StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I went to pick up Max Payne 2, but the store was out of it, so I got this instead. I must say, I'm very pleased. Overall, it kicks ass, but there are still a few things that I'd like to see in the future:

- Expressways. An intermediate between highways and avenues, expressways should look and function like highways, but allow roads and streets to create intersections with them, rather than onramps.

- Improved automation. I'm a firm believer in the idea that games like these should allow the user to decide how much he wants the computer to do, from everything (or nearly everything), to nothing. For example, I'd like to be able to set the funding on certain buildings at a certain percentage, and then have the computer automatically raise the funding as the need arises, rather than having to constantly check my schools and hospitals, etc. for funding levels.

- AI for the other cities. This would make it easier to develop regions faster. You could choose whether or not a city would be computer-controlled, and what style the mayor would have in the cities you choose to be computer-controlled. Of course, if you want to do everything yourself, you still can, but the option would be there.

- Elevated rail should be able to run along roads. I was under the impression that that was one of the main advantages of elevated rail IRL. Otherwise you'd just make ground-level rail.

- Fix the grid system to allow diagonal placement of stuff. I'm sick and tired of trying to model cities, but running into the problem of diagonally-placed city streets, etc. Sure, roads, rail, and highways can be run diagonal, but things look piss-poor next to them with the little triangles of vacant land. And streets aren't able to go diagonally as it is, so if you need to place diagonal streets, you either have to use roads or settle for crazy windy streets.
What is needed is the ability for all transportation routes to run not only horizontal, vertical, and 45 degrees, but at two other angles as well, say 20 and 60 or so. Also, zones and buildings should run right up to the angled streets. There will be odd-shaped lots now and again, but that's the way it is in real life.
To achieve this, they might alter the grid so that it isn't square, but hexagonal or some other shape. Or maybe do away with the grid entirely; I don't know. What I do know is that it needs fixing.

Those are the only major things I can think of right now, but I'm sure more will come up as I play more. One minor thing I can think of is that schools should have the option of coming with athletic facilities; as it is, I try to put in the various appropriate parks next to my high schools etc. just to make them look good (softball field, soccer field, tennis courts, etc.) But that's really just aesthetic, and not a real problem. And at least they let me manually put them in.

Thought of one more thing: for laying out your city streets, etc., a top-down map would be nice. They wouldn't have to render the whole city in that view, just a simple map for laying out roads. With a non-grid system, you could drag out whatever angle road you wanted in this view.

Of course, you can do all that in the normal view, too, but this would make it just slightly simpler.

To get diagonal roads would require moving to a hex-based system, and that probably would make things a wee bit harder for the programmers rather than having an isometric square-based system.

And if you need to go into "grid" mode, just turn off the graphics for R/C/I zones. It's not perfect, but it works decently.

Expressways that allow intersections aren't

Elevated Rail in Chicago in most places does not run on top of roads, but rather takes up a decent chunk of land. The advantage, of course, is that you don't get traffic isues.

IIRC, New York's elevated rail lines ran right up the middle of major avenues. They also destroyed nearby land values, so there's always a tradeoff.

What I'd like is the ability to run trolley lines. They'd have better capacity and less pollution than buses, be cheaper than subways, and consume less land than railroads. The downside is that they'd increase congestion in the streets in which they operate, cost more to operate than buses, and consume electrical power. Maybe there could be the option of either building a conventional trolley system with all these drawbacks, or a trolley bus system with less capacity than a real trolley but less congestion.

phongn wrote:To get diagonal roads would require moving to a hex-based system, and that probably would make things a wee bit harder for the programmers rather than having an isometric square-based system.

Well, the programmers are just going to have to suck it up and do some work, then, aren't they? I want my diagonal roads, dammit!

Expressways that allow intersections aren't

The hell you say? An expressway most certainly does have intersections. If introduced to the game, it would have either the same or nearly the same capacity as a highway, it would have nearly the same speed, but it would have more congestion, due to the intersections. Expressways are an important aspect of mapping the South Bay here (in case you haven't noticed, I enjoy modelling sim cities after real ones), where the landscape is laced with expressways.

Elevated Rail in Chicago in most places does not run on top of roads, but rather takes up a decent chunk of land. The advantage, of course, is that you don't get traffic isues.

I was thinking of the New York el, which used to run down the middle of streets, at least in some places. Or the el in the games Mafia, or GTA3.

A trolley system would be great too. They could give you different options, such as self-propelled, electric, or cable cars (if only for San Francisco).

Robert Treder wrote:The hell you say? An expressway most certainly does have intersections. If introduced to the game, it would have either the same or nearly the same capacity as a highway, it would have nearly the same speed, but it would have more congestion, due to the intersections. Expressways are an important aspect of mapping the South Bay here (in case you haven't noticed, I enjoy modelling sim cities after real ones), where the landscape is laced with expressways.

Around here an expressway is defined as a road without intersections (using overpass complexes to move traffic around); highways are a superset of expressways and may or may not have lighted intersections.

For the record the expressways you speak of sound exactly like Avenues in the game.

Also of note, the great guys at Simtopolis.com have created a pulgin which largely fixes the diagonal roads issue, along with a whole bunch of other traffic related issues.
http://www.simtropolis.com/modfiles/con ... detail=244

Lastly the Maxis guys wanted to add trolleys to the game along with trams and light rail trains. They would have been a completely different set of transport options (in other words another rail option besides normal rail and subway/elevated).

Oh yes, forget that lastly here's a new one. I think the elevated rial is actually about exactly what I was envisioning, its part of the problem living around DC that I get my impression of a Subway system from DC Metro. Anyway with that as a starting point the linking of e-rails with subway seems to model the system perfetly after DC's metro which uses underground rails in city then out where there is more room goes aboveground, and often as not elevated. Anyway the point is that the rails are aboveground further out to save money, you don't pay as much to have the raisl aboveground but get all the capacity and desireability of a subway system. The tradeoff is that you take up space. I think it works just fine for that purpose.

