Evening, I'm trying to work a number of things out for a strategy game, one of which is something that could cause the player to keep investing into a city. Take something like simcity, or perhaps something a little more specific in gameplay terms like Caesar IV. I admit, I haven't played and analysed SimCity to a large degree although it seems similar to Ceasar (trade objectives aside) in the respect that you could build a small community with the money given and once that is inhabited and bringing in a stable albeit small income, you are eventually able to replicate that community and gain the same results before eventually moving back to the first community and upgrading it. The thing is, in both SimCity, Caesar and possibly other city building games, once the city is up and running what is left for the player to invest in - and for what purpose other than for sake of change. A couple of things I've thought about: 1) A maintenance cost: This could be a set amount based on the buildings/population/any other factors, that is automatically deducted from the player at a given time interval. The issue with this though is that such a cost seems a little bit too convenient; also the player could still leave his PC safe in the knowledge that things will keep running smoothly. 2) Investing in the latest technology: While the citizens would eventually demand the latest technology, that too has a ceiling (i.e. the tech tree). I'm looking for something that would cause the player to have to keep on top of the city so that things couldn't be built and left and something that would require a regular investment both in monetary terms and time to keep the game evolving. I don't suppose anybody here has some nice ideas they'd be willing to share? Thanks, NB

Sim City does not allow you to build a second city with money from the first or otherwise transfer money from one city to another. Instead you can expand the sectors of your city to fill its map, make aesthetic or convenience improvements via landscaping, and the major costs are technology upgrading, expansion of zoning and infrastructure such as water and power sources and grids and transportation, also police and fire prevention, health care and education. Another expense is repair of damage from disasters if the player has them enabled. There are rewards for population size and population happiness. The game basically ended when you hit the top of a tech tree. Theoretically a dramatic end result would happen if you built enough arcologies, but that was more of an easter egg than a real ending.

The challenge from Sim City style games comes from managing things like resources, economy, traffic, dealing with crime, fire, placating citizens, etc.

The challenge is the requirements set by the "mission". Such as "Get a population of X" etc.

I'm on a mission in Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom (the latest in the 2D Caesar/Pharaoh series) where it asks for a huge population, but with the way I've been laying out my towns I can't get anywhere near the figure, so I'll have to design a new way.

Hi all,

Many thanks for the responses.

Quote:

Sim City does not allow you to build a second city with money from the first or otherwise transfer money from one city to another...

Hi sunandshadow. Yes I'm aware of unable to transfer resources between cities, although when I said "community", perhaps I could have been a little clearer. I was inferring the idea of creating a small zone with the required things to keep it going then once working you can expand onto the next one etc.

Quote:

...and the major costs are technology upgrading, expansion of zoning and infrastructure such as water and power sources and grids and transportation, also police and fire prevention, health care and education.

Yes, although as I mentioned in the original list, these are nothing more than one-off costs. Once they're up and running there's very little to do after that.

Quote:

The game basically ended when you hit the top of a tech tree.

Precisely!!! That's my issue - I'm looking for something that would keep the player involved in the citys upkeep, but that's what I'm unsure about. Like I said, it could be something like a maintenance cost, but that's hardly something that invokes player involvement to any degree.

Quote:

The challenge from Sim City style games comes from managing things like resources, economy, traffic, dealing with crime, fire, placating citizens, etc.

Hi Brent, yes that is true but as sunandshadow put it:

Quote:

The game basically ended when you hit the top of a tech tree.

As with my reply above, once it is up and running there is very little to nothing left requiring player intervention.

Quote:

The challenge is the requirements set by the "mission". Such as "Get a population of X" etc.

Hi Stardog. Rather than base the challenge on missions, what I'm looking for is something that would esentially let the player play in sandbox mode, but once things were up and running would NOT be able to simply leave the city to its own devices.

Thanks.
NB

Disasters overload: make power plants blow up; let schools go on strike; make satellites drop from the sky; include fires-galore; etc.


Implement opportunities. Make moments where certain facilities are cheaper ("nuclear power isn't fully tested yet, but super cheap until then!"; "national medical scheme makes all new hospitals half price for the next month!"), and even implement locational opportunities, like where geysers allow environmentally friendly power planets to be built on them.


But, also.... *drum role* make there a way to lose the game besides bankruptcy. Make it so that the player could lose their position as lead of the town/city. Make it so that every so often an election happens, or, make a continuous risk that the player could lose. If going with the periodic elections, then you could make it so that if they lose (but not by much), the AI takes over for one term, the game fast forwards in time, and the new leader makes a mess and you get back into position and have to clean up the city (if the player loses the election by a lot though their character flees the city in shame and he/she loses for good).

Regarding election mechanics, well the population could want certain things, and the player will have to change the city to keep the populous happy, and the player would have to beat the competitors' population-favour.


