AirwaySim

Miscellaneous => Archives => Archived Feature requests => Topic started by: Sami on August 01, 2011, 01:08:45 PM

Title: [ok] Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on August 01, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
Just posting a small question ...

In your view what are the most urgent updates / changes needed to get the long 1950s - 2020s game worlds working? The 1950s test world helped to discover some issues in the early days but when thinking on how things develop and continue for decades, what are your ideas and thoughts.

I would be planning to start such a world as soon as possible (with the exception that it may be shortened if some issues are encountered but then it will be announced well before closure).
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Curse on August 01, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
- A second tech-stop should be possible. Early aircraft don't have much range and demand is low, so it's hard if 30-70% of the already low demand can't be served because of range. Especially if you have to use tech-stop airports that are a bit off the direct route, like crossing the Atlantic via Island.

- The used market should be for at least as big as in MT#5, (1500 player market for 600 players), maybe bigger, depends on how useful the available aircraft are (I can imagine soviet aircraft are as useful as nearly every other aircraft is, especially if the costs are lower for the game worlds to run smaller aircraft)

- smaller aircraft in the 50s must make money, so a 13 seater Boeing should not need endless staff like it's at the moment

- less slots (maybe 35%?) and increase very slowly to 150-200% till end of the game.

Edit:
- more and hard fuel spikes to erase some bigger airlines every now and then

- maybe some kind of feature that helps to replace aircraft:
if one for example runs DC-4 there is a special dropdown menu at DC-7: "Replacement for DC-6"
a replacement fleet group only adds 50% of additional commonality costs and an airline can have 2 (or 3?) replacement fleets coming at one time.

- prototypes and/or surprise aircraft appearance ( https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,32446.0.html )
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on August 01, 2011, 02:15:46 PM
I think to avoid initial rush and for player numbers to match demand, make game world start with, say 100 player spaces (enough for 2 airlines in each top 50 airport - the only ones worth basing in these times). Every decade or so about 100 more spaces for airlines open up. Can either be done in batches of 100 on the turn of the decade (would have to be announced) or it goes up by 1, 2, 5 periodically so maximum player numbers will meet growth. F.E. Currently DOTM has 400 spaces in the 1980s and has increased to 600 in MT in the 2000s.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on August 01, 2011, 03:47:12 PM
I think to avoid initial rush and for player numbers to match demand, make game world start with, say 100 player spaces (enough for 2 airlines in each top 50 airport - the only ones worth basing in these times). Every decade or so about 100 more spaces for airlines open up. Can either be done in batches of 100 on the turn of the decade (would have to be announced) or it goes up by 1, 2, 5 periodically so maximum player numbers will meet growth. F.E. Currently DOTM has 400 spaces in the 1980s and has increased to 600 in MT in the 2000s.

I second this.  I think the game should start in 1950 with 100 players.  Every month open up 1 more opening, so when the year 2000 roles around you'll have 700 openings.  I think most players who have played the 1950's era already will end up waiting until the 70s/80s before joining anyways (I will).

The other issue will be airport slots.  Growth is still explosive, which means something must be done to make sure those joining later can actually fly somewhere.  The easiest way, in my opinion, would be to have airlines limited to 25% of the slots available at an airport for every time block.  This means if there are 100 slots for the 500-600 hour, they are limited to only 25 slots for their airline in order to keep slots available for other airlines.  The only other option to ensure late joiners have a snowball's chance is to have explosive slot growth to counteract the explosive airline growth.  Airports could start with 50% slots and double every decade, for example.

Fuel is extremely cheap in the early decades, so if someone (like Curse) were to start in 1950, you could bet that when 2000 roles around he'll be king of the world.  Fuel either needs to be very expensive or other costs need to be dramatically increased to counteract this.

One way to counteract the "legacy" airlines in the game is to add a new line to the balance sheet: retirement costs.  Many airlines run in the red because of pension/retirement costs.  After 15 years, airlines should start to incur pension costs that last another 20 years based on tenure.  This means if you had 1000 employees in year 1, during year 16 you would have to pay pension payments to those 1000 employees (assumes they've retired).  After year 36, those 1000 employees roll off the books, but the employees from year 21 (15 years prior) are added, which means you're likely dropping 1000, but adding 20,000 for a net increase of 19,000.  A simple formula would be (number of pensioners)*(current average salary)*(80%).  This would help counterbalance airlines from having wild profit margins and buying out their fleet, which ends up going straight to the bottom line.  IRL airlines have to plan for these costs, why not implement them in AWS?  This would also provide smaller startup airlines an opportunity to undercut the legacy airlines with lower prices.  Add high fuel costs and you'll get the perfect storm for players to endure :)

The last part is the "boredom" factor.  Players will get bored with a longer game world when all they can do is upgrade or buy out their fleet.  I think the number of bases should be uncapped, but the staff costs increase exponentially, based on the number of aircraft based there.  Strong players could challenge themselves opening a 10th base and a fuel spike could wipe them out.  I think the challenge of growing an airline to the maximum size possible would be the holy grail for most experience players--imagine having the top 10 airports in the US as hubs with 1000+ planes and eventually collapsing completely due to rising retirement costs and fuel spikes.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: slither360 on August 01, 2011, 04:24:02 PM
I'm gonna disagree actually.

if you start early, all the pressure is on you to replace your aircraft quickly, continue to trim unprofitable routes, etc. So being able to secure slots early is really an advantage which balances these kinds of factors out...
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Pilot Oatmeal on August 01, 2011, 05:11:02 PM
A big one for me is the ridiculous amounts of staff per plane, I want to be able to run an airline with 30 Seats or less as it is possible in real life...

EDIT: MU-2 Please sami, I love you :)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Dave4468 on August 01, 2011, 05:58:38 PM
A big one for me is the ridiculous amounts of staff per plane, I want to be able to run an airline with 30 Seats or less as it is possible in real life...

EDIT: MU-2 Please sami, I love you :)

Yes, that would be great. Not the MU-2, leave that out, nobody wants it!  :P
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Curse on August 01, 2011, 08:04:29 PM
In fact there is no or at least no more than one aircraft with 30+ seats in 1950 AWS.

So it's no point of "would be nice, sami", it is essential to make it possible for airlines to survive with 13+ seater like the small Boeing 247 (?), DC-3 etc.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on August 01, 2011, 08:08:08 PM
In fact there is no or at least no more than one aircraft with 30+ seats in 1950 AWS.

So it's no point of "would be nice, sami", it is essential to make it possible for airlines to survive with 13+ seater like the small Boeing 247 (?), DC-3 etc.

Maybe make it so the only early days demand is first class, as only the rich could afford to fly and the service was most resemblant of first class (recently went into an old BOAC Hermes and it was like the Ritz inside). Or if the demand must be economy, make the prices more in line with first class (5-6x more than standard).
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Dave4468 on August 01, 2011, 09:07:15 PM
Maybe make it so the only early days demand is first class, as only the rich could afford to fly and the service was most resemblant of first class (recently went into an old BOAC Hermes and it was like the Ritz inside). Or if the demand must be economy, make the prices more in line with first class (5-6x more than standard).

Yes, this.

Also, maybe only for the 1950s and 1960s we need way more than one tech stop. Just looking at some old BOAC flights;

London - Tripoli - Kano - Lagos - Accra (Hermes)
London - Tripoli - Kano - Brazzaville - Livingstone - Johannesburg (Hermes)
London - Rome - Beirut - Khartoum - Entebbe - Livingstone - Johannesburg (Comet)

This needs to be possible in the very early period.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Maarten Otto on August 01, 2011, 09:35:04 PM
A big one for me is the ridiculous amounts of staff per plane, I want to be able to run an airline with 30 Seats or less as it is possible in real life...

