the "thin countries" - so Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, etc.... again bags of new fun to be had !?

Do you see how my suggestion is angled towards keeping the game fair for those not as strong as yourself?  I just think there is so much wasted potential in this game and to just refuse to consider this on the basis that in RL there is no such exact agreement is short-sighted to me. There was an African agreement for over 40 years with Air Afrique, and in the ME there was GulfAir before it retracted to just being the Bahrainian airline that it is today - so this is not so far off any realistic model. And whats the point of trying to cling onto total realism to RL when so many other aspects of this game are not true to RL and thank heavens as it would be absolutely no fun at all if everything was done exactly in line with RL.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2020, 12:03:35 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.