[Planning thread for a new Succession Game] Metropolis, or City by Committee

[stiiknafuulia]

***EDITED 19.08.2015***

Since the rules are now complete and the game has started, go to this thread instead (as of 19.08. we still need one more player, so if you want to join, it's not too late!).

EDIT: One thing I don't get is we have thousands of views, yet we can't find a final participant. Please, if anybody's out there having second thoughts about all the elaborate 'law stuff', give it a shot and see if the game is for you or not. You can always opt to drop out if you decide you'd prefer single-player, no longer have enough time, etc.

 

[ItalianGuy]

Traffic Manager data is not saved in the save file, so we can't use it in SGs.
These are the mods that can be disabled without harm, as you requested:
One way arrows
Terraform tool (most probably)
Fine road heights
Extended building informations
The ARIS mods

I guess we need a list of roles for the six mayors.

For the maps, I suggest the paradise falls because it has a central big flat area, we just didn't start from there in the current SG.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Traffic Manager data is not saved in the save file, so we can't use it in SGs.

Ah. Pity about that; I will remove it from the list.

These are the mods that can be disabled without harm, as you requested:
One way arrows
Terraform tool (most probably)
Fine road heights
Extended building informations
The ARIS mods

Thank you. How do you know all this stuff? Are you a mod maker yourself, or do you simply download a lot of different mods?

I guess we need a list of roles for the six mayors.

I did make a list (or an attempt at it), but the trouble is that there's not enough clearly divideable *major* tasks to be allocated for 6 people. Further, unless some sort of election system is included, a single person might get designated as, say, Highway Planner, and then hold that post in perpetuity; even if they're skilled at the task, this might not sit well with some other players.

For these reasons, and others, I thought it might be best to keep things simple and just include the districts in the gameplay in a major way. There's plenty of opportunities for all kinds of treaties and role-playing with this. 'Could you build a Police Station so that its radius also covers this corner of my district? In return you can use my water system', etc.

FWIW, I can post the unfinished roles when I return from my trip, as well as the system that I cooked up for 'cycling' them among the players. In the meantime you can think of your own way to devise this; but keep in mind at all times that whatever system we adopt, it must not fall apart as people keep coming and going due to rl mishaps and surprise occurrences. For this reason elections should be kept to a minimum, as they require the presence of all players within a short period of time.

For the maps, I suggest the paradise falls because it has a central big flat area, we just didn't start from there in the current SG.

To be frank, I'm kind of sick of our current map. Even if we alter the starting location, all those huge cliffs and waterfalls get tiresome after a time. I mean, while gorgeous, the location also looks quite artifical: I dare you to find that landscape, or anything remotely like it, on the actual planet Earth! And if it did exist, most people's first thought upon seeing it would not be to build a megalopolis housing several million people in it...

Imo, Last Paradise is already a much more hospitable and realistic-looking map, and it satisfies several of the criteria that I thought appropriate for a map in an SG of this type. There's a flat central island; terraces for the personal districts; iirc a dam location may also be found. However, the buildable land on that map is a little scarce imo, and it's maybe even too neat how the central island ties everything together. Also, since the main island is so neatly circular, each district only comes into contact with one or two other districts at most, which is less than ideal for eventual compromises and/or conflicts to develop. I'd like to see four districts meeting and the mayors engaging in 'turf wars', so to speak (all in good spirits!).

I have great confidence that a great map can be found if we keep searching the WS. Or if not, then Myquandro can probably finish the map that he's making in time for the game's start.

 

[Myquandro]

I would like to try working with roles for the mayors, but it has to be able to work (we will see during the SG if it does, but if we're not fairly confident it would we shouldn't try it). I have already thought about what roles could be created and I can think of 6 roles with a little creativity:
- Road Design (focused on road networks, mainly highway)
- Public Transportation (focused on building everything from busstops to airports)
- City Quality (focuses on improving the quality of life for the citizens by building parks, providing health care, creating fire and crime safety, etc.)
- Industry and Trade (focused on building and managing industrial parks and balancing import and export)
- Finance and Policies (focused on managing the city's finance and creating or removing policies)
- Zoning and Utilities (Focused on planning new districts and it's zoning and building new utilities (water, sewage, garbage, electricity) when necessary)
If you want to you can also have one mayor to deal with the SG's overhead like managing the forum thread, players turns, etc. which would be a seventh role.

