Our long-time users have proposed a custom game world to be set up, which I'd be happy to do if we can confirm the participation. Title is Alliance Challenge, or Challenge of Alliances. The name tells it all. There would be max. 25 members from each Alliance competing directly against each others as alliances, as well as individual airlines.
This world would be open only for members of present AirwaySim alliances. In other words if there is an active alliance in any game world and you are (or have been) a member of it, you'd could join this world. You will be "tied" to that alliance for the duration of this game world and all members of the same alliance would co-operate as a team, like presently, and we'd see who makes out the most of this. And I believe some sort of small scoring system would be also fun for this, and winning alliance could have a small prize too?
If there is enough interest, from at least 4 different alliances and min. of ~90 players at least, this world could be set up. But before we could proceed we'd need "firm" sign-ups from the alliances and their members. Each alliance would be represented by one user towards me, and that user would coordinate all joining members from his alliance (namelist is required to be submitted for me to allow them to join the world). It would be of course difficult to gather so many "committed" players before the world is launched, but here I would leave the ball to the court of the alliance managers (take up the idea in your private alliance forum .. etc).
Scenario of the world would be for example two selected continents, and possibly also so that basing would be only allowed on major airports to enhance competition. Exact details can be agreed later on if this world will be confirmed.
So - interested alliances/players, please talk/discuss here.
Note: This is only a "small" scenario and sort of semi-private world requested by active users. There will be of course another full & public game world for everyone too. Details of that later.
It's a good game one ! but there's a lot of alliance in many game world. What is your criteria. :-\
You already know the Star Alliance's position. :)
Quote from: MunMaRu on June 13, 2010, 02:08:16 PM
It's a good game one ! but there's a lot of alliance in many game world. What is your criteria. :-\
Criteria for participation would be gathering 25 members from your respective alliance to play in this new game world. As Sami stated, exact details will be worked on later. For now, how many Alliances with at least 25 members would be interested in signing up? I can think of 3 firm commitments.
As Seattle said, Star strongly supports all efforts for this new and exciting idea.
Talentz
Each alliance does not have to have that max 25 members, they can go with smaller amount too. But minimum ~15.
Well I didn't want to impose.... but min 15 players would cover just about every Alliance in AWS, should they be interested .. 8)
- Talentz
Sounds fun!
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi689.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv257%2FKerliFanatic%2FWorldLinkTailsAdcopy.jpg&hash=b58d60e5cc6159d6a4d1bed2c5eb09819382dcae)
WorldLink managing members are thrilled that this type of competition has been opened! All members, present and past, of WorldLink have shown a lot of interest towards this type of game, including members of the Air Travel Boom gameworld (see picture above). We at WorldLink wish everyone a "Good Luck" in ATB and MT2 gameworlds, and hope everyone does well in the possible Alliance Challenge game. :)
Cheers,
ICEcold
Secondary PR Manager
Brilliant! I'm in and I will poll Open Skies members to see if there is enough interest.
Gaius Marius
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi81.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj212%2FJoeMama4743%2Fuglogo.jpg&hash=ea5c1f55b19dff5d190785f13c502e332fbed694)
The members of the United Globe Alliance have expressed interest to participate in this challenge.
Jona where are you, Mega Fly World needs to be in this??
Cheers
Lost
MegaFly Worldwide is also in this game :) though we do not have a static number of >15players to take place... ~8-9 are definete, but the rest is still to be found...
Jona L.
In representation for MFW alliance
only one minute ;P
As one of the larger designated "Free Agents", I think this is a pretty good idea.
If I could get jest, JonesyUK, and chapelhillnews onboard we might could bring back SkyNet.
To take a step further, I have been talking to many of the real world Canadian players in an attempt to form an alliance of only Canadian players. It would be fun to have a full world game with national alliance competition at some point.
Oh, and if any of the alliances that are commited to this game would be looking for another member I would be very interested in switching over as I would not want to participate in this with my current ATB alliance. PM me.
WorldLink in ATB already has at least 11 players signed up to the idea and we're working on more.
I can go for this one. It sounds interesting and stressful :)
Quote from: chapelhillnews on June 13, 2010, 10:31:42 PM
It sounds interesting and stressful :)
are you ok?!? ??? ;D
LOL - This game always stresses me out, but i also enjoy it. I'm too competitive :)
Got to thinking about this, and I think there needs to be some changes to the way games are played now, if the idea is to create a true Alliance vs. Alliance world.
Without ABCBA routes, and without the ability to base into the Top 20 airports, alliance competition is very difficult. Interaction between opposing alliances and the ability to "call for help" is almost nonexistent, as, outside of competition based in your own airport, you can't "go after" anyone else because you can't get to them outside of a mere single route. Even if every single member of an Alliance, out of every single base they could have, all targetted a single airline, that'd only be at most 100 routes that you could "go after" someone on.
Ideally, I'd like to see ABCBA routes make a return, as that brings on true competition. But, at the very least, we need to remove the Top 20 base restriction though that won't get you even 5% of the "benefit" of turning ABCBA back on.