EDIT: MU-2 Please sami, I love you :)

I totally agree on this one...
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: JumboShrimp on August 02, 2011, 01:41:41 AM
Starting early in the 50s, how about empty used market.

Enough cash to buy maybe 2 new aircraft delivered instantly (out of thin air).   Something like this might be useful for any game world - a new player being able to order new aircraft (or two) and have them delivered instantly.  It might screw up the numbering (just push all the existing orders up by 1).  But it would address the point raised elsewhere - that when a player starts for example now, in MT5, there is nothing really desirable on used market.  I think it is an issue now, that anyone starting, say 6 months from the start of game world up to maybe 4-5 years into the game world has the odds ridiculously stacked against them...

This (instant delivery of new aircraft to new players) might help player retention - important thing for AWS, IMO, even though there is no precendent for this in real world.  But I think the game play and player retention should trump that.

The slot situation - the current workaround for shorter game worlds side steps the issue of slots availability (or lack of slots that used to be a huge frustration before the current workaround).  I don't think the current workaround would work very will in a long game world.  For this reason, I would urge reconsideration of slot growth based on demand...
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: ICEcoldair881 on August 03, 2011, 07:30:02 AM
I think I'm just going to throw it out there - maybe all those FFP, IFE, connecting passengers, codesharing and whatnot feature requests should be included... would be more realistic and interesting to see how everything turns out in 2020/2030.. :D

Cheers,
ICEcold
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Pilot Oatmeal on August 03, 2011, 07:58:28 AM
I think I'm just going to throw it out there - maybe all those FFP, IFE, connecting passengers, codesharing and whatnot feature requests should be included... would be more realistic and interesting to see how everything turns out in 2020/2030.. :D

Cheers,
ICEcold

woah lets not get ahead of ourselves here, we want this to be added in a couple of weeks, not years
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: ICEcoldair881 on August 03, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
 :laugh: 2020/2030 in-game, not in RL. :P

Cheers,
ICEcold
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sigma on August 03, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
In fact there is no or at least no more than one aircraft with 30+ seats in 1950 AWS.

So it's no point of "would be nice, sami", it is essential to make it possible for airlines to survive with 13+ seater like the small Boeing 247 (?), DC-3 etc.

The "Early Days" test game was one of my most profitable ones because the overhead is so dirt cheap.  Employees were cheap and aircraft were practically given away.  I was breaking even on an aircraft purchase in just a few weeks.

The  bigger issue was that I did so well because I was in DFW -- central to the entire US market.  If you were on a coast, it was impossible to create flights beyond the middle of the US because they were limited to a single tech-stop which isn't enough when aircraft have ranges of like 300-500 miles.  This wasn't terrible on the east coast, there was a fair amount of nearby market.  But on the West Coast, where most every decent flight is at least several-hundred miles, it was difficult to make an airline of more than just a relative handful of routes.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on August 04, 2011, 05:07:07 PM
1950-2020; 17,5 months with 30 min days and 20,5 months with 35 min days :P

I would opt to start from 1965 or something like that instead. Keeps us out of the DC-3 flood at least.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Maarten Otto on August 04, 2011, 06:22:37 PM
1950-2020; 17,5 months with 30 min days and 20,5 months with 25 min days :P

Ai captain. But I'm sure left is not right and up is not down because I do have the feeling this calculation is a bit strange....
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on August 04, 2011, 06:27:20 PM
Typo... =>  35 mins days = 20,5 months.

Point was that it's so friggin' long that I'd have to rethink my strategy regarding version updates. Since it's rather complicated to make larger changes to running game worlds (already in regards of possible bugs, not taking into account the actual implementation and changes to databases etc). But still, I would be in favor of the long 'rolling' game worlds since it practically eliminates the initial rush.

One additional thing to check is that AI brokers rotate and order the planes properly in long term scale so that new players will always have something to choose from.

Games will have increasing player number, and also they will be 'themed' according to present naming convention (with the game 'theme name' changing automatically when it jumps to the new era - but game world name will stay the same, they will be boring like "Server #1 - Era: Modern Times" etc)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sanabas on August 04, 2011, 06:49:58 PM
1950-2020 is just under 12 months with 20 minute days. Or 9 months with 15 minutes. Dunno about 15, but I think 20 would still work ok. 10 hours away for sleep/work/etc is still only 1 game month for your airline to look after itself.

I'd still happily play the first long game world even if I knew it wasn't getting any updates past current 1.3, that future small improvements, and the big future changes (cargo, city based demand, hub & route options) would all only apply to later starting games.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Pilot Oatmeal on August 04, 2011, 07:17:42 PM
1950-2020 is just under 12 months with 20 minute days. Or 9 months with 15 minutes. Dunno about 15, but I think 20 would still work ok. 10 hours away for sleep/work/etc is still only 1 game month for your airline to look after itself.

I'd still happily play the first long game world even if I knew it wasn't getting any updates past current 1.3, that future small improvements, and the big future changes (cargo, city based demand, hub & route options) would all only apply to later starting games.

more updates would be nice though, I'm sure at least small airline compatibility would be very nice, almost a necessity
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: swiftus27 on August 04, 2011, 07:19:13 PM
Is there anyone that really doesn't find this game desirable?

I really don't want to be doing that many D Checks and fleet conversions because all of those slots would possibly be gone.   For instance, when you change a route from a DC 6 to a DC 8, you have 1/2 the travel time but more than double the turnaround.  

I dont know, it just seems like this is the game that will end up having a fraction of its starting number of airlines.   Plus, you simply can't start a 1950 scenario with many players.  There's simply not enough demand.  Are you going to allow more airlines into the game as it goes on?
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sigma on August 04, 2011, 07:56:04 PM
Is there anyone that really doesn't find this game desirable?

Myself, for the same reason I've noted before, and the same one you have as well...

It's simply too hard (or rather 'arduous') to rotate your fleet.

In almost every game-world, the game dies off when fleet renewal time rolls around as its mind-numbing to have to manually reschedule 200+ aircraft.  Now imagine that 'time' rolling around 2 or 3 times over the course of the game.  There'll be no one left playing 40 years into it for the last 30 years.

I also can't see it working with allowing 500+ people into it right off the bat as demand is far too low.  But if you do the staggered opening thing, you'll get the same problem of a dead world.  People aren't jumping into open worlds once the competition is more than 2 or 3 years old.  Now imagine if the competition was 20 to 30 years old.

I'm sure there'll be people interested in it.  I just don't think there'll be very many.  If you start in '65 I'd be surprised if there's more than 100 players left come 1990 with a full 4 decades of game-time to go.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on August 04, 2011, 07:57:55 PM
The point is that once this gets going there will not be any 'game world starts', apart from the 'server reset' (= scenario reset and start again from 1950s/1960s). Meaning that everyone should get prepared for the idea of joining an existing game world instead of starting from scratch.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Curse on August 04, 2011, 08:25:47 PM
1950-2020; 17,5 months with 30 min days and 20,5 months with 35 min days :P

I would opt to start from 1965 or something like that instead. Keeps us out of the DC-3 flood at least.

The biggest disadvantage I see here is we cut off the whole prop usage. First jets are already available or available very soon.

I know you said it's not possible to change gameworld day length during a running gameworld, but maybe a 25 minute day would be a good way to go.

Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on August 04, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
I think if we have city-based demand and people can "create" demand through a connecting pax model, the sky is the limit.  People could base somewhere in South Dakota and have the potential of turning their HQ into the largest airline in the world.

I can see the boredom factor kicking in for some and the fleet rotating/upgrading a pain in the butt for most.  I do think the game should be more strategic when it comes to fleet management though, which would mean consistently higher fuel prices.

