Why the fleet commonality cost is restricted to 3 types per company?

[qunow]

I am currently playing my second game in AWS, which is the long haul challenge world after my first game in beginner world. In long haul challenge world, I am currently operating 3 fleet type, namely 300/310 for relatively short haul route with low demand, 330/340 for routes out of 310's reach and higher demand, and 777 with 77L for routes longer than 9000nm, 773/77W for high demand route within their reach.

Now the problem is, if I want to upgrade my fleet, for instance move from 310 to 787, then it would inevitably create fourth fleet type in my company and increase the fleet commonality cost by quite a bit. And as aircraft delivery schedule to single company is at a rate of about one per month and it seems like one can only order up to 3 second hand aircraft in an in-game week, aircraft availability on second hand market is also restricted, if I am to do a fleet change then it would give my company a relatively long period of time extra commonality cost?

And that is just about my company in Long Haul Challenge world, where there are only very large aircrafts. I would imagine for a company in regular world, they would have to operate more aircraft types to cover most of the market, at least one of each from small, medium, large, and very large aircraft category? And then when airlines are doing fleet change they would have more fleet type than that?

So why is the fleet commonality cost limited to only 3 fleet types per company? If you look at real life airlines, most of them operates far more different types than 3. For instance, LH and its regional lines operate 380, 747, 350, 330/340, 737, 320, ERJ and CRJ, a total of six different types. UA operate 320, 737, 747, 757/767, 777, 787, which is again six types, and that already excluded their ouotsourced regional fleet and they are adding another type, the 350, into their fleet next year. Even some of those airlines that operate widebody only fleet, like SQ, still have 330/350/380/777 which is four types and they also have 787 on order. Even airlines known for its fleet simplicity, like EK, also have not just the well known 380 and 777, but also 320s in its executive arm and 747F in its cargo arm, and that is not counting those 330 it recently rertired. So this does not sounds like reasonable to limit airline fleet type to only 3, especially from the aspect of view of simulating real life airlines?

[MuzhikRB]

because of game play balance.

[schro]

It is a way to make players play more strategically, period. There's not much skill in going out and grabbing every plane with wings (something very common during a game start) and dropping them on routes. You can always chose to use more than 3 fleet types and you can still make money with it (less the larger your airline gets), but that's a trade you have to make. Many folks will go to 4 types during a transition.

Now, as far as  A300/310 vs 330/340, there's a ton of overlap there. Your next move if you want to keep 3 types is replace the 300/310 group with more 330/340.

[bdnascar3]

Remember that this is a game, not real life, so compromises have been made to ensure fair and even game play for everyone.

[qunow]

Now, as far as  A300/310 vs 330/340, there's a ton of overlap there. Your next move if you want to keep 3 types is replace the 300/310 group with more 330/340.

Routes I am currently flying the 310 to only have the demand of about as much as 320 (demand around 170-220) so it seems too large to replace them with 320. The reason why 320 is not used instead is just because of the game is configured with no narrow bodies.

[gazzz0x2z]

I agree with others. In current GW3, I've got already 592 planes after 8 years of play, and I'm dominant in several airports. My current fleet groups are 737classics, 737NGs, and 330s. If it was easy to add a fourth fleet group, the smaller players trying to survive in my fishing zone with Q400s would all be flooded with ERJ145s, and eradicated by myself. But thanks to the 3 fleet rules, I cannot do that. I'd be already in monopoly in CDG and ALC with it. I am not, and 3 opponents in those 2 bases are likely to survive for quite a long time(bad luck for the company that attacked me head-on on Long Haul - what was the owner thinking about? I don't even need to lower my prices on those lines to see him die...)

It makes the game more interesting, in fact, you have to focus on a two well-chosen niches. The 2 niches I've chose for CDG(Single-aisle aircraft and long haul) are kickass already enough, but forces me to leave some place in smaller niches. I'ts frustrating to leave all this demand untapped, free for newcomers to exist, but it's mandatory for the game to keep an interest. If not, you'd just have to connect more often than others to the game, flood, and win. No strategical decisions, no tough choices to make, just plain spamming. Bleh. I'm not paying for an idle game. I'm paying for interesting challenges.

That company with Q400 in ALC is a very interesting challenge to me, reducing my profitability, and spread ou cleverly enough to be hard to attack. I can't really kill him - but he can't kill me either, bewause we are both excellent players, fishing in different zones, with only some limited overlap where we fight(and I don't win, by far). If the 4th fleet group was not a penalty, I would not have such an interesting and subtle challenge.

