AirwaySim

Reports and Requests => Feature requests => Topic started by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 11:54:36 AM

Title: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 11:54:36 AM
Okay, so I am up EARLY this morning. 

I thought of a way to possibly change the way you look at commonality.  This applies only for Fleet and NOT engine commonality

You get 1 point for your first aircraft fleet type.
You get 1 point if you get another aircraft from the same manufacturer of the same size/type (For instance, adding the 737ng to your 737c fleet)
You get 2 points if you get another aircraft from same manufacturer if  type is different (For instance, adding 757s to your airline of only 737s)
You get 2 points if you get another aircraft from same manufacturer if size is different (For instance, adding the 747 to your airline of 737s)
You get 3 points if you get another aircraft type from a different manufacturer if size is the same (For instance, adding a A320 to the 737s)
You get 4 points if you get another aircraft type from a different manufacturer of a different size (For instance, adding A340s to the 737s)

When you click to view another airline, their total number of points would be public and is displayed there.

The more points that you have, the more your fleet will cost to operate. 

There are many reasons I like this system. 
1.  You get penalized less if you are staying with one plane type (MD80/737)
2.  You get penalized more if you are getting planes from everyone
3.  You get penalized more if your airline is too broad (meaning, flying Pipers through Jumbos).  This will help small airlines who want to fly only small a/c
4.  This will prevent F5 spammers from going after everything as this will severely impact an airline early on.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sami on January 06, 2011, 12:07:58 PM
Yep but this model does not take into account that a larger airline can afford to have let's say 8 fleets if they have 150 planes, but a 30 strong airline can't.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 12:15:17 PM
Yep but this model does not take into account that a larger airline can afford to have let's say 8 fleets if they have 150 planes, but a 30 strong airline can't.
Sami, I disagree completely.  This is why the point scale is not 1:1.  It would have to be logarithmic.  You would pay significantly more for every point.  

First off, how did that 150 plane airline get to where they are?  What 8 types are they flying?   That small airline may have only 4-6 points.  The larger 8 type airline would have a tremendously higher commonality cost.

1.  This prevents people from going after many fleet types early on.
2.  It forces/enforces an airline's need to be one dimensional early on and expand in a manner much more consistent to real life.

So, after you have that business model in place with a good core of planes of one or two types, then you can widen your scope.  You shouldn't be able to have 2 744s, 3 737ngs, 2 MD80s, and 5 Dash 8s.  

This idea is solely to slow the early part of the game down and keep other players from being dominated in the beginning.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 12:50:04 PM
...something to add.

The point scale is linked to a commonality modifier.  This will be X times the commonality cost. 
As I said before, make this logarithmic.  So 1=1x, 2=2.5x, 3=4.5x, 4=7x...  (those don't have to be the numbers, just used as an example)

Each plane has a set "cost" for all maint/commonality.  Some of these numbers are in the background.
Why not make them public?

So, when XYZ Airline adds another fleet, they will know what exactly they will have to be paying for their fleet. 
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 06, 2011, 09:55:34 PM
Sorry, but to me this doesn't make sense.

There shouldn't be a 'penalty' for having more fleet types, but having fewer should give efficiency savings.... I mean if you have 1 x plane type A then adding 1 x plane type B should not make plane type A more expensive to run, but by adding a second plane of type A the cost per plane should decrease.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 11:01:15 PM
it may not be realistic 100%.

but neither is being able to have tons of fleet types either.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 06, 2011, 11:11:35 PM
There should be a substantial cost to having the first plane of any fleet type, and that cost should be getting lower and lower when you add more planes of the same fleet type.  That would be consistant with real world.

Implementing it this way would put a lot of new airlines out of business right off the bat - not good for AWS.

So perhaps, it should still be programmed that way, and for the sake of game play, the substantial upfront cost would be waived on first fleet type (either temporarily or permanently).

As far as what is "first" fleet type should be determined by the value of aircraft in the fleet - the highest value fleet type would be the free one.

If implemented, it would result still result in a lot of bankruptcies early on, as players would still be adding fleet types left and right, but the word would spread around - that the way to stay in business early on, you have to stay with one fleet type until you grow...
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 06, 2011, 11:56:01 PM

If implemented, it would result still result in a lot of bankruptcies early on, as players would still be adding fleet types left and right, but the word would spread around - that the way to stay in business early on, you have to stay with one fleet type until you grow...

EXACTLY what I am aiming for. 

Those who play the "old style" would fail. 

Those who play a real business model have a real chance at competing. 

You have to have a main focus early on and expand like a true airline would.  What airline starts itself with a JFG to CDG with a 747-200 and a 737-300 running a route from JFK and back?   UM, NO ONE! 
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Riger on January 07, 2011, 02:16:02 AM
Swiftus,

I agree with what you have said, the only comment I have to add is that there will need to be increased availability of common types in the Used Market to support this mechanism.

Best Regards
Richard
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: BobTheCactus on January 07, 2011, 03:04:41 AM
Swiftus,

I agree with what you have said, the only comment I have to add is that there will need to be increased availability of common types in the Used Market to support this mechanism.

Best Regards
Richard



Exactly my opinion as well
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: powi on January 07, 2011, 07:07:44 AM
For gameplay sake, the system should not be too restrictive. I don't want to see everybody flying just A320/B737/MD80.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 07, 2011, 06:06:24 PM
EXACTLY what I am aiming for.  

Those who play the "old style" would fail.  

Those who play a real business model have a real chance at competing.  

You have to have a main focus early on and expand like a true airline would.  What airline starts itself with a JFG to CDG with a 747-200 and a 737-300 running a route from JFK and back?   UM, NO ONE!  

But this is caused by having so much unfulfilled demand at the start of the game, nothing to do with commonality.

The competition is so high on routes in RL that airlines need to save money any way they can to stay competitive on price. In the game I have literally no competition on 60-70% of my routes so can make money easily. If I use fewer fleet types I can just make more money but due to the lack of competition there is nothing forcing me to try to be more efficient.

If the situation was repeated (lots of untapped demand) in the real world then airlines would fly whatever they could get their hands on just to get passengers in the air and money in the bank.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 07, 2011, 11:12:22 PM
I'm the first (okay, maybe second after swiftus) to complain about the issues of airlines with 25 fleet types.  But Jonesy hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

Airlines are efficient in reality because they have to be.  Not because that 5th airplane costs them 10 times the amount to operate as the 3rd (or whatever).  It's just these sort of contrivances that actually make it harder for new players because they flat out don't make sense and only those with experience with the game know how to manipulate the system to take advantage of it.

Hacking in something to make it harder for these airlines with the modus operandi of grabbing whatever they can doesn't solve the problem -- WHY they can operate that way in the first place.  That is what is unrealistic.   They don't do it because sami hasn't coded in some magical solution that prevents them.  They do it because anyone with half a brain (and my apologies to those who can't for some reason) can make so much money in AWS they don't possibly know what to do with all of it.  That's the problem that needs to be solved.  Fix that and you solve a whole bunch of problems with the game.

Trying to solve the problem by slapping on some kind of limitation based on the variables of reality won't work because this isn't reality.  It's the same reason why we don't stop production of a plane at historic dates anymore -- because our reality is different.  What didn't sell in reality, sells here.  And what doesn't work in reality (flying 20 planes of different types) works here because we've got an entire planet of unfilled demand with no competition to speak of, unrealistic rates, and as a result, unrealistic margins.  So it works.  Not because flying 20 different fleet types is "unrealistic" but because our world is "unrealistic".  Until you make the world itself realistic all you're gonna do is be slapping on a thousand contrivances to try to make an airline not operating in reality, operate like one we see everyday.

Sami already tried changes, at least twice now, to exponentially increase the costs of maintaining fleets.  And what did it do?  Nothing.  Because that's not the problem.  And this solution, while a more complicated and perhaps elegant solution than what sami already tried twice, is still the same basic idea at the root of it.  And it will have the same outcome -- no impact to those who know how to milk the system for all its profits and a massive impact to those who don't know any better and by that 4th fleet that BKs their airline -- kinda like opening a new base.  

All these obscure changes to "balance" the game have only hurt balance in the end.  Players that know how to manipulate the system for maximum profits don't care that their 4th fleet or 10th fleet or whatever costs so much.  Because barring the rare player like myself that can operate an efficient yet also very large airline that can maybe run them out of business if I catch them early on, they're going to steamroll anyone else.  Because anyone savvy enough to know how to maximize the profits knows how to maximize (or minimize) their costs even with these weird penalties.  They know the Xth fleet costs more.  They know that new base nonsensically increases their operating costs by 30%.  And they capitalize on that knowledge for maximum gain while less-experienced players flounder because they make the most sensible decisions which, by and large, are not the correct ones in AWS.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 08, 2011, 01:53:39 AM
Sigma,

It is "easy" to make money in order for most of the airlines to survive, rather than go under in a year.  With the current system, there are still 400 airlines out of 500 slots in MT3 half way through the game (well, some restarted, but many are still alive from beginning).  If the profit margins shrink, it would affect newer and inexperienced players a lot more than the experienced players.

What Swiftus is suggesting is a way to slow down the exponential growth of the airlines that is fueled buy ability to have nearly limitless number of fleet types.  I agree with general idea that having many fleet types (with few planes of each fleet type) should be expensive, which also reflects real world strive for efficiency by limiting fleet typese to maintain.  (I am not sold on the point system though).

I don't like artificial limitations either.  I think the limitations AWS should be economic, and AWS should strive for the AWS economic model to resemble Real Life economic model.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: EricB on January 08, 2011, 02:24:22 AM
Maybe Sami is already onto this. The possibility to add AI airlines would be able to change the outcome of the new gamestarts. Lets say that you simulate that there are a complete airline market and the player kinda join-in to fight down the AI airlines. When finally some lucky bastards, hopefully cost-efficient, reaches the sizes of what we see today in AWS the AI airlines will slowly start to die out of the game. The huge human-controlled airlines lead alliances with other players and together end the era of AI airlines. When the AI airlines empire is down, the alliances will start fighting towards domination of the airline market.

But to make it possible to even compete in a realistic way, pricing on routes must be different. It shall for example, as in real life, be possible to see what the other airlines get paid for their tickets and the passengers should be more sensitive to the pricing as in real life. In my world it looks like this: if airline A flies the same route as airline B and sells tickets for lets say 10$ less, the passengers will choose airline A. And if you look at the current situation in Europe, passengers tend to choose the cheaper alternative even if they have to sacrifice good service etc. If you can get a ticket for 10$ less and you really don't know anything about the aviation industry at all (as at least 95% of all people in the world don't), you will choose the cheaper alternative. But if you tend to be one of the 5% in the world who knows at least the difference of a B737 and a A320 you will tend to choose the one which will give you the best in-flight meal, entertainment and service.

