At this time i have played all but Paris and London DLCs for Cim1 and Helsinki is by far the worst this far. Ulm was the most casual of the bunch.

Helsinki is broken - or designed in a very devilish way to maximize discomfort. For example you will notice right of the start that the metro station that already exists is just a block away from being placed right near the objective zone. in addition you dont have enough money so you will need to demolish the station to proceed.

But once you demolish it the traffic goes to hell. main Mannerheim road in the middle of the city gets so clogged that you are unable to use trams or busses. So you are left with water busses and metros and helicopters. problem again here is that you dont have enough money to make a proper metro or helicopter system yet.

All in all i think i restarted this scenario some 3-4 times and could still not put up a proper setup.

So what's the deal with Helsinki then?

I have not yet grabbed Cities in Motion 2. It looks very large-scale when i look at those gameplay videos on Youtube and that scares me.

This game becomes exhausting once the scale ramps up really way up. Such as Tokyo campaigns mentioned above. need to read more reviews to see if the game is like this. Also the free 3D enviroment may not be my tea. I like CIM1 cartoonish graphics.

The smack that has been written about CIM1 is mostly false. Now that i am going through DLCs and have completed the basic maps i think the only thing that is bad is that there is always the approximately same patterns you do to complete a city. And i think in the long run that is good. you dont get stuck on maps. Except Helsinki. That one is the worst of them all. :)

Between this and Cities in motion 2 whats better?

Ive heard good and smack about both