What % are playing with money enabled? And why or why not?

[MarkShot9]

In the past, I used to play for money and suggested beginners do as it acts like guard rails to teach about the game mechanics (at least until the mid game). But now I feel I know the game and mechanics ... money would just be a constraint until the first couple of super industry cash cows get off the ground. Thus, I find unlimited money kind of liberating and I like not worrying if building and bulldozing is done multiple times as I work on some construct ... also even with the cash cow approach ... subsets of the city like a university or park should have to be profitable, but the game only tracks city profit and not entity profit. So, playing for money does not seem too realistic in the way money really works.

Finally, unlike many strategy games which introduce mechanics to prevent steamrolling and snowballing, all CS has is traffic congestion to bite the megalomaniac which is far more challenging than money. I would say if you turned off traffic, then you are really cheating and just sandboxing. But money, nah ...

In am also interested in 9/25/81 tiles? I am doing 25 as I understand 81 has a few quirks and I don't know if my PC could handle a full 81 tile build. I would be surprised if it did.

I am playing with locked milestones. Are you? (mainly I think it is too easy to get ahead of oneself with that turned off)

PS: I have all DLCs and play mainly with tool mods, and very limited asset mods.

BTW, I was previously mainly a wargamer, but war is feeling too close to be entertaining these days.

Thanks.

[Northsun99]

Escrito originalmente por MarkShot9:

A follow up question. Are you limited money players paying for your terraforming in game? (I remember SC4 split this into two game phases which was unpaid and paid.)

Yes, I pay for terraforming in-game. I tried editing a map once (to fix one of the vanilla maps highway/rail before I started) but gave up.

[MarkShot9]

Here is a good example for playing unlimited. I have never done anything really complex with monorails --- just a direct airport express.

But I am planning on a tourist express within the city despite that I already have a decent network of roads, bus, tram, trains, and metro. I just completed my passenger airport (DLC). (Prior airports were pre-DLC.)

Now, I want to do something explicitly for tourists. Of course, I have no doubt that locals will find it useful as well. (Bus ridership fell by 50% on the direct airport bus service once the monorail to the airport went into operation.)

So, I spent about 4 hours with some empty land using the different roads, stations, rails (mono), among stock, DLC, and mods working out the general ways of how this is going to workout in this specific city given the roads I have chosen, and foot prints (destruction) I am willing to accept.

I don't see what would have been gained by using real funds to do my first experiments with the Airport DLC or gaining the techniques need to weave a monorail upgrade into an existing city.

If I was a real senior manager of some large scale enterprise, I would certainly hire those with expertise to plan the actually projects with just a few guidelines of context me. If I was a low to mid level manager in some large scale enterprise, I would probably use some software to either mock up or simulate options. Effectively, this is exactly what I did, and what would be a better tool than the game itself? One uses software to avoid the exorbitant expense of making real world errors.

Some are city planners and step out of the game to ask what would they do in real life? Others like myself are retired software engineers and step out of the game to use software tools to maximum affect.

So, I think this is an excellent context for unlimited money ... at least until the point at which my gaming has a financial objective which it does not.

[Ripp]

Anyone who wants to correctly develop and maintain their city with any degree of realism and has tiered of all the unnecessary backtracking has learned how to enable money in one form or another.

[kabuum]

I have never played it with infinite money. Tried once, but was too boring.
I like my cities exapnding naturally bit by bit, are more organic. After few failed attempts you get it how to make money and it is actually very easy, especially with industry.

[Ripp]

Escrito originalmente por kabuum:

I have never played it with infinite money. Tried once, but was too boring.
I like my cities exapnding naturally bit by bit, are more organic. After few failed attempts you get it how to make money and it is actually very easy, especially with industry.

A very good point. 👍

I always start with Industry and use the money coming in from that to build the city.

[MarkShot9]

Yes, money is so easy to make with that DLC that it becomes irrelevant. I might consider playing with money if the budget was partitioned (and reflected some real world financial practices). The financial entity of the games would need to be profitable or be profitable at some point of time or not be profitable but have a level of service provisions. Finally, if it is not obvious CS does not represent a communist state with state ownership and central planning. Therefore, much of what you can do in CS is not representative of what it means to be a national, state/province, or city leader.

This is way things work in large business ventures. I was a senior manager and basically most business units at the end of the day had to be profitable. (If not, they were either cut or sold off.) I was an SVP of IT which was exempt from that definition and a cost center ... which created countless problems.

In that sense, I preferred other positions (businesses) when I was in charge of software engineering for client engagements. It was very clear whether we were a money sink or source.

CS does not have a sufficient financial model to make the game worth playing. For an engineer the most interesting aspects is network flow and maintaining transactional performance. And for an artist is how close you can make your dynamic art close to reality.

[Ripp]

I don't think anyone has ever accused the dev's of being realists or even so much as having the faintest grasp of the concept. That said. No matter what the event might be, Why would anyone who has access to the real thing ever want to play the game?

[MarkShot9]

Escrito originalmente por Xeyeld/holeymoe:

I don't think anyone has ever accused the dev's of being realists or even so much as having the faintest grasp of the concept. That said. No matter what the event might be, Why would anyone who has access to the real thing ever want to play the game?

I am TDY from war gaming at the moment (too close to the real thing). But when playing games of the hyper-realistic variety (not FPS) many of my fellow gamers were active duty or vets. Why? I think because maybe they never saw combat or very few were officers (despite many being specialists); thus, to entertain the idea of how it felt to be at the pointy end or command.

[Samtana]

Limited money is limited gameplay. I would recommend new players to start all vanilla like to learn the game etc, but after your first rodeo it just slows gameplay, imo. I don't have enough time as it is so I am not interested in playing the slow way anymore.

[MaxFX]

Escrito originalmente por Samtana:

Limited money is limited gameplay.

Well that's simply not correct. Playing with money turned on is more challenging, which in turn adds to the gameplay...

It's like playing a shooter with unlimited health, just no fun.

[AimlessArrow]

Escrito originalmente por MaxFX:

Playing with money turned on is more challenging, which in turn adds to the gameplay...

Its not correct either. The "economy" of this game is so limited, that it doesnt pose any kind of challenge playing with money enabled.
As I said in my post, prices arent a thing after a few years in-game. Even if Im plopping my whole town, what is more expensive, than zoning...

[Ripp]

Escrito originalmente por MarkShot9:

Escrito originalmente por Xeyeld/holeymoe:

I don't think anyone has ever accused the dev's of being realists or even so much as having the faintest grasp of the concept. That said. No matter what the event might be, Why would anyone who has access to the real thing ever want to play the game?

I am TDY from war gaming at the moment (too close to the real thing). But when playing games of the hyper-realistic variety (not FPS) many of my fellow gamers were active duty or vets. Why? I think because maybe they never saw combat or very few were officers (despite many being specialists); thus, to entertain the idea of how it felt to be at the pointy end or command.

I suspect you are quite right. I would think the same would apply to some retired or inactive personnel as well.