Note: It will also be easier to spot those who like to crack small regional carriers if you can see ticket prices. O, maybe it should be possible to see an average of the ticket pricing instead of the system we use today when you just set standard. And if you want more in-dept information you can see ticketpricing at every single airline flying the route.
More micro-management, more long-time playing and the greatest of all: a more fair competition.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 08, 2011, 02:50:13 AM
If the profit margins shrink, it would affect newer and inexperienced players a lot more than the experienced players.

Well, of course, in a purely wholesale "cut everyone's profits 90%" fashion.  But if the economic model was done correctly (and I mean no disrespect to sami, it's a Herculean effort) then some margins would go down and some would go up as well because those who operate more efficiently would actually be more efficient.  And more importantly those who actually made smart, logical, rational business decisions might actually see logical, rational results -- i.e. cutting pricing actually doing something aside from simply lowering your revenues -- rather than the game being dominated (speaking as one who does) by those who know how to game the game.

Quote
What Swiftus is suggesting is a way to slow down the exponential growth of the airlines that is fueled buy ability to have nearly limitless number of fleet types.  I agree with general idea that having many fleet types (with few planes of each fleet type) should be expensive, which also reflects real world strive for efficiency by limiting fleet typese to maintain.  (I am not sold on the point system though).

And it is already expensive.  There's already an exponential curve built into commonality expenses.  It's ludicrously, outrageously expensive to operate a large number of fleets.  But those same people are also making ludicrous revenues and margins.  And they'll continue to make them.  There was not so much as an iota of change when sami changed the expenses twice in the past, there's  no reason to think if we do it again it'll make a dent of difference.

At least now if you operate efficiently you have at least a tiny chance to take them out.  If all you do is change their expenses, the players will adapt and they'll either continue to have huge varied fleets, perhaps not quite as varied, or they'll turn to a few planes as they "should".  In which case, since the income side wasn't addressed, now said players are hoarding impossibly huge sums of cash while also sitting on every spot in the production queue for the popular aircraft.  You certainly didn't make the game any easier by doing that.

Regardless, it only addresses a symptom not the problem itself.  Address the problem and you solve a host of problems.  You either solve outright or go a long way to solving problems not only with commonality, but you solve 2-dozen flights at 2am, you solve massive order queues for aircraft, you solve exponential growth of certain players, you solve a whole bunch of others I can't think of right now.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 08, 2011, 05:09:57 AM
Well, of course, in a purely wholesale "cut everyone's profits 90%" fashion.  But if the economic model was done correctly (and I mean no disrespect to sami, it's a Herculean effort) then some margins would go down and some would go up as well because those who operate more efficiently would actually be more efficient.  And more importantly those who actually made smart, logical, rational business decisions might actually see logical, rational results -- i.e. cutting pricing actually doing something aside from simply lowering your revenues -- rather than the game being dominated (speaking as one who does) by those who know how to game the game.

The biggest reason for high margins is lack of competition.  What percentage of the routes do you think have competition? 10%? 20%?  And I don't mean in the first years of the game, but in the middle of the game or the 2nd half.

As you said, there is no price competion, when a route actually has more than 1 carrier.  There is only the pseudo-competition in frequency.  The basing cost penalty and aircraft # basing limitation is also a huge anti-competitive tool.  Also, inability to open a base at top 20 airports effectively protects top 20 airlines based in top 20 airports from any competiion.

Then, lack of passenger connectivity gives the sole player flying AB route a complete monopoly on AB traffic.  With passenger connectivity, AB route would have competition from players flying ACB, ADB ... AXB.

And it is already expensive.  There's already an exponential curve built into commonality expenses.  It's ludicrously, outrageously expensive to operate a large number of fleets.

Well, not really.  The (lack) of commonality expenses do grow as a percentage of expenses, but they are easily absorbable if a player makes all the other decisions correctly.  There is absolutely nothing there to stop player from growing exponentially with 10 fleet types, then locking up production slots in desirable production lines, and so that later on, the undesirable fleet types can be phased out.

But if you really need some 5 aircraft of the same type to break even (doing everything right), getting 2nd fleet type before you are making some profit with 10-20 aircraft of the same type would just bankrupt you right away.  I think that's what Swiftus and I are talking about.  That is the only way you slow down the exponential growth early on.

Rather than points, I always look for money to be the answer.  If the training and maintenance cost of the first aircraft in the fleet group are so high that it is your single biggest expense of your airline, then very few players will be beyong that single fleet type within first 6 months or a year game time - and still be solvent.

Once you get to some 50+ aircraft of one fleet type, you should be reaching the lowest costs per plane of that fleet type.  Adding the 2nd fleet type should not make the 1st fleet type more expensinve.  2nd fleet type should have its own high fixed start-up costs.  (perhaps this single per-fleet amount should itself rise exponentially)

I am not exactly thrilled about the way the commonality costs are implemented.  They continue hitting you when they should not (when you have 50-100 aircraft of the same fleet type) and they don;t hit you hard enough when they should, when you have only a dozen planes in number of different fleet types....

Anyway, delaying the exponential growth with high start-up fees per fleet type would make the game competitive for longer period of time.  As is, the game is more or less decided by the end of 1/3 or 1/2 of the game.  But if the biggest airlines are only at some 75 planes within the first 6 years of the game, the game would be more wide open for longer period of time.

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Riger on January 08, 2011, 07:18:31 AM
8<

Then, lack of passenger connectivity gives the sole player flying AB route a complete monopoly on AB traffic.  With passenger connectivity, AB route would have competition from players flying ACB, ADB ... AXB.

>8

I cannot imagine how complex this would be to apply, but I think that this, in combination with City Based Demand, would have a huge (positive) impact on the competitiveness of this game.


Best Regards
Richard

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 09, 2011, 05:40:42 PM
Let me add another point to why I liked my idea.

There should be a larger hit to commonality when having multiple a/c across multiple manufacturers.  If you have a CRJ/737/A330/MD11 for your fleet, that should impact you more than being CRJ/737/767/777. 

Simply put, if I have a fleet of 742s and I want to add another large fleet type, it should cost me more if I went with a A340 instead of a 744
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 09, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
There should be a larger hit to commonality when having multiple a/c across multiple manufacturers.  If you have a CRJ/737/A330/MD11 for your fleet, that should impact you more than being CRJ/737/767/777. 

Simply put, if I have a fleet of 742s and I want to add another large fleet type, it should cost me more if I went with a A340 instead of a 744

I like this part as well.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 09, 2011, 10:57:14 PM
I like this part as well.

Can you help me expand on this so more people agree?  It appears that many people completely disagree. 

The main point of this is to encourage smart expansion while punishing those who order everything.  Over time, the slot grabbing players may be pushed out altogether with a fuel crisis (affecting their narrower margins)... all while the smart player is slowly getting an awesome fleet of very similar aircraft.  Because honestly, there has to be a lot of similarities how a specific company makes their planes from one type to the next.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 09, 2011, 11:10:04 PM
Can you help me expand on this so more people agree?  It appears that many people completely disagree.  

The main point of this is to encourage smart expansion while punishing those who order everything.  Over time, the slot grabbing players may be pushed out altogether with a fuel crisis (affecting their narrower margins)... all while the smart player is slowly getting an awesome fleet of very similar aircraft.  Because honestly, there has to be a lot of similarities how a specific company makes their planes from one type to the next.

I don't "completely disagree" per se, I just think it's about time we (sami, really) stop trying to hackjob the system we've got into something resembling "reality" when the core itself is where the problem lies.

But I think regardless of that being done though we do need a commonality change that's far more robust than what we have today.  So that truly big differences have big costs and small differences have smaller costs (i.e. 757/767 commonality hit being small, F27/A380 penalty being huge) and that engine commonality, which should be one of the most important, is actually a factor instead of being a complete non-issue as it is today.

But that's a separate issue from trying to use the commonality system explicitly to meter growth.  That would be much better taken care of by addressing the fundamental flaws in the economics of the game.  The system we have today already punishes in a very big way those who order everything they can but it will never solve the problem (without getting into stupid-huge penalties that are even more unrealistic than what we have going on already) until you address the issues on the revenue side of the equation.  People do not operate 25 types because the system doesn't penalize you for doing so -- it already does in a hugely unrealistic fashion -- they operate them because doing so nets them so much cash that they can afford to pay virtually any penalty you want to slap on them (again, unless you get into stupid-huge penalties that are an even more unrealistic solution to an unrealistic situation).

Trying to fix an "unrealistic" outcome with equally unrealistic penalties is bass-ackwards and illogical.  Fix the real problem and this and many other issues will take care of themselves.  It's a much better use of time on sami's part.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 09, 2011, 11:24:41 PM
I don't "completely disagree" per se, I just think it's about time we (sami, really) stop trying to hackjob the system we've got into something resembling "reality" when the core itself is where the problem lies.

But I think regardless of that being done though we do need a commonality change that's far more robust than what we have today.  So that truly big differences have big costs and small differences have smaller costs (i.e. 757/767 commonality hit being small, F27/A380 penalty being huge) and that engine commonality, which should be one of the most important, is actually a factor instead of being a complete non-issue as it is today.

But that's a separate issue from trying to use the commonality system explicitly to meter growth.  That would be much better taken care of by addressing the fundamental flaws in the economics of the game.  The system we have today already punishes in a very big way those who order everything they can but it will never solve the problem (without getting into stupid-huge penalties that are even more unrealistic than what we have going on already) until you address the issues on the revenue side of the equation.

Trying to fix an "unrealistic" outcome with equally unrealistic penalties is bass-ackwards and illogical.  Fix the real problem and this and many other issues will take care of themselves.  It's a much better use of time on sami's part.

Sigma, you are getting at a route of the problem I am really wanting to address.  The need to make fleet/engine commonality much more important than it is.  

I was hoping that with this type of measure in place then people will be forced to plan out its long term strategy early on.  That way, you just don't end up with certain airlines owning.  Even the F5 spammers will be forced to play smartly.  I am not proposing this solely to punish them.  This is just an effect of making the first statement true. 
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 09, 2011, 11:32:48 PM
Again, I agree with the much-needed change to commonality.  I just think using it to address the early-game problem, or even hoping that it will, is wishful-thinking at best.

People do not operate 25 types because the system doesn't penalize you for doing so -- it already does in a hugely unrealistic fashion -- they operate them because doing so nets them so much cash that they can afford to pay virtually any penalty you want to slap on them (unless you get into stupid-huge penalties that are an even more unrealistic solution to an already unrealistic situation).

People who know how to game-the-game will win no matter what.  Because we rely on too many hackjob systems that certain people know how to exploit for maximum gain and most players don't.  That's a FAR more important factor to "winning" early on than any commonality penalty.

I've played in about as many worlds as anyone here.  I almost always play at DFW as most people know but I've also played in a couple other large airports, and always have a lot of competition.  But I've never operated more than 4 fleets and never more than 2 in the early-game.  And yet I somehow consistently manage to be at the top tier of a game-world.