Also, IRL the C/D-checks are flight-hour based.  It would be nice if they were in AWS as well.  I am currently going through a bunch of D-checks on aircraft in DOTM2 and it's really not a big deal.  I plan on flying the same aircraft for the entire game and considering I got almost every aircraft new, they won't be >20 years old by the end of the game.  I think this is where the strategy comes in for long game worlds--flying aircraft that are economically viable for the next 20 years.

The big problem, in my opinion, is the explosive growth.  It took Southwest Airlines 35+ years to go from 1 aircraft to 500.  Even longer for Delta and the other big boys.  Growth should be stunted enough that it takes 35+ years to grow to 500 aircraft.  Right now, even in unfavorable conditions (high fuel/interest rates) it can be done in about 5 years.

As a sidenote, with games this long, the cumulative alliance scores are going to end up worth more than the variable scores.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on December 29, 2011, 01:59:31 PM
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: ArcherII on December 29, 2011, 02:19:09 PM
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on December 29, 2011, 02:47:42 PM
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.

Also, any player worth their salt will own 100% of their fleet after 20 game years.  This would essentially be replacing leases with retirement payments, making it a non-issue (although it would be nice to have the retirement modeled).

To further limit growth, I think some form of "terminals" needs to be implemented.  If an airport has 3 terminals, you break up the slots so each one is equal.  Therefore, if an airport has 100 slots/hr, one airline can't take up all 100 slots in the 500 hour.  They would be forced to utilize those overnight slots.  If they want to expand to another terminal, it's just like opening a new base except the fleet commonality penalty isn't there and the staff costs are a bit lower.  There should also be a feature where airlines can fund terminal expansions.  If you want to pay $100 million to build a new terminal exclusively for your own use, let them do it.  Essentially, 50% of the slot pool would be reserved for airlines based at an airport and the other 50% would be distributed across the rest of the terminals for incoming flights.  This means 50% of the slots at LHR would be reserved for airlines flying to Heathrow and the other 50% would be for airlines flying out of Heathrow.  The competition would be much greater and opportunity cost would be a bigger factor for players.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on December 29, 2011, 02:50:35 PM
The only thing that keeps a decent airline from gathering billions of dollars trhough the entire game is the constant fleet replacement.
But there's another thing that put longstanding ailrines in some danger zone after several years in business. That's the retirement programs.
I don't know if it is modelled right now but it could certainly add something to worry down the road for the airlines.
The downside of this is that small props and regional airlines would struggle comparatively way more than airlines with the current staffing system.

Maybe small airlines would be exempt from it because the staff turnover is so high (I.e. using it as springboard to other companies or pilots using it to build hours) that they never stay on for long enough to collect pension for example 15 years.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sanabas on December 29, 2011, 09:31:23 PM
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)

Looking forward to it.

I think the very first long game world should have quicker days, 20 or 25 minutes, so we'll reach and notice any major issues more quickly. Such as how easy/hard it will be to start a new airline 20 years in, what the production lines are like at that point.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: JumboShrimp on December 29, 2011, 09:43:30 PM
Back to this topic.

Any additional thoughts? (in regards of v.1.3 based long world)

One thing that will be a necessary by-product of longer game worlds is that they will not be as full several years (decades) into the game as the same game world just starting.  There will not be 650 airlines in year 2000, like in a new MT world.  So I would just free up the remaining 100-200 survivors to do more, as far as more bases, more aircraft per base.

One issue will be constant fleet replacements.  Of course there are costs to it.  I would make the cost of extra fleets more gradual for every fleet, rather than the current, barely perceptible increases from 1 to 3 and from 4 up, with one huge increase from 3 to 4.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: chiveicrook on December 29, 2011, 09:50:38 PM
To make fleet transitions easier it would be excellent if "move schedule" function allowed schedules to be moved between different fleet types presenting player with "recommended" adjustments or "conflicts". That way instead of manual complete rescheduling we could just adjust a few things (unless planes were drastically different and player had 18 hours utilization ;) ).
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on December 29, 2011, 10:02:36 PM
Maybe one day when the "advisors" are created  ;D
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sanabas on December 29, 2011, 10:07:46 PM
One issue will be constant fleet replacements.  Of course there are costs to it.  I would make the cost of extra fleets more gradual for every fleet, rather than the current, barely perceptible increases from 1 to 3 and from 4 up, with one huge increase from 3 to 4.

And another massive jump from 6 to 7.

The problem isn't even the big jump from 3 to 4, the problem is that the % size of the jump increases as your airline gets bigger.

A big airline running 4 fleets, and replacing all 4 with 1 fleet each, is going to be running 8 fleets for at least a couple of years. Airlines that big should have plenty of cash on hand for doing that, but it would still be much better if commonality wasn't so counter-intuitive, if there actually were economies of scale, rather than the opposite.

It would be much much better if commonality costs for each fleet were independent, with a discount if you only have 1 or 2 fleets for smaller airlines. First plane of a fleet = very expensive to maintain, thanks to needing mechanics/pilots trained for that plane, parts for that plane, etc, etc. But then more planes of that type add smaller amounts to total commonality.


One other issue around fleet replacements, and something that would be very desirable in general, is the ability to reassign pilots between classes for a small cost. For example, the obvious replacement for a large fleet of Sud Caravelles would be something like the BAC 1-11  or F28. But if you do that, you're going to have a lot of surplus large pilots, and need a lot of new medium pilots. If you replace a CV-340 fleet (3 pilots) with any of the newer 40-50 seaters (2 pilots), you'll have a lot of surplus medium pilots. The ability to take surplus pilots of one type, and pay a one-off fee to make them pilots of a different type, would be great. At the moment, the only options are to fire them and take the CI and morale hit, or pay them to do nothing for as long as it takes to have planes for them to fly, if you ever do.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: JumboShrimp on December 29, 2011, 10:20:40 PM
And another massive jump from 6 to 7.

The problem isn't even the big jump from 3 to 4, the problem is that the % size of the jump increases as your airline gets bigger.

A big airline running 4 fleets, and replacing all 4 with 1 fleet each, is going to be running 8 fleets for at least a couple of years. Airlines that big should have plenty of cash on hand for doing that, but it would still be much better if commonality wasn't so counter-intuitive, if there actually were economies of scale, rather than the opposite.

It would be much much better if commonality costs for each fleet were independent, with a discount if you only have 1 or 2 fleets for smaller airlines. First plane of a fleet = very expensive to maintain, thanks to needing mechanics/pilots trained for that plane, parts for that plane, etc, etc. But then more planes of that type add smaller amounts to total commonality.

Exactly.  Commonality should be what it is in real world - discount for having number of aircraft in common, rather than somewhat random penalty (going from 3 to 4 fleet types), and pretty much no discount for large number of common aircraft.

Larger penalty (not just dollar-wise, but percentage wise) with larger fleet is completely counter-intuitive, and probably a bug (which was never officially submitted).

One other issue around fleet replacements, and something that would be very desirable in general, is the ability to reassign pilots between classes for a small cost. For example, the obvious replacement for a large fleet of Sud Caravelles would be something like the BAC 1-11  or F28. But if you do that, you're going to have a lot of surplus large pilots, and need a lot of new medium pilots. If you replace a CV-340 fleet (3 pilots) with any of the newer 40-50 seaters (2 pilots), you'll have a lot of surplus medium pilots. The ability to take surplus pilots of one type, and pay a one-off fee to make them pilots of a different type, would be great. At the moment, the only options are to fire them and take the CI and morale hit, or pay them to do nothing for as long as it takes to have planes for them to fly, if you ever do.

That sounds like a great idea to have this sort of "retraining" fee to re-assign pilots.  It should be relatively easy to do.  Sami mentioned he had some ideas on training and hiring staff, but this should be a good stop-gap measure.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on December 29, 2011, 10:43:06 PM
Idea:

Office -> Staff Training

Convert X (number entry box) (drop down small/med/lrg/vlrg) pilots to (drop down small/med/lrg/vlrg) pilots.