And to eliminate the systematic destruction of airlines by Alliances moving lots of members into an opposing city and spamming all the routes at once, bankrupting the opposition, then closing the bases, I think there should be a restriction on no more than 1 member of an Alliance per airport.
Quote from: Sigma on June 14, 2010, 06:28:14 AM
Got to thinking about this, and I think there needs to be some changes to the way games are played now, if the idea is to create a true Alliance vs. Alliance world.
Without ABCBA routes, and without the ability to base into the Top 20 airports, alliance competition is very difficult. Interaction between opposing alliances and the ability to "call for help" is almost nonexistent, as, outside of competition based in your own airport, you can't "go after" anyone else because you can't get to them outside of a mere single route. Even if every single member of an Alliance, out of every single base they could have, all targetted a single airline, that'd only be at most 100 routes that you could "go after" someone on.
Ideally, I'd like to see ABCBA routes make a return, as that brings on true competition. But, at the very least, we need to remove the Top 20 base restriction though that won't get you even 5% of the "benefit" of turning ABCBA back on.
And to eliminate the systematic destruction of airlines by Alliances moving lots of members into an opposing city and spamming all the routes at once, bankrupting the opposition, then closing the bases, I think there should be a restriction on no more than 1 member of an Alliance per airport.
I totally agree. Multi legs are a must if an alliance challenge is a go.
My alliance are interested too ;D
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb222%2Fmindboys%2Froyal_singha.jpg&hash=4a51ce5bdcc0dcf4b892f3b6abb2d9163df8c17c)
When this game will be start?
SkyNet is in the process of forming. This has always been a dominant alliance and we are looking for members who are experienced players and want to join an alliance that coordinates their efforts through extensive communication on the alliance forum. Several past game winners are in the Alliance including Jest (who is winning the current Modern Times game, Jonesy UK, who has won before as Padarn, myself, who won a North American Challenge game as Lucky 7 Airlines. Sigma is also in the alliance, as is Type45, and several other very skilled players. If you are interested in joining the Skynet team, please PM me, Jest, or Sigma. Join the winning team - apply today!
Quote from: jest on June 14, 2010, 10:50:10 AM
I totally agree. Multi legs are a must if an alliance challenge is a go.
If the multi leg routes do not return, perhaps we could at least open bases in countries other than our home country.
Is it possible to set up a private forum for SkyNet so that we can plan for the Alliance Challenge? I have been PMing the members, but apparently there is a limit of how much one can PM in a certain time period, and I can't PM anymore right now.
My ideas for this alliance battle
ABCBA allowed... needed to create alliance moves on one another
No restrictions on 2nd basing at Top20... are you going to use your 12 monthly expansion to help another member, attack another alliance or boost your own position.
No restrictions how many airlines can base at airport... Will you go for the fight in the short term or long term?
1 bankrupt and your out... last alliance standing wins.
ABCBA would not be essential, all that alliances would need to do is open in the same countries as other alliances. Grow strong and profitable and take away rivals grwth potential in thier own country and then open at the rivals HQ to eliminate or marginalize them. ABCBA would be good too but this will work to.
No ABCBA... unless there's a way to restrict it to domestic flights.
-Matt
Have continents been discussed yet? Which ones?
Quote from: MattDell on June 15, 2010, 12:04:20 AM
Have continents been discussed yet? Which ones?
pretty much has to be 2 of Noth America/Europe/ Asia you would have to think.
Well, I am not sold on the idea of bringing back continuation routes. I think the games should be restricted to 1-2 continents, hubs feature disabled, 1v1 alliance members per airport.
The goal is to defeat your opponent in a 1v1 setting. Thus I don't see how continuations play into it.
We could have something like 2 continents, 4 Alliances split between the two. Euroland and NA or Asia and Oceanic. For two small <20 player Alliances.. Africa and SA.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on June 15, 2010, 12:35:33 AM
Well, I am not sold on the idea of bringing back continuation routes. I think the games should be restricted to 1-2 continents, hubs feature disabled, 1v1 alliance members per airport.
The goal is to defeat your opponent in a 1v1 setting. Thus I don't see how continuations play into it.
We could have something like 2 continents, 4 Alliances split between the two. Euroland and NA or Asia and Oceanic. For two small <20 player Alliances.. Africa and SA.
Talentz
Then it becomes a 1v1 game, not an Alliance vs Alliance game.
Without ABCBA, and most definitely without multi-hubs, there is absolutely no "Alliance vs Alliance" component at all.
Its still holds Alliance vs Alliance value. There are potentially 25 members to each alliance. That means for an Alliance to be considered a winner, 12 other alliance members have to "win" in there given airport, besides you.
With what is proposed, continuations and hubs - you give the top end players of there respective alliance the ability to band together and systematically kill off rival airlines 1 at a time. Having 5 or so airlines working as one entity airline rampaging through airports is not what I call "Alliance vs Alliance" as well.
There has to be a middle point here...
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on June 15, 2010, 12:56:39 AM
Its still holds Alliance vs Alliance value. There are potentially 25 members to each alliance. That means for an Alliance to be considered a winner, 12 other alliance members have to "win" in there given airport, besides you.