The thing about these games is that the difficulty lies in starting up the city. No additional difficulty is burdened upon the player once the city is up and ruining. Implement problems which are attracted to flourishing cities (more election competitors; territorial wars; tax-credit cuts; aliens; whatever). This will keep the player on their toes.


Best of luck.

This is something that bugs me a lot. I love these types of games, but they suffer the end game blahs that are all too common with open ended games. It seems that the only choice is to get bigger until you hit the walls of the level, in which case its either a management headache to continue or pointless otherwise.

What I think you really need are challenge waves/cycles that are firmly a part of the game but which have greater impact the more powerful you become. The idea is akin to disasters, but disasters fail (and are turned off/rejected) because they fall outside the expected scope of city operations. Players don't see them as a part of the challenge of building a better city.

Economics, however, and crime are considered a part of city operations, but in the builders I've played these are without fail treated as linear elements. You build more and more and the economy gets better and crime decreases.

What I've often thought should happen is that, just as in life, elements like the economy and crime should be in a state of flux with their effects peaking and falling at different times. This gives even the perfect city something to contend with. If there are enough waves and enough of a spread between when their effects hit you could have very challenging and dynamic gameplay because the game would ultimately revolve around the strategies for optimizing / combating the waves.

I think you'd have to break the city into a fair number of believable, cyclical elements, though and reason out the gameplay for addressing each. Crime and economy could have multiple aspects (economic sectors, corruption vs. crime based around opportunistic behavior, etc.) I'm also a big fan of random opportunities which require resource commitments because they can really challenge the player to grasp them without derailing their existing plans.

Finally, because you still can't do this forever, I would really build in end game objectives. Do this in the form of achievement badges or hard and fast victory conditions. That's the only cure for the open ended game end game blahs I know of.

Quote:

Original post by NewBreed Rather than base the challenge on missions, what I'm looking for is something that would esentially let the player play in sandbox mode, but once things were up and running would NOT be able to simply leave the city to its own devices.

One other thought: Is there any way for missions to be integrated into sandbox mode as a dynamic, continuously generated sort of gameplay? They could affect resources negatively or positively. Just a thought.

Quote:

Sim City does not allow you to build a second city with money from the first or otherwise transfer money from one city to another. Instead you can expand the sectors of your city to fill its map, make aesthetic or convenience improvements via landscaping, and the major costs are technology upgrading, expansion of zoning and infrastructure such as water and power sources and grids and transportation, also police and fire prevention, health care and education. Another expense is repair of damage from disasters if the player has them enabled. There are rewards for population size and population happiness. The game basically ended when you hit the top of a tech tree. Theoretically a dramatic end result would happen if you built enough arcologies, but that was more of an easter egg than a real ending.

You should try SimCity3000. For most people, the game ends when the very detailed economic simulation hits its first depression cycle. Eventually the game becomes less a city simulator and more an economic one.

Also; you can't leave the city to its own devices. Unlike SimCity2000, old infrastructure does not rebuild itself, and the traffic patterns are not static once established (Nor is the crime rate). The city requires constant monitoring and tweaking to keep it running smoothly.

Quote:

Original post by GarmGarf ...Snips...

Yeah, they're not too bad ideas, perhaps they can built into something solid.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator This is something that bugs me a lot. I love these types of games, but they suffer the end game blahs that are all too common with open ended games. It seems that the only choice is to get bigger until you hit the walls of the level, in which case its either a management headache to continue or pointless otherwise.

Clearly I'm not the only one bothered over this! ;)

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator What I've often thought should happen is that, just as in life, elements like the economy and crime should be in a state of flux with their effects peaking and falling at different times. I think you'd have to break the city into a fair number of believable, cyclical elements, though and reason out the gameplay for addressing each. Crime and economy could have multiple aspects (economic sectors, corruption vs. crime based around opportunistic behavior, etc.) I'm also a big fan of random opportunities which require resource commitments because they can really challenge the player to grasp them without derailing their existing plans.

Yeah, something like that would be quite nice, although take something like crime, while it makes sense for crime rates to fluctuate but clearly the game has to have more depth for something like this rather than just slapping down another police station at the epicentre of crime.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Finally, because you still can't do this forever, I would really build in end game objectives.

Yes, I have to agree here.

Quote:

Original post by Deyja You should try SimCity3000. For most people, the game ends when the very detailed economic simulation hits its first depression cycle. Eventually the game becomes less a city simulator and more an economic one. Also; you can't leave the city to its own devices. Unlike SimCity2000, old infrastructure does not rebuild itself, and the traffic patterns are not static once established (Nor is the crime rate). The city requires constant monitoring and tweaking to keep it running smoothly.

Hi Deyja, does SimCity 4000 revert back to the changes of SC2k, or does it still keep the changes of SC3k?

Thanks,
NB