AirwaySim

In reference to the latest news posted to the site, how long the next Game World #4 (starting June 13th) should be?

All other comments and wishes welcome too!

My vote's in but I have another related question... Will there be another Regional Challenge in the future? If so, how soon can we look forward to it? Thanks and keep up the great work Sami.

Also keen on another Regional Challenge soon!   8)

Yes, the intention is to run mini games from time to time too.

1. More important is that the active games are in different decades.
2. Running into 2030 seems to be a pretty benign era for the games so far, time for some random volcano's affecting all the world zones at some point?

A big reason going past 2020 is boring is the 4th type penalty. No one wants to replace a fleet of 737s with C-Series jets because, at 800 or so frames, it costs $300 million a month in commonality penalties. If one of the many feature requests dealing with fleet renewal were to be added to the game, it would bring a lot more excitement to the period from about 2015 to the end of the game. The ideas are:

"Like Types" (ie all DC-9 variants count as one, so DC-9, MD-8X, MD-9o, 717 are one group)
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,40746.0.html

"Auto Convert" (ie no need to manually reschedule routes from, say, 737 to C-Series, just use the transfer schedule function)

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html

And somewhere in the forum is a thread about marking a fleet type for retirement, and as long as the moving average number of frames in the fleet of that type is declining at a predetermined rate (maybe equal to the average number of frames a player can get new each year of the new type) there is nto a penalty for the outgoing type.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on May 24, 2015, 05:55:11 PM
A big reason going past 2020 is boring is the 4th type penalty. No one wants to replace a fleet of 737s with C-Series jets because, at 800 or so frames, it costs $300 million a month in commonality penalties. If one of the many feature requests dealing with fleet renewal were to be added to the game, it would bring a lot more excitement to the period from about 2015 to the end of the game.

+1

And just to add to this, I understand why the penalty at 4 types grows as the fleet does, even though IRL economics of scale would say it would decrease. It is a metric in place to make uncontrolled growth impossible. The problem is it has the opposite effect in 80+ year games where multiple fleet renewal cycles are necessary. The options for players become either use obsolete equipment from sometime between 1970 and 1985 for 50 years or wait fro 300, 400, 500 or more frames to be delivered before sitting down and switching all those frames out in a single sitting which could take 10+ hours. Something needs to be done to fix this problem as it has a very negative effect on game play.

End doesn't matter so much, but beginning in 1970 please. The fleet changes are just too much of a PITA without tooling.

I think the 2030's should be the end for sure, otherwise, there's no point to having the 787, A350, 77X, neo/max and other newer generaitno planes. As for the start, the 60's should be avoided - pick either the 50's or 70's. The 50's are great because all of the prop era planes are still in production allowing for multiple strategies to be utilized and in the 70's, props don't matter anymore. Game starts in the 60's are difficult as most of the 50's era props (that are still commercially viable) are out of production, leaving fewer strategic paths to profit.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on May 24, 2015, 08:36:35 PM
And just to add to this, I understand why the penalty at 4 types grows as the fleet does, even though IRL economics of scale would say it would decrease. It is a metric in place to make uncontrolled growth impossible. The problem is it has the opposite effect in 80+ year games where multiple fleet renewal cycles are necessary. The options for players become either use obsolete equipment from sometime between 1970 and 1985 for 50 years or wait fro 300, 400, 500 or more frames to be delivered before sitting down and switching all those frames out in a single sitting which could take 10+ hours. Something needs to be done to fix this problem as it has a very negative effect on game play.

In GW1, I had ~850 planes in service when I was to nuke the DC9s and exchange them for MD80s. I had about 130 DC9s when I started the conversion, bringing my "in service" fleet to about 980 planes. During the transition, my fleet commonality costs went from 26m/month to 295m/month. For those playing along outside the game world, that incremental $270m per month was about 5 months of pre-tax profits at the time. Basically, if I spent more than a real life day on that transition of 130 planes, my airline would have been bankrupted. Luckily, I got it knocked out in an hour and I've had to feed my mouse cheese constantly to help it get better.

Quote from: Infinity on May 24, 2015, 09:56:17 PM
End doesn't matter so much, but beginning in 1970 please. The fleet changes are just too much of a PITA without tooling.