OK

Confirmations page displays showing number retrained and cost. Possibly before and after staff numbers.

2 options:

Simple is that an inflation adjusted one off fee is paid for the type rating such as $50-100k per pilot and they are reclassed instantly.

More realistic is that staff training costs increase to represent the same price per pilot but they are trained gradually and your bills on income statement is higher until transition is complete. I foresee problems with auto staff hiring or hiring pilots from the transitioned class potentially.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on December 31, 2011, 05:51:15 PM
I just had an epiphany that could make the long game worlds work.  I was reading Allegiant's November 2011 report: http://ir.allegiantair.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=630313 and they have a metric of "average stage length" or "average flight length".  We could easily generate this statistic in AWS using ASK (last 2 weeks) divided by weekly flights * 2 (last 2 weeks).  Then, every airline would have an average value for "available seat kilometers per flight" (ASKPF).  After this, there is a sliding "legacy carrier costs" to cover retirement and social costs that is a multiplier of current staff costs.  To make small regionals actually viable, we take the current staff costs and cut them in half for everyone as the benchmark base rate.  If there are 100 airlines in a game world, the airline that is #100 in ASKPF sees no increase in staff costs.  It then climbs exponential to the #1 airline where the staff costs are quadrupled (we are cutting staff costs in half, so it would essentially be double what it is right now).  The multiplier would be staff costs * 4^(x/n) where x = rank and n = number of airlines in the game world.  Essentially, the theory is the larger the plane and the longer your average route is, the more prestigious your airline.  Even in AWS, you can't start out with a fleet of A380s--you have to build up to it.

Example airlines in MT6:

Dantes Air @ LHR: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/11/
Company Value: $2.8 billion
ASK: 6192 million
Flights: 3274 * 2 = 6548
ASKPF: 945632

My airline at SFO (Fabulous) versus the regional guy at SFO (Blue Horizon):

Fabulous Airways @ SFO: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/178/
Company Value: $10 million
ASK: 2226 million
Flights: 2738 * 2 = 5476
ASKPF: 406501

Blue Horizon @ SFO: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/1000
Company Value: -$2 million
ASK: 10 million
Flights: 340 * 2 = 680
ASKPF: 14705

If you look at the routemaps for these airlines, you'll see that Dantes is easily 2x the "prestige" and "legacy-caliber" airline that I am--he has more routes and they are much longer with much bigger planes.  Comparing the two SFO airlines, Blue Horizon can use all the help he can get lowering his costs as he is running small EMB-120s.  We've been complaining about the viability of small airlines for the longest time and this would solve it.  Cut staff costs in half and small airlines flying smaller aircraft shorter distances start to become viable (okay--the 19 seaters may still be unprofitable, but at least the 30 seaters aren't).  This would encourage airlines, especially starting out, to fly the shorter routes with smaller aircraft to keep costs down and expand faster.  While being #1 is nice, it will also be very expensive.  This will force airlines to grow more organically.  Most of the older airlines started out with crop dusters flying 100 mile routes.  In AWS, they start out flying from LHR to JFK with a 300 seat L1011.  Even airlines growing organically today start out flying a 737 domestically.

This may only be one piece of the puzzle, but it solves part of the problem by making regionals viable and throttling the growth of the largest airlines.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: forsberc on December 31, 2011, 10:29:30 PM
good idea lemon.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: jamier on January 10, 2012, 01:04:10 PM
I would love to see the costs for a regional airline reduced. I keep trying to start a truly regional airline but it is just not possible with the costs that are associated with it.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: pharmy on January 17, 2012, 09:03:34 PM
I like lemonButt's idea, but would further limit it to an airline having no more then 10%-20% of the slots at the biggest airport to 30%-40% of the slots at smaller ones. The big boys would be forced to get larger and larger planes per slot and would essentially allow more new regional airlines to flourish on routes that are no longer worth it for the big boys.

The Terminal idea, rather then having private terminals, especially as runway constraints were generally the bottlenecks, could also be used for slot expansion, with each 5-10 years the slots coming in the shape of a new terminal , and with each airline restricted to using one terminal.

Or leaving the gradual slot increase model, with time locked new slots, with new slots less then a year old being up for grabs by new airlines or new entrants to the market/airport, but off limits to companies already present or older then x years

Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: schro on January 17, 2012, 10:37:37 PM
Lemonbutt - I'm not sure I follow the rationale for using average stage length of flights to measure an airline's size. The measure would be more telling about the type of operations that an airline is running rather than its overall size or "legacyness".  For example, an airline in LAX versus ATL with the same fleet utilization and fleet will always have a higher "ASKPF" simply due to the distribution of demand and destinations.  In short, it will penalize those with bases that are geographically separated from where they fly, while promoting short haul operations (which are far more profitable anyway).

When you consider the traditional definition of a "legacy" carrier, it is defined as one that existed prior to the deregulation of the US air market. The common characteristics are those carrying a high average labor cost due to pensions, healthcare, union contracts, etc, such that they are  higher than "low cost" carriers, which usually have fewer unions and overhead costs. Legacies tend to serve far more markets than LCCs, and this contributes to their higher cost structure.

When you look at how regional airlines came to be in the US, they were contracted by the legacies for purposes of cost reduction. The contracts are typically structured on a cost per flight basis where the  operator is guarenteed a particular percentage of profit  (if they perform well) with the legacy absorbing the "risk" of lack of demand/ticket sales/etc, as they benefit from the additional feed into their hubs....

So more than anything, labor costs of existing airlines _should_ increase at a higher rate than the "market" rate if the goal is to emulate the effect of unions settling in at older carriers - a 20 year old airline that is identical to a 5  year old airline should theoretically have higher labor costs...
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on January 17, 2012, 11:30:17 PM
Lemonbutt - I'm not sure I follow the rationale for using average stage length of flights to measure an airline's size. The measure would be more telling about the type of operations that an airline is running rather than its overall size or "legacyness".  For example, an airline in LAX versus ATL with the same fleet utilization and fleet will always have a higher "ASKPF" simply due to the distribution of demand and destinations.  In short, it will penalize those with bases that are geographically separated from where they fly, while promoting short haul operations (which are far more profitable anyway).

When you consider the traditional definition of a "legacy" carrier, it is defined as one that existed prior to the deregulation of the US air market. The common characteristics are those carrying a high average labor cost due to pensions, healthcare, union contracts, etc, such that they are  higher than "low cost" carriers, which usually have fewer unions and overhead costs. Legacies tend to serve far more markets than LCCs, and this contributes to their higher cost structure.

When you look at how regional airlines came to be in the US, they were contracted by the legacies for purposes of cost reduction. The contracts are typically structured on a cost per flight basis where the  operator is guarenteed a particular percentage of profit  (if they perform well) with the legacy absorbing the "risk" of lack of demand/ticket sales/etc, as they benefit from the additional feed into their hubs....

So more than anything, labor costs of existing airlines _should_ increase at a higher rate than the "market" rate if the goal is to emulate the effect of unions settling in at older carriers - a 20 year old airline that is identical to a 5  year old airline should theoretically have higher labor costs...

You've just proved the point I'm trying to make.  Using two airlines with identical fleets with the same fleet utilization based at LAX and ATL, the guy in LAX will most likely have a higher ASKPF--this is assuming the ATL guy is flying shorter hops and has more flights per week versus the LAX guy flying longer routes with less flights per week.  The mark of legacy carriers is everything you just said, but guess what?  They also have a brand that caters to business travelers.  As a result, they move a lot of business and first class passengers.  In order to carry business and first class passengers, you usually have to fly longer distances with larger planes.  The guy flying short hops at ATL may have a lower ASKPF, but the guy at LAX is presumably making a killing in business/first class revenues compared to the ATL guy.  People are willing to pay double for a seat in business class on a 2000nm route, but for a short hop where you're only in the air for 20 minutes, you're not going to get many business class tickets sold.