The way I see it everyone can do anything in the city and should try to work on building a better city, even if that would be on someone else's "field of expertise". The roles are just there to make sure every aspects gets attention and to improve the quality. For example Mayor A has taken the role to be responsible for Public Transportation and Mayor B is playing. When Mayor B sees that there is a part of the city without public transportation he can decide to build new metro stations, connected the together and create a new line, but if he's not sure what to do he can leave it to Mayor A's turn or to ask him for advise.

If we don't do these roles (at least in the next SG) I still wouldn't let personal districts dominate the map. I would prefer to divide up to 50% of the map in personal districts while keeping the rest shared. I would like to have a bit bigger personal district then in the current SG, but if those districts get to big it might interfere with the gameplay. As cims don't behave as normal people and operate first on district level and then, if necessary, on city level the mayors that have a good starting point (positive RCI demand, good finance, little problems) can build great district while mayors that are left with a saturated demand for RCI, little cash and possibly death waves, traffic jams, etc. because the last mayor was very optimistic can't do much more then let time pass and maybe at the end of their turn (when they have a bit more money and maybe a slightly recovered demand) can do some small things. The bigger the personal district become the more the mayors focus on personal gains (growing their own districts) instead of shared gains (growing the city as a whole). This problem is solved as soon as a personal district is filled, but if these districts get really big it might take longer to get there then we are interested in playing the map. So, I would limit the size and impact of personal districts.

As for the map we play on. My preference is a map which seems (reasonably) realistic with a flat starting location, some islands possibly and hills on outside of the city. It should have good connections to the outside with enough options for harbors (not like there is just one short strip of coastline that can be used so there is no choice). At the moment I'm trying to build a few maps of my own and see if those can be good enough for an SG. I might post the first few maps (which are still in a conceptual state) to see what you think of them.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I like your ideas. Your roles seem to overlap somewhat with what I had in mind; the main issue, imo, is that traffic is such a paramount part of this game that whoever becomes 'Road Manager' will inevitably have the largest impact on the city. This is helped, though, by making the 'managers' more like advisors, so that other players can still act in their areas of responsibility. The way I'd envisioned it would have been for the managers to have stricter roles, but with periodical elections to shuffle the deck (i.e. change people's 'occupations'). I think your solution of looser roles might fit the game better, so as not to bog it down with too much 'bureaucracy'. Still, we could trade roles every once in a while -- perhaps every two game-cycles (or one, if there's a lot of players)?

As for how to re-divide the roles, we could preserve the system that I originally had in mind: at the end of every 'election period' (whether that's 1 or 2 game-cycles) the players will vote for a 'Metropolitan Mayor', whose only power is to appoint players into their new roles for the next 'election period'. With this system, there's very few votes required, and if people fail to post their vote in time, they could just be considered to have abstained from voting, so the votes wouldn't really bog down the game too much. --It could be argued that with this system there's potential for abuse (the person who got voted MM would in most cases appoint himself as Road Manager, and might keep some other player(s) from a role that they desire if feuds develop). I'm not sure how to solve this; perhaps the MM could throw lots to choose his own role, and then appoint the others? Note that if you abuse your appointing powers as MM, then it might come back to bite you in the next MM election, so there's some checks and balances.