Isn't that part of the game though? Over expand before a big transition and get stuffed, or play it conservative?

Quote from: schro on May 25, 2015, 12:59:49 AM


Isn't that part of the game though? Over expand before a big transition and get stuffed, or play it conservative?

Yes it is, and as I said the penalty is needed to prevent runaway expansion. In a game under 50 years, you can get by with a single transition most of the time, and that single transition can also occur before 600+ planes pile up. In a game from 1950-2020, the transition to "modern" planes wont happen until at least the mid 1980's. meaning you have to play upwards of 35-40 years before this transition. Keeping your fleet under 250 or so planes for that long in any major airport is not really possible. That is why some sort of change is really needed to make these transitions just possible, not even easier. A tool to transfer schedules to a different type would be nice, but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy.

but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy. - This 3 fleet limitation is unrealistic anyway.. What major airline only has 3 fleet's?

Hmmm... Emirates maybe (A330/340, B777, A380s), Singapore Airlines (B777, A330, A380), Cathay Pacific (A330, B777, B747). They are all doing fantastic. Thats excluding their sister airlines.

Southwest, Ryanair, easyJet all operate 1 fleet type but they don't count as they are LCC's.

I do think that 3 fleet type *rule* is ver odd because loads or other major airlines operate more than 3 fleet types yet they are very profitable. 

Yes but what about British Airways with 9 aircraft types or Delta with 10.

and even the airlines you mention all have their subsidiaries (FlyDubai for Emirates, Silair for SIA or Hong Kong Dragon for Cathay to handle their short haul routes.

That their should be some sort of advantage of running a streamlined fleet - absolutely, but the magnitude of the penalty needs to be reviewed or one should be able to create subsidiaries (feeder/freight...)

Technically Emirates doesn't own flydubai or run it in any way. Both airlines are fully owned by the Dubai government. But the connectign traffic story is the same so it's almost exactly the same story as for SQ OR CX.

Creating subsidiaries will be anti-competitive and I don't think that will ever be implemented in this game. I still agree with you that the fleet veriation should be reviewed and changed hopefully.

Quote from: ChuckPerry on May 28, 2015, 02:19:04 AM
but the NEEDED fix is just some way to operate more than 3 types during these transitional periods without it being a sure fire path to bankruptcy. - This 3 fleet limitation is unrealistic anyway.. What major airline only has 3 fleet's?

I am not saying the 3 group "limit" needs to go. While not realistic exactly, it serves a needed purpose which is to limit uncontested growth. While IRL economics of scale would come into play and a fleet of 1000 planes comprised of 5 types would not have a large negative impact on the bottom line, in AWS the exponentially increasing penalty on that 4th type is a check on rampant growth.

The penalty was an annoyance when games were no longer than 30 years. It was not generally required to go through multiple fleet renewal cycles so once you selected your fleet for a game you just worked toward 3 types and tried to get there by the time you had 200-250 planes. Now, 40+ years into a game, a mature airline faces fleet renewal with upwards of 1,000 planes. Adding that 4th type is suicide as commonality will spike by 1200% (that is NOT a typo). In GW 2, that would cost me $800 million a month. I am one of the most profitable airlines in GW2, at least based on margin, making about $600m a month right now. So, renewing my fleet of 767's with 787's when they are launched would swing me from a $600m monthly profit to a $200m loss.

So, for play-ability reasons, and to make an 80 year game worth playing for 80 years, some mechanism to make normal fleet renewal not just painless but actually possible is REQUIRED. Any of the little things that would make it easier would just be added bonus (ie swapping to another fleet type without first modifying each route individually), but the big item on this list is some sort of a temporary suspension of any 4th type penalty during a predetermined retirement period.

In the years 1972-1976, PRIOR to the Delta/Western merger, Delta flew all three of the then available widebodies (747, L-1011, DC-10). They had ordered the L-1011 but due to production delays, they also took delivery of the DC-10. They also were flying the Fairchild F-27, Douglas DC-8, Douglas DC-9, and Boeing 727....and making nice profits.. that's what SEVEN fleets?   I guess they hadn't heard of the "three fleet rule" lol

The L-1011 was in Delta service from about 1973 to 1992, the DC-10 from about 1972 to 1987, and the 747 from 1970 to 1977.