I agree that it's not perfect.  Airlines in the water hemisphere, such as Australia will be penalized for their long haul operations being so much more prominent.  However, airlines like Qantas who fly the long haul are comparable to the legacy carriers in the US.  The longer your flights, the more regulations you have and the more pilots etc. you have to have.  The only exceptions I can really think of that would penalize real life airlines would be Air Tahiti which only has a few aircraft, but flies them all on long haul routes.

Another possible metric could be passengers carried per destination?  An airline flying 70 pax regional routes would have lower costs than airlines flying jumbo jets to 400+ pax demand destinations.  A blend of the two is maybe the best solution.  Either way, something needs to be done to make regional airlines viable and throttle the out of control explosive growth of the large airlines if long game worlds are to be successful.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: schro on January 18, 2012, 04:50:26 AM
Playing in LAX is already inherently more difficult because of the higher average stage length. Your suggestion will simply make it harder. Short haul flights are more profitable because revenue does not scale linearly with stage length even though costs tend to do so. Business fliers value a wide network of options, high frequency and short connections (if necessary). Time is money to business travelers - generally their time is worth more than whatever the incremental cost of airfare is, making the price and class of service moot when flying domestically.

I'm not sure I like the passengers carried per destination either as there's already extra overhead costs associated with flying to additional cities, so this would basically counterbalance that particular element and encourage airlines to go hogwild sending 1xdaily CRJ100s to cities that have multi-thousand person demand... Oh wait. There was one like that- Independence Air. Skywest tried it too.

The only thing that makes the regional model viable in the US is fixed fee per flight flying performed on behalf of the legacies. Since the game doesn't have that concept implemented, I see nothing wrong with it being nearly impossible to run a regional.

From a controlling explosive growth perspective, that is the entire point of the long running game world - if there's very limited opportunity to start with 0 competition, that will help curtail a lot of growth after the first 5-10 game years. If the difficulty level continues to get wratcheted up, it will make the game unplayable for beginners...
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: alexgv1 on January 18, 2012, 05:02:30 AM
LemonButt: Think bigger than just USA market.

schro: Find a new base  :o
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: LemonButt on January 18, 2012, 01:24:58 PM
The whole theory is that airlines start small and grow big.  You don't start an airline by ordering an A380 and flying it from JFK to Hong Kong.  You start an airline by ordering a B737 and flying it from JFK to Boston.  By making costs scaleable based on where you're at in your growth (airlines SHOULD grow outward, not inward), we can make the short haul guys profitable and ensure that the bigger an airline gets, there is an increase in difficulty and competition.

LemonButt: Think bigger than just USA market.

schro: Find a new base  :o

Perhaps the "legacy costs" of an airline should be based on an airlines rank and the number of airlines in a country?  For example, if you are the #1 biggest airline in the US where there are 150 airlines, you're costs are much higher than if you are the #1 biggest airline in Qatar where there are 2 airlines and only 1 airport.  Virtually every country has a flag carrier (either officially or de facto).  The basing system already has the world broken up into countries/regions--the only debate would be whether you count the Eurozone as a single region (which you should).

To further expound on this theory that airlines grow outward, the costs should be determined also by the number of airlines in a country.  The statistical variance with 150 airlines is much greater than with 5 airlines, so the #1 airline in the population of 150 should have significantly higher costs than the #1 airline in the population of 5.  This means that the guy who is in 150th place would have training wheels and be able to catch the #1 guy one day.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: vitongwangki on March 02, 2012, 02:55:49 AM
The discussion above is meaningful. I hope the long gameworld will start after Jet Age 5 ends. ::)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: diskoerekto on March 04, 2012, 12:01:14 AM
I think another thing to be addressed is a way to introduce upgrading of game engine during game or at least doing so every few months by pausing the game for a day or so. The size and scope of your project roughly calls for ~6 month long releases. An ultra-long world can go more than 3 times that. This means users will not be able to play the latest version of the engine.

If live update does not work, as I said at least backing up db, stopping game, restarting new version with restoring backed up db may work. A few hours to a few days of pausing is probably acceptable by users in exchange for new version.

About my stance, I am all for ultra long game worlds.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Jona L. on August 07, 2012, 06:33:20 PM
To revive this discussion...

It came to my mind, that we are/were talking about long term playability issues, such as, that people would get bored too soon, etc.

Now, actually, we never tested AWS' long term playability.... So I'd like to make a little suggestion:


Why don't you, Sami, consider to run a "long-game-test" with 20 minute days (would speed up real time vs. game time ratio a lot), and actually make a game world from 1950-2050, at normal cost rate, or maybe, considering the faster time-elapse, at a slightly higher cost, to cover the server-load and running cost.
One could let number of players rise over time, to also allow more competition once more demand opens up ingame.

We could then collect player responses, and thoughts, without having to come up with new features, that would eventually be hard to program, and see, if it works out without these. Of course they can be added in later versions, but just to see if the game actually works for the long times already.


As an Idea for the billing: make it 10cr to join, and then 7cr/real life month (versus 4.2/mth) to make up for the higher workload, and also to finance the extra capacity, that may be needed.

cheers for considering,
Jona L.

P.S. with the increased pace, the world would probably not even be as long as one and a half real years... actually: 508 real days, including the 24hr start. -just asides ;)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Talentz on August 07, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
That sounds good. A fast long game test would be a good first step.

Jona is right, the discussion is mainly about long term playability issues so, whats the best way to figure it out? Test it of course.

20min days are quick and times flies. Which is good for the 1950s~1960s stage as aircraft limitations hinder growth world wide. But 20mins worlds get tougher to manage after a number of years. So slowing the game down over time would be great.

Start with 100 players in 1950 and increase by 20 each year till 1960 (300). Then change it to 10 players per yr from 1960s onward.
1950 - 100
1960 - 300
1970 - 400
1980 - 500
1990 - 600

Perhaps you could then change the time for each days.

1950s-1970s - 20mins
1970s-1990s - 25mins
1990s+ - 30mins

Disable basing within 18months. Change to once per 10yrs? (not sure if you could do that though.) Prevent airlines from being impossible to compete against.

After 10 yrs, have everyone submit a report on playability from there point of view so we can collect results and tackle problems that arise.

Credit wise. Start big then reduce over time. We want more people to join as the game grows.

1950 ~ 10cr
1951-1959 ~ 9cr
1960 ~ 8cr
1961-1969 ~ 7cr
1970 ~ 6cr
1971 -1979 ~ 5cr
1980 ~ 4cr
1981+ 3cr

Would it be possible to add theses changes?

We can discuss issues till were banned from the internet. Only real way to figure out problems is by testing and analyzing results from player input. 


- Talentz
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Curse on August 07, 2012, 08:25:12 PM
I support Talentz' (and Jona's) idea. In fact it's the same I thought over several times.

Dynamic days, dynamic credit cots and this as a test world is the only thing that's able to show you, sami, if it works.


I'm sure you have some spare hardware around to make such a testworld work, so why don't give it a try?