For the A310 : on routes without opposition, you can make good money even with a small oversupply. I'm making some money with 737-500(114 seats) on 80-demand routes, assuming there is no opposition. My load factor is crappy, but I'm still overpricing the route, as it makes better money to be 65% full at 220$ than 80% full at 150$. Not only your income is better, you also have less expenses at the airport. Of course, it's not as juicy as the really good routes, but it's still good. Another fun point of the game is that you have to fill less-than-perfect routes. I've got quite a lot of perfect routes, CDG is a wonderful airport for that, but I have also several less-than-perfect routes, still filled to avoid others being tempted to go there, and also as they still make some money. Not as much as the cash cows, but still. And it's always a strategic question, once you've done all the obvious moves : what not-so-obvious move would be the best use of my resources right now? Filling 3 75-demand, 500NM destinations with a 737-500? Buying a 737-700 to make a 130-demand transatlantic flight? Or taking an A330 for this 3600-NM route well filled by a company that looks vulnerable, at the risk of seeing the company survive? None of those options is obvious, all are dangerous and vulnerable. Still, if I don't move, others will, and eat the market. So better chose one. And choose wisely. As Sid Meier said : a good game is made of interesting choices.

[schro]

Routes I am currently flying the 310 to only have the demand of about as much as 320 (demand around 170-220) so it seems too large to replace them with 320. The reason why 320 is not used instead is just because of the game is configured with no narrow bodies.

Or, the other plot twist: examine the difference in operating costs between the A310 and A330. I suspect your conclusion will be that the trip costs are very similar, so you basically get 100 extra seats on the plane for free.

[gazzz0x2z]

Or, the other plot twist: examine the difference in operating costs between the A310 and A330. I suspect your conclusion will be that the trip costs are very similar, so you basically get 100 extra seats on the plane for free.

And there is a trap : as A310's range is inferior to A330's, the fleet drinking is not calculates for the same distances. In similar distances, the apparent small advantage of the A310 vanishes. And there is another trap : the A310 is slower, and the drinking is shown per hour, not per NM..... I would not be surprised, on some 3500+NM routes, to see the A310 drink a little bit more fuel, actually. Probably compensated by the inferior weight, and therefore the route fees, but still.

The only real difference is buying/leasing cost. I have no clue in the LH challenge, but in GW3, an A310 costs half of a A330. If you are leasing, it's not a negligible difference. If you are buying, it's not that much. And, as you say, for 100 extra seats. Prepares the future. As soon as you can afford the transition, it's really worth it.

[qunow]

Or, the other plot twist: examine the difference in operating costs between the A310 and A330. I suspect your conclusion will be that the trip costs are very similar, so you basically get 100 extra seats on the plane for free.

And there is a trap : as A310's range is inferior to A330's, the fleet drinking is not calculates for the same distances. In similar distances, the apparent small advantage of the A310 vanishes. And there is another trap : the A310 is slower, and the drinking is shown per hour, not per NM..... I would not be surprised, on some 3500+NM routes, to see the A310 drink a little bit more fuel, actually. Probably compensated by the inferior weight, and therefore the route fees, but still.

The only real difference is buying/leasing cost. I have no clue in the LH challenge, but in GW3, an A310 costs half of a A330. If you are leasing, it's not a negligible difference. If you are buying, it's not that much. And, as you say, for 100 extra seats. Prepares the future. As soon as you can afford the transition, it's really worth it.

Except it only cost about 300-400k a month to lease an A300/310 while it can cost me north of 1M a month to lease an A330 in some cases.... although 333 with less range are available slightly cheaper and they also have enough range to cover 310's routess... but then the additional turnaround time....

[schro]

Except it only cost about 300-400k a month to lease an A300/310 while it can cost me north of 1M a month to lease an A330 in some cases.... although 333 with less range are available slightly cheaper and they also have enough range to cover 310's routess... but then the additional turnaround time....

Which is an amount that will nearly be paid for by the reduction in operating costs. Additionally, even if operating costs didn't fully cover the difference, the savings from not using a 4th fleet type would more than cover it.

Circling back to the start of this thread - the game has some mechanisms that do not necessarily match real life that were deliberately implemented to require the players to make a strategic choice which often contains a compromise. We've pointed out how we approach these strategic choices - enjoy them if you'd like :-)

[Amelie090904]

And there is a trap : as A310's range is inferior to A330's, the fleet drinking is not calculates for the same distances. In similar distances, the apparent small advantage of the A310 vanishes. And there is another trap : the A310 is slower, and the drinking is shown per hour, not per NM..... I would not be surprised, on some 3500+NM routes, to see the A310 drink a little bit more fuel, actually. Probably compensated by the inferior weight, and therefore the route fees, but still.

The only real difference is buying/leasing cost. I have no clue in the LH challenge, but in GW3, an A310 costs half of a A330. If you are leasing, it's not a negligible difference. If you are buying, it's not that much. And, as you say, for 100 extra seats. Prepares the future. As soon as you can afford the transition, it's really worth it.