The 'buy all you can' strategy is not a ticket to invincibility.  It's just a strategy.  An easy one, I'll grant you, but just a strategy nonetheless.  And the more efficient strategy works today.  I use it every single game-world to beat out my competition many of whom use the 'take everything' strategy.  At the end of the day, it isn't what aircraft procurement strategy that will decide who wins, it's whoever knows how to game the game the best.  That is the problem.  And that's why I'm not playing right now because it's gotten tiresome for me personally because, since I can game the game with the best of them, the outcome is virtually preordained; I know precisely what to do to make the most money because there's virtually no outside variables beyond my control. (though I did just enter a game-world yesterday to try to see the difficulties of starting in a 50% complete game-world at a small airport that closes at night)
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 09, 2011, 11:50:37 PM
Sigma, you are also forgetting one benefit for punishing those players...

It keeps new players involved.  Many people/airlines are sick of the same few people getting everything they want early on.   They leave the game.  That further gives these people a 'win'. 

Something like this will help keep the used market a bit more full. 
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 10, 2011, 12:19:31 AM
Swiftus, I think you're missing my point.

The "take anything you want" strategy isn't an easy one; it's in fact probably one of the harder ones to pull off and almost impossible if your competition is as good as you are.  It takes a lot of knowledge about maximizing revenues to pull it off because it's very expensive.   The people who pull it off successfully know the ins-and-out of gaming the game more than anyone.  They're going to stomp these "new players" no matter what.  So they have to change their strategy a little and stick with 5 models rather than 10 (or whatever).  They'll quickly adapt and continue gaming the game despite yet another contrivance.  You didn't make their method of generating huge amounts of cash any harder -- all you did was impact what they could readily and immediately spend it on.  At best you slowed expansion a little bit, and that's great, but you didn't solve the real problem, and that is that some players can make huge amounts of cash gaming the game exploiting the nonsensical systems we have in place today while others who don't understand the nuances of AWS, most of which fly in the face of reality, end up floudering.  So they stick around a little bit longer but their eventual demise is an inevitability.

This doesn't help the less-experienced players in the slightest except, like bases, it's one more thing that will nonsensically increase their costs with absolutely no bearing at all on reality or basic common sense.  So a lot of people will find themselves making bad business decisions because, despite whatever reality would indicate, in AWS we've got some other contrived nonsensical system that jumps up and surprises you.  Even if the exact cost increase information was shared (as you mentioned earlier) it still doesn't make any sense to implement an unrealistic solution to solve an unrealistic problem.

And it sure in the world won't keep the Used market more full.  It will only increase the demand for the more popular models because these experienced players will be sitting on large amounts of cash that they're still generating with their superior knowledge of the game but they'll be spending less of it on superfluous crap models and be waiting with baited breath for the more popular ones to appear and/or further increasing the new production queue beyond what we see today.  Used models will dissapear in 0.1s rather than 1s and new model queues will break into the 2yr+ range several times faster than they do today.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Talentz on January 10, 2011, 02:17:50 AM
These discussions remind me of the previous game I came from and generally the reason why I left it. The devs went with a middle ground solution and the balance was made even worse. I have high hopes for AWS and think the underlying problems will be solved.

 :)


The 'buy all you can' strategy is not a ticket to invincibility.  It's just a strategy.  An easy one, I'll grant you, but just a strategy nonetheless.  And the more efficient strategy works today.  I use it every single game-world to beat out my competition many of whom use the 'take everything' strategy.  At the end of the day, it isn't what aircraft procurement strategy that will decide who wins, it's whoever knows how to game the game the best.  That is the problem.  And that's why I'm not playing right now because it's gotten tiresome for me personally because, since I can game the game with the best of them, the outcome is virtually preordained; I know precisely what to do to make the most money because there's virtually no outside variables beyond my control. (though I did just enter a game-world yesterday to try to see the difficulties of starting in a 50% complete game-world at a small airport that closes at night)

Welcome to the club? lol  :P


Talentz
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: raptorva on January 10, 2011, 12:54:20 PM
I go the smallest fleet type number possible for three reasons;

- its realistic
- its cheaper long term
- Looks far better on the airline profile page XD Just a few types

Right now in JA I have a long range plane (Britannia), a mid-range plane (BAC-1-11) and short range plane (HS-748). They fill all my needs and because I have large numbers of them, my overheads are lower.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: swiftus27 on January 10, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Guys, I appreciate the feedback.

I do understand your points.

I feel that something needs to be done to help the new players.  Sure, we, the longstanding player knows how to deal with a F5 Master.  I am just more concerned about the new players.  Every game we see them griping about how one airline has 100 planes and they are still stuck at 10.   
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Riger on January 10, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
Perhaps there should be a special Game/Class for all the AWS Ninja's out there and the Ninja's (Like Jumbo Shrimp and co) should be kept away from the Wannabee's (like me/us).

Best Regards
Richard

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Wing Commander Chad Studdington on January 10, 2011, 03:29:34 PM
Perhaps there should be a special Game/Class for all the AWS Ninja's out there and the Ninja's (Like Jumbo Shrimp and co) should be kept away from the Wannabee's (like me/us).

Best Regards
Richard



I've suggested something similar to this in the survey doing the rounds. Rather than having one game world, lets says MT for sake of argument you have two exactly the same running alongside each other with a staggered start. The first game world would allow all the "ninjas" as you put it to do as they do and create massive airlines and for us wannabees to go bust and eventually the wannabees could go to the second game world where we could try again but with the always successful big boys busy in the first world.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Jps on January 10, 2011, 07:15:35 PM
I've suggested something similar to this in the survey doing the rounds. Rather than having one game world, lets says MT for sake of argument you have two exactly the same running alongside each other with a staggered start. The first game world would allow all the "ninjas" as you put it to do as they do and create massive airlines and for us wannabees to go bust and eventually the wannabees could go to the second game world where we could try again but with the always successful big boys busy in the first world.

I don't think this would work. Not with the current amount of players. If we split up the new worlds into 2 exactly the same worlds, both would have too few players. And then it would be even worse than having a few overly-huge airlines in one game.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Wing Commander Chad Studdington on January 10, 2011, 09:11:30 PM
Maybe not but under the current game engine the same airlines turn up and crush the rest of us, every single time.

At the end of the day commonality has to be sorted, spotted an airline today succeeding using, IIRC, 15 fleets ranging in size from ATR to 747 and everything in between.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 10, 2011, 11:56:23 PM
Can you help me expand on this so more people agree?  It appears that many people completely disagree.  

The main point of this is to encourage smart expansion while punishing those who order everything.  Over time, the slot grabbing players may be pushed out altogether with a fuel crisis (affecting their narrower margins)... all while the smart player is slowly getting an awesome fleet of very similar aircraft.  Because honestly, there has to be a lot of similarities how a specific company makes their planes from one type to the next.

Well, the part about lessening commonality penalty when staying within the same manufacturer, which probably does reflect real world.  OTOH, from game play point of view, that may just cause more people to stick to Airbus / Boeing, with fewer players venturing out beyond their offerings.

As far as approach to commonality, I outlined my ideas above.  The start-up cost for the fleet group can contain 1 or both of these:
1.- one flat amount per fleet type per week (independent of # of aircraft).  This would correspond to set-up for pilot training and maintenance
2.- optionally, a one time charge, per fleet group, corresponding to perhaps purchase of simulators etc.  Player would be prompted about this charge, and if it is like 10M for a large aircraft, that itself would postpone adding of 2nd fleet type.
3.- regular per aircraft per week fee (constant fee per aircraft, regardless of # of aircraft player has) + direct costs of A/B/C/D checks.

If items 1 and 2 are large enough, that will definitely force players to adopt a strategy corresponding to real life running of a business, and it would slow down initial growth.

To implement this, it would take a higher start-up capital to be able to get to the profitable 6+ within the window provided by the start-up capital and 4 month pre-paid leases, but a player would need 10 to 20 planes to even start thinking about fleet group #2.  This would mean slower expansion at the start, since you are limited to 1 fleet group for some time (a year?) and than, to only 2 fleet groups for perhaps another year or more - assuming you are doing everything else right.

Edit:
In Game Play language, Ability to purchase fleet group in 2nd fleet group would be similar to getting to "Level 2", meaning, you have already mastered "Level 1" - which is ability to successfully manage 1 fleet group to the point you are able to "purchase" ability to buy fleet #2.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 11, 2011, 12:54:41 AM
Sigma,

You are being a little fatalistic here.
- commonality issues can be fixed with some chages that are not like throw away everything and start over.  They are beyond tinkering, but dowable, even within 1.3
- High profit margins on full planes at "normal" ticket prices are what airlines dream about and live for, but it can be hard to achieve because of competition.  In AWS, probably 90% of routes are completely competition free.  So there is no problem in a full aircraft printing money (no need to lower profit margins), the problem is in a lack of competition
- Competition can be introduced in small increments or large.  Small increments would be just making price competition relevant.  Also, turning down the freakishly huge frequency benefit is well within 1.3 scope.  But all it will fix is maybe 1/10th of the (lack of competition)problem.  9/10th of the fix may still be far away.  But just because it is far away, don't break something that is fine (large margins onthe margins on full flights now).
- another 1/10th of the problem is the current uselessness of additional bases.  Making the bases useful would introduce more competition, including competition between large airlines.
- lack of slots is another competition lowering feature.  Introducing some flexibility (more slots) in slot constrained airports would again increase competition.
- Big issues addressing competition would have to wait for next major revision (2.0) because it would involve city based demand, passenger connections (ability to compete with player flying AB by flying ACB or ADB)...
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Sigma on January 11, 2011, 01:07:44 AM
Sigma,

You are being a little fatalistic here.
- commonality issues can be fixed with some chages that are not like throw away everything and start over.  They are beyond tinkering, but dowable, even within 1.3
- High profit margins on full planes at "normal" ticket prices are what airlines dream about and live for, but it can be hard to achieve because of competition.  In AWS, probably 90% of routes are completely competition free.  So there is no problem in a full aircraft printing money (no need to lower profit margins), the problem is in a lack of competition
- Competition can be introduced in small increments or large.  Small increments would be just making price competition relevant.  Also, turning down the freakishly huge frequency benefit is well within 1.3 scope.  But all it will fix is maybe 1/10th of the (lack of competition)problem.  9/10th of the fix may still be far away.  But just because it is far away, don't break something that is fine (large margins onthe margins on full flights now).
- another 1/10th of the problem is the current uselessness of additional bases.  Making the bases useful would introduce more competition, including competition between large airlines.
- lack of slots is another competition lowering feature.  Introducing some flexibility (more slots) in slot constrained airports would again increase competition.
- Big issues addressing competition would have to wait for next major revision (2.0) because it would involve city based demand, passenger connections (ability to compete with player flying AB by flying ACB or ADB)...


I don't particularly see how I'm being fatalistic when I not only agree with everything you just stated, but I've said almost every one of them (sans the slot issue) in this very thread as the issues that need to be addressed that would solve the basic fundamental problems with why/how big airlines do what they do.  Lack of commonality is only a byproduct of the points you just listed and I've mentioned in this thread, to mention many others, many times now.