I see where you're going, but that's a pretty weak premise as far as "Alliance vs Alliance" goes.
That's not pitting an Alliance's ability to plan, coordinate, communicate, and work cooperatively as a team and/or against one another. That's pitting one-player against another player and tallying up whose left at the end.
It'd be like a game of basketball where all we counted were Free Throws and whichever "team" made the most at the end is who won.
QuoteWith what is proposed, continuations and hubs - you give the top end players of there respective alliance the ability to band together and systematically kill off rival airlines 1 at a time. Having 5 or so airlines working as one entity airline rampaging through airports is not what I call "Alliance vs Alliance" as well.
There has to be a middle point here...
Talentz
If this is such a threat, why doesn't it happen in every game?
We have capacity rules now that prevent this from easily occurring. And speaking from a lot of experience even before we had the rules, even with coordinated attempts of significantly more than the top few players in an Alliance, it takes a LOT of work to take out a well-run airline in this game given the margins involved. With the new rules and aircraft delivery delays, this isn't nearly as easy as you describe. It would require hundreds of aircraft and hundreds more routes and many, many years just to coordinate against a single well-run airline -- that's kind of the
point, IMHO.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that, while you're doing this, someone is likely (at least they
should be) doing it right back against you hindering your ability to launch money-losing flights at their fellow team-members.
Is there alliances that need members. I would like to give this a shot. I am in beginner world 7 and join 55% of the way through and i am doing pretty well. I think
Quote from: tom14cat14 on June 15, 2010, 01:43:03 AM
Is there alliances that need members. I would like to give this a shot. I am in beginner world 7 and join 55% of the way through and i am doing pretty well. I think
Same position as tom14cat14. Would like to give this a shot as I looking to get more involved with members and the game itself. So if an alliance does need an extra member I would also be willing to participate so please pm me.
Even if I dont get into the game, I wish all the alliances the best of luck as this looks to be shaping up to be a good game!
Quote from: Sigma on June 15, 2010, 01:18:34 AM
It'd be like a game of basketball where all we counted were Free Throws and whichever "team" made the most at the end is who won.
That's a loose analogy, but cute non the less. Btw, that "team" you refer too would mean that
everyone in the "team" helped to win... right?
Quote from: Sigma on June 15, 2010, 01:18:34 AM
If this is such a threat, why doesn't it happen in every game?
Seems you answered your own question. However, since we touched the on subject I'm sure your aware that the AWS Anti-Alliance competition prevent such actions as:
Quote from: Sigma on June 15, 2010, 01:18:34 AM
That's not pitting an Alliance's ability to plan, coordinate, communicate, and work cooperatively as a team and/or against one another.
The rules state no Alliance is too:
Quoteperform any coordinated alliance-wide schemes or attacks against other single airlines or other alliances or their member airlines. Alliance airlines may not target deliberately the routes of single other airline / alliance with an effort of pushing them out of the market or forcing to bankruptcy. Normal airline management and route competition is allowed but unfair methods with coordinated, targeted and combined actions are considered unfair competition.
So while I understand where your coming from, the rules prevent us from taking full advantage of what Continuation routing truly allows us to do...
With that said, this brings me to my original question: Why do we need to have Continuation routing?
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on June 15, 2010, 05:01:29 AM
However, since we touched the on subject I'm sure your aware that the AWS Anti-Alliance competition prevent such actions as:
The rules state no Alliance is too:
So while I understand where your coming from, the rules prevent us from taking full advantage of what Continuation routing truly allows us to do...
With that said, this brings me to my original question: Why do we need to have Continuation routing?
Talentz
Clearly my assumption was that, in a world specifically designed to pit Alliances against one another, that the rule regarding Alliances not being allowed to target one another would not apply since Sami's initial post clearly states that he envisions Alliances, quote, "competing against one another."
If we assume that the rule you stated will continue to be enforced then...
1> I agree your method of pairing off and tallying the remaining airlines would work
2> I agree that ABCBA routing is not only not necessary but would likely hinder the mechanism of such a design (as well as hubs)
If, however, you view it as a world truly pitting Alliances against one another, then ABCBA routing is almost a requirement as "going after" another alliance is virtually impossible without it because you can only hit a single route against a single airline -- you could never share more than 25 routes with an
entire Alliance. You'd never be "competing" at all, save for a relative handful of your routes, which would only yield a giant stalemate in the end.
It comes down to a philosophical difference on what the game is intended to be, and that's ultimately for sami to decide. Though I will still play either way, my interest will be significantly lessened if it's another "carebear" world to be completely frank about it.
One big downside to your envisioning of how it'd work is that, once you run your competitor out of your base, there's almost no reason at all to continue playing. Without the ability to establish other bases or create ABCBA routes, there is virtually nothing that you can do to assist your alliance members against their competition. So the game-world will reach a point where it starts to get fairly empty, fairly quick. I suppose you could modify your proposal and allow restarts and the "score" would be the number of BKs -- lesser wins. But then working out restarts so that you're once again paired off with someone else and starting simultaneously would be impossible.
