I'm wondering if Soviet-based airlines should get a subsidy to fleet commonality almost how currently there is a 20% subsidy to Soviet aircraft fuel and purchase.
I say this because for players trying to play historically and authentically, it's very hard to maintain fleet commonality as the Soviets historically allocated aircraft production to whichever design Bureau had capacity, and didn't seem to have a keen interest in fleet commonality, whereas market competition among western airlines made fleet commonality an imperative.
The designated replacement for the Il-14 (Ilyushin) in real life was the Yak-40 (Yakolev). The designated replacement for the TU-134 (Tupolev), was the Yak-42 (Yakolev).
So players trying to play Soviet are forced to hop between multiple manufacturers across time. In the game world for example in the 1970's, a player who wants to have a the full Gambit from local, regional, and international routes would have to operate a Yak-40, TU-134/154, and Il-62......a minimum of 3 fleet types required.
Just that they are manufactured in the same country/bloc, doesn't make them any more common in terms of maintenance or training (which is the point of Fleet Commonality feature) ... So no.
My point isn't that because the different design bureaus all belong to the Soviet union they have that in common and so should have a reduced fleet commonality malus.
My point, is that Soviet authorities used a bidding system and sometimes selected completely different design bureaus for successors (TU-134 -> Yak-42, TU-114 -> IL-62). Despite being different design bureaus, Soviet authorities may have enforced fleet commonality via design specifications in the bid process. Whereas in the west there was no incentive for aircraft from different manufacturers to have cross-manufacturer commonality. In the west design success was determined by market success, in the Soviet union it was likely more a matter of whether a design met the bid specifications.
At the moment the game treats different Soviet design bureaus the same way it treats western companies for purposes of commonality, when it's the design specifications of the bids issued by the Soviet authorities that likely would have guided mechanical or operational commonality between aircraft regardless of if from the different design bureaus (for example perhaps they a instructed different design bureaus to use a common braking system for different aircraft to save costs).
Quote from: Vanquo on November 06, 2025, 02:17:02 AMSoviet authorities may have enforced fleet commonality
I think the "MAY" work is important. You're advocating for a change based on a hunch these planes deserve a commonality bonus of some kind. I would suggest it's the responsibility of the OP to present evidence the entirity of the different Soviet commercial fleet justify a AWS commonality bonus. Ie that pilots could fly different types on the same rating, that maintenance crews could operate on different types as they were similar to maintain. I don't have a dog in this fight, but think this is the way forward.
Yeah but not commonality bonus, just less of a malus if we're assuming that there's a state subsidy (which there is in game for fuel and aircraft purchase price).