At the end of the day you could cancel it every second, so no risk on your side. You are the one who can only win in this szenario - when it worked, you have a new feature, if it failed, you earned some credits and learned about what went wrong.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on August 07, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
Have to give some thoughts next week on these after holidays.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: omaster on August 16, 2012, 04:33:17 AM
I would say one thing I would like is the ability to have an alternate plane for D checks for such a long world. Because a good airline will have to do many D checks. It should obs have to be an extra plane purchased but being able to schedule a flowed D Check/C Check schedule with spare planes would be good. I was doing this myself but it takes up too much time. Would virtually have to live in the game to be able to do it successfully. And in the real world a CEO would have staff allocated to do this menial task anyway :D
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Glob-Al on August 20, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
For me the essential things for a longer gameworld would be:

(1) Lower profit margins
Growth needs to be slower to stop airlines from getting ridiculously big over the period of the GW. I prefer lower default ticket prices to higher average fuel prices, because the latter would create an unfair balance towards having the most fuel efficient aircraft possible.

(2) Faster game days
I agree with those who say this needs bringing in to stop the gameworld lasting forever. And with lower profit margins, growth will be slower, meaning I don't think there will be an issue with everything happening too quickly so people can't keep up.

(3) More randomness
To keep people on their toes and stop big airlines from never having to do anything there should be more random events - wars, fuel spikes, trade embargoes that mean you can't fly between two countries, safety concerns over certain fleets that means everyone with them has to have them grounded for a while, etc. I'm sure the list of ideas is endless. Would add a bit more uniqueness to each world and keep people interested.

(4) A tool for transferring flights from one fleet type to another
I know it'd be really hard to code, but I think it's an essential, because when it comes to changing over your short-haul fleet for the 4th time, people are going to get bored!

(5) A way of creating challenges for older airlines.
I like the idea of legacy retirement costs, although as others have noted they would have to be worked out carefully.

(6) A way to buy out other airlines and build an empire.
Creates a new challenge and a new dimension to gameplay to keep people interested. Some good ideas in this thread https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,17132.0.html Have a few more myself that I might post there when I get time.

With those things in place I think we'd be good to go for longer GWs  ;D
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sanabas on February 01, 2013, 07:26:35 PM
In your view what are the most urgent updates / changes needed to get the long 1950s - 2020s game worlds working? The 1950s test world helped to discover some issues in the early days but when thinking on how things develop and continue for decades, what are your ideas and thoughts.

Something else I think is needed is an update to how new plane launches are handled. The idea of orders only being able to get every 10th plane is so that people don't get locked out of the production line quickly. However, when it comes to unpopular lines, all that means is the player who wants to use them has to wait needlessly. Concorde's an extreme example. If you want to try and run 7 of them, you'll be looking at well over a year between 1st & 7th, a long time to wait before you can get your 7 day schedule running.

But for popular models, the gaps don't actually make a difference. The 737-300 just launched in DOTM. I don't plan to use them, so I can just sit and watch. I logged in 1 hour after the plane launched, and the production line was already full for 2 years. As I type this, it's less than 2 hours after launch, and it's full for 3 years. So, miss being online at the right time by just 2 hours, and when you can get your first plane, one airline will have already received their 70th. Being away from the computer for 10 hours is perfectly normal, it's hard to log in when you're asleep. 10 hours after the launch, I expect it will be full for even longer.

Similar things happened with the 757, 767, (I got in close to launch on both those), and the MD-81 (it launched just after I went to bed. My direct competitor gets a 20 plane headstart on me), same thing will no doubt happen with the other popular planes.

In a long gameworld, more airlines will be rolling in cash, more airlines will need to make big orders to replace their old & thirsty fleets, the problem will be even worse. A huge advantage like getting 70 of your replacement planes before your competitor gets 1, purely through being lucky enough to be online at the right time, shouldn't happen. (I think that applies to the used market and slots, too, but they'd be more complicated fixes).

There's a nearly 4 year gap between the current date and the first 737-300 being delivered. Same for every other plane, there's always at least 1 year between announcement and delivery. So the simple way to do it would simply to give everybody 2 game months (36 RL hours) to place orders, and only then generate the production lists. So everybody who ordered at least one gets their first before anybody gets their 2nd, and so on. The production line will be just as full as it will be now after 36 hours, but the distribution of orders will be fair, rather than hugely dependent on luck.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Andre on February 03, 2013, 05:18:22 AM
I haven't read all three pages, but if there's going to be an 80 year long game world there's going to be almost always one fleet type that's being phased out in favor of another one. Three fleet types before gigantic leap in commonality is not going to be enough. I'm hoping for a more linear raise in commonality costs, or postponing the big bump until fleet type 5.

1. Short haul fleet (turboprops/regional jets)
2. Medium haul fleet (100-200 seat jets)
3. Long haul fleet (200+ seats, long range)

Well.. you get the picture.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: npercy1 on April 02, 2013, 01:36:00 PM
Back in the pre-deregulation days, airlines didn't operate the hub and spoke flight system (except for Delta). Flights were point to point, and some were flights that stopped in multiple cities, picking up passengers and moving on to the next city (ex Atlanta to Charlotte, pickup and drop of more passengers, then go to Washington, same drill as before, then to Newark.) These kinds of systems should be implemented into a game this long since it is a change from the olden days into the future, and airlines should chose from which system they want to operate. It would add to the game and make a game that long less boring, since you would be over time innovating your airline, just as the real airlines did over that time period.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: swiftus27 on April 02, 2013, 06:57:33 PM
I used to go CLE to FLL via CLT or ATL on the same plane.    Continuing Service doesn't exist any more.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: exchlbg on April 02, 2013, 08:00:07 PM
Sami turned down requests for ABCBA traffic system repeatedly, it was widely overused when still possible to bomb competition out of the way. Multiple bases were implemented instead.
You cant have both systems.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: ReedME on April 03, 2013, 02:01:58 AM
Will we ever see an 80 year game world ?
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: EsquireFlyer on June 07, 2013, 04:50:58 PM
Yes please! I would love to see a long game world running in parallel to the short worlds.

For example, I will end JA with about $20B in cash and lots of planes, including a Concorde fleets in great condition, and it's disappointing that I will have to start over in DOTM if I want to play the next "chapter" in time. And I won't have enough money in DOTM at start to keep the Concorde line open so it will get shut down right away. Not possible to fly Concorde through the early 2000s the way BA and AF did in real life.

Longer game worlds would also make AC that launch around the "borders" of the existing game world, such as Concorde, DC-10-30ER, and MD-11ER, more playable.

Regarding the slot issue, I would suggest that slot expansion continue in the long game world like in the shorter worlds, even if it means in the late game, slot availability is higher than in real life, since (1) it's more playable for late-comers, and (2) in real life, many airports (such as most US airports) don't have slot restrictions anyway, so for those airports it would be more realistic than the current slot limits that you see in the game (at JFK for example).
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Andre on June 07, 2013, 05:03:48 PM
Yep.. I really wish the current JA continued.. it sucks that it ends shortly.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Srsellers on June 07, 2013, 07:05:45 PM
Im a new player and not that expierenced, but the long game sounds fun and exciting, and i would love to give it a try.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Eudokimos on July 05, 2013, 07:24:43 PM
Im very happy to see that newly launched Jet Age 8 is ultra long game. Ive waited for that game.
"The game starts with short days (20 mins), but will move to 25 or 30 minute days in the 1970s/1980s and up to 35-45 mins per day in the modern era. This is on one hand planned to speed up the game process, as standard 35 min days would make the world last 1,5-2 years which is a too long time span, and also on the other hand move the game more rapidly forward for the sake of players since the early days have less "action" due to limited demand etc."
This time frame rule is excellent, I think 10 months real time period is good for AWS game, and there are open seat for other players to join during time era.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: EsquireFlyer on July 06, 2013, 09:55:39 PM
Im very happy to see that newly launched Jet Age 8 is ultra long game. Ive waited for that game.
"The game starts with short days (20 mins), but will move to 25 or 30 minute days in the 1970s/1980s and up to 35-45 mins per day in the modern era. This is on one hand planned to speed up the game process, as standard 35 min days would make the world last 1,5-2 years which is a too long time span, and also on the other hand move the game more rapidly forward for the sake of players since the early days have less "action" due to limited demand etc."
This time frame rule is excellent, I think 10 months real time period is good for AWS game, and there are open seat for other players to join during time era.