QuoteOne big downside to your envisioning of how it'd work is that, once you run your competitor out of your base, there's almost no reason at all to continue playing. Without the ability to establish other bases or create ABCBA routes, there is virtually nothing that you can do to assist your alliance members against their competition. So the game-world will reach a point where it starts to get fairly empty, fairly quick. I suppose you could modify your proposal and allow restarts and the "score" would be the number of BKs -- lesser wins. But then working out restarts so that you're once again paired off with someone else and starting simultaneously would be impossible.
Yes. When I ran the idea by Sami last week or so... I wasn't sure sure if the rules would be waved. Thus, I had to think of a way to have competition among the Alliances and be bound by AWS rules.
Pairing off was the result. I know the major downside is interest will drop quickly after a player "wins" there city. I hadn't consider the "after" of that. Though thinking proactively, you could say that theses game worlds would be rather quick considering that the matches should be done within 1-2 weeks.
So we could have gameworlds run every 2 weeks with different alliances pitted against each other sooner, as opposed to waiting 2-3 months for a new alliance challenge gameworld to begin.
The first 2 weeks of a new game world are to most, the funnest part of AWS... perhaps running a world every 2 weeks would be popular among the community?
Dunno. Guess we wait for Sami to awaken to decide :P
Talentz
Bearing in mind that this game will be played in a controlled environment and probably by the most experienced players amongst the alliances, i do not see a dire need to abide by the rules that protect the smaller companies. Like Sigma, i will always play whichever the format is, but i think having ABCD routes would make the game way more interesting.
SkyNet now has 12 Members and we are adding more. Count us in for sure.
Quote from: Talentz on June 15, 2010, 05:56:52 AM
Yes. When I ran the idea by Sami last week or so... I wasn't sure sure if the rules would be waved. Thus, I had to think of a way to have competition among the Alliances and be bound by AWS rules.
Pairing off was the result. I know the major downside is interest will drop quickly after a player "wins" there city. I hadn't consider the "after" of that. Though thinking proactively, you could say that theses game worlds would be rather quick considering that the matches should be done within 1-2 weeks.
So we could have gameworlds run every 2 weeks with different alliances pitted against each other sooner, as opposed to waiting 2-3 months for a new alliance challenge gameworld to begin.
The first 2 weeks of a new game world are to most, the funnest part of AWS... perhaps running a world every 2 weeks would be popular among the community?
Dunno. Guess we wait for Sami to awaken to decide :P
Talentz
I am thinking that pairing off would not be very interesting, since the battles would not last very long, and there would not be any strategy as far as the alliance goes.
Another suggestion, which would be somewhat along those lines would be to allow airlines to set up unlimited bases anywhere they want, with unlimited planes at each base. Just a suggestion - I hadn't really thought through it too much. Or to limit it to 70 or 100 planes, but allow airlines to open new bases right from the start, without having to wait for a year.
If you want the game to last more than two weeks, some sort of system of ABCBA routes should be acceptable..... or the allowal of a second or even a third hub. :)
Suggestion: how do we score win/lose?
As it is, no one really knows why some alliances have higher ratings than others. Its clearly not just a function of aircraft and routes.
Please can I suggest you clarify this? And will it be alliance rating? Race to 100%? OR will we score team points for each airline's value? And if this is competitive, can we compete aggressively (aka destructively) against other airlines?
I think turning this on its head to try and wipe out other airlines and alliances could be different.
Thoughts?
Quote from: carrisi on June 15, 2010, 02:00:02 PM
Suggestion: how do we score win/lose?
As it is, no one really knows why some alliances have higher ratings than others. Its clearly not just a function of aircraft and routes.
Please can I suggest you clarify this? And will it be alliance rating? Race to 100%? OR will we score team points for each airline's value? And if this is competitive, can we compete aggressively (aka destructively) against other airlines?
I think turning this on its head to try and wipe out other airlines and alliances could be different.
Thoughts?
I kind of like this idea. Not sure how hard this would be to do on Sami's Part, but suppose that each alliance can have 25 members at any time during the game. If it started out with 25, and one went BK, it could not be replaced, and the score for that airline would be 0. At the end of the game, the value for every member of the alliance could be added together, and the scores for the alliances would be added together to determine the final winner. Maybe negative values could be scored as "0". If an alliance started with less than 25 members, it could add new members as the game continues, but once they have reached having 25 different members in their alliance they could not add any more. And again, if they lose one member they cannot replace them. I kind of like the idea of one BK per airline, but maybe that should start after a certain time period, like 6 months, so that airlines can get established at the beginning before being eliminated.
Or, perhaps alliances would not be able to ad new members during the game, and there would be a limit of 2 BKs during the game. Then ones that have already BKd one time would become targets, since if they were eliminated from the game, the Alliance would receive a score of zero for that airline. The final score would be the combined value of all members of the alliance that are still flying at the end of the game, with any airlines with a negative value being given a zero score, or perhaps being credited with the negative score if they have a negative value. if that was the case though, it would be strategic for airlines to declare bankruptcy on the last day, so as not to bring down the score of the alliance. Having 2 BKs would give players some chance to start over, but would also make it strategic to target airlines to try to eliminate them from the challenge. There could also be some kind of bonus score for how many airlines in each alliance finish in the top 10.