Good points. I am also playing the LH challenge and have currently more than 400 A310 flying around and another 85 A330/A340 (80 more are ordered). The biggest advantage of the A310 is the price (I leased the oldest cheapest versions for as low as 200k a month to max 450k a month) while they make more than a million profit per WEEK. Yes, speed is not ideal. But the rather quick turnaround time compensates that. My A310 only need 115min while A330/A340 need 150 min. This advantage makes the A300 even more interesting given the ~300 seats with 115min turnaround time. No other aircraft of that size (764, A330/A340) can do that. And the price is especially important for the game word beginning to expand really quick.

I don't really see the advantage of more modern aircraft in comparison with the A310 (as long as you get them cheap). I am actually killing my competitors with my stone age A310 (219 seats). I had a competitor in Lisbon who used A380 to cover routes to Latin America (mainly Brazil). Let's say 1000-1200 demand. He had 1-2 A380 there covering it all. I placed 4-5 A310 on these routes. Guess who went bankrupt yesterday.

Only problem? There are almost no A310 left anymore and no chance to order them new. I am also using the 767-200 which has the exact same capacity and slightly less range. But sill good enough. 767-200ER cannot be ordered. So not too many options for demand of 200-230. But with A300/A310, A330/A340 and 767 I am one of the major airlines in this gw and I think I have not done too many mistakes with my "exotic" fleet choice.

[Talentz]

Good points. I am also playing the LH challenge and have currently more than 400 A310 flying around and another 85 A330/A340 (80 more are ordered). The biggest advantage of the A310 is the price (I leased the oldest cheapest versions for as low as 200k a month to max 450k a month) while they make more than a million profit per WEEK. Yes, speed is not ideal. But the rather quick turnaround time compensates that. My A310 only need 115min while A330/A340 need 150 min. This advantage makes the A300 even more interesting given the ~300 seats with 115min turnaround time. No other aircraft of that size (764, A330/A340) can do that. And the price is especially important for the game word beginning to expand really quick.

I don't really see the advantage of more modern aircraft in comparison with the A310 (as long as you get them cheap). I am actually killing my competitors with my stone age A310 (219 seats). I had a competitor in Lisbon who used A380 to cover routes to Latin America (mainly Brazil). Let's say 1000-1200 demand. He had 1-2 A380 there covering it all. I placed 4-5 A310 on these routes. Guess who went bankrupt yesterday.

Only problem? There are almost no A310 left anymore and no chance to order them new. I am also using the 767-200 which has the exact same capacity and slightly less range. But sill good enough. 767-200ER cannot be ordered. So not too many options for demand of 200-230. But with A300/A310, A330/A340 and 767 I am one of the major airlines in this gw and I think I have not done too many mistakes with my "exotic" fleet choice.

While I agree with your success and how it is achieved, I do feel the need to point out that the 787 family renders the A310/300 obsolete in almost every fashion. It also puts the A330/340 family on notice as well. The leep in capability moving to the next gen LH aircraft is really on display here in this GW.

The 783/788 can easily replace your A300/310 fleet and provide a substantial decease in operating costs. With 783s starting at 36m on the UM, you can rapidly phase out the entire class for near what you would pay for an A300/310.

You should really look into it and crunch the numbers. Its really a leep forward in operations.


Talentz

[Amelie090904]

To be honest I have not had a look at the 787 yet. I checked the used market and the prices are actually really good. Problem is the range, though. I won't get too far with 3250NM. That's even less than the A300. I concentrate on Transatlantic flights and there would only be a limited number of routes that would be possible to fly with the 787-3 (mainly from Newark to UK). Otherwise not really an option. Give it a range of 4000NM and it'd be a really nice alternative.

The 787-8 or 787-9 again are slightly too big for these routes. In that case I can stick to my A330-800 or 767-400 and don't need a new fleet type. The A330-800 also has a better range, but is a bit slower, needs more staff, and has less capacity. So actually the 787-8 is better if it wasn't for the 4th fleet type in a game world that will only last a few more years. Does not make much sense work-wise. If it was in another long lasting game world...it would be at least considered.

In short: I'll stick with my A300/A310 to the end. Some of them will be older than 30 years when the game world ends. I might be able to replace a few of them with brandnew 767-200, 767-400 oder A330-800 (if I fulfilled every possible demand or when I reach the "maximum aircraft outside HQ limit"). The very same strategy helped me get the 3rd final position in the North American Challenge where I used stone age 737-200 and 737-300. Not the most proficient aircrafts ever, but readily available and cheap. Once there is sufficient capacity, you can still change them to newer aircraft types.