The MD-11 was also in the Delta fleet from 1990 to 1996 so for a couple of years (1990-1992), Delta was flying two types of widebody trijets at the same time.

After National merged into Pan Am, Pan Am also flew the DC-10 and L-1011 together, along with the 747.

I can't understand why everyone is voting for a 1950s start. Could some of you please tell me?

I voted for it.

Whats the point if you start in the 70s or even 80s? You got your jet aircrafts, DC-8 Longhaul, 737/727 shorthaul. All you have to do is Collect as much planes as possible, then replace them with new generation Aircrafts like A320/737-300 and 767/A330 and thats it. YOu will keep them for another 20 years until you buy new planes of the same types to keep them another 20 years until the game is done. How boring is that?

If you start in the 50s you have to cope with lack of demand, lack of range, lack of speed etc. The A320 or 737 is not the only way to go. You can experiment and use exotic plane types, you can distinguish yourself from your competitors by having a whole different fleet serving the same purpose. not 737 vs 737, but maybe COMET vs DC-6 or even  DC-3 vs Martin 4-0-4 or wathever. The difference between you and your competitor will not how much time you pend for the game, but more focussed on your fleet startegy and choice.

One option is to do a long game from 1970s onward and then an "early days" minigame (like 1950s to 1970s)..?

For the commonality talk - please use feature rq forum's proper thread for this. I am looking for some concrete suggestions how to improve it in the future.

so basically an accelerated jet age and then LGW in 70's....

Not sure if I like that idea.

Quote from: sami on May 29, 2015, 11:07:12 AM
One option is to do a long game from 1970s onward and then an "early days" minigame (like 1950s to 1970s)..?

For the commonality talk - please use feature rq forum's proper thread for this. I am looking for some concrete suggestions how to improve it in the future.

The ideas I posted are already in the feature request forum. That forum is locked to new topics, so would you like me to bump the relevant ideas to the top? Also, if any help is needed testing these features, I would be glad to help!

Please use the existing topics of course. That's the idea .. since each relevant topic has already a thread, just reply there with your thoughts etc.

Ok, the two that I could locate were bumped. I always just feel weird resurrecting topics hat have not had a post in 2 years....

Edit: One of the two I bumped also contains a link to another request. Three total threads and 5 distinct ideas in those threads.

On Sami's suggestion for a 1970 and 1950 games this seems a very good idea as the present long games are all ending in the next month or so.  I prefer to start early, gives me time to move, re-start, etc as required and have a decent base when airline demand really builds in the 60's. Perhaps 2010 could be an end date for the early starts so most games run for 60 years. An Airline Exec's working life time!

I also like the extension of type life's by demand. No politics in these games, thank you Sami, so USA can buy UK aircraft. Just need some 'fantasy' European builders into the 21st century.
Some newspaper forecasts of impending Oil Price Hikes (what do those senior execs do? they certainly don't give me many hints) would help the novice players to prepare a plan.

Having crashed out of a couple of the current long games recently it is really hard to find valid airports to start up and build anything financially valid. I've tried quite a few times.

When would the game start out of curiosity? For once I would like to start at the beginning of a game world and not have to pick though the scraps for an airport, pick though more scraps on the used market and wait 2+ years for a new airplane if I can even get to that point.

Quote from: azdozer on May 31, 2015, 10:10:35 PM
When would the game start out of curiosity? For once I would like to start at the beginning of a game world and not have to pick though the scraps for an airport, pick though more scraps on the used market and wait 2+ years for a new airplane if I can even get to that point.

Read the first post in this thread - 13th June will be the start date.

I am totally with Air Azure on this. The 50 in my opinion require much skill, imagination and planning and much more commercial aviation knowledge then the 70's. i wish we could start in 1945 and struggle with DC 4, DC 3, C46, Martins, Convairs and even Languedoc's !! etc ,and let skill prevail.

Since the vote difference between 1950s and 1970s start was rather minimal, I've deciced to start the next long game world from the early 1970s (ending in 2030).