I've enjoyed both the game itself and the expansion pack, but I say there should be more things, like the ability to build multiple casinos, if you need the money, or want a Las-Vegas-esque city. Perhaps a smaller incinerator would be nice for small cities that don't have a neighbor deal, and/or a $25,000 initial cost plus another grand a month to maintain it. The problem with landfills is that they'll eventually become full over time, and when they're decommisioned, they take a while to decompose.

Diagonal buildings would be great, but I don't think it will be incorporated in SC4. Maybe in Sim City 5, though.

As with any SimCity game, I must know before I look into buying it...

How are the disasters?

I agree with the OP's suggestions; other than the 'other city AI' not being a big necessity for me, and the likely more simple solution to diagonal streets would be to fill in the triangular spaces with triangle grass or concrete plazas. As long as the lot still technically and visually connects to the roda, I'd manage.

You know what I'd like? SKYWALKS. I was greatly impressed with downtown Minneapolis and think that it'd be useful for SC4, if it did something like increase amount of sims that move by foot (but do so through the buildings) and double their walking distance due to indoor comfort.

Just look for two buildings that has a good number of traffic between or past them and plunk down a ~$300 skywalk to get more people to walk instead of drive. They could even utilize parking garages so they can just park near their apartments and then walk a few blocks.

I've kind of found a solution to the expressway issue; I just turn the expressway into an avenue just in the area of the intersection.
And yeah, I guess it's a regional thing, because around here, an expressway is as I described it. It's not an avenue, because it's built like a freeway, and you drive fast on it (you're supposed to go 50-55, but people routinely go 60-70 in most places), but it has intersections at most major streets. In some places, they use onramps, but they're usually straight intersections. They came about around here back in the 60s (may have been the 70s), when the need for increased road transit came up. The proposals were either an expressway system, which would have more congestion and more routes but be cheaper, or an expanded freeway system, which would be faster, but would be more expensive and more disruptive (since you can't cross freeways except with over/underpasses. It was put to a vote, and the expressways won out.
We don't much use the term "highway," or at least, it doesn't have any fixed meaning. There are several very old but very small roads that are called highways around here, simply because of their historical use, and then some of the freeways (that's the term we usually use for the big, interstate, 8-10 lane roads) are called highways sometimes, but it doesn't matter.

Anyhow, there are also some more complicated onramp styles that would make nice additions.

Also, there should be rail over/underpasses.

[quote="Robert Treder"
And yeah, I guess it's a regional thing, because around here, an expressway is as I described it. It's not an avenue, because it's built like a freeway, and you drive fast on it (you're supposed to go 50-55, but people routinely go 60-70 in most places), but it has intersections at most major streets. In some places, they use onramps, but they're usually straight intersections. They came about around here back in the 60s (may have been the 70s),[/quote]

I thought you were refering to the expressways we have here. San Thomas, Montague, Captial, etc. They are a regional thing, but Id go farther than that. They are a Santa Clara County thing. They dont have them up at Maxis HQ in Walnut Creek.

Robert Treder wrote: We don't much use the term "highway," or at least, it doesn't have any fixed meaning. There are several very old but very small roads that are called highways around here, simply because of their historical use, and then some of the freeways (that's the term we usually use for the big, interstate, 8-10 lane roads) are called highways sometimes, but it doesn't matter.

Some of those two lane roads that get called highways are because in the times before the interstate highway system and heavy urbanization they really where highways of a sort. I think your right that we tend to interchange the words highway/freeway around here. Not to mention using the name of the highway/freeway instead. 17, Nimitz, 101, etc.

By the way, after picking up RH last week in the Mall of America, I followed the RH tutorial (particularly on how to raise money and build a large town), went back to my two connected towns I had going before (not really much, just ~3,000 in the residential West Side district, a couple blocks of 'Down Town', and a farming community at the base of the mesa), and spent the last week building it up properly.



So far (counting today, not the time this pic was taken), the total population of Tonberi, the main city on the mesa, itself is at least 115,000, divided among four districts, and there's another 2400 people living in the farming community and the industrial district down at the 'bottom of the hill'. There's also a small hamlet by a lakeside beach and resort to the East of the mesa (not existing at the time of this photo), which is still pretty quiet (under 4500 people), but I assume it'll start getting bloated once I set up my 2nd large city further east and traffic and jobs start passing by the little town on their way to and from Tonberi.

This picture is a few days old, the region population is about 13k under the current total, and it only shows Tonberi and two agricultural/industrial districts connected to and directly supporting Tonberi. I wish I could take an elevation measurement like I could in SC3000.

That's a pretty freakin' cool setup.

Mine is just a haphazard clusterfuck of cities without and real planning, but the region is fairly massive urban sprawl:

Current shot of the transportation grid

And the satellite view.

Super Industryville and the two smaller cities to its east are the only cites where I put some throught into the road network. Everything else is...well, a clusterfuck.

Yes, but a cluster-fuck that' at least 30 times bigger than my place. My setup is actually based off of one of my old SC3000 towns of the same name, except it was probably 30% the size of this one. Hopefully, I'll get a few large cities to feed into it and make up for the wasted space of the hillsides. And surround the base of the mesa with industry, money-making buildings, and low-income commcerce and housing, just because the people on top are more equal than the ones at the bottom.

I mgith need to build a highway system to circle the outside edge of the city, as the traffic between districts is getting pretty heavy (100,000 people basically go into and out of the Downtown quadrant of the mesa each day, as only 11,000 jobs or so are in the other parts of town). I'm just thankful for avenues.