I said early on that I agree that the commonality changes would be welcome, my only contention has been that they just won't fix the root reason they were brought up -- helping the little guy.

And all the economic/competitive points -- I never said they were truly difficult fixes or that they wouldn't/couldn't be done.  I wouldn't be here right now if I thought that.  I've already said in this thread that price competition would be the first step towards solving many of the problems as well as reducing the frequency variable.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 11, 2011, 01:25:28 AM
I've played in about as many worlds as anyone here.  I almost always play at DFW as most people know but I've also played in a couple other large airports, and always have a lot of competition.  But I've never operated more than 4 fleets and never more than 2 in the early-game.  And yet I somehow consistently manage to be at the top tier of a game-world.

The 'buy all you can' strategy is not a ticket to invincibility.  It's just a strategy.  An easy one, I'll grant you, but just a strategy nonetheless.  And the more efficient strategy works today.  I use it every single game-world to beat out my competition many of whom use the 'take everything' strategy.  At the end of the day, it isn't what aircraft procurement strategy that will decide who wins, it's whoever knows how to game the game the best.  That is the problem.  And that's why I'm not playing right now because it's gotten tiresome for me personally because, since I can game the game with the best of them, the outcome is virtually preordained; I know precisely what to do to make the most money because there's virtually no outside variables beyond my control. (though I did just enter a game-world yesterday to try to see the difficulties of starting in a 50% complete game-world at a small airport that closes at night)

If you are basing your analysis on running an airline out of DFW, you are certainly not going to fully appreciate what swiftus is talking about.  The reason is that DFW is an exception to the rule.  It is one of the handful airports that:
- have enough demand for player to grow big enough to be in charge of his own destiny
- enough slots not to be slot-locked by slot grabbing opponent.

(I wish more airports were like that, where competition is how efficiently you build and use your fleet, but sadly, im most of the other large airports, it is competion of grabbing slots)

Try that strategy against a really competent player in a slot limited large airport, and you may not prevail so easily.  While you are building your ideal fleet, your oponent will grab all the slots flying any piece of junk.  He will lock up slots on highly profitable routes ahead of you, and those profits will sustain his fleet inefficiency.  With enough time, he will streamline his fleet, and you will be there staring at a production lines with your ideal fleet of aircraft arriving, but you can't schedule them.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 11, 2011, 02:00:48 AM
I don't particularly see how I'm being fatalistic when I not only agree with everything you just stated, but I've said almost every one of them (sans the slot issue) in this very thread as the issues that need to be addressed that would solve the basic fundamental problems with why/how big airlines do what they do.  Lack of commonality is only a byproduct of the points you just listed and I've mentioned in this thread, to mention many others, many times now.

Maybe we just have a different interpretation of cause and effect.  If I understand you correctly, you say that too high profit margins are the root cause, and fleet commonality is a byproduct - players can get away with it.  And that addressing fleet commonality is just a small issue, addressing which will have a limited effect. (that's where that "fatalistic" comment came from)

I see it differently:
- fleet commonality is an independent variable that can be fixed independently of everything else, and it will have a substantial effect on abuses (AWS airlines running 10 fleet types and prospering).  A side benefit of this chage (besides making AWS more RW like) is that the slots will be a far less dominant issus at major airports compared to current situation.
- high profit margins are not the root cause, but a byproduct of lack of competition on vast majority of routes.  So let's not do a root canal on a healthy tooth.

I said early on that I agree that the commonality changes would be welcome, my only contention has been that they just won't fix the root reason they were brought up -- helping the little guy.

I am not sure that is the over-reaching objective.  Build a better game, and more will come.  Nevertheless, I think the commonality changes will have some positive effect on smaller airlines, in that they will reduce the crowding out effect of some large airlines (growing too much too quickly) have on smaller airlines.  (and airplane order queues)
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 14, 2011, 05:40:58 PM
If the aim is to slow growth, just disallow leasing and make airlines buy all planes. That would slow growth.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 15, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
If the aim is to slow growth, just disallow leasing and make airlines buy all planes. That would slow growth.

Finally, there is a second person who recognizes that the unlimited leasing is problematic.  I have been a lone voice on this subject for long time...

An airline with no assets (company value) can lease $10, $20, even $50 billion worth of aircraft.  While, the credit limit for borrowing, even a secured loan (where the player actually puts up some capital and asset) is only ~ $500mil.

I think leases should be limted to the same credit limit as outright borrowing.  And that limit should be expaned somewhat...
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Riger on January 16, 2011, 01:34:46 AM
If the aim is to slow growth, just disallow leasing and make airlines buy all planes. That would slow growth.

That would certainly slow growth down, however, a fundamental change like that would require a commensurate fundamental change to the start-up cash amount and/or credit ratings with the bank.  I'd imagine that one would require access to $500mil - $1billion (cash+loans) to get a medium size airline off the ground.

Best Regards
Richard
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 16, 2011, 08:30:17 AM
That would certainly slow growth down, however, a fundamental change like that would require a commensurate fundamental change to the start-up cash amount and/or credit ratings with the bank.  I'd imagine that one would require access to $500mil - $1billion (cash+loans) to get a medium size airline off the ground.

Best Regards
Richard


Nope, depending on era as long as you have enough cash to get two planes then you should be good to go. The profit margins are so big for 100+ seater planes flying uncompeted routes at the start of the game that it shouldnt take too long to get enough cash for a third plane.

TBH though, it's not something I'd really support but I'd prefer it to artificially raising commonality costs.

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 19, 2011, 08:50:56 PM
Just an update here:

A single plane in the 6th fleet group (737).

The 6th groups goes in and out, since the planes are being leased.  It is never scheduled, so crew training should be zero.  But the bigger point, adding and removing the 6th fleet group does not decrease cost of first 5 (the way it does when adding or removing 3rd, 4th or 5th group).  We can debate if that's the best way to implement commonality fees / discounts.

But check out the fixed charges for this single aircraft.  On "per aircraft" basis, it is of course high, but nowhere near high enough to discourage someone from going fleet group crazy.  It is less than 1/2 million per week, but it should really be 5x or 10x as much for first aircraft in a new fleet group.  It may need a slightly increased start up capital to prevent new airlines going under over this, but that would be the correct way to implement fleet commonality IMO.



[attachment expired]
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Jps on January 19, 2011, 09:01:11 PM
Just an update here:

A single plane in the 6th fleet group (737).

The 6th groups goes in and out, since the planes are being leased.  It is never scheduled, so crew training should be zero.  But the bigger point, adding and removing the 6th fleet group does not decrease cost of first 5 (the way it does when adding or removing 3rd, 4th or 5th group).  We can debate if that's the best way to implement commonality fees / discounts.

But check out the fixed charges for this single aircraft.  On "per aircraft" basis, it is of course high, but nowhere near high enough to discourage someone from going fleet group crazy.  It is less than 1/2 million per week, but it should really be 5x or 10x as much for first aircraft in a new fleet group.  It may need a slightly increased start up capital to prevent new airlines going under over this, but that would be the correct way to implement fleet commonality IMO.



I agree 100% with this!

For as long as having more than 1 fleet group brings even the slightest amount of profit in the first few years of the game, players will use the option. And the easiest (and at least for me, the most realistic) option is to increase the commonality costs of airplanes.

May have gone a bit repetitive to the last posts, but it still seems there are many who don't get this... This is starting to resemble politicians; Everyone agrees that this must be fixed, but no1 can agree with how to deal with it...  :P
I'm glad  this isn't a democracy in the long run (and I don't mean this personally to any1, just an overall comment, not taking into account who is right or wrong (if any). After all, it's best to choose 1 option than to debate forever and never get it done...  ::)
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on January 19, 2011, 10:01:06 PM
Consider the posts here to be petitions to a benevolent dictator (Sami).  ;)

But someone has to protect us from what we want.  If this was a democracy, we would be spending half the time in AWS customizing flavors of tea and coffee, and discussing how more slices of ham on a sandwich should be increasing company CI.  ;)
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: BobTheCactus on January 19, 2011, 10:39:42 PM
Which is why most governments get very little accomplished.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: libertyairlines on June 04, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
I like most of the ideas presented here and completely agree as long as the first aircraft an airline acquires is cheaper than the next fleet commonality the airline purchases and than increases from there and than goes down as the airline increases the amount of aircraft in the next commonality that airline owns/operates.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: brique on June 05, 2012, 04:28:01 AM
Finally, there is a second person who recognizes that the unlimited leasing is problematic.  I have been a lone voice on this subject for long time...

An airline with no assets (company value) can lease $10, $20, even $50 billion worth of aircraft.  While, the credit limit for borrowing, even a secured loan (where the player actually puts up some capital and asset) is only ~ $500mil.

I think leases should be limted to the same credit limit as outright borrowing.  And that limit should be expaned somewhat...

+1

I agree, the leasing model is flawed, in RW it is highly unlikely that any start-up business would be permitted to lease a new photo-copier without lodging security, much less several $100m-worth of aircraft in its first months of operation. But, and its the big but, it would require a fairly major shift in how new airlines 'start-up' to reflect that.

The idea of a 'credit-limit' on leasing appeals, related as you describe to ones overall credit-worthiness, and does sound like a good option which could be easily incorporated (*avoids glares of angry coders and offers less than 2-day old pizza slice in appeasement).

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: 11Air on November 05, 2015, 10:14:57 AM
From a fresh approach I suspect the real issue with 'Types' is the impact on the Maintenance Department.
Each new type requires all the necessary number of maintenance teams going off on training before the type is introduced, or employing already qualified maintenance crews.
How many staff needed per aircraft type, how many types do their certs cover, and how many can one team service on an individual aircraft type, doing all the A, B, C and D service checks in a year).

For each maintenance team there is:-
1a. a single set-up cost,
1b. plus an annual renewal cost,
1c. plus a limit to how many aircraft they can maintain on the same day and in a week in total.
2a. Then there's the spares required, a whole new warehouse full for the first of a new type.
2b. With a monthly cost to cover the parts used by the number of the type in use.

Note:- the Base Size should have a limit to how many types it can service as well as the size of aircraft because of the Parts and Staff Accommodation and Work Areas.

Now this would also require that the big fleet operators no longer service all their aircraft on the same day by reflecting the real world cost and issues in trying to do this. It's a huge change for the Sami team (of one and a bit?) but perhaps a halfway/partway step or fudge would help. A better model base for the number of staff in engineering for example.

It has a built in penalty for taking on a new type, training, parts etc and that cost will continue to penalise fleets of one or two of a type.

The current system should reflect that the airline has leased out the maintenance to the manufacturer. The first plane again being at a big cost (non-resident parts and team with occasional over-runs). Should any additional plane types from that manufacturer be at a lower cost.
Since the manufacturer is involved then ALL of it's range of aircraft can be covered under one agreement though the Parts would remain a specific type cost. ie 737 v 747 don't have much in common, nor do their engines.  It means a big cost in moving to, or taking on, a new manufacturer which will help to limit the Types each airline operates.