There will be a minigame with the "early days" theme starting near the end of July or start of June also (1950s to 1970s).

Well... I am with seatta on this one, the 50s-70s are a particularly difficult era, asking for a lot more skill and knowledge, thus being more challenging.

A game running for 1950 to 1979 is no big deal either, because the difficult transition happening between those scenarios is skipped.
There are plenty of open GWs, and one of them is in the late 80s now, so whoever was wishing for a 1970-20XX game could have joined that GW 10 game years ago, or wait for the new GW to pass into the 70s era.
It's absolutely not impossible to start late in a game, because some people fail to perform that transition, or drop out for whatever other reason.

The most of the public demand states that people want a 1950-2030 game. The demand for a 1970-2030 game can be satisfied with the exact same 1950s scenario as well, because there are always spots opening up, and with the new "max-player-number-system" the amount of players allowed in the GW will increase by a few dozen anyways, meaning there will be enough space to join the GW. Also with the number being relatively small in the beginning, there will (or at least should) be plenty of available airports as well.


cheers,
Jona L.

Well why have polls when they are not respected...saved me time and money After almost 2 years, I am not returning for now and will not till a 1950 to 2030/20 game is again offered. The mini scenario is silly...and nobody asked for it ..except it was SAMI brainchild. I had the long scenario all planned out....waste of time and energy !!!  Sounds like a banana republic poll...!!!!

Jona is absolutely correct ...and much more polite about it then me !!

Not that I was going to play this one anyway due to time pressure, but...

136 (50+86) for the 50s start compared to 85 (14+71) for the 70s start doesn't look that close to me.

I'm waiting for the poll to guess how long it'll take before we see the first  "There's no good planes available" post.

I must agree with Wreck and Jona L.

The reason I've played in the current GW4 is the fact that it started in the early 50s and required multiple aircraft transitions over time - starting with props and ending with the current generation of jets. It's not easy and requires a good deal of skill and knowledge to survive and thrive to the end (which I'm happy to say, I have). For me personally it also evokes the kind of airline building that interests me. Taking two prop pushers and turning it into a global airline. I just wish it could continue past its current end of 01/01/20.

The notion of a mini-game starting in the 50s era does not come close to fitting this bill. With new aircraft, you could theoretically finish the scenario purchasing just one generation of aircraft, whenever you choose to pull that trigger (props or jets). The only real challenge is the lower number of passengers in the earlier years of the scenario.

Wreck's analysis of the poll is spot on. Raw numbers aside, it is clear that more people wanted a 50s start. Something more like the current GW4. The end date is, past today's date anyways, of less importance (at least to me). The fact that the results weren't respected (at least IMNSHO)...why ask?

If I had known that a 50s-era long campaign was not in the cards (as it has been in the past), I probably would have reduced my purchase of credits to only those that would get me through the end of the current GW4. Now, I have to decide whether I'm going to wait for months for the next scenario similar to the current GW4 or hold my nose and start in the 70s.

Dear Sami : 1950 start 136 votes...1970 start 85 ....that is not CLOSE to me at all. It's your game ( and a good one ) but please don't ask for polls in the future...just do what you want, (which is what you did) and we will go along with if we want. It is insulting when your customers prefer a scenario almost 2 to 1 and you call it close !!! Sound like a soviet 5 year plan sprinkled  with AEROFLOT IL 12-14...whoops wrong era airplane.

Fellow players, many of you have been had by Sami !  Of 136 that voted for a 1950's start we have heard from 4 or 5 !?!?. This is the time to make yourself heard. The squeaky wheels gets the grease and we got castor oil. If we don't complain ...we deserve it. Apparently here customer here is not always right ...but way wrong !!
Sami has been silent, still thinking it was "close' and if he keeps silent in such an obvious dictatorial order, it will all blow away, a bit cowardly in my humble opinion. 

Quote from: Air Azure [President and CEO] on May 29, 2015, 08:34:55 AM
I voted for it.

Whats the point if you start in the 70s or even 80s? You got your jet aircrafts, DC-8 Longhaul, 737/727 shorthaul. All you have to do is Collect as much planes as possible, then replace them with new generation Aircrafts like A320/737-300 and 767/A330 and thats it. YOu will keep them for another 20 years until you buy new planes of the same types to keep them another 20 years until the game is done. How boring is that?