One more scoring idea, might be to take the AVERAGE value of every airline in the alliance at the end of the game. The alliance with the highest average value wins. This way, alliances with fewer members would not be at a competitive disadvantage in terms of scoring.
I agree with a lot of the points here, but as stated most of the players will be experienced so no "carebearing" (love the word so i'll use it too :P) required in my opinion.
It's going to be a harsh and tough game but is'nt that what we all want, a chance to get the gloves off and really see who can stand the pressure!
A truly Hard game maybe :)
Good luck all :)
not "hard". "medium" at most would sound appealing. ;D
-ICEcold
I would support both multi-leg and bases personally :)
With the multi leg, isn't this like having another base anyway. So just make it multi base and multi leg.
Maybe it can be modified so you can open as many bases as you like with in your county, but have to wait a year between each new base out of county.
I think all alliances in the one world at once. And maybe they have to split the alliance around the would evenly, therefore 5 airlines of each has to be asia, europe, oceania etc etc etc. just some ideas
WorldLink have now gathered over 20 interested players...
Quote from: JonesyUK on June 15, 2010, 07:18:43 PM
I would support both multi-leg and bases personally :)
Now, that's talking.
No way can there be "blanket multileg."
Airlines from Europe shouldn't be able to open up routes internal to USA and vice versa. My biggest gripe of v1.1 was running an airline in the UK and having to compete with random Asian airlines for my Atlantic routes out of Heathrow. That is not realistic! JAL does not compete against BA on LHR to JFK. Singapore does not compete against Virgin on flights to LAX. And Emirates is never going to open a route from Orlando to St. Louis. So it shouldn't be that way in this game!
-Matt
As mentioned elsewhere multi-leg routes would be available only on domestic routes (+ EU), when they are added back.
I am against multi leg. Its rubbish. Multi hub yes. multi leg no. Current version is the best - lets not go back.
In my opinion Multi-leg was better than the current version of bases we have. It's too restrictive. You're limited to flying from a maximum of 4 airports, where as before you could create flights from any airport in the world. You also can only open one up every 12 months, further restricting you.
I'm not too keen on all this 'it's not realistic' stuff. It's a game, why does it have to mimic reality exactly? If we play a world starting in the 60's does it mean we've got to have all the regulation, state subsidies, etc that the airline industry had then?
To make this game any different from a normal game, Multi-leg is a must so that alliances can be of any use, otherwise being in an Alliance is as pointless as any other AWS game.
Don't get me wrong, I love this game and Sami and the team have done a great job creating it. I just feel this 'Carebear' attitude is too restrictive sometimes. If you want an easy game where there's no competition, don't join this game world?
As this is a custom game, let's make it different from the normal worlds?
Quote from: MattDell on June 15, 2010, 12:04:20 AM
Have continents been discussed yet? Which ones?
I'd say ALL?!
And I think just either Multi-leg OR hubs, not both! this would be completely unrealistic, since airlines don't even fly multi legs within the EU... BA would not fly DUS-MUC (e.g.)....
my opinion is bases, with 100 instead of 70 a/c, and maybe 5 instead of 3 hubs... to make them a little more interesting.... :)
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 16, 2010, 05:47:48 PM
this would be completely unrealistic, since airlines don't even fly multi legs within the EU...
It is realistic since that is allowed in reality and it does happen in reality (on thin routes)..
Quote from: Jona L. on June 16, 2010, 05:47:48 PM
And I think just either Multi-leg OR hubs, not both! this would be completely unrealistic, since airlines don't even fly multi legs within the EU... BA would not fly DUS-MUC (e.g.)....
my opinion is bases, with 100 instead of 70 a/c, and maybe 5 instead of 3 hubs... to make them a little more interesting.... :)
Jona L.
Yeah, but EasyJet / Ryanair do. ;)
I hate multi-leg, but facts is facts.
i think there will be the same restriction of 6 per airport. ;)
Quote from: MattDell on June 16, 2010, 01:49:08 AM
No way can there be "blanket multileg."
Airlines from Europe shouldn't be able to open up routes internal to USA and vice versa. My biggest gripe of v1.1 was running an airline in the UK and having to compete with random Asian airlines for my Atlantic routes out of Heathrow. That is not realistic! JAL does not compete against BA on LHR to JFK. Singapore does not compete against Virgin on flights to LAX. And Emirates is never going to open a route from Orlando to St. Louis. So it shouldn't be that way in this game!