This approach to Servicing aircraft could also apply to Engines and be applied in a similar way.

FUTURE or temporary measures:-
An option is for the Real World's "Wet Leasing" arrangements where the plane is staffed, fuelled and maintained by the owner, all at a charge of course, weekly for maintenance plus hours flown or fuel used for usage.
Ground crew is another area where the game seems to go for a fairly simple approach. Real World the number of ground crew determine how many aircraft can be turned around at the same time. Size affecting the number of Ground Crew required.

11Air - ElvenAir - in several games with sub 100 seaters but still learning how to use post 70's Boeing types.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on January 01, 2016, 12:23:50 AM
I am so fed up with the fleet commonality mechanic. I was forced to introduce a 4th fleet type for a very short time. It's extremely difficult to stick to 3 types for 60 game years and subsequent fleet changes.

Look at this. Just by introducing 1 single A330-300. Sami.. when will we see changes to this?

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 08, 2016, 01:10:23 PM
I am so fed up with the fleet commonality mechanic. I was forced to introduce a 4th fleet type for a very short time. It's extremely difficult to stick to 3 types for 60 game years and subsequent fleet changes.

Look at this. Just by introducing 1 single A330-300. Sami.. when will we see changes to this?



This IMO, is the single biggest issue with the game and has caused me to lose interest in playing. The game is supposed to be a simulation, yet the commonality penalty is completely unrealistic and un-intuitive in the way it works. For a simulation, there is no logic to the player. There is no way that adding a single plane of a different type should quadruple the costs of running the other fleet type.

I appreciate that it was originally used to overcome the gameplay issue of rapid expansion, but there are a number of better solutions to this problem (Poorly run AI airlines already running in new game worlds, relaxing the penalty after 2-3 game years, etc).

I wish this would be fixed as a higher priority than bringing in cargo, city based demand, etc, but it just doesn't seem to be seen as such an issue by others.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: [ATA] Sunbao on January 08, 2016, 11:10:53 PM
Well the day sami turn down the demand and all to big income big time. then the penalty can be removed.
But removing penalty without fixing all the issues there was the reason for it to be invented in the first place will just leave us with a even more broken game.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on January 09, 2016, 05:54:08 PM
Well the day sami turn down the demand and all to big income big time. then the penalty can be removed.
But removing penalty without fixing all the issues there was the reason for it to be invented in the first place will just leave us with a even more broken game.

I disagree with you there Sunabo. There have been many very good suggestions how to deal with these issues in a better way than it currently is. We have been asking for a change for years, offering alternative ways of doing things as well. I really hope something will change regarding fleet commonality when city based demand is introduced.

I agree with JoneseyUK that it often makes the game very frustrating instead of fun. And that can't be good for business.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on January 10, 2016, 09:05:49 AM
I seem to be the only one to agree with Sunbao : it forces you to make choices. You cannot flood the market with all sizes of planes, from Pilatus to A380. You must specialize, and it's an interesting choice to make. In current GW3, around 2015, I went down to 2 fleet groups, 737MAX & Ejets. I had the choice for the 3rd fleet group, to go up or down. I went down, because Faro or Edinburgh don't have a lot of LR juicy routes. But it was not an easy choice. SW3 are cool planes, but they cannot make you a billionaire.

A good game, it's interesting choices. I had a strategic one to make. Very interesting.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: ZombieSlayer on January 10, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
I have said this before and I will say it again. The three type limit had and still has a place in AWS. What needs attention is a system to facilitate fleet renewal cycles if this limit is to remain in place. Three types is plenty to run a successful airline, two is not yet to allow the constant fleet renewal that is required in 80 year games you have to play using just two fleet types.

There are several good ideas, including but not limited to the ability to mark a fleet type for retirement which would eliminate that type from counting toward three types as long as the number of said type are in constant decline, also expanding the like types further (ie 717/MD-90) to include all 737's, 757/767, etc would help.

Something NEEDS to be done, so many changes to this game are making it a chore instead of entertainment, we need some changes to make it fun again.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: pndsc on January 10, 2016, 04:57:47 PM
Ive been playing on and off for a number of years and the three type limit has in general been a positive thing. You still get the same old faces at the top of the leaderboard, but at least theyre channeled into one type of gameplay and forced to leave other avenues open for other players to exploit instead of becoming an even more gigantic evil empire than they already are.

That said, the hideous penalty for a fourth fleet type can also bankrupt you incredibly easily if you need a fourth fleet type for a fleet change.

Theres surely some middle ground that can be reached, like being able to designate the old type being replaced and the new type coming in and then having a penalty that would increase so long as the numbers of the old/new fleets don't go down/up appreciably in a certain time frame.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on January 10, 2016, 06:52:47 PM
But surely the balance of the game is wrong? Logic say that you should get efficiency savings for running fewer fleet types, rather than artificially penalising an airline for adding another type? There is no way adding a different fleet type would increase the maintenance costs of your existing types, certainly not by such a large amount.

While it makes the game frustrating, the penalty actually assists larger airlines, as (especially in the modern times) it encourages the purchase of a select few fleet groups that can fly a wide range of distances and number of PAX. Large airlines can tie up large amounts of cash pre ordering these fleet groups while smaller/new start ups cant afford to tie up cash for so long and wait for the deliveries.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on January 13, 2016, 08:37:29 PM
The way it works now detracts from the experience to such a degree, it's no longer fun to play the game. Same goes for all the other artificial limits like max planes on order, max planes outside HQ and so on, although these are not as bad as the fleet commonality issue. 

And JonesyUK is right, the fleet commonality bump only helps the experienced players. It doesn't stop them from expanding, they benefit greatly from cooperation within alliances, trading planes back and forth so everybody gets what they want. The regular player on the other hand just keeps on with his 4 or 5 fleet types, completely oblivious that he's being hindered by a ridiculus, counter-productive, illogical, artificial game limit. So he goes bankrupt over and over.


---

Suggestions:

I suggest each airline answers to investors who demand you pay them this and that amount of profit each month. Like in the real world. All the artificial limits we have in place now would be unnecessary if the business/financial side of this simulation would be changed a little.

The whole game is supposed to be a business simulation, so I suggest the investment company's progress is what gives the players points. The winner is the one who's actually made sure his investors are happy. If the shares are going up and the investment company value is larger, you get more points. Or something along those lines.

Also, I suggest that fleet commonality bump is removed completely. Then all the cost of the fleet commonality is increased a little bit, and you introduce a new category in addition to the planes and engines; common type ratings.

Lower training costs for airlines operating planes with the same type ratings:

A320: all (CEO/NEO)
737: all (Jurassic/Classic/NG/MAX)
DC-9: all (DC-9/MD-80/90/717)
757+767
777+787
A330/A340/A350

Several of these types require differences training, but that's usually 3-7 days course with some simulator time.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: [ATA] Sunbao on January 14, 2016, 12:31:25 AM
The way it works now detracts from the experience to such a degree, it's no longer fun to play the game. Same goes for all the other artificial limits like max planes on order, max planes outside HQ and so on, although these are not as bad as the fleet commonality issue. 

No one says those limits is optimal, but atm they are what keeping big players from owning whole continents.
All is in place to try getting the game to be more open for smaller and new players, and making more competition.
But as such all of them is in place because the core of the game is real bad.
We simply makes to much money, and has to high demand in the game.

We need lower profit city based demand and stock market. But we also need on board service, and options to make different kinds of airlines to make it good.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: spiff23 on January 16, 2016, 03:40:05 AM
I have said this before and I will say it again. The three type limit had and still has a place in AWS. What needs attention is a system to facilitate fleet renewal cycles if this limit is to remain in place. Three types is plenty to run a successful airline, two is not yet to allow the constant fleet renewal that is required in 80 year games you have to play using just two fleet types.

There are several good ideas, including but not limited to the ability to mark a fleet type for retirement which would eliminate that type from counting toward three types as long as the number of said type are in constant decline, also expanding the like types further (ie 717/MD-90) to include all 737's, 757/767, etc would help.

Something NEEDS to be done, so many changes to this game are making it a chore instead of entertainment, we need some changes to make it fun again.

Agree completely.   Especially on wide bodies where it can take 5+ years to replace 80 planes.   The only point of the penalty and not being able to designate a replacement is you park each new plane, then find a day you can replace them all...its definitely devolving into annoying chore vs fun check-ins over a year and a half game.

Real world investors would be throwing a fit if American was parking 400 new 737-800s until they had enough to replace the all the old mad dogs one weekend.  As it is they've been doing this for over 6 years and they still have 2 or 3 to go.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on May 03, 2016, 05:03:16 AM
I'm bumping this thread up again. This needs to be dealt with, now. It's the single biggest flaw with AirwaySim. In the real world, having a fleet of 30 or more airplanes pretty much cancels out the extra commonality cost. In Airwaysim, the system works the exact opposite. With a large fleet, adding a single aircraft of another type will kill you.

We all know why this mechanic is there. But it's not realistic, and it doesn't work as intended. Seasoned players within alliances help each other out by ordering aircraft for each other, bypassing the 4th type penalty.

Sami, we've been asking for a change for YEARS. We must have made a hundred good suggestions how to do this differently by now. Please change it.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: 11Air on May 13, 2016, 03:56:16 PM
For 'A' maintenance per aircraft for 4 to 5hrs each month week = 6 working hours per week so one guy or gal can do 7 aircraft a week given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

For 'B' maintenance per aircraft for 24hrs each month = 6 hours per week so one guy or gal can do 6 aircraft a week given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

So one person qualified for A and B checks can do some 4 aircraft with overtime while B is in progress to cover A's on the rest of the fleet, and some garden days (Monday and Friday?) in between.

For 'C' and 'D' maintenance per aircraft for 3 weeks per year = 20h/d x 21days = 420 hours per year PLUS 20h/d x 21days = 420 hours per 10 years so one guy or gal can maintain 5 aircraft in C and D checks given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

So lets group the A & B checks under one team and have a choice of Employing, or Buying In Contractors at a rate.
Same for C and D checks, similar level of skills so same choices.
All we need to add then is the cost of their Training, Updating their training, and Certification.  A bit messy but at least it's more realistic than what we currently have.
I don't know how many people are required for each of these checks, varies by type I suspect, some certificated, some 'coffee makers'.

So, from Sami's end that's two maintenance team types, each team providing UP TO 45 hours a week, and requiring Certification and yearly UpDates (at a cost (fraction of Purchase price?).
Then does the next scheduled maintenance wait until the previous is completed? Or is a contract Team brought in, at a higher cost.

Each new type in the Airlines Fleet will require Certification of AB and CD Teams, at a cost, but not necessarily more staff.