If you start in the 50s you have to cope with lack of demand, lack of range, lack of speed etc. The A320 or 737 is not the only way to go. You can experiment and use exotic plane types, you can distinguish yourself from your competitors by having a whole different fleet serving the same purpose. not 737 vs 737, but maybe COMET vs DC-6 or even  DC-3 vs Martin 4-0-4 or wathever. The difference between you and your competitor will not how much time you pend for the game, but more focussed on your fleet startegy and choice.

Absolutely agree and I though the vote result will directly determines the next game world's setting.

However it's not. Better not to vote next time, at least nothing disappointed.

Why ask for a vote and then ignore the results? I have no interest in a 1970's start. Very disappointing result and choice of time frame.Perhaps the time frame can be reconsidered? Thanks

As you can imagine i am not happy as well about it. But I see that Sami tried to satisfy as much customers as possible with that decision. Maybe the idea goes well, and maybe more players are happy this way. I am not, but I can only speak for myself.

In the end, Sami is a business man who tries both, satisfy the needs of his customers and maximising the income. He tried to find a way to do that and this is the result. If 70% of those who voted for a 50s start are happy and 100% of those who wanted the 70s start, it is way more than when just those are happy who voted for the 50s start. As simple as that.

I would have to ask 'saetta' to calm down in his comments, thank you.

I have not said that the "winner" of the vote would automatically mean it being the choice since there are a whole heap of other things to be considered, and this poll has been done to collect the general interest between the decades. Since I never for example knew that "nobody" cared of the 1960s start. Game World #2 started from 1960 for example - meaning that the next will start in 1950s then instead since the 60s was not a popular choice.. I was not looking at the total scores for each potential starting year either, as the votes were for the unique combinations (voting 1950 to 2030 or 1950 to 2020 does not equal that they both want a 1950-2030 game).

The game world #4 will start in year 1970, like announced.

The planned short early days scenario is also supposed to be a cargo test game (IF everything goes as planned), but I am not supposed to tell this yet..ahem...

(and should actually setup a larger survey to ask of opinions on the favourite eras to start in, to play in etc. since I'd like to create some minor variations also to these longer games)

Can't get any calmer then not participating !!

An immediate post World War 2 starting date would be interesting ( to me) . That is the era when civil aviation took hold, and all the surplus DC 3, DC 4, C 46 were quite important and necessary..as the DC 6 was sill a pipe dream. It would increase the difficulty level cus there would be one more fleet change to make thru the game and planning would have to be done gingerly. Adding some relatively unknown types like the Languedoc , SAI Marchetti, Super DC 3 would be fun too! 

Quote from: sami on May 23, 2015, 08:16:29 AM
In reference to the latest news posted to the site, how long the next Game World #4 (starting June 13th) should be?

Quote from: sami on June 10, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
The planned short early days scenario is also supposed to be a cargo test game (IF everything goes as planned), but I am not supposed to tell this yet..ahem...

Why not make the game a dedicated test server again, if you want to live test the new feature? And also, why make the test game in an era where air cargo is even less used than passenger travel (in relation to now)?

Quote from: saetta on June 10, 2015, 04:40:48 PM
An immediate post World War 2 starting date would be interesting ( to me) . That is the era when civil aviation took hold, and all the surplus DC 3, DC 4, C 46 were quite important and necessary..as the DC 6 was sill a pipe dream. It would increase the difficulty level cus there would be one more fleet change to make thru the game and planning would have to be done gingerly. Adding some relatively unknown types like the Languedoc , SAI Marchetti, Super DC 3 would be fun too! 

I am with seatta on this one, 1945-203X would be very interesting indeed.

Quote from: sami on June 10, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
I was not looking at the total scores for each potential starting year either, as the votes were for the unique combinations (voting 1950 to 2030 or 1950 to 2020 does not equal that they both want a 1950-2030 game).

To be fair, I voted for 1950-2020 as well, but changed my vote after realizing the lower options were -2030... maybe someone else also made that mistake, and not realize it?