-Matt
I can tell you that CX has the right to fly and complete on LHR-JFK, the only problem is it get the slots and planes to do that, also it want to fight or not. JAL had operated NRT-TPE-HKG before but stopped because of low LF in 1996. CAL run TPE-HKG-BKK everyday, the MD-11 cashed in 1998 at HKG was on the return trip. SQ001/SQ002 is a daily flight of SIN-HKG-SFO. The only SQ plane cashed (at TPE) was on her way to LAX as SQ006 (SIN-TPE-LAX). Even BA had LHR-HKG-PEK and LHR-HKG-TPE in 90s. BR is operating TPE-BKK-LHR now and had operated TPE-KIX-LAX before. This kind of flights IS realistic, at lease i can remeber a number of this example in real life even I do not go to check for it. ;)
I'd love to do it.
Please add my name to the list also.
Like it...
pls count me in....
Quote from: type45 on June 18, 2010, 09:29:19 AM
I can tell you that CX has the right to fly and complete on LHR-JFK, the only problem is it get the slots and planes to do that, also it want to fight or not. JAL had operated NRT-TPE-HKG before but stopped because of low LF in 1996. CAL run TPE-HKG-BKK everyday, the MD-11 cashed in 1998 at HKG was on the return trip. SQ001/SQ002 is a daily flight of SIN-HKG-SFO. The only SQ plane cashed (at TPE) was on her way to LAX as SQ006 (SIN-TPE-LAX). Even BA had LHR-HKG-PEK and LHR-HKG-TPE in 90s. BR is operating TPE-BKK-LHR now and had operated TPE-KIX-LAX before. This kind of flights IS realistic, at lease i can remeber a number of this example in real life even I do not go to check for it. ;)
I'm not convinced on the CX flight from LHR to JFK. Source? Regardless, you're pointing out the exceptions, not the rule.
Give me
one example of an international airline operating a domestic route in the United States. How about Europe? Are there
any non-EU airlines doing domestic (inter-EU) flights?
-Matt
(some exceptions to the fifth freedom rights are not relevant for AWS since they won't be modeled)
Anyway: Alliance managers. Please start collecting a name list of participants if you have not done so already.
Scenario schedule, and start-end dates will be confirmed next week and after that I shall be waiting for firm signups (instructions for all this later on too!).
ill be in, if anyone wants me!
Woohoo! We have names 'n stuff ready to go.
- Talentz
Quote from: MattDell on June 19, 2010, 08:39:08 AM
I'm not convinced on the CX flight from LHR to JFK. Source? Regardless, you're pointing out the exceptions, not the rule.
Give me one example of an international airline operating a domestic route in the United States. How about Europe? Are there any non-EU airlines doing domestic (inter-EU) flights?
-Matt
this is an SQ flight doing MUC-MAN route pair.
[attachment expired]
Quote from: MattDell on June 19, 2010, 08:39:08 AM
I'm not convinced on the CX flight from LHR to JFK. Source? Regardless, you're pointing out the exceptions, not the rule.
Give me one example of an international airline operating a domestic route in the United States. How about Europe? Are there any non-EU airlines doing domestic (inter-EU) flights?
-Matt
By law, US airlines are allowed to operate inter-EU domestic flights (a right that is not reciprocated yet). It doesn't happen, at least not for rare exception, because of the economics involved, but it is very much allowed.
hence why Delta has a hub in Amsterdam and Tokyo Narita. ;)
Yes, these things happen in real life and the government is there to make sure everything works fine and isn't unfair for airlines. Unfortunately, we don't have a "government" in AWS and people in here abused of that privilege. I think that airlines shouldn't be able to fly double leg unless either airport is in your base country or basing somewhere else than your base country and I would annul the EU, too. British Airways flies out of England, Air France flies out of France, Lufthansa out of Germany (Lufthansa Italia and such are a different story), Alitalia out of Italy and such. That's how things work with mainline airlines and the great majority of airlines here are mainline so I don't see why we should be able to do things that only low cost airlines do (With very few exceptions).
Quote from: marc0o0o0o on June 21, 2010, 05:27:03 AM
I don't see why we should be able to do things that only low cost airlines do (With very few exceptions).
Why?
As I said before, I don't agree with trying to mimic reality anyway but especially not with creating rules that don't exist.
Quote from: JonesyUK on June 21, 2010, 05:09:36 PM
As I said before, I don't agree with trying to mimic reality anyway but especially not with creating rules that don't exist.
name one. ;) most of the things brought up on this topic are there in reality. hence why they were brought up at all. ;)
Cheers,
ICEcold
Quote from: ICEcold on June 21, 2010, 06:11:06 PM
name one. ;) most of the things brought up on this topic are there in reality. hence why they were brought up at all. ;)
Cheers,
ICEcold
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. I was refering to marc saying airlines should not be able to fly 2nd legs within the EU, only their own country. There's got to be some sort of benefit of being a member ;)
I realise there are rules about say a UK airline wanting to fly a leg in the US in reality :)
Quote from: JonesyUK on June 21, 2010, 09:43:46 PM
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. I was refering to marc saying airlines should not be able to fly 2nd legs within the EU, only their own country. There's got to be some sort of benefit of being a member ;)
I know they can, but they don't. They either don't or have a regional airline based outside of their country and those are tiny airlines, but you won't be flying British Airways mainline from Palma to Moscow nonstop. What I mean is that LCC's are the only ones that treat the whole EU as their country and 99.99% of airlines in AWS are not LCC's.