That sounds awesome!!! But I missed the sign up :(  :(
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Talentz on July 08, 2013, 09:18:42 PM
Sami!


You've made me so happy today :)

Thank you for your hard work and continuing support of users ideas. Despite the usual harsh criticism that pops up when something new rolls out. Deep down were happy and appreciate everything you do.


- Albert
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: swiftus27 on July 08, 2013, 09:34:12 PM
Sami!


You've made me so happy today :)

Thank you for your hard work and continuing support of users ideas. Despite the usual harsh criticism that pops up when something new rolls out. Deep down were happy and appreciate everything you do.


- Albert

Miss ya ole buddy.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Sami on October 01, 2013, 02:01:11 PM
Now that you've had a chance to play in jet age quite long already, any further things that come to mind?
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: schro on October 01, 2013, 05:25:54 PM
Now that you've had a chance to play in jet age quite long already, any further things that come to mind?

I haven't played a JA game in a while, but I'm quite honestly losing interest in playing right now. Based on talking with other players, it seems like demand is MUCH lower in this game world (probably to properly scale it to the end of time) to the extent that a US based base needs about fifty 50 seat props to fill out most flyable demand. I think I also struggle with the significant tech stop penalty that essentially rendered a lot of long haul flying in the first 10 years of the game a waste of time (specifically from the bases like DAL and SFO, where a daily DC6 would meet demand to most long haul destinations).

Perhaps that's all a function of the JA world and how it is intended to be, but at this point, I've been on auto pilot for a game year or two and don't have much interest in opening another base.

In a way, the starting rush is actually a very fun time to play - I'm enjoying getting MT9 going more than anything as it is highly competitive and there's a lot of rivals to out maneuver to conquer your HQ. In JA8, just fly your F.27's wherever and that's about it.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: dmoose42 on October 01, 2013, 07:29:30 PM
I would second schro's comment.  I feel that a lot of the big bases have consolidated into a single operator and there's not much influx of competition, particularly since people just started would rather start in DOTM or MT and not deal with the monopolies at the big bases.

I do think that thinking about how to keep the fun in the game during a long 65 year period is something that we need to work on...not sure what the solution is (and can think about solutions if desired).  City-based demand and dynamic airports will help to some degree, particulalry for those cities with multiple airports - as airlines can steal PAX away from slot locked airports (London, Paris, New York, Los Angles (SNA, etc.) all fit this mold) but places like SIN, HKG,  will still have the same problem.

Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: swiftus27 on October 02, 2013, 12:59:35 AM
I haven't played a JA game in a while, but I'm quite honestly losing interest in playing right now. Based on talking with other players, it seems like demand is MUCH lower in this game world (probably to properly scale it to the end of time) to the extent that a US based base needs about fifty 50 seat props to fill out most flyable demand. I think I also struggle with the significant tech stop penalty that essentially rendered a lot of long haul flying in the first 10 years of the game a waste of time (specifically from the bases like DAL and SFO, where a daily DC6 would meet demand to most long haul destinations).

Perhaps that's all a function of the JA world and how it is intended to be, but at this point, I've been on auto pilot for a game year or two and don't have much interest in opening another base.

In a way, the starting rush is actually a very fun time to play - I'm enjoying getting MT9 going more than anything as it is highly competitive and there's a lot of rivals to out maneuver to conquer your HQ. In JA8, just fly your F.27's wherever and that's about it.

Schro I can't agree more.    I haven't added flights to CLE, PIT or CVG in a long long time.   

International Long Haul is where the money obviously is in JA8.   I just don't have any.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Hwoarang on October 07, 2013, 08:23:14 PM
Quote
Fokker has announced that they are planning to close the production of their Fokker F.27 Mk 200 Friendship and Fokker F.27 Mk 400 Combiplane aircraft.
There are not enough firm orders for this model in order to be able to keep the production line open any longer. Fokker is planning to close the production of this model after 6 months from today - unless new orders are placed.
Although the production continues due to new orders, I would like to see a small modification to allow production lines to stay open for a longer period of time. I have maxed out the demand from my bases and I'm delaying the new base. However, if the system tries to close production lines quickly when they don't have orders, I would have to add another type of aircraft to my fleet.
I'm just operating two aircraft types, but I think people with more fleet types will have a larger problem with this.

Maybe, if possible, after X number of productions/orders (break even point) the production line will stay open for a longer time than usual so that the production can continue or atleast until the manufacturer comes up with a replacement model (Fokker 50 for Fokker F27, MD-80 for DC-9, etc)
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Infinity on October 08, 2013, 08:09:42 AM
That's a good idea actually. Like it.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: BD on October 08, 2013, 04:35:19 PM
Although the production continues due to new orders, I would like to see a small modification to allow production lines to stay open for a longer period of time. I have maxed out the demand from my bases and I'm delaying the new base. However, if the system tries to close production lines quickly when they don't have orders, I would have to add another type of aircraft to my fleet.
I'm just operating two aircraft types, but I think people with more fleet types will have a larger problem with this.
Not just those with more fleet types....I have twice run into the problem of demand for a particular aircraft type was too thin to support an open production line.  In both cases, I've run no more than three FGs. 

Most recently, after a restart, I've had to change my plans for aircraft model precisely because of this as I could not get enough cash together quickly enough to keep my target aircraft production line running.  Also, one of the better alternatives was closed down too.

Maybe this is not as much of a problem for the jets, as there is a lot of focus in this game on LH, and many seem well supported with demand for them.  But, at the current year/peroid in JA, props are still viable, even though they are overall less popular.

It is a combination of the threshold levels and length of the window for closure (from time of first warning) that would have to change.  Perhaps, if it is not already, smaller aircraft models could be given a wider berth, scaled to their relative size.



Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Glob-Al on October 12, 2013, 12:32:23 PM
I too am finding it quite slow paced. For me in Mexico there is the prospect of being able to open more bases in future as demand grows, but for those who have already reached their max number of bases and covered most of the demand now all they're really going to have to do for the next year is add the odd flight when demand rises and handle fleet group transitions. I can see people getting bored.

On the flip side, I love the idea of planning out how my airline is going to look in half a century's time! Working through the different fleet transitions I'll need, and how to time them so I'm not juggling too many fleet groups etc. That is a lot of fun.

So for me I think the solution for future worlds is:
(a) introduce an auto-replace tool that will make fleet transitions easier, as requested in this thread https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html)
(b) reduce the default ticket prices by say 15% so that big airlines can still grow up, but will take more years of gameworld time

And then when the above things are in place:
(c) radically speed up the gameworld to be 12 minutes / game day.

With 12 minute game days, a year will take 3 real life days and a decade a real life month. However, the pace shouldn't seem impossibly fast because it will take airlines longer to build up decent savings - so if they are currently ordering 2 new aircraft per real life day, they might still be getting 2 aircraft per real life day, it's just that twice the amount of time will have passed in the gameworld. The main difficulty with this is fleet transitions, hence (a) above. Other timings might need to be re-visited too; perhaps 5 years for a new base?

On this basis, a 1950-2030 gameworld would take 8 months, so if you had 3 running concurrently you could have a new one starting every 2.5 - 3 months.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: spiff23 on October 12, 2013, 02:38:24 PM
Overall, I find this fun and actually keeping my interest.  If this was the short JA, this is the point I'd loose interest as the game would end in a few weeks and other than the novelty of adding Ina few wide bodies, you're done.  

