observations and thoughts about 1950 round

[ALFC]

- the inferiority of the material used makes most areas of the globe VERY bad to play versus others
- strategy before round plays a very big role, if you anticipated the impact of the planes before the round, you will be in the top spots, othwise you may find it impossible to recover from initial issues
- there is a large amount of debate about brokers on a very populistic basis, without much merit to reality, since leasing DOESNT make money in the current stages of the game, yet they still do it. even aria and me are still not in the development where leasing planes out gives a better roi than flying them, hence lease right now is VERY expensive or a charity service.
- those who moan most about brokers are those who will benefit most from their services, to put this in perspective, i have over 800m euro worth of planes on normal factory order right now, thats about 50% of the total value of the #1 valued broker, brokers benefit the lower ranks since they CAN NOT serve the volume of the top players.
- i have the feeling that alot of players are getting "frustrated" over results of this round, even if it is still very early, hence i consider it shortsighted. it is not possible to predict that aria and me for example will be able to maintain the lead, given our VERY exposed hubs.

[Armygrognard]

This is only my second age.  Personally, I have no issues with it.  I am certainly off to a slower start, but as you said, that is due partially inferior aircraft, starting in a smaller city (my choice!) and undoubtably some to my inexperience.

I don't know what to say as far as brokers.  I like getting planes when I don't have the immediate cash to buy them, as well as potential for discount.  I'm sure things could be tweaked, but for the most part, I think the whiners oughta pipe down.

[CornField]

And your penchance for .5 flights.

They are the first to suffer when large amounts of competition with the 'one euro less' attitude arrive.

I think most of the people doing the most complaining, had no concept of the history of aircraft travel.  They have always known the A vs B, 320 vs 737, days.  They don't remember a time before two companies with almost identical products going after the same customers.


I'm having more fun this round than the last.  I love the old less capable aircraft.  You have to come up with better route planning, or you get run over much more easily.  I also love the fact, we are seeing aircraft that never made it to commerical service(Lockheed Constitution)  I would love to see some changes made, or a way to institute aircraft like the Pan Am Clippers in......

[Armygrognard]

And your penchance for .5 flights.

They are the first to suffer when large amounts of competition with the 'one euro less' attitude arrive.

Actually, the .5s are making me money.  I used them less often last round, then usually as a way to squeeze the last drop out of an aircraft.  This time, I just don't have the planes to do what I want and as I get more aircraft, I replace the .5 routes with multiple freqs.

I suspect you're right.  People are spoiled by the jets.  It's all about expectations.

[CornField]

And your penchance for .5 flights.

They are the first to suffer when large amounts of competition with the 'one euro less' attitude arrive.

Actually, the .5s are making me money.  I used them less often last round, then usually as a way to squeeze the last drop out of an aircraft.  This time, I just don't have the planes to do what I want and as I get more aircraft, I replace the .5 routes with multiple freqs.

I suspect you're right.  People are spoiled by the jets.  It's all about expectations.

I should have quoted.   That was to ALFC's comment on his exposed hubs and not being able to maintain the top ranking.

[Armygrognard]

You were right then by accident, insofar as I have boo-coo .5s this round.  

[ALFC]

I should have quoted.   That was to ALFC's comment on his exposed hubs and not being able to maintain the top ranking.

i dont think 0.5 are any problem with the 2x0.5 rule, except on longhaul over 4000 miles, where you can not get roundtrips.
0.5 are utterly useless as soon as a second person tries hard to make money aswell, i am usually using 1 or higher frequencies and already big planes in shorthaul because of that:
http://www.airlinemogul.com/airlinemogul/view_airport.php?id=144

[Pepperjack]

I would have started at a different base. I'm slowly recovering and build up is slow.

I hardly have any .5s and I only have ONE .5 per plane.

I hope they figure out a good way to get rid of having multiple .5s on the same plane that aren't base to city to base jumps. or long haul routes where you can only do .5s

[LOT 737-300]

I started from a rather small city. Like I have said, it's slow, but it's working perfectly for me, afterall, you don't grow instantly from a small town as you would from Paris or Hong Kong.. In reguards to slow planes, I think they're ok, once you can afford a M 4-0-4, it'll be almost like owning a ATR 42 from last round, but with less range.