Skynet now has 25 members after being joined by members of Royal Chang and Open Skies. We are ready to enter the challenge.
Quote from: marc0o0o0o on June 22, 2010, 01:02:33 AM
I know they can, but they don't. They either don't or have a regional airline based outside of their country and those are tiny airlines, but you won't be flying British Airways mainline from Palma to Moscow nonstop. What I mean is that LCC's are the only ones that treat the whole EU as their country and 99.99% of airlines in AWS are not LCC's.
Yes, but if we want to why can't we? As you said, you wouldn't fly BA from Palma - Moscow, but that's because BA don't have a commercial reason to fly it, not because they can't :)
WorldLink is virtually ready now member-wise 8)
Any ideas on where the world will be based yet?
I was wondering if maybe something like just Europe and North America might be a good idea. That way competition would be higher as players could take advantage of the base system to assist fellow alliance members by opening and closing bases when necessary. Transatlantic routes would also allow long-haul aircraft to be used, rather than the restrictions on aircraft one continent worlds provide.
Quote from: Daveos on June 22, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
Any ideas on where the world will be based yet?
I was wondering if maybe something like just Europe and North America might be a good idea. That way competition would be higher as players could take advantage of the base system to assist fellow alliance members by opening and closing bases when necessary. Transatlantic routes would also allow long-haul aircraft to be used, rather than the restrictions on aircraft one continent worlds provide.
sami i think already made it worldwide. :-\
Quote from: chapelhillnews on June 22, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Skynet now has 25 members after being joined by members of Royal Chang and Open Skies. We are ready to enter the challenge.
I think It's Royal Singha ;D
GlobalTeam has 9 members signed up so far . . . Sami, do we need to PM you a list of players or what?
Quote from: flydreamer on June 20, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
this is an SQ flight doing MUC-MAN route pair.
I guess, Saudi Arabian also used to Fly RUH-MAN-ZRH/GVA (not sure which one) with a 747
What about time period..?
I hope it would be after 80's..
Quote from: V.Castelino on June 24, 2010, 04:49:12 AM
I guess, Saudi Arabian also used to Fly RUH-MAN-ZRH/GVA (not sure which one) with a 747
Singapore Airlines flew CPH-BRU-ATH-BAH-SIN with a 747-200 back in 1984, although I'm not sure if they were allowed passengers between the various destinations. They also did CPH-ZRH-ATH-DXB-CMB-SIN in 1981 with the same type of aircraft. I remember that one, because our flight arrived in Dubai shortly after the new terminal had opened, and in Singapore only a few days after Changi had opened. Waterfalls in a terminal? That left a lasting impression on me, especially compared to some of the boring terminals I've seen in Norway. Try flying to Kristiansand KRS from a non-schengen airport, and you are left standing on the apron outside a containerized passport control regardless of the weather... :-\
Signup instructions and other details will be posted next week probably (since I'm n/a this weekend).
MFW is still waiting for some approvals, and therefor still searching embers... if there is anyone interested contact me please!!
I would be iterested in trying this scenario. I tend to be a lone player but would like to try. I won one of the games based in Johanasburg as Springbok. If anyone wants me send me a pm.
Thanks
Andrew
I would once I get in an alliance! :)
Ex Ceo of Yukis Airs would like to join tooo . ;D
But my promblem is from previous game world , i had join many alliance . So i don't have a specific alliance for my airline :-\ :-[ aren't there any alliance will accept me in? :-[ ;D
MFW-alliance is still searching for 2 more players...
our current memberlist:
Jona L. (founder)
lilius (co-founder #1)
LostInBKK (co-founder#2)
Jumbo Mouse
jetRush
minerva
Robster_9
bierbrauerm
0zlw
mclovin
Maarten Otto
Julien
GMas
karn36
applications welcome :)
please contact Jona L. via PM in this issue!
Quote from: L1011fan on June 24, 2010, 06:13:52 PM
I would once I get in an alliance! :)
i'm sure Star would like you. :) pm Nick (Seattle) and tell him that you're interested - or even Talentz. ;)
I was just wondering if there was any more information available about the world. Aspects like HQ locations and alliance strategy will take few days to organise and the next worlds thread suggested it would be either this weekend or early next week.
Even if we have just an idea of the continents involved and the possible era, we could get some preliminary things arranged. Looking forward to it.
Cheers,
Dave :)
Well the group I am a part of has its 25 members set, but a question popped up on if a restricted pre-game forum area for members to talk shop before the start of the game could be setup? I know we could just start a public thread, but then the rest of you would know how we plan on ruling the world. ;D
I would like to join this game, i was in blueskies and openskies in many game ...
so if one place is open said me !!!
'Openskies Alliance' will be a part of the new game world... we past and current membership players!
Tony R.
Quote from: FAA-man on July 02, 2010, 06:12:43 PM
'Openskies Alliance' will be a part of the new game world... we past and current membership players!