Now you not only have to think about your future fleet plans, but also how to untangle your flight schedules and move them to new planes.  Even if you try to remember to build in extra time for the really fast 1960s jets, moving them to the slower 1970s jets is simply not going to work 1:1.  Same with the turn on a the current long hauls which are about half what a DC-10, 747 will need.   Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I really see this as brain teaser.


My only recommendation in the future is to not slow the game.  I think 12 minutes would be too fast, but I liked 20 minutes we started with.  I don't see any issue just pacing it as 20 minute days unless I'm missing something in the future.  
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: BD on October 13, 2013, 08:55:13 PM
(c) radically speed up the gameworld to be 12 minutes / game day.

With 12 minute game days, a year will take 3 real life days and a decade a real life month. However, the pace shouldn't seem impossibly fast because it will take airlines longer to build up decent savings - so if they are currently ordering 2 new aircraft per real life day, they might still be getting 2 aircraft per real life day, it's just that twice the amount of time will have passed in the gameworld. The main difficulty with this is fleet transitions, hence (a) above. Other timings might need to be re-visited too; perhaps 5 years for a new base?
There needs to be more than the items you specify to be in place for this to be viable.  At 12 minutes, one would have to be online far too frequently to be able to time their "transactions" / game "actions".  Slot release management at highly competitive airports is just one example currently under discussion. 
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: spiff23 on October 17, 2013, 02:47:25 AM
Sami, apologies for double post...I put this in a JA discussion but thought it could go here for an idea to keep some of the used plane pages under control at this stage in the JA game.  

 a possible long game feature improvement might be to lower the scrap age on select pre-1965 plane types.

  For example, I notice if you turn in a leased Hawker 121 right before the 8 year D check, the system is already scrapping many of them (otherwise the high number of H121 scraps doesn't make sense...and this is actually a reasonable plane to operate in the 1970s unlike earlier Caravelles btw). Of course if I put an owned one into the used market, I have to wait another 8 years to scrap it.

So Maybe in the next JA certain planes like turbo props (DC, Lockheed) and the early jets comet1-3, Caravelles i-IV, DC-8 10-43s could have a 10 year scrap as that might help clean up the 3 pages of DC-8-10 through 30s  that are now parked.  Granted some folks will keep them parked for the MV boost, but I'm a fan of use them; offer them used; then scrap them and move on.

Also I don't think this is too far fetched for the 1960s with the massive improvements in technology in that decade.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: JonesyUK on December 11, 2014, 01:26:42 PM
I've been thinking about how to keep long game worlds interesting and came up with an idea.

I think the most fun part of the game is the initial 20-30 years or so, when you build up your airline. When  you reach this point, it becomes a case of fleet renewal and keeping thing ticking over. The other issue with the game is when a new world starts, it is very much a free for all, to grab the flown routes.

My suggestion is an alternative version of the long game world.The new world starts as normal in the 50's, but there is a hard limit on how long the airlines can be user managed (say 25 - 30 years). When the game hits the limit, all airlines change to autopilot/AI mode the player has an option to start a new airline in a different airport. The original airline would be poorly run by the AI, so that the new airlines being introduced by players would be able to (relatively easily) push out the older airlines.

This would allow shorter game worlds and hopefully keep the game interesting for longer and make it easier for people to join the game in later periods. It will also make the game more realistic in that new airlines will be joining an already populated world and reflect reality where the older legacy carrier were replaced by newer, fresher airlines following deregulation. Another bonus would be that the 4th fleet penalty would not be needed as efficiency would be more important, rather than planes in the air.

There are obviously issues, such as airlines being deliberately run down prior to the re-start to allow an easier start at the airport for one of your alliance mates, although I'm sure this could be avoided using suitable sanctions/incentives such as extra starting capital for airlines who finish higher in each statistic.


 
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Dasha on May 08, 2015, 07:41:31 AM
I have a small suggestion that I think needs addressing.

When the game starts in 1950, a couple of interesting airports are not open yet. Like Stockholm Arlanda, both major Moscow airports and if I'm right some airports in Saudi Arabia. Because there is no alternative, you can't move to those automatically so the only way to HQ there, is to start the game later on when they open. Which puts you in a (slight) disadvantage to somebody opening a base at those airports.

The reason why I want to HQ there and not a base, is because a base is always limited to a number of AC and a HQ isn't. If you HQ in Goteborg and then open a base at the larger, Stockholm airport, you have more planes at your smaller HQ than you have at your much bigger base. This is obviously even bigger in Russia and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure there are some other airports/countries with this problem.

So the alternative could be to either give these an alternate airport. For example if you start at another major airport in any of the countries where this happens, get the option to move there. (Goteborg, St. Petersburg, etc)

Or, put some kind of protection on these airports, preventing already existing airlines to base there for a certain time to protect the ones with a new HQ. This is a bit risky as it's probably cheating of sorts.

Ideally, there is a solution before the next game world starts in the '50's again.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: JumboShrimp on May 08, 2015, 08:52:01 AM
Maybe a function "Move HQ" would solve this.  I think it would be very useful.

Player would open a base at another airport, and then, he would have an option to move his HQ to this base.  Aircraft scheduled at old HQ would remain where they are (subject to basing limitations).
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Dasha on May 08, 2015, 11:23:16 AM
Yeah but the move HQ has been discussed before and got denied. So perhaps a move HQ would only work for airlines based in the countries that open a completely new airport rather than just a new airport.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: MarisKX on June 20, 2015, 08:00:13 PM
About long game worlds -
1. There are many airlines that gone after major accidents, there I haven't seen no one. After paying huge compensations (if there was airline fault, for ex. bad technical maintence or poor pilot training)
2. Maybe to make things more close to reality, there could be limited places in early game years with limited profit, so after a year open more and more slots for players therefor it could be quite interesting to join the game not only in  90's after collapse of USSR, but even after that
3. There should be option for more than one stopover, for ex. BOAC flight from Australia to London with first passenger jet Comet. There was 3 or even 4 stopovers during flights.
Title: Re: Long game worlds (1950-2030)
Post by: Jona L. on June 26, 2015, 05:09:49 PM
I have a small suggestion that I think needs addressing.

When the game starts in 1950, a couple of interesting airports are not open yet. Like Stockholm Arlanda, both major Moscow airports and if I'm right some airports in Saudi Arabia. Because there is no alternative, you can't move to those automatically so the only way to HQ there, is to start the game later on when they open. Which puts you in a (slight) disadvantage to somebody opening a base at those airports.

There is one larger Moscow Airport open in that time (IIRC: DME, and VNO is open all the time), and Stockholm Bromma is also open during the early years, which woudl allow you to start in those cities. I do also think, that just like with HND or CGH, you HQ gets moved, once the new airport opens (otherwise it could be implemented for those airports).

Still doesn't fix the Saudia Arabia issue, because there is not a single airport before JED/RUH in the late 80s or early 90s. But such is life, There was no need for air traffic there, back then, so why should it in AWS?

2. Maybe to make things more close to reality, there could be limited places in early game years with limited profit, so after a year open more and more slots for players therefor it could be quite interesting to join the game not only in  90's after collapse of USSR, but even after that
3. There should be option for more than one stopover, for ex. BOAC flight from Australia to London with first passenger jet Comet. There was 3 or even 4 stopovers during flights.

@2: Player number is limited at first, and increases by 1 pre game month until the end of the game (or shortly before end).
@3: you can have up to 2 stopovers per direction. These are not used for Passenger de-/boarding anymore (was changed maybe 3 or 4 yrs ago). Flights with 1 tech-stop are already hardly worth it, adding more stops would send your airline to BK, or at least result in major expenses. Be happy the system doesn't allow you to ruin your airline in that way :P (plenty of other ways to kill your own airline though ;D )

cheers,
Jona L.