It's a relatively simple solution, it's type specific, and it covers staffing costs.  Perhaps an add-on in the aircraft purchase page to prompt for Maintenance by Staff or Contractors?
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on May 13, 2016, 04:45:45 PM
I'm bumping this thread up again. This needs to be dealt with, now. It's the single biggest flaw with AirwaySim. In the real world, having a fleet of 30 or more airplanes pretty much cancels out the extra commonality cost. In Airwaysim, the system works the exact opposite. With a large fleet, adding a single aircraft of another type will kill you.

We all know why this mechanic is there. But it's not realistic, and it doesn't work as intended. Seasoned players within alliances help each other out by ordering aircraft for each other, bypassing the 4th type penalty.

Sami, we've been asking for a change for YEARS. We must have made a hundred good suggestions how to do this differently by now. Please change it.

I think the reason the system is the way it is has to do with playability.  If operating a handful of aircraft was so much more expensive (per aircraft) then operating 100, the new airlines would have hard time surviving (or starting late in the game).

As far as severity of the cost of the additional fleets beyond 3 - it is there to slow down the growth of the airlines.  If a player could have 6  fleets x 100 aircraft, that can be achieved twice as fast as 3 fleets x 200 aircraft.  Also, there would be no compromises, no trade offs, no fleet planning....
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on May 13, 2016, 06:28:17 PM
I think the reason the system is the way it is has to do with playability.  If operating a handful of aircraft was so much more expensive (per aircraft) then operating 100, the new airlines would have hard time surviving (or starting late in the game).

As far as severity of the cost of the additional fleets beyond 3 - it is there to slow down the growth of the airlines.  If a player could have 6  fleets x 100 aircraft, that can be achieved twice as fast as 3 fleets x 200 aircraft.  Also, there would be no compromises, no trade offs, no fleet planning....

I completely disagree. The game mechanic right now is unnatural, incredibly annoying, and manages to ruin the game. Fleet planning, compromises and trade offs are very much a real thing at any airline. A 4th type penalty is not needed. The fleet commonality costs could be increased across the board, but without any multiplier at a certain number of fleets. There's a reason some airlines run a 100% commonality fleet, like Ryanair and Southwest, while others go for "one aircraft type per type of mission" strategy like Delta. Commonality very much matters without an artificial cost multiplier.

Going through several generations of aircraft in a 1960-2030 game without ever going into 4th fleet type is very difficult. The results are airlines storing hundreds of brand new aircraft for more than a decade, before every scheduling them. It's completely mindboggling and unnatural.

There are a million ways to slow growth other than a 4th and 7th fleet type penalty. Many of them have been discussed before. The best way would be to have investors who demanded return on their capital investment into your airline. You start the game using their cash, and they'd like it back and then some. Just like in the real world, the most successful airline would be the one who manages to return the most capital to their investors.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on May 13, 2016, 09:21:11 PM
Going through several generations of aircraft in a 1960-2030 game without ever going into 4th fleet type is very difficult. The results are airlines storing hundreds of brand new aircraft for more than a decade, before every scheduling them. It's completely mindboggling and unnatural.

Well, that's because you are doing it wrong.  You need to be at 2 fleet types, and always use the 3rd type to be the one that is in transition.  And it takes a TON more compromises to run an airline with 2 fleet types.

There are a million ways to slow growth other than a 4th and 7th fleet type penalty. Many of them have been discussed before. The best way would be to have investors who demanded return on their capital investment into your airline. You start the game using their cash, and they'd like it back and then some. Just like in the real world, the most successful airline would be the one who manages to return the most capital to their investors.

The investors of the airline are more or less irrelevant, they put up peanuts (in the game terms). 

It is the leasing companies that put up the real capital.  And one way to slow down the growth is for the leasing companies to act like lenders, only willing to lend so much.  Severely undercapitalized company would not be able to lease a brand new 777, just because it has 4 months worth of lease payment cash on hand, and D credit rating.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on May 15, 2016, 08:04:44 PM
Well, that's because you are doing it wrong.  You need to be at 2 fleet types, and always use the 3rd type to be the one that is in transition.  And it takes a TON more compromises to run an airline with 2 fleet types.

The investors of the airline are more or less irrelevant, they put up peanuts (in the game terms). 

It is the leasing companies that put up the real capital.  And one way to slow down the growth is for the leasing companies to act like lenders, only willing to lend so much.  Severely undercapitalized company would not be able to lease a brand new 777, just because it has 4 months worth of lease payment cash on hand, and D credit rating.

Yep I'm always using 2 fleet types. But when you have 700 aircraft, with 400 and 300 respectively of each type.. well then it's not even possible to switch out one of them without storing hundreds of planes for several years. Simply an incredibly backwards game mechanic which ruins the sim.

The investors would own a certain percentage of the company and expect returns corresponding to their capital investment as well. There are a lot of ways to do it. The last part about the leasing companies I 100% agree with you on, it would be a great way to hinder growth in a realistic way.

I still want fleet commonality, just tweaked differently with additional sub groups like cockpit commonality/type ratings, maintenance, training, and so forth. Just not an artifical bump anywhere in the mix.

Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: ZombieSlayer on May 15, 2016, 10:48:39 PM
There have been many great ideas on how to alleviate this problem with long game world's, but sadly they have all fallen on deaf ears over the years....
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on May 15, 2016, 10:49:18 PM
Yep I'm always using 2 fleet types. But when you have 700 aircraft, with 400 and 300 respectively of each type.. well then it's not even possible to switch out one of them without storing hundreds of planes for several years. Simply an incredibly backwards game mechanic which ruins the sim.

You just have to be extra careful, and put a ton of planning effort early on to map out the fleet transitions.  You just can't jump on every shiny new fleet type that launches, and you end up with fleets for far longer, past their prime.  You need to have the fleet transitions 10+ years apart.  I think the 3 fleet limitation really stresses strategic planning.

You can run 400-500 aircraft airline and be self sufficient in ordering aircraft replacements.  To go beyond that, and we are talking maybe top 10 airlines in the game, you will need some help, from the alliance or from UM to make the transitions.

The investors would own a certain percentage of the company and expect returns corresponding to their capital investment as well. There are a lot of ways to do it. The last part about the leasing companies I 100% agree with you on, it would be a great way to hinder growth in a realistic way.

The credit market, IMO, needs to be re-worked, to be a little more realistic.  The whole credit rating, credit worthiness, borrowing power based on that right now really plays almost no role for running an airline.  Barring any short term miscalculation on my part, I can play the entire game without looking at it once.

For starters, the implied interest rate that goes into the leasing price should have some dependence on airline's credit rating.  Meaning, there would be a trade-off:
- Grow fast, have low capitalization, low credit rating, but pay more for leases.
- Grow slower, concentrate on profitability, build equity, improve credit rating, but then have better rate on leases, loans

This trade-off does not really exist now in early fast growth phase of the game world.

We already have the UM, and price the AI brokers are asking for the aircraft to purchase.  All that would be needed is to have the lease price be derived from the interest rate appropriate for the airline, based on airline's credit rating.  For starters.

Then, the lease payment obligations (from leased aircraft in use, and aircraft ordered) would be compared to current revenue and profitability, and calculate a cap, in dollar terms, as far as total value of aircraft the player can have on lease.

With these changes, the player would be checking his credit rating, borrowing power on daily basis...

I still want fleet commonality, just tweaked differently with additional sub groups like cockpit commonality/type ratings, maintenance, training, and so forth. Just not an artifical bump anywhere in the mix.

The commonality should be a bonus, IMO, like in real life, not a penalty.  Each successive aircraft in the same fleet should be cheaper to operate.

To go from the existing system, we have the "Administrative Fee" for a fleet, which is one fee per fleet.  To go to successive fleets, the fee would scale, say:
- 2nd fleet: 5x
- 3rd fleet: 20x
- 4th fleet: 100x

This way, you still would have the incentive to stay within 2-3 fleets, but if you are operating 800 aircraft, 200 per fleet, each fleet would be large enough to earn enough money to cover the administration fees.  And each additional aircraft would make that fee less per additional aircraft, rather than more as it is modeled currently.

And this approach would successfully slow down the early growth, maybe more successfully than the current system.  Right now, when you are under 100-150 aircraft, you can pretty much fly 10 fleets with almost no penalty.  With administrative fees scaling with additional aircraft even at early stages, players would be more judicious in adding extra fleets.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on May 16, 2016, 03:44:39 AM
You just have to be extra careful, and put a ton of planning effort early on to map out the fleet transitions.  You just can't jump on every shiny new fleet type that launches, and you end up with fleets for far longer, past their prime.  You need to have the fleet transitions 10+ years apart.  I think the 3 fleet limitation really stresses strategic planning.

You can run 400-500 aircraft airline and be self sufficient in ordering aircraft replacements.  To go beyond that, and we are talking maybe top 10 airlines in the game, you will need some help, from the alliance or from UM to make the transitions.


Yes, definately agree on this. I calculate about 10 years, but this time around it's taken me nearly 15 years and I'm not done yet. We have been trading intra-alliance, and managed to get into the top tiers in that game world. But the thing is, in reality nobody knows what the future holds. You can carefully plan your fleet, but you wouldn't know what type of aircraft would surface in the future. On this point I'd like to thank Sami for letting prototypes into the game, letting us decide if the aircraft type is successful or not. Not just based on history.


The credit market, IMO, needs to be re-worked, to be a little more realistic.  The whole credit rating, credit worthiness, borrowing power based on that right now really plays almost no role for running an airline.  Barring any short term miscalculation on my part, I can play the entire game without looking at it once.

For starters, the implied interest rate that goes into the leasing price should have some dependence on airline's credit rating.  Meaning, there would be a trade-off:
- Grow fast, have low capitalization, low credit rating, but pay more for leases.
- Grow slower, concentrate on profitability, build equity, improve credit rating, but then have better rate on leases, loans

This trade-off does not really exist now in early fast growth phase of the game world.

We already have the UM, and price the AI brokers are asking for the aircraft to purchase.  All that would be needed is to have the lease price be derived from the interest rate appropriate for the airline, based on airline's credit rating.  For starters.

Then, the lease payment obligations (from leased aircraft in use, and aircraft ordered) would be compared to current revenue and profitability, and calculate a cap, in dollar terms, as far as total value of aircraft the player can have on lease.

With these changes, the player would be checking his credit rating, borrowing power on daily basis...


Definately agree on this as well. The same thing could be done with the banks regarding loans, not only the lease companies. And with investors demanding a quarterly return on investment, you wouldn't have all the money in the world to spend on new metal.




The commonality should be a bonus, IMO, like in real life, not a penalty.  Each successive aircraft in the same fleet should be cheaper to operate.

To go from the existing system, we have the "Administrative Fee" for a fleet, which is one fee per fleet.  To go to successive fleets, the fee would scale, say:
- 2nd fleet: 5x
- 3rd fleet: 20x
- 4th fleet: 100x

This way, you still would have the incentive to stay within 2-3 fleets, but if you are operating 800 aircraft, 200 per fleet, each fleet would be large enough to earn enough money to cover the administration fees.  And each additional aircraft would make that fee less per additional aircraft, rather than more as it is modeled currently.