Tony R.
Good so i am in for Openskies alliance !!!
Any alliance need Bangkok-based airline please count me in. Thanks
WesternU has already counted me in. Can't wait!!!!
I'm in with Openskies!
GM
I was a long time worldlink member but I've been taking a break from the game in recent times. I would love to be in this game as a member of worldlink as I think it is a great idea!
WorldLink is fully ready to participate, with 25 players confirmed and ready to go... just waiting for the start date and joining information. Any idea when?
MFW-alliance is still searching for some more players...
our current memberlist:
Jona L. (founder)
lilius (co-founder #1)
LostInBKK (co-founder#2)
Jumbo Mouse
jetRush
minerva
Robster_9
bierbrauerm
0zlw
mclovin
Maarten Otto
Julien
GMas
karn36
begla
mcvicarj
T8KE0FF
applications welcome :)
please contact Jona L. via PM in this issue!
Quote from: Jona L. on July 17, 2010, 10:21:15 PM
MFW-alliance is still searching for some more players...
our current memberlist:
Jona L. (founder)
lilius (co-founder #1)
LostInBKK (co-founder#2)
Jumbo Mouse
jetRush
minerva
Robster_9
bierbrauerm
0zlw
mclovin
Maarten Otto
Julien
GMas
karn36
begla
mcvicarj
T8KE0FF
applications welcome :)
please contact Jona L. via PM in this issue!
Jumbo Mouse ???
Maybe I will sign up for the opposing team, to find out who will end up a Jumbo, and who will end up a Mouse / Shrimp
there is a Jumbo Mouse who runs "Caledonian Intercontinental" or something like that. he's a MFW founder in JA2. ;)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 20, 2010, 08:43:10 PM
Jumbo Mouse ???
Maybe I will sign up for the opposing team, to find out who will end up a Jumbo, and who will end up a Mouse / Shrimp
HA HA!!! nice gaming with the words ;D
Please subscribe here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,23718.0.html
hmm this is going to be a nice game i think but i unfortunately hasent been in some of the big alliances but im up for it so contact me if i can be used at han alliance.
hi id like to join this game, so if an alliance has an open slot id really appreciate to to join,pls pm me with details...
regards
pattN
pls do not invite me anymore, i´m allready signed in
regards
pattN
Only Europe and North America? I need a new HQ airport :)
Leaping Tiger Airways not currently in any game, Have been in a number of alliances in the past and would be intrested,
should some one have a space for me.......
Nick
I am somewhat new. am not part of any active alliances at this times but would love to play in this game please accept me send me message for more info.
I have the following players for SkyNet:
Quote2839, JonesyUK
6993, Jest
10590, Sigma
3613, Chapelhillnews
10854, Robio
11633, Type45
17616, SAC
7807, Toivoja
32688, Ergunp
12366, JuanchoPancho
38031, tom14cat14
5752, Mzeeh
22409, unsaid
31616, rangingwarr
25785, michael95u
11168, MunMaRu
6801, highways1
31686, Snickers
23140, jetRush
9687, carloscarlos
9726, Yukis
13219, hong
9859, Mensabre
15153, porthos81
If anyone is missing, on this list in error or no longer wants to take part, please let me know.
Cheers
Steve
Since MegaFly's list is full (my current alliance in Jet Age 2), I am looking for an alliance with which to play. Anyone have room on their list?
Thanks!
Michael
I'd like to join a team, too:
Vermillion
Mega
GlobalTeam
Key Choice
Skynet needs another 5 members. Please PM me, JonesyUK or Sigma if you are interested.
Alliance Challenge game is up! We're trying to get the old BIG (Best International Group) Alliance back in this new game. Jetxpress, Elvis and Reimerb will be the Board, looking for additional members. If you're interested please write down your userid and user#. Once we hit 25 we will request Sami a pvt forum to discuss our strategy prior to the game start.
I am interested in learning how the game joining will be commenced - will we all be prejoined automaticaly or have to do something? :)
Everyone will join manually.. But now that you said - it really would be easier and faster for me to automatically assign everyone there. Since I need to pre-create the alliance forums and stuff anyway, ..but I guess I will leave it for everyone's own choice to join still.
Quote from: sami on August 06, 2010, 11:02:23 AM
Everyone will join manually.. But now that you said - it really would be easier and faster for me to automatically assign everyone there. Since I need to pre-create the alliance forums and stuff anyway, ..but I guess I will leave it for everyone's own choice to join still.
Well the problem is how can we join if it is only for some people? And prejoining everyone would be awesome but I am not sure it is viable too because not everyone on the list may be willing.
However please prejoin me if it is possible :) I already bought the credits.
Quote from: Yb on August 06, 2010, 11:14:32 AM
However please prejoin me if it is possible :) I already bought the credits.
Me too! And I bought 60 ;D
We need credits? Damn. ;)
Alright, lets get this started. :)
Hi
I'm looking to join an alliance. I run Lucair in Air travel boom and would really like to be in this game.
Elle gi
When can we expect the forums to be set-up, and the game to start