| Christos | Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 10:56 am 
Since I'm in a mood for suggestions, there's another thing that's been bugging me. Air Transport corporations cannot be moved. This doesn't make sense. If you decide to move it to another player controlled country, isn't it obvious that this player also gives permission to build a new airport? What's even more ridiculous is that you can't even move the corp if the President is bleeding you dry in taxation. If you purchase (as I have) an air transport corp via the stock market in a CCC that later becomes player controlled, the President can raise taxes to 75% and bleed you dry and you cannot move the corp even then!!! Nor can you close it down without paying compensation. I say this needs to be corrected dear GMs! |
| Volvo | Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 06:35 am
Hi, Christos. Nice to see you.
I'm totally agree with you! |
| Rage Fury | Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 08:00 am
+1 |
| Borg Queen | Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 10:20 am
+1 |
| Jack | Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 02:41 pm
+1 |
| maclean | Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 01:02 am
+1 |
| xLOSO | Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 06:50 am
+6 |
| Andy | Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 05:03 pm
+1
but there is a major difficulty.
These corporations are linked with an airport.
each one of them has in fact an airport and moving them means you need to move an airport.
Moving a corporation is not an easy thing to grasp, mainly when we have these huge corporations with 250 to 300 k workers.
moving an airport is even less realistic.
leaving realism aside, completing this feature will be a larger investment than the worth of it.
we rather fix and improve other features than delve into this.
so we agree, but as we stand now, with our current capacity, we will let it wait for a while. |
| Perival Lovacore | Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 07:32 pm
On another note, how about a tourism industry, that gets a bump in quality if the country has an airport/air transport company....and if its a coastal country, even more of a bump...maybe require some additional infrastructure costs, or a company that produces 'Hotels and Resorts', similar to say, Hospitals...yeah.
I know, that's not likely to get a high priority, but its a thought....
PS I figured Vacation companies were more like travel agencies..but I may be wrong there. |
| Andy | Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 04:28 pm
This is a good suggestion.
There is an issue on how to do this.
If building air transport corporations as a way to boost it, we will have so many, they will bankrupt.
Tourism industry should be added, and may require some features in the country that will make the country attractive for tourists.
we need more than corporations. we need sites, landmarks, hotels etc. and an investment in the country to attract tourists.
we will look at how this can be started. |
| Rage Fury | Thursday, September 25, 2014 - 08:45 pm
Andy, if we cannot move them, then how about eliminating compensation for closing corps when the taxes exceed a certain percentage? |
| Andy | Friday, September 26, 2014 - 09:26 pm
I will look into it.
what is the compensation when you close?
are you sure there is any? |
| hymy | Friday, September 26, 2014 - 10:46 pm
Geez, The simplest solution is to tell the new president to buy the corp from you. Why does it need to be so complicated. |
| Volvo | Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 03:19 am
Andy: in real life, aviation industry works in this form: a country make an airport, then the airlines use the terminals.
KLM use Schipol, the airline doesn't make EHAM (Schipol).
I propose a form that the Government of the country build the airport, then CEOs can open a air transport corporation in that country. If the CEO leave the air transport corporation, the airport can remain in the country as an asset, just like the Space centers works.
Cheers! |
| Perival Lovacore | Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 04:54 am
Andy,
Thanks for taking the tourism idea seriously, and I totally see your point on making it more than just the airport.
We could have a whole class of corps that are designed to build the tourism sector. Besides just Hotel & Resort Corps, we could have Marina Corps, Bar & Nightclub Corps, Casino Corps, and even Fine Dining Corps (Maybe even an upgrade to Cattle farms and Spice corps to make them "Restaurant Quality"). Maybe you could model it on the military system? Instead of Weapon Upgrades, make them Food Quality Upgrades.
You could also model Tourist Districts on the Military Bases system. Buy the Tourist District (Base) and add Hotels, Restaurants and Attractions, like you add Army, Navy and Air with Brigades, Divisions and Battalions representing different sizes and quality from a Super-Bellagio to a road side Motel-6.