Also, if you play to 2020, you can just as well continue another decade, or just drop out. No one is forced to play to the end, same as no one is forced to join on day one.
IMO the best option would be to offer the wide range, and let people use only the eras they are interested in.

The point of the end date of 2030 for me isn't so much about any futuristic planes coming after the current (real life) era, but rather the realistic option to actually move to 4th-gen jets. With the long games airlines tend to be larger by the time they reach the 2010s, thus needing a much larger number of those new planes to replace their current, old planes. That is barely possible even when maximizing the UM capacities (that pesky 3/week rule) through alliance support in ordering planes. Some issue about production rates being to inflexible, but that is for another time...

Maybe some of the people interested in the 1970 scenario never played from the 50s, and realize later -after trying it- that they may want to start 20yrs earlier. Maybe they just don't have an idea about the planes you can use, and just voted for what they are used to. -Just throwing that out there-


cheers,
Jona L.

Quote from: [Remover of SkyConnectAn immediate post World War 2 starting date would be interesting ( to me) . That is the era when civil aviation took hold, and all the surplus DC 3, DC 4, C 46 were quite important and necessary..as the DC 6 was sill a pipe dream. It would increase the difficulty level cus there would be one more fleet change to make thru the game and planning would have to be done gingerly. Adding some relatively unknown types like the Languedoc , SAI Marchetti, Super DC 3 would be fun too! 

+1 on 194x era where you don't start your game with dc6 out the window.

Quote from: saetta on June 10, 2015, 04:40:48 PM
An immediate post World War 2 starting date would be interesting ( to me) . That is the era when civil aviation took hold, and all the surplus DC 3, DC 4, C 46 were quite important and necessary..as the DC 6 was sill a pipe dream. It would increase the difficulty level cus there would be one more fleet change to make thru the game and planning would have to be done gingerly. Adding some relatively unknown types like the Languedoc , SAI Marchetti, Super DC 3 would be fun too! 

I totally agree with Saetta on this one. The period from 1946-1950 is very interresting. Naturally there will be some work to be done creating some new stats for the fantastic machines of the period (Its hard to find anything more beautiful than the SM 95 before the Connies). But 1946-2020/30 would be great - with or without cargo (just dont make this scenario into a dedicated test scenario)

Quote from: saetta on June 10, 2015, 04:40:48 PMIt would increase the difficulty level cus there would be one more fleet change to make thru the game and planning would have to be done gingerly.

That would not make it more challenging, only more annoying. Fleet changes are yuck when you have more than 100 planes.

Quote from: Infinity on June 11, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
That would not make it more challenging, only more annoying. Fleet changes are yuck when you have more than 100 planes.

in fact, if you're ready to bite the bullet, it makes the game easier : more of your opponents will bankrupt during fleet changes, leaving you more place to grow.

Quote from: Air Azure [President and CEO] on June 10, 2015, 12:46:11 PM
As you can imagine i am not happy as well about it. But I see that Sami tried to satisfy as much customers as possible with that decision. Maybe the idea goes well, and maybe more players are happy this way. I am not, but I can only speak for myself.

In the end, Sami is a business man who tries both, satisfy the needs of his customers and maximising the income. He tried to find a way to do that and this is the result. If 70% of those who voted for a 50s start are happy and 100% of those who wanted the 70s start, it is way more than when just those are happy who voted for the 50s start. As simple as that.

If I am the businessman you mentioned above,
I would set another ultra long world to satisfy the strong demand of my customer rather than letting them keep complaining and damage my reputation if server resources permits.

I Agree with all the people complaining about the start on 1970.

Game #2 started on 1960 and yet we meet the prop era already at the declining state.

A game starting on 1950 would pose a completely different challenge.

Furthermore the majority of the players prefer to start on 1950.

Sami I know that your politic is "either that or there's the door". So I choose the door this time.

It would not matter what game Sami decided to go with as there will always be players that disagree with his choice.
However most that complain will still play the game :-)

Quote from: Kadachiman on June 12, 2015, 12:14:12 PM
However most that complain will still play the game :-)

The game is not started yet, so how could you know if they will play or not?

