AirwaySim

Hi all,

I was thinking about both the evolution of the world an the changes in AWS.

On one hand, AWS follow the real world: close to RL release dates, real opening dates for new airports, real independencies, 9-11, etc.
But OTOH it takes some aspect far from RL, usually for gameplay reasons (crazily increased demand from Dubai in the 60s, for example, or the impossibility to crash).
And some parameters vary from GW to GW: inflation, global demand, fuel prices.
But globally it tends towards really few ahistorical events / context, and towards few "hard" events.

People get used to some parameters, and there was some complaining about LH demand in GW#4, being (seemingly) low. Saying their initial strategies were inadequate. But at the same time I see people asking for more "unknown", ie drastic need to adapt to a new situation.

Some such events already exist, but they are really few: people usually avoid opening bases in soon-to-be-independent colonies, and the only real shake (from what I know) is the collapse of USSR: dramatic fall of demand (RL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Air_traffic_in_Russia,_1970-2015.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Air_traffic_in_Russia,_1970-2015.png)), a lot of "lost" airports, all majors airports going intl/LH while before they were exclusively domestic, etc. That's the reason I tried USSR in current GW#2.
9-11 is no similar event: it only needs a good economy / bank account to ride out the storm. The German reunification is only a "positive" event. And until now, wars have almost no effect (intl traffic in North Korean-controlled Seoul? ???).

What does all that draw? The gameplay is mainly static, and if you want thrills, there are really few possibilities.

And then I thought of another game: Europa Universalis 4. Recreating the discovery of America. For gameplay reasons, this 4th version introduced an optional randomized shape for America, so you don't know where to send your ships, you don't know where the rich caribbean islands will be, neither is they will be tiny islands or part of a different continent.
This randomization is quite extreme, even though it's limited to America (the rest of the world is as IRL). My meaning is not to ask for such a thing, only to have that kind of possibility in mind when wondering what could the evolution of AWS be.

Then, take this, and cross it with recent real world events: annexation of Crimea, Brexit and such. Not modeled in AWS (and as a matter of fact we don't know if the Brexit will end the participation of the UK in Common Skies). Timeline spreads until 2030 or 2035, and who knows what could happen in the meanwhile?
Going absolutely extreme: US civil war due to the polarisation of the society, dissolution of the European Union, new frontiers in the Middle East, war in the Far East, etc.

Again, I'm not asking for such extreme events, but just wondering how people would appreciate more up and downs while managing their airlines, and thus to what extent it would be interesting to have some more.

Sure, it would probably need a lot of work technically, as well as some thinking about the financial aspects, but I'm rather curious about that.

Comments are much welcome.

Thanks.

a random world map would be indeed extremely fun. And extremely pedagogic; most newcomers are paralyzed by what they kow of the world, and have a tough time seeing the game as it is. Woth a random map, they'd have to adapt anyways.

Problem is : many players would probably not play that game :(

Well, I didn't think about the map when writing this down (only about events), but this is indeed quite an important aspect.
Having a random map could be really fun, and force people to go out of their shells, but as you say, probably only a part of them.

Moreover, planes are designed for a purpose: this is not random if LH planes initially have a 3500-4500 range, and MH ones 1000-2000. Manufacturers are mainly Americans and Europeans, and thus initially built planes that fitted their geography. Would the geography change, and early LH planes could be unsuitable for service between major cities because of increased distance. This might be a real problem.

So that would probably require an awful lot of parameters to limit randomization to a certain extent.

Hmm... (thinking)

This forum is  a good idea ...but I doubt our opinions will be heard!. My 2 cents ...I think crashes should occur , and in some carriers more then others . No need to make it gory ...no loss of life , just loss of A/C . I still don't understand why we pay for insurance ...if nothing ever happens ?!?. I guess most of us ( knock on wood ) do the same in real life. Airlines ...even the best loose A/C , so  I don't get the fact that's it's a no no here. I any of you played "Aerobiz" eons ago ...stuff happened in that game too

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on November 09, 2017, 12:29:13 PM
a random world map would be indeed extremely fun. And extremely pedagogic; most newcomers are paralyzed by what they kow of the world, and have a tough time seeing the game as it is. Woth a random map, they'd have to adapt anyways.

Problem is : many players would probably not play that game :(

I agree with random maps and events only when it comes to future. I played the last Beginner's World in the 2020's and I felt it a little boring, as nothing would happen in the world.