Wow, now I'm excited about it.... adds a whole different level of competition. |
| Andy | Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 11:52 am
I agree that the airport link to the air transport corporation was not a great choice in the first place but it had reasons. It is a major change if we want to do it differently.
On the other hand, adding corporations that are related to vacation (we have one), and going out, free time, etc. is easier.
we are planning some new types of corporations and these could be part of them.
If airports are hard linked to one of the only two corporations in that domain, it is a problem.
If we have 5 more types of corporations in that same part of the game, the problem becomes much smaller.
The game news in the coming weeks will start describing the new products and services we intend to add to Simcountry. |
| Perival Lovacore | Saturday, September 27, 2014 - 07:03 pm
Wow, really excited. |
| Rage Fury | Sunday, September 28, 2014 - 08:20 pm
Sorry Andy, I presently don't have a Corporation in such a High Tax country to test with. I based my question on what Christos stated in the OP. Though I do have Air Transport Corporations in Free countries and do not relish the thought of a 75% tax jerk moving in and not being able to do much about it. I certainly don't want to pay them a fee, that would add insult to injury...
Perhaps Christos has current info on it? |
| levonly_5 | Monday, September 29, 2014 - 12:00 am
i like theses ideas then it will be very realistic since alot of countries do that in real even 3 world 2 world and 1 world countries |
| Christos | Monday, September 29, 2014 - 01:09 pm
Well, for example my corporation NAI Public CCC Air Trans in the United Kingdom of Torason in LU is stuck in a 50% tax country and I can't do anything about it. In the past I did have air trans corps in 75% countries as well, which I chose to shut down and pay for. |
| levonly_5 | Monday, September 29, 2014 - 07:54 pm
sorry to hear that and i meant about the tourism look at dubia they got a lot of tourism |
| evader23 | Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 06:30 am
just ran into that myself |
| marshal.ney | Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 09:32 am
From Volvo's post above:
Andy: in real life, aviation industry works in this form: a country make an airport, then the airlines use the terminals.
KLM use Schipol, the airline doesn't make EHAM (Schipol).
I propose a form that the Government of the country build the airport, then CEOs can open a air transport corporation in that country. If the CEO leave the air transport corporation, the airport can remain in the country as an asset, just like the Space centers works.
+1 |
| Madoff | Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 04:57 pm
I don't see that there is any problem requiring a solution. An air transport corp is the holding company for an airport. It's not realistic for an airport to be moved from one country to another.
As an alternative, there is already a feature for changing the corp type to produce a different product. The idea behind that is that the holding company can get out of the airport business and into a different industry. That restructuring has a one-time cost of 1 gold coin. I believe the airport would stay in the country, presumably with the government serving as its new operator.
That means that half of what Volvo suggested is already implemented. Business is risky. Maybe opening or buying an air transport corp is a big risk. But that problem isn't so big that it requires any additional coding. |
| evader23 | Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 11:59 pm
@hyny sometimes pres can't or won't. SOme presidents just like screwing with the CEO's which I don't get CEO's are helpful to a country |
| marshal.ney | Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 02:34 am
"I believe the airport would stay in the country, presumably with the government serving as its new operator." From Madoff.
Worth testing, as the Air Transport Corp requires the airport, instead of a production plant. Retooling product output might destroy or convert it.
"sometimes pres can't or won't. SOme presidents just like screwing with the CEO's which I don't get CEO's are helpful to a country." From Evader23.
Not all players make rational decisions. :P Never expect them too, and you'll always be pleasantly surprised, and never disappointed.
Aries has a couple of threads for revitalizing the game for the war players. Be nice to see some of the features suggested above implemented to revitalize the game for peaceful player types. |
| CrackerJack | Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 04:54 pm
Madoff has it right. It's not a big deal. A.T. has sometimes generated Huge profits. Risky for a CEO? So what? The programmers have bigger probs. |
| marshal.ney | Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 11:43 pm
Yes. But I'm a CEO, not a programmer. Our priorities could be a bit different. :P |