And this approach would successfully slow down the early growth, maybe more successfully than the current system.  Right now, when you are under 100-150 aircraft, you can pretty much fly 10 fleets with almost no penalty.  With administrative fees scaling with additional aircraft even at early stages, players would be more judicious in adding extra fleets.

Absolutely. That's how it works in the real world. It gets cheaper the more aircraft you have in a fleet, and it kind of works the same way in Airwaysim - except when you get your 4th or 7th fleet type. I've heard people say 30 planes of the same type in a fleet is enough to cover the extra commonality costs of introducing another type of aircraft, others have said 100. Either way artificial punishments for adding another fleet is not a good thing. Instead we should have to invest in infrastructure, training, manuals, simulators, tools.. everything you need to bring on another type of aircraft. It could range from 500,000 USD from the smallest type of plane to 100,000,000 USD or more for the largest types. Basically as an entry fee so to speak. It would be an incentive to keep to the same type of airplanes, without an artificial punishment when you get the 4th or 7th type.

With future developments in Airwaysim, we'll be able to run our airline as a pure low cost carrier, or a full service legacy carrier. Fixing the commonality issue, and being able to choose the type of approach regarding fleets would be a welcome addition to this. Run an airline like Southwest or JetBlue with 1 or 2 fleets, or an airline like Delta with a seperate fleet for each type of mission.

If we could choose to buy maintenance services from 3rd parties like we do with fuel, or keep all maintenenace in-house, this would affect commonality as well. If you're a small airline it could be cheaper to have maintenance done outside of the airline, but if you're a big carrier with several hundred aircraft it would be cheaper to do it in-house.

So many possibilities.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JonesyUK on May 26, 2016, 10:51:20 PM
Having played the game since the first worlds (After the beta), I've pretty much given up on it, and it's all down to this one flaw. The game forces you to stick to fleet groups with large variations in the planes such a the 737 or A320 groups and leaves no scope to use less popular, but more narrow groups (HS Trident, etc).

/given up.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on June 06, 2016, 12:03:34 AM
Another issue that is related to the fleet commonality one, is the insanely irregular prices for new aircraft in this sim. The prices start normal, but end up sky high because people don't have a choice when ordering airplanes.

Examples:

In GW4 the 737-700 has been a 100m USD aircraft for a while now. In the real world the list price is about 70m USD, but they sell for as low as 22m USD after discounts. In AirwaySim you might get it for 80m USD if you've played your cards right and gotten all the discounts. That's 4 times the real world price.

The same goes for aircraft like the A320 series. The A321neo is now a 150m USD plane in Airwaysim.

These problems would get sorted out by removing the fleet commonality issue. It would let airlines order different types of planes and the demand for the most popular types would fall. The prices would then stabilize on a more normal level. I'm not against the pricing mechanic, but I'm against the artificial fleet commonality mechanic which causes this problem.

What's the point of this fantastic, large database of aircraft when we don't have a choice when ordering planes? You can't go for a fourth type without your airline going belly up within a week. The fact that this straight out destructive game mechanic still is a part of the sim is beyond belief.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on June 09, 2016, 06:19:01 PM
Another issue that is related to the fleet commonality one, is the insanely irregular prices for new aircraft in this sim. The prices start normal, but end up sky high because people don't have a choice when ordering airplanes.(.../...)

I strongly disagree, and find the system actually excellent. You can go for Kickass MAX8 at 120M$, or slightly inferior(mainly in terms of range and versatility) C919 at 80M$. The way players jump on the best planes, and the way it alters prices, help as a self-balancing system. TU204, A148, even IL96, have their uses.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Andre on June 10, 2016, 12:32:06 PM
I agree gazzz0x2z, but that's not my point. The point is that those planes are not a choice because of the fleet commonality penalty. Several of these planes you mention appear late in the game. If the commonality penalty wasn't so severe, those planes would actually be an option!
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on June 10, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
I agree gazzz0x2z, but that's not my point. The point is that those planes are not a choice because of the fleet commonality penalty. Several of these planes you mention appear late in the game. If the commonality penalty wasn't so severe, those planes would actually be an option!

And here you score.

I was planning to get C919 to replace my 737-300 at the end of GW3, but I did notice they lack 250NM of range for most of my destinations in Alaska. So nope. As I always stick to 2 fleet groups, I have fewer transition problem(but I don't fill as much niche than players with 3 fleet groups, that's the drawback). So I'll probably stick to planes obsolete in the early 2000s, buying new ones in the middle 2020s.....

Of course, transition is so tough that it weeds out the market when you expect it the less, but are those playerswho left because a missed transition likely to come back to Airwaysim? I'm not convinced.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: KestrelAIH on June 13, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
Andre, your points are spot on.

Surely we are not asking for a huge change, just a slight increase in realism? OK, if you want to mainline JFK to USA its easy, but in other parts of the world a mixed fleet are a must, and unrealistically unaffordable. The saddest thing is that the developers dont even seem to reply ( or even read?) any more? 

Real world take a company like SWISS - they need longhaul planes. Their real fleet has two core types. They need european route planes. Their core route has two main types. (Soon 3). Its a necessity for them. We arent arguing here so much about the temp costs of fleet renewal, but simply a more realistic ability to operate 4 fleets effectively, sure with increased costs, (but not farcical tripling of costs) to be realistic and to be more interesting. After all thats why most of us play.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on June 13, 2016, 08:43:22 AM
(.../...)Real world take a company like SWISS(.../...)

A point I had missed, probably becasue I always played the EU market or the US market.

When you play a big market like that, you can choose 2 niches, and limit yourself to 3 fleet groups(including the current transition, E.G. I'm preparing the replacement of my CRJs by A148, while I religiously keep my 737-300 until the end of the A148 transition. Once I'll have no more CRJs, I'll think). You are a specialized transporter, in the current gemr, I'm serving the US interior market and the immediate surroundings, and it's my niche, and it works very well.

But yes, when you're in a smaller market, like Swiss, Norway, or God forgive me, Sudan, you cannot afford to specialize. You have to cover every possible line to exist. You need a 50-seater for local routes. You need a 100/150 seater for average-range routes. You need something to cover longer routes. And you need a 4th fleet group for transitions, because you're too small to afford to store brand new planes for two years in the desert.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Tulip Air CEO on August 22, 2016, 12:29:06 PM
4th type should be standard in the long game worlds, the real problem of this game is the real free time you have and the talk about seasoned players buying too many planes is not true,the player with the most free time in real and spent it on this game is the 1 who can order most planes and grow faster and so on.
600 planes max outside homebase is like a lock already and maybe can add another lock like in the slots locked airports that if you have for example 10 unscheduled planes you cannot order new planes or deliveries are being postponed.so many ways to keep this game realistic.If a real airliner have an unscheduled plane on the ground,it cost alot a day,also option for here.
Nothing you can do about it,also the new Gulf carriers suddenly can buy alot of planes,so in the real world this also happens when i saw this games advertisement as the real simulation,so have to keep it real.I started with alot of fun,but it is getteng tempered as everygame gett the same problems and looks all the same.For example gw 1 and 2 are from 1960-2030,have like 1 game a 4th type and maybe for example the other have a higher starting capital and like written here before by other players maybe higher lease down payments or like payback to the stockholders,that would be nice as an extra achievement and in points to keep the game around and alive.
now the later types in the game are more for players who start later as if you are an allround carrier then it is nearly impossible to go over indeed.i checked with my 800+ carrier in gw 3 that a 4th type,just add 1 plane goth over 260mln a month equals about 60-70 mln extra cost in a week.somehow just feel to quitte this game as i cannot transit and feels like game locked.
If you buy a new plane you should not wait 10 years before the first delivery enters the game.
Maybe if administration can change this then when we start with 600 carriers we maybe end up more then with the standard 100-200 planes.
if 400 players can make it till the end then they will earn double income from credits then now and also more dynamic in the game.

If you go Bankrupt in 1993 from a game started in 1960,it is hard to start again or maybe if you have planes bought that they can sell them to the leasing companies and gett an leaseback arrangemnets as now you can only sell for dump prices for quick cash or if someone is willing to buy your planes for cash injection.A sell-leaseback construction should be a honest way in this game and also make it more attractive for small demand countries to gett big airplanes in support of an partner carrier.

Somewhere i readed an idea of having a 2nd airliner which maybe can be implanted as a commuter or a charter devision.your airliner can have then 4types over 2 airliners,this way all problems can be solved easy and as realistic aswell.
just 3 for your own,so you can have a large and an very large plane and 1 for transitions while the commutter/charter can have 1 and 1 for transition too,And if affraid that you go over the limit then is like a 5 type max at 1 time so expansion can be tempered and fleet renewels should be planned well in advance.

Why we buy insearance?no plane ever had an problem in this game and the technical shape of a plane which flies is locked to 70% anyway also if a A or B check is expire it should be grounded immediatly and pay an administration fee to the safety board as a way to keep players sharpe,maybe would be intresting for example if a plane have a 60% technical shape to have an engine shut down or a runway excursion.
In real are black lists of carriers and countries but would be alot of work to install so maybe just have some unexpected events with planes with technical problems below the 90% in different degrees depending on the tech state of the plane.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: JumboShrimp on August 24, 2016, 02:22:53 AM
4th type should be standard in the long game worlds

If you see complaints about the cost of 4 and more fleets, it is nothing in comparison to the number of complaints you would see if there is absolutely no check in growth of airlines, if they can fly whatever types they choose to, order simultaneously from 4+ production lines.

There would also be no niches left for players trying the regional route.  The majors would just scoop up all the demand with the best customized aircraft for each route.

the real problem of this game is the real free time you have and the talk about seasoned players buying too many planes is not true,the player with the most free time in real and spent it on this game is the 1 who can order most planes and grow faster and so on.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at, as far as time playing the game.  It makes a lot of difference when the game world starts, but as the game world progresses, players don't need to stalk the Used Market any more, as more aircraft (percentage-wise) comes as "new" directly from the production lines.

600 planes max outside homebase  is like a lock already

600 is almost like an infinity for most players, most players don't end up using up 600.  And the main reason is fleet commonality and the rate at which you can receive new aircraft.  This limit mostly bites only early on, in long game worlds, when it is only some 200.

and maybe can add another lock like in the slots locked airports that if you have for example 10 unscheduled planes you cannot order new planes or deliveries are being postponed.so many ways to keep this game realistic.If a real airliner have an unscheduled plane on the ground,it cost alot a day,also option for here.

See, you are already introducing more and more artificial restrictions, in order to relax the Fleet Commonality costs.  It turns out that the Fleet Commonality (high cost of going above 3 fleet types) takes care of most, if not all of the things you want to restrict, and does it quite elegantly.