As to the size of the districts, we could expand them gradually, so that at first everyone gets allotted a smallish district; then when the districts are beginning to get filled up, we'd have everyone claim more territory for themselves. We could also make it mandatory to have each mayor make some improvements to the general city, in addition to their own district. Also, there is one significant motive for developing the general city: you can 'synergize' the services between the common city and your district, meaning that if you expand them towards each other, you could e.g. refrain from building water pumps in your district, 'claiming' that service from the general city! --Now that I think of it, this type of 'mooching' may have adverse consequences if taken too far... I guess we won't really see how it works before we try it out. I at least would try to role-play the building of a metropolis, and only make the types of connections that might be found in a real-life area where a small 'satellite city' is being combined with a larger megalopolis. Imo it's clear that this type of game is very vulnerable to, hmm, uncooperative players, but I trust that at least our current group of players would abide by *some* standard of gentlemanly conduct when it comes to inter-city affairs. Between personal districts though, who knows, we might need a Demilitarized Zone or two before the game's over.

 

[ItalianGuy]

What happens if one player is removed from the game for any reason and there is no one to replace him/her? Should the game freeze?

 

[stiiknafuulia]

What happens if one player is removed from the game for any reason and there is no one to replace him/her? Should the game freeze?

There could be a period of time (a fairly long one, like two weeks maybe) that you could go absent without any notifications. After that your territory would be divided amonst the ravenous buzzards, err, *mayors* waiting to pounce on it *cue evil laughter*! --If the person in question did show up after the 'partition' had taken place, then they could have their old territory back, but naturally with the changes that have already been made to it. This mechanic would have the benefit of keeping people more vigilant about posting notices about their absence. There's nothing that motivates people like having their personal assets confiscated!

As for how to divide such a territory, it could be another perk for the role of Metropolitan Mayor -- or we could simply try and divide the district evenly between the neighboring districts.

EDIT: Another possibility (after the player has been gone for a *long* time, possibly a month or more) is to introduce a new player who will take over the territory in question. In-game it could be explained by the sudden death or retirement of the previous mayor. However, I'm a bit wary about this solution, because if the original player then showed up after a month of absence (due to a rl illness or something), then it could lead to some major awkwardness... Think Israel and Palestine (0,00000000001 % diluted)!

 

[ItalianGuy]

I was talking about the needed replacement. What happens to the game until a new 6th player is found? Possibilities:
- game freezes
- game continues and the territory is kept as a memorial
- game continues and the territory is bulldozed
- game continues and the territory becomes part of the shared city
- game continues and the territory becomes part of each current player territory (this would be interesting) in turn
- last but not least, the territory is split in 5 parts and managed by the remaining players

Of course, as soon as the new player enters, the territory becomes his/her again.

We can also let the current mayor decide what rule is used after each election.

 

[Myquandro]

What if you create more personal districts then there are mayors. Then when someone leaves unexpected for a certain amount of time his district becomes part of the shared city. Then when he returns or someone else joins he gets one of the unused districts. Depending on the amount of players at any one time and the expected amount of new players/returning players we might need about 10 to 12 districts I think. If then someone joins, but there are no districts left we can just call it bad luck and he doesn't have one.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I was talking about the needed replacement. What happens to the game until a new 6th player is found? Possibilities:
- game freezes

Imo this option is always a no-no, no matter what happens.

- game continues and the territory is kept as a memorial

It might cause problems over longer time-frames (mainly as new connections are needed and there's no one to negotiate with), but over a short period it's a good option imo.

- game continues and the territory is bulldozed

Were you high when you thought of this? No comment necessary.

- game continues and the territory becomes part of the shared city

Problematic in case the absent player returns, as his territory will by then have been incorporated into the fabric of the common city, making it hard to restore the old borders. If we wait for a long enough time though, this could be an option.

- game continues and the territory becomes part of each current player territory (this would be interesting) in turn

People might opt to just ignore the territory in this case, as they know for certain that they cannot keep it in perpetuity. It's not a problem that's unique to this solution though, so it *might* work.

- last but not least, the territory is split in 5 parts and managed by the remaining players

Imo this is the best option, but only after a considerable period of time has passed, to make it unlikely that the absent player will return.

Of course, as soon as the new player enters, the territory becomes his/her again.

Imo it wouldn't be fair if, say, someone was gone for a month and their territory was split up among the remaining players, they developed it to the best of their abilities, and then the returning player gets to reap the rewards of their efforts (atlhough in some cases he might rather loathe the new developments). Imo, once a designated, *long* period of time has passed, the absent player's territory will be gone for good, inherited by the remaining players.