[qunow]

because of game play balance.

actually, why not just let players outcompete others? Each AWS game would only last up to a year so that won't cause much problem?

[gazzz0x2z]

actually, why not just let players outcompete others? Each AWS game would only last up to a year so that won't cause much problem?

Because beginners already have tough time surviving. I'm now a seasoned veteran, and I can crush most opponents if I'm given unlimited rights. The "planes outside HQ" limit and the 3 fleet groups limit(which becomes harsher when you grow, by the way, it's far from evil when you have 80 planes) are tools dedicated to protect players as I was from players as I am right now.

I'm mentoring new(or not that new) players in most GWs I'm not playing in. One of their problems is that they do not assess properly the danger level of the big boys. They already are endangered by the current level of power we can reach, if those 2 limits were lifted, we'd make life just impossible to them. And the game would lose a lot of players. It would then lose a lot of interest, and getting bored, the big boys would leave, too. Game over. I don't like the idea. At all.

[JumboShrimp]

The cost of the > 3rd fleet scales with your fleet size (number of aircraft you are flying).  It is not really noticeable under 200 aircraft, still manageable at 300-400 aircraft.

So if you got to the point operating > 500 aircraft, you probably know a thing or two about the game, so at this point, the system starts to enforce some strategic planning in your fleet selection (limiting you to 3) and also slows down your growth (limited by aircraft delivery rate from fewer production lines).  It's all to maintain some balance in the game.

[Spike2454]

I agree with others. In current GW3, I've got already 592 planes after 8 years of play, and I'm dominant in several airports. My current fleet groups are 737classics, 737NGs, and 330s. If it was easy to add a fourth fleet group, the smaller players trying to survive in my fishing zone with Q400s would all be flooded with ERJ145s, and eradicated by myself. But thanks to the 3 fleet rules, I cannot do that. I'd be already in monopoly in CDG and ALC with it. I am not, and 3 opponents in those 2 bases are likely to survive for quite a long time(bad luck for the company that attacked me head-on on Long Haul - what was the owner thinking about? I don't even need to lower my prices on those lines to see him die...)

It makes the game more interesting, in fact, you have to focus on a two well-chosen niches. The 2 niches I've chose for CDG(Single-aisle aircraft and long haul) are kickass already enough, but forces me to leave some place in smaller niches. I'ts frustrating to leave all this demand untapped, free for newcomers to exist, but it's mandatory for the game to keep an interest. If not, you'd just have to connect more often than others to the game, flood, and win. No strategical decisions, no tough choices to make, just plain spamming. Bleh. I'm not paying for an idle game. I'm paying for interesting challenges.

That company with Q400 in ALC is a very interesting challenge to me, reducing my profitability, and spread ou cleverly enough to be hard to attack. I can't really kill him - but he can't kill me either, bewause we are both excellent players, fishing in different zones, with only some limited overlap where we fight(and I don't win, by far). If the 4th fleet group was not a penalty, I would not have such an interesting and subtle challenge.

For the A310 : on routes without opposition, you can make good money even with a small oversupply. I'm making some money with 737-500(114 seats) on 80-demand routes, assuming there is no opposition. My load factor is crappy, but I'm still overpricing the route, as it makes better money to be 65% full at 220$ than 80% full at 150$. Not only your income is better, you also have less expenses at the airport. Of course, it's not as juicy as the really good routes, but it's still good. Another fun point of the game is that you have to fill less-than-perfect routes. I've got quite a lot of perfect routes, CDG is a wonderful airport for that, but I have also several less-than-perfect routes, still filled to avoid others being tempted to go there, and also as they still make some money. Not as much as the cash cows, but still. And it's always a strategic question, once you've done all the obvious moves : what not-so-obvious move would be the best use of my resources right now? Filling 3 75-demand, 500NM destinations with a 737-500? Buying a 737-700 to make a 130-demand transatlantic flight? Or taking an A330 for this 3600-NM route well filled by a company that looks vulnerable, at the risk of seeing the company survive? None of those options is obvious, all are dangerous and vulnerable. Still, if I don't move, others will, and eat the market. So better chose one. And choose wisely. As Sid Meier said : a good game is made of interesting choices.

This comment right here is probably the best comment I have read so far on these forums. I have been going through all the forums reading random threads trying to learn the game and also trying to get reasons to pay to play. This comment shows that the game devs have thought about the fact that this game thrives with new players as older players will eventually move on. Limiting people to 3 types gives smaller people like me and the other people this guy/girl mentioned a chance to grow. Too often have I have a game to have been killed-flooded out or other things like that. Too often in the first few days I have been bullied out of the game because of the more experienced players taking advantage of the newer people.