It introduces and reinforces fleet planning, discipline for the player in order to be successful in the game.  And it leaves a plenty of room in the game for many players, instead of having 50 mega carriers, each flying 1200 aircraft of 10 types.

now the later types in the game are more for players who start later as if you are an allround carrier then it is nearly impossible to go over indeed.i checked with my 800+ carrier in gw 3 that a 4th type,just add 1 plane goth over 260mln a month equals about 60-70 mln extra cost in a week.somehow just feel to quitte this game as i cannot transit and feels like game locked.

See, that's a tradeoff.  You can fly 6 types, but have only approx. 300 aircraft, or you can fly 800+, but with only 3 types.

If you buy a new plane you should not wait 10 years before the first delivery enters the game.

Early in the game, the production lines end up with some backlogs, but Sami has relaxed the production lines (they can now produce more aircraft per month) and it accommodates more players.

You just need to watch for opening of the new production lines and have some cash saved up so that you don't end up with 10 year wait.

If you go Bankrupt in 1993 from a game started in 1960,it is hard to start again

There are opportunities as some airlines bankrupt.  You may not necessarily be able to start at LHR or JFK in 1993, but there are plenty of airports around the worlds that are wide open.

Somewhere i readed an idea of having a 2nd airliner which maybe can be implanted as a commuter or a charter devision.your airliner can have then 4types over 2 airliners,this way all problems can be solved easy and as realistic aswell.

You can always consider starting a 2nd airline in a different Game World, if you want to run 2 airlines.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on August 24, 2016, 07:06:56 PM
+1000 with Jumboshrimp.

Said otherwise : to succeed at the game, you shall be disciplined, able to make long-term plans, but also to seize opportunities. Exactly like a real CEO. Without the fleet limit, even an above-average player like me(20th in current GW3, with 737 & CRJs being replaced by A148) would be exterminated by the superpros, who could finance hordes of RJs to reduce my profit into dust, with their long-range income. With the current system, there is place for different strategies. But you've got to make choices, and to assume them.

Sometimes, things are ironic. When all the big boys collapsed in JFK, I was amongst the numerous who jumped on the ruins to take the place. It worked wonders, I more than tripled my profit from what I had in my 3 first airports. In less than 18 months - after 10 years of game. But, at the same times, it was at odds with my strategic choices. The A148 is an excellent plane when you struggle with cash in medium bases, as it's very cheap to buy/lease. OTOH, when you play a rather big boy, E190s, or even CRJs I was disengaging from, are better. Once you can buy them with hot cash, their lower operating cost is a god-given gift. And the fact that they have bigger models than the A158 would help me a lot, too. But the dices were already launched, I had to go on with the Antonov fleet strategy. It succeeded, I'm now number one in JFK, despite having no plane flying above 2700NM. But the situation is awkward, my fleet choice is clearly suboptimal for this airport, which is now the pearl of my company.

And that's what's fun. You have to make choices. Some are long-term choices, following a deliberate strategy (in my case, have a few 737 classic to finance hordes of cheap RJs to cover medium airports in the USA). Some are instant choices(JFK is free? 10 years after the beginning of the game? Banzaiiiiiiii!!!!!!!). That's why I love the game. You need both a long-term plan, and an adaptation to unforecasted events(like a very tough attack against my initial positions in Detroit). Sid Meier told, at the release of Civilization IV, that a good game, was, above all, made of interesting choices for the player. The fleet group rule is excellent at this level. You have to sacrifice something, so that the rest will thrive. It's an interesting choice. Shall I switch from leased CRJs to owned A148s? Shall I replace my 737-400 by 737-800? Shall I reduce to 2 fleet groups and invest in 777-8X for broadening my offer, but blocking me definitively with my current suboptimal fleet groups? Shall I instead wait for the MRJ to kick ass in the end game, but only in my current playfield? Those are interesting choices to make. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard, to quote the guy who gave his name to the jewel of my company.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Tulip Air CEO on September 01, 2016, 10:25:10 PM
Oke Jumbo and gazzox..,some points you are right and and can find myself in,but on the other hand,if you fly for example 190 F27,180 737-200adv and 170 dc-8īs,it is hard to renew a fleet without a normal penalty.or have 170 planes collected before can implant them.
Not all bases are as big as jfk or lhr,so in order to stay in line you need a 4th type for transition at a normal speed and still stay in the footsteps from the big based carriers.
With the 600 limitation rule yu are already there isnīt it?so why can we not defend or play our Head quaters at all levels of demand from regionals to long haul?so 1 base you can defend and if you choose 9 extra bases with 60 planes or 2 bases with 300 planes,still stay the same,isnt it?
Yes the artificial locks are just brain storming.as i play forfun and i like to change plane type too and not just order my final types before 1985 as a game finish in 2030 but have to plan well ahead for the future if you not cover regional,medium long haul because of competiton or to keep market share at homebase then for most bases you will be out of the game before even half way trough the game,isnīt it?

For example,a 3 fleet with over 800 planes a 4th type means end of story as gett 60mln extra costs,which is way to high.2lh planes amonth x170 is how many weeks?that x60 mln a week is?
or for example i am in gw 1 in Dublin,which i have 1 competitor left from the 5 start ups aswell,so we are both basically stuck now for the upcomming 20 years.
I fly namc,727 and dc-8īs to cover routes which i want to fly.
But if i choose only 2 types i couldnīt do what i have done now and be in a smaller phasewith maybe 3 or 4 competitors with a limited market and then you gett the other carriers from abroad flying to Dublin.Or just limit the airliners which can start there operations from gameday 1 to just 2 or 3 so you not gett 1 base with 5 airliners and then other with jsut 1 or even nothing,when i open i cannot see this,only after airliners joined the gw.i cannot check 15x a day to see this changing.
So a 4th typ is neccasary in my opinion if you are in a smaller base other then lhr or jfk but still want to grow  normally too.

There are 4 different gwīs with 2 basically the same,and 1 with only 10 years shorter,so why not open a game world for players who want this so there will be a wider variaty of game world to choose from?

now the game worlds 1,2and 3 started with 500+players gw 2 even with 690 if i remember correctly in 1960,how many players are there now in 1994?and how many will there be in 2010 or at the game end?
Arenīt that Always the same names either?
So i think more change can attrackt more players and keep more players playing this game and not quit of boredom because they are in Bahrain or Romania.if we start with 50 airliners in Jfk or LHR is not fun either.



Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Wagster on September 02, 2016, 03:19:29 PM
If you are not a veteran stick to TWO fleet types, not three. Either give up on the small short range turboprops or give up on the long range long haul jets (or give up on medium/large planes in-between).

This is what Sami wants you to do, this is what the veterans want you, new player, to do.

Only veterans can operate three or four fleet types thanks to their inter-alliance plane trading and cheat sheets (plane performance and cost accounting charts, history of best routes from all major airports, entire game length pre-plan of fleet choices, etc.).

The only thing I don't understand is why we have to figure this out the worst way: by adding too many fleet types and going bankrupt.

Just write somewhere, clearly: you can only have two fleet types so that when the time comes to swap them you won't go bankrupt. You may see some airlines with more than two fleet types, these are the superior players who will replace hundreds of planes all at once within 24 real life hours thanks to their alliance helping supply planes. You are not them. You cannot do this. Accept the fact the rules are stacked against you and in their favor.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Tulip Air CEO on September 03, 2016, 01:18:38 AM
oke,the experianced players are better at this for sure.
But someday we will to if we can keep the fun in it.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Teadaze on September 03, 2016, 08:49:55 AM
if you have 600 aircraft and unable store transition then you are doing something very wrong.

Having 4 type, less limit on base means power player will dominate all major airport. and all other player will either get squashed/forced to take small airport. Then small airport will get overcrowded resulting the game become unplayable. The 'fun' factor will simply be gone.

there is a few thing about alliance cheating etc....
will joining an alliance give you an edge? somewhat.... knowledge from other player, plane trading via used market... etc. But really most of these are do-able if you know people that is willing to teach you(hint again: mentor).

Plane trading helps, but at the same time you have to be rich enough to do it. you can gain massive income by selling popular plane with jacked up price, while the alliance is limited on that level.

Quote
(plane performance and cost accounting charts, history of best routes from all major airports, entire game length pre-plan of fleet choices, etc.).
which alliance provide these? I would totally jump ship for them! ;)
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: Tulip Air CEO on September 07, 2016, 03:39:02 PM
How many airliners are actually reaching the end form the start?maybe 10-15%?
I see that a total of just over 100 are reaching the end and many of them are later interants,so the airliners who do reach this aren't they the power players already?You call this fun now?seeing always the same names in the top or at the game ends?
Maybe 1 world with a 4th type will give players with less experience also the chance to make an serious attempt at this.
(someone said go and play in beginners world then,but that is just 10years,so before the game actually starts it is finished already)



Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: ZombieSlayer on September 08, 2016, 04:57:09 PM
If you are not a veteran stick to TWO fleet types, not three. Either give up on the small short range turboprops or give up on the long range long haul jets (or give up on medium/large planes in-between).

This is what Sami wants you to do, this is what the veterans want you, new player, to do.

Only veterans can operate three or four fleet types thanks to their inter-alliance plane trading and cheat sheets (plane performance and cost accounting charts, history of best routes from all major airports, entire game length pre-plan of fleet choices, etc.).

The only thing I don't understand is why we have to figure this out the worst way: by adding too many fleet types and going bankrupt.

Just write somewhere, clearly: you can only have two fleet types so that when the time comes to swap them you won't go bankrupt. You may see some airlines with more than two fleet types, these are the superior players who will replace hundreds of planes all at once within 24 real life hours thanks to their alliance helping supply planes. You are not them. You cannot do this. Accept the fact the rules are stacked against you and in their favor.

I would consider myself one of the power players you speak of, yet in 6 1/2 years of AWS I have never replaced more than 100 planes in a 24 hour period, and honestly that number only happened once.  Having a strong alliance helps in AWS, there is no question about that, but going it alone is very possible as long as you plan appropriately. A game is 80 years long. Plan 10 years for each fleet transition and you will be fine.
Title: Re: Commonality "Points"
Post by: gazzz0x2z on September 09, 2016, 07:14:13 AM
(.../...)Plan 10 years for each fleet transition and you will be fine.

This. I began replacing CRJs by A148s in 2005, and hope to finish in 2016. I'll have more than 400 A148  when finished. Then I'll replace my 737-400. That's a normal rythm. As long as you stick to 2 niches(in my case, single aisles & regional jets), it's perfectly sustainable. And if you are not in a bad spot, there is always somewhere to flee if you are under price attack.

I'm currently 14th in profit and 19th in company value in GW3. With 2 niches only, and not even very long haul. OK, USA seems to me easier than Europe or other markets(far more regular internal lines, you can industrialize route coverage), but still, it's perfectly manageable. And some alliance are open to players, and have some players able to play the brokering game(therefore doubling your replacing capacity). Still, I'm using my alliance only lightly(21 A148 in 7 game years, that's what, 300M$? trinkets!). Without an alliance, I would do nearly as well. I never replaced more than 6 planes in 24 hours IRL. Never. And I'm in the TOP20!!!