If the districts are not made too big, so that vacant space still remains long into the game, the returning player could get a new, pristine territory upon his return; and/or he could negotiate over reclaiming *some* of his old lands that were taken over by other players. I'm not sure if it's a good thing to make the personal districts 'splintered' (i.e. not contiguous), but in this situation that could very well be the result. In this case (and as a general practice, now that I think of it), just adding [stiiknafuulia], etc, to the beginning of a personal district's name should be sufficient to tell everyone which territory belongs to which player.

EDIT: Ah. You probably meant that once an *entirely* new player is introduced, he then inherits the absent player's old territory. In this case the new owner might opt for bulldozing (it is his dictatorial paradise after all), just to get a 'clean slate'. Or he could opt to keep all/some areas as-is. One thing is for certain though: if the absent player returns after his territory has been 're-assigned' to the new player, he can't reclaim it any more. Imo this rule is needed because otherwise it might be very hard to get new players...

We can also let the current mayor decide what rule is used after each election.

I like this option the best tbh. We could even go as far as let the MM decide which player gets which size of slice of the pie... However, then there's no stopping the MM from claiming the whole pie for himself! Perhaps we should aim to keep the pieces as equal in size as possible, just to prevent these kinds of abuses? Or the MM could go for one of the other solutions that you proposed (other than bull-dozing ).

What if you create more personal districts then there are mayors. Then when someone leaves unexpected for a certain amount of time his district becomes part of the shared city. Then when he returns or someone else joins he gets one of the unused districts. Depending on the amount of players at any one time and the expected amount of new players/returning players we might need about 10 to 12 districts I think. If then someone joins, but there are no districts left we can just call it bad luck and he doesn't have one.

I think this is an interesting solution. It would work as a deterrent against neglecting the game, because you couldn't get your old territory back; yet at the same time you could re-enter and be assigned a new 'clean slate'. You might look wistfully at your old neighborhood as it's being altered beyond recognition... All the while busying yourself with re-creating it anew in a better place and with better plans in mind! --For roleplay purposes, someone might even opt to remain 'absent' to lose their territory, while gaining a new one. I'm not sure how I feel about this; if the districts are small enough, it's not a problem, but as they become larger, it might start to be. I guess we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it (although the more bridges we cross before the journey, so to speak, the better ofc).

--If this option is chosen, we should use a map with a large useable land area. Island maps are a no-no then, so, we cannot use Last Paradise. Overly mountainous maps are problematic as well, although some elevation and water are necessary just to provide variation to the monotony of 'grid-like' road plans (I'm seriously depressed when I look at some US cities on Google Maps! Nothing but small grids, large grids, medium-sized grids, and anything in between, for miles and dozens of miles around! It might be uncomplicated to drive in such cities, but is there any pleasure to be had from it? Also, imagine being the City Planner in such a city: 'And for this next neighborhood, we'll just build a... Wait for it... A *huge grid* of streets running at 90 degree angles to each other. I can read the surprises right off yer faces, fellas! ...Why are you looking at me like that while fondling sharp instruments?' ).

 

[ItalianGuy]

Why not? Bulldoze. Bulldoze everything. Bulldozer for President!

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Why not? Bulldoze. Bulldoze everything. Bulldozer for President!

I like the way you think. You will be in charge of city beautification, I think. 'Ain't it a beautiful pile of rubble, ma'am? Oh, you used to live there? I'm sure you agree regardless. Right, boys [petting his two rottweilers]?'

In actual news, I may have found our map. I will post screenshots later on, but for now you can look it up on the WS: it's called 'Tarawa', I believe.

As a side note, it seems that the use of the No Pillars mod is out the window. I encountered an issue where I was using it to lay out a pedestrian path, but then when I disabled the 'no clip' feature of the mod, I could still lay out routes through the houses like nobody's business. I even disabled the mod altogether, yet this behavior still continued. So it seems that the game can get 'stuck' on no clip mode due to some bug in this mod. Since this removes all challenge and can lead to some odd behavior to boot, imo it's best to refrain from using the mod for now. Oh well, it's one less issue to worry about (arguably the use of this mod would've been 'cheating', if used abusively, which is a thin line to draw, and may vary between players).