Crashes would be interesting, but many things should be taken into consideration. First is the aircraft reliability. All aircraft here in AWS are 100% reliable, regardless of the problems some models faced in real life due to project flaws. Examples are the B377s and Comet 1s, which were very problematic but there are hundreds of them in operation in current GW2 - which is in 1968 and the B377 is still in production! Second is how the system will pick up the "victims"; The World News reports of some major aircraft accidents at some random airport, but what if, when implemented, the system picks up one or two airlines that don't operate at the airport chosen for the accident, or if two aircraft crash at an airport at a time they shouldn't be in the same place? Third thing is if other CEOs will really want to live with the constant risk of having some of their aircraft written off at times - on the other hand, the insurance payments would start to make sense, as now they are just another source of expenses. And, last but not least, how will it impact the involved airline's company image and involved route's image?

I see what you are saying....but only the Comet 1 had structural problems . Most other airliners had a bunch of issues too .The Martin 202 fell out of the skies, as well as the early Electra. Even Viscount and DC 6 ( early models) had relatively serious problems. DC 10 and first Connie were actually grounded for a period of time . Some airliners  where much better then others, but very few had impeccable ratings, I think the military version of the DC 4 kind of did  ..the Comet got the worst press cus it was so avant-garde  ... I am not saying there should a crash every month ,only very rarely. if you chose to purchase a bad airliner ( i.e. 50's russian metal) or Electras you might get dinged . Ii will make player study aviation history a bit more, and introduce a new small variable and that can't be a bad thing !

I have been thinking a fair bit about the propensity of certain ship types to crash and this occurred to me: why not have the odds of crash being low but tied in an exponential (or at least non-linear) rate to the number of ships in operation by a particular airline?  A massive operator would have a fairly strong incentive to avoid that ship type or at least to fly it in small numbers.  Particularly in a scenario like GW2 this could help limit the size of the biggest airlines at the start of the game, force them to fly more than 3 fleet types (and endure the 4th fleet penalty), lead the massive airlines to turn away from problematic fleets more quickly (thus opening up more ships on the UM) and/or in the extreme essentially reserve certain fleet types to smaller operators. 

All of this said, to me one of the biggest problems in this game is the lack of randomness.  I think it makes the game objectively less fun when you know that certain events are going to happen (fall of USSR, 9/11) that while perhaps generally foreseeable were not predictable with specificity.  The lack of randomness is one of the things that highlights the reality that this game is a test of how well you can play within the parameters of the game rather than how well you can run an airlines, albeit one inside a game.

Quote from: chwatuva on November 10, 2017, 01:29:44 AM
I have been thinking a fair bit about the propensity of certain ship types to crash and this occurred to me: why not have the odds of crash being low but tied in an exponential (or at least non-linear) rate to the number of ships in operation by a particular airline?  A massive operator would have a fairly strong incentive to avoid that ship type or at least to fly it in small numbers.  Particularly in a scenario like GW2 this could help limit the size of the biggest airlines at the start of the game, force them to fly more than 3 fleet types (and endure the 4th fleet penalty)

No, this is illogical. Sounds like a veiled punishment for operating a large fleet.

I think the propensity to crash should be related to the model's reliability, aircraft condition and a random factor. But anyway, the crash probability should be very low, as we're talking about the safest mean of transportation in the world. Could be of 1/10M flights in the early days ang get lower and lower over time.

Well, I mentioned the crashes, but this thread was meant cover much more land. Not because I dislike the idea or what, but because some thinking has already been done and people are fighting with each other to know what the parameters/reasons would be.

I think it would need some dispassionate debate, listing the possibilities for it to trigger, listing the possible consequences, weigh the pros and cons of every single combination, etc. Actually, I think that any proposal that could be made here would require a separate thread with a dispassionate discussion (even if one can't be asked to hide his wills, I suppose he could still analyze the possible drawbacks of his own ideas).

Quote from: chwatuva on November 10, 2017, 01:29:44 AM
All of this said, to me one of the biggest problems in this game is the lack of randomness.  I think it makes the game objectively less fun when you know that certain events are going to happen (fall of USSR, 9/11) that while perhaps generally foreseeable were not predictable with specificity.  The lack of randomness is one of the things that highlights the reality that this game is a test of how well you can play within the parameters of the game rather than how well you can run an airlines, albeit one inside a game.

This is quite interesting. My natural answer would be another question: "yes, but how much random would we want the game?"
We have "world events", "national events" and "regional events". The later almost doesn't count, or very rarely.
What happens now with fixed or almost fixed event (for the large ones): everybody stockpiles money, and only the weakest airlines BK. Could not really happen IRL.
But what would happen if someone got struck by 3 "hard" random events in a row? He'd cry that it's unfair, why him and not it's neighbour? (in a game perspective, he would be right, even though he would be wrong IRL).

To my meaning, all that would require a lot of scripting, and overall a lot of "if", "not if" and such. And also a slight predictability.