I am disappointed that there isn't a more strict policy on .5s, thus leaving people with 60 .5s by the end of hte 4th "month" and being way up there. In my opinion, and I feel rather strongly about it right now, 2 .5s are reasonable for a plane, anymore than that seems to be a abuse of a bug.

Also, I do view the policy on leasing a bit unreasonable as it shuts those based out of smaller cities out of getting an affordable lease. Perhaps 1% of the value or 2% is more reasonable, but that is just me. Maybe initially, this is reasonable though, but later, I see it as sorta being counterproductive.

But aside from those 2 points, I am very happy with the game, I am also happy that there is other ways to make cash, such as charging for certain things, like food or drinks. And as usual, all the airports and airplane choices help make hte game more fun, and pretty great to learn about different types that have existed through the years too.

[Pacific]

The 10x dumping routes I do are the worst way of using aircraft and get affected by the €1 undercutting the most.  I still find that 0.5s are the most efficient way of using aircraft.  I don't know if I'll stay at the top because although I know what I *should* be doing, I also happen to be a lazy bum chasing deadlines in University.

Picking out the best aircraft has been no more a problem this round compared with the last.  Exactly the same proces, by pouring through and comparing the numbers.

[ALFC]

I
I am disappointed that there isn't a more strict policy on .5s, thus leaving people with 60 .5s by the end of hte 4th "month" and being way up there. In my opinion, and I feel rather strongly about it right now, 2 .5s are reasonable for a plane, anymore than that seems to be a abuse of a bug.

its two 0.5 per ROUTE not per plane.

[TerryWrist]

my problems are the amount of airline passengers in 1950 are not correct


i'm estimating issues when faster bigger airplanes come into play while other airlines are struggling with prop driven craft

[Pacific]

my problems are the amount of airline passengers in 1950 are not correct

i'm estimating issues when faster bigger airplanes come into play while other airlines are struggling with prop driven craft

Biggest plane of the round will probably still be the Lockheed Constituyion until very late in the round when the DC-8s and the largest variants of the 707 comes out.  The 707-020 comes out in 1954, which is actually the Boeing 720, smaller than a Constitution with a range of approx 3900 statute miles only.

Passenger numbers are in fact a zillion times larger than it would be in 1950, since we are using very recent data on airports.  We had 777-300ERs with 550 seats last round and since I wasn't based in Asia, I didn't see the orgyfest there.  The #1, #2 and #4 carriers last round were Asian so despite the mind-boggling amount of overcapacity, one can still prevail.

[LOT 737-300]

I
I am disappointed that there isn't a more strict policy on .5s, thus leaving people with 60 .5s by the end of hte 4th "month" and being way up there. In my opinion, and I feel rather strongly about it right now, 2 .5s are reasonable for a plane, anymore than that seems to be a abuse of a bug.

its two 0.5 per ROUTE not per plane.

Yes, I know the rule for 2 .5s per route, I was saying that I feel that 2 .5s per plane in my opinion is a very reasonable solution, at least in the short term.

my problems are the amount of airline passengers in 1950 are not correct


i'm estimating issues when faster bigger airplanes come into play while other airlines are struggling with prop driven craft

I can see why the numbers are like this though. A lot of these airports were not in existance too in the early 1950s, but there were not as many airlines then as there are now. In other words, using 1950 pax numbers would really limit the majority of the players and let the game be playable for only 200 airlines, where the current set up can probebly allow upwards to 3500. I don't think anyone would like to see the same issues that plauge a certain other game in regards to playablity.

[Pacific]

In terms of "playability", the €1 undercutting is the biggest pain in the backside in my opinion.  While it may reflect reality, it also increases the amount of resetting people have to do and in my opinion, resetting 20+ routes two to three times a day, every time is not exactly the most "playable".

I got told not to reset a route unless it dips below 85% loadfactor.  If my loadfactor is at 39% @ €91 and 100% at €90, I don't really have much choice.

If only n00bs were a little smarter like the "blue" game and pulled out of routes...