 

[ItalianGuy]

What mod did you use, the original vintage noPillars mod or the brand new sparkling noPillars mod?
I know that with the old one you get space-time warps and things like that with the no-clip option enabled, and I didn't test the new one yet.

A City Beautyfier is someone like: "Hey look, these people are so sad, they need a park!" BAM *Bulldoze their houses and builds a park.*

 

[stiiknafuulia]

What mod did you use, the original vintage noPillars mod or the brand new sparkling noPillars mod?
I know that with the old one you get space-time warps and things like that with the no-clip option enabled, and I didn't test the new one yet.

A City Beautyfier is someone like: "Hey look, this people are so sad, they need a park!" BAM *Bulldoze their houses and builds a park.*

I did use the legacy version; thanks for letting me know of the updated one. The creator also says that he's upgraded the mod to work with all Traffic++ roads; that may have been the culprit in the issue that I had. I guess I'll make a back-up of my save and try out the new version; one must be cautious about it though because it might ruin our game permanently if the issue suddenly reoccurs.

I'm busy working atm but I will post screens of my city on the Tarawa (or Tarawe?) map later tonight. It does have some mountains in the middle of the map, but imo there's enough buildable land for the map to be workable, and it does look very pretty. The highway and train connections are pretty abysmal though; I guess I could expand them if we choose to use this map.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Double post, but I want to bump this thread as it seems so quiet of late:

http://imgur.com/a/ANNUh#0

Here are some pics of the map that I found, as well as some shots of the pedestrian-friendly city that I'm building on it when I have the time. It's awful tricky though, since I didn't have the pedestrian paths available from the very start (why they are a 'park' and not a 'road' asset is anyone's guess).

I want to hear some comments on the map. The main issues with it, imo, are the mandatory tree assets that will have to be downloaded with it (I don't really care for their looks), and the lack of outside connections (which is remediable with a little editing before we start the game). There might also be the objection that a dam location might be hard to find; imo it's a minor issue though. Other than that there might be too much mountains for *some* tastes. Imo they could be less centrally located. I could flatten a range or two around the central valley, if people are feeling like it'd improve the map for our purposes.

 

[Myquandro]

I think that map could be a good one to use.

 

[ItalianGuy]

Delete all the trees from the map with tree brush, then upload it for me. I will check the external connections, and we will use that map, and plant trees where we want later.

I don't like your districts map, I'll propose one when I have time.

Last thing: don't trust youtubers, they screw up things too often.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

That district map was just a quick mock-up, by no means intended as even semi-final. The thing about the extensive tree cover is that it's hard to see how much level ground there is in some places. I thought it too drastic to delete all the trees (it makes the map look awfully bare imo), but it might well be the best option, since I noticed that there are actually 4 assets to download (I had two of them dl'd previously, so I only needed 2). I could always put some regular palm trees in the place of the fancy bamboo trees etc; it might look a little onerous, but it's better than nothing imo.

I already edited the map to give it more highway connections (function over form though, so they're ugly as hell ), as well as to put the shipping lines closer to the shore, so as to ensure that we can have harbors all along the coasts. I will delete the trees and upload the map here tomorrow probably, so we can start thinking about the potential district divisions in more detail.

EDIT: Did it already, since it was quick enough:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08461712644294462905

(I also added some ore on the map; it will run out quickly without mods, but meh, why not?)

 

[ItalianGuy]

When this game starts, if it will have Traffic++ mod, I can take care of lane management on the freeway junctions and roundabouts. I like creating collision-free intersections in my cities with Traffic++, so you can unleash your creativity and leave the rest to me

 

[ItalianGuy]

I fixed road and rail connections, and here is a suggestion of the personal districts/villages/kingdoms:

Spoiler

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=19126925308656271598