For historical and already in-game events
For example, in 99 everybody begins stockpiling $ for the 9-11. But what would happen is the 9-11 might trigger, say, between 99 and 2003? Sure, people would still stockpile money, but they could not hinder their investment capabilities sitting for 4 years or so, they'd have to take a risk at some point. They gambled, they lose, and that's a bit fairer. Even if it's not an absolute unpredictable event like it was IRL.
Same for the fall of USSR (but maybe was it a bit more predictable IRL).

Those are historical events, and using those "if" and "not if" requirements (USSR collapse not if fall of the Berlin wall not done), it could be possible to add a few more around the globe. Pinochet's coup would lower demand in Chile for a while, but not necessarily in 73 (only "around"), etc.

For non historical already in-game events
The only ones that I saw having a real effect are "Railway strike" (positive) and "severe stock market crash" (negative). Those work just fine. Seems that the fuel spikes in current GW#2 will work according to this kind of principle.
Not that it really matters, but the "bad weather in USSR" (or any large country) doesn't makes sense at all. USSR covers 11 time zones, and you could get a sunburst in Sochi while there's a storm in the Sea of Okhotsk.

For historical not in-game events
A few more could trigger here and there. In some countries, NOTHING happens (except bad weather and such). Steady rise over 6 decades. Sure, some countries have a really steady situation since WW2, but those are few. And even there, things are not always rose-coloured.
It would need a little research, require a selection. But players would have to know what happens in their playground to prevent bad surprises. And still, the surprise could come over at a certain MTTH, just like you jump on an early-released plane and grin when one is released late.

Exceptions: wars
Wars are a little more complicated. Could you ask an Ho-Chi-Minh HQed airline to close down at the end of the Vietnam war because it's managed by some capitalist pigs? Sure no (this game is based on capitalistic management).
Could have that same airline (and it's country) a reduced demand for the duration of the war? Maybe, not sure how, but that could be fair as the guy HQing there knew that there will be a war. And only for that reason: he knew where he was going and accepted the challenge.
But as you can see this is a much complex matter, and it needs to be well-balanced (and not some H-bomb).

Well, that's all for now. Coming back later with more thoughts and topics (what should be for 2017-2035?, for example, maybe crashes ;), etc.).

Have fun, in the meanwhile. :)

Please no crashes.

My fleet is mostly T tail aircraft (higher possibility of deep stalls)

701 had issues with Dutch roll.

Quote from: Zobelle on November 10, 2017, 01:43:56 PM
Please no crashes.

My fleet is mostly T tail aircraft (higher possibility of deep stalls)

701 had issues with Dutch roll.

I much prefer a Swiss roll  ;D

But seriously - we could do with a little more.... "zingggg" in the game and there are a bunch of suggestions coming out here which merit more thought.  1 more feature of the game we have which is absolutely pointless... but surely could be made into something useful:   
CEO salaries:
I get it that if an airline BKs after 30yrs, then if you could restart with all the personal money from the previous game then you would be at an unfair advantage... but how about being able to use a % at least of the personal CEO wealth for things such as bailing out a situation where your airline is making a loss, so you could use the "re-investment" to say get some fresh aircraft and thus bail yourself out?   

Quote from: BristolFlyer on December 15, 2017, 03:14:44 PM
I much prefer a Swiss roll  ;D

But seriously - we could do with a little more.... "zingggg" in the game and there are a bunch of suggestions coming out here which merit more thought.  1 more feature of the game we have which is absolutely pointless... but surely could be made into something useful:   
CEO salaries:
I get it that if an airline BKs after 30yrs, then if you could restart with all the personal money from the previous game then you would be at an unfair advantage... but how about being able to use a % at least of the personal CEO wealth for things such as bailing out a situation where your airline is making a loss, so you could use the "re-investment" to say get some fresh aircraft and thus bail yourself out?

I really like the idea, but that's what he earned over time, not what he has.
Maybe is he spending far more than what he earns and don't have a single penny left. ;)

Why not just ask for a whacky mini GW where quite literary what your proposing happens?



Talentz

That could really be an idea, yeah :)

Would need some sort of a basic scenario, and a list of:
- historical events that might be randomized (just like release dates)
- a-historical but plausible events
- find the period which would best suit a mini-game with that objective to test feasibility

If there is one or two more persons around interested in that, maybe we could work on it. Tough not right now, rather early january.
And then (before starting to work on that) ask Sami if he's interested in something like that.

Anyone?

So, nobody replied :-\

Are there some people interested in the project of a game including harder and unpredictable events (but still balanced)?
Maybe one person per alliance, in order to have a little representativity (and have a person to act as contact within alliances). Outside alliance people obviously welcome too.

Apart from the program, the idea would be to draw general lines so we can submit something to Sami quite fast. Something not too complicated but still precise enough so Sami can decide wether it's feasible or not.
Then, if he agrees, we could proceed with something more precise, and a possible application for a mini-game for testing (basic program listed in my previous post).