Because it is the same every time a new Game World starts...you can set your watch by its predictability

Same as the posts that will come within days of the game world start
- lack of suitable aircraft
- lack of slots
- production lines already full
- have to be logged on 24/7 to get the best aircraft
- etc

It is all predictable, it is always the same and players keep playing :-)

Quote from: Luperco on June 12, 2015, 12:22:28 PM
The game is not started yet, so how could you know if they will play or not?

Because he knows a little bit about human behaviour. A few will leave(but they'd have left anyways). Most will stay, and a few newbies will arrive. That's life.

The problem with the 70's start is very simple...Let the better appliance win! Airbus or Boeing.....Anything else is a one way ticket to BK.
While the 50's punishes bad planing or indecision, it also allows many more choices to either "outfox " the competition, or perish and restart wiser,  by the time u get to the appliance era, u are either gone or faltering, or better suited to finish well with the appliances.
About human behavior...there is some truth in what is said..yet in my case, I will wait till there is hopefully a 1945/6 start. Till then I will have a lot more time for other hobbies !!

There are many more choices than Boeing or Airbus route, many just do not care to acknowledge it.

Some of the most interesting players and memorable games are from 'non follow the pack players'
- the madman that only uses Russian metal and flies them for 30+ years
- the equally mad man that only flew small aircraft out of Port Moresby PNG, and used a goat herder as his airline advisor
- Monica (who finished in the top players in the recently completed game world) who flew only MD's out of a level 5 USA base 4-5 game worlds back

Point being - that not all players want to play a 'dominate the world strategy' and are extremely happy playing out their own game challenge whatever it may be.

For me the challenge will be to fly 100-150 seaters out of a level 4 non-popular airport this time around and maybe move into a larger airport when/if a major player fails and I have consolidated...plenty of choices in the 80-200 seat range that do not have a Boeing or Airbus sticker attached

The new price dynamic for brand new planes makes alternative choices more interesting. When an IL96M costs 120M and a 777-200ER with similar capability 160M, the choice is a no-brainer. When the prices are 83M vs 291M, as in current GW3, going for the outsider is suddenly more interesting. Plus there is the problem of availability. When 737-800 are impossible to get without 3 years of waiting, going TU204 gets seductive(it's basically a short-legged 757-200, for half the price). Even if if drinks more petrol.

Quote from: Kadachiman on June 12, 2015, 01:16:18 PM
There are many more choices than Boeing or Airbus route, many just do not care to acknowledge it.

Some of the most interesting players and memorable games are from 'non follow the pack players'
- the madman that only uses Russian metal and flies them for 30+ years
- the equally mad man that only flew small aircraft out of Port Moresby PNG, and used a goat herder as his airline advisor
- Monica (who finished in the top players in the recently completed game world) who flew only MD's out of a level 5 USA base 4-5 game worlds back

Point being - that not all players want to play a 'dominate the world strategy' and are extremely happy playing out their own game challenge whatever it may be.

For me the challenge will be to fly 100-150 seaters out of a level 4 non-popular airport this time around and maybe move into a larger airport when/if a major player fails and I have consolidated...plenty of choices in the 80-200 seat range that do not have a Boeing or Airbus sticker attached

Having done the mad man thing a couple of times for fun, & because I choose to, I think that you are missing the point.

Those that are participating in the discussion, and those that voted, prefer the 1950s (or maybe 194x start).

End of...

Ah well, nice to get to vote.  Even if the Sami team don't take too much notice!

Other games ending soon so hope one of those gets a 1946 start with plenty of converted non-pressurised aircraft available to lease/purchase at war surplus prices.

Many fighter aircraft were simply bulldozed into pits and burnt before burial. The later bombers were converted, some factory conversions, others with ex-servicemen returning to their upholstery trades. They did sterling service supplying Prague when the East Germany under Russian control cut off the supply routes.

Hope to get back to 1950, but only in the game please. I was 5yrs old then, and often hungry, even in the UK. Rationing was still in place then as the whole supply system, from the foreign farms, to shipping and UK transport systems were all in dis-repair.

Right on 11 air !!

50s-30s, 20-25 min days...im new and 30 mins and day is long...