One thing that would need research is a "complete" list of major historic events, such as wars, major events (like fall of Berlin wall) and those things. A couple are modelled to test, but more should be added.

Yes, they are predictable but first step is always to model the real history and then add another layer of non-historical things to make things less predictable (and this way we have also the option to run a real history game or a fully non-historical game, or a mix of those).

Great!

So at least we have a possibility in here. Precise application probably needs some discussion, but the basic research work can be done without being useless.

I'll start working on such a list. From 1945 (I know GW starts in 50 at the earliest, but some things might have consequences for a while) until now.
What is particularly interesting is that quite serious things happened in the last 70 years, but we don't have a clue about what will happen in the next 20 years (GWs finish in 2035).
Hmmm... ::)

I think we should avoid political events like wars mostly. it is not related to game.

instead it is better to do more random events:

1. flu - negative event - can be regional or worldwide
2. Olympic games - should be proceeded each 2 years (summer/winter) - but countries should be random from limited list of major countries. It also should have both positive (for olympic country) and negative (for other regions) effects.
3. Economic boom/depression. both regional/country/worldwide - should be totally random.

Thanks for that answer.

While I personally think that wars should be included, I'm ready to change ideas if it turns out it's too complicated/dangerous.
The possibilities you list are an option, but it's probably better to make a list of real events first, in order to check:
- what it's possible/impossible to implement
- but also what it's desirable/undesirable to implement

That list would not be a list of things to implement, but a document to work from to judge the options we have.
Would you be willing to help on that?

I'm not in an alliance currently (where is Sky in GW3?) but I welcome more random events to keep things interesting.

Yes, I would include real-life conflicts/trade sanctions/wars.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on January 11, 2018, 11:54:01 AM
Thanks for that answer.

While I personally think that wars should be included, I'm ready to change ideas if it turns out it's too complicated/dangerous.
The possibilities you list are an option, but it's probably better to make a list of real events first, in order to check:
- what it's possible/impossible to implement
- but also what it's desirable/undesirable to implement

That list would not be a list of things to implement, but a document to work from to judge the options we have.
Would you be willing to help on that?

Not all wars are negative passenger/cargo events. See: the amount of pax/cargo flowing into Kabul and Kandahar in the past decade+

Wars are a problem as it can trigger unwanted memories to players who might have been impacted by them.

OTOH, simple embargos or trade wars would be interesting, IMHO. "increasing tensions are closing the border between Algeria and France for 3 weeks, effectively cancelling all planned flights". That one would be a hard one(especially for me playing in ALG). But not wars, please.

I think the idea of listing everything (wars, but also epidemics, sport events, embargoes, natural disasters, eventually the opening of major infrastructures that might reduces aerial traffic, and such other things) is only to have an factual depiction of what happened IRL, not only a guesstimate.

From that list, we could then see what could be desirable, and what would make the game unmanageable and thus is not desirable. From real life to the game, a series of questions would be addressed before any implementation.

For example French-Algerian war's effects IRL:
- globally reducing aerial traffic
- probable increase in cargo (probably handled mostly by the military, but also by civilian airlines)
- effect not the same during the duration of the war (1954-1962), insignificant at the beginning, strong towards the end, but also high traffic at the far end due to people fleeing (Pied noirs and Harkis)

Questions:
- should that apply to France+Algeria or be somewhat random? As otherwise stable countries will be muuuuch more desirable to play in than some places in the Middle East or Africa. Let alone be Vietnam (First Indochina War 1946-1954 + Vietnam War 1955-1975)
- should a tag "decolonization war" have a different effect from a tag "war between 2 or more countries" or "civil war"?
- should the effect be strong or medium?
- should it be linear or with a special pattern? (for example: slightly increasing till reduced/medium effect is reached, then linear for a while, and then a short but harsh effect at the end?)
- etc.

So far, the thinking is rather simple. But it will be in answering those questions that we'll have a tough time. The need to enrich the game by giving it more deepness while keeping it balanced, not making the game unmanageable and really hard to play.

In a way, making a list of all those events will gather both information on real life for a "close to RL" effect if chosen. But if we go another way, it will give us info about the different possible effects, not making just 2 or 3 new events all with the same effect.
It will also give us an idea of the density of events, their localization, their type (relatively to each other). Not "thinking" but "knowing".
To know real life and take inspiration from it in order to make the game more realistic, but not to replicate real life.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 12, 2018, 07:41:50 AM
Wars are a problem as it can trigger unwanted memories to players who might have been impacted by them.

OTOH, simple embargos or trade wars would be interesting, IMHO. "increasing tensions are closing the border between Algeria and France for 3 weeks, effectively cancelling all planned flights". That one would be a hard one(especially for me playing in ALG). But not wars, please.

I second that.