Realistic Goods Distribution Simulation?

[Badfish301 60]

To me, the transportation of Goods is almost as important as the transportation of people in SimCity- and it has been overlooked in past editions, wich is too bad, because it adds a lot ot gameplay.

Basically, I am asking for nothing more sophisticated than an A-train level of goods- The type of goods transportation where a generic "cargo container" symbolizes everything (but instead of white like in A-train, make them multicolored like containers in real life).

If the designers really wanted to make things interesting, perhaps have several types of consumer goods, oil, food, cars, etc. (Transport Tycoon style) that would all be moving around the map, maybe in a multi-player aspect, where prices are set for goods, which are traded (like water/power deals in SimCity4), and ships head off to distant players' cities at the interval and rate set by the deal.

Having a very good port/ rail infrastructure should be paramount before acheiving any skyscraper city in SimCity, and efficiently moving goods in and out of the city, using an unclogged rail network, shipping routes, and trucks would add a lot to the game. Perhaps goods (such as refined steel) would be necessary before building some of the larger skyscrapers downtown. Players could watch as the ore travels to the steelyard to be turned into steel, and then is transportated on trains/trucks to a depot somewhere near downtown. That material would then be used to add stories to the skycsraper being built.

Regarding Airports- a system of buying slots from other players airports and selling slots to your airport would be a good way for regional trade to develop- You could introduce routes to other cities, and see their airline land and taxi up to your airport gate.

Different airlines could be owned by different players who could financially battle (or cooperate) in an Aerobiz kind of manner to increase their percentage of the overall market- This might make a good expansion pack- but that would isolate players, so it would be good to just have as part of the game (not to mention, now we are talking a seriously awesome game that is going to sell like hot cakes).

With these additions to goods distribution- Gameplay would be increased significantly, I hope it happens. It seems like the glassbox engine can handle it.

[lazy tiger 22]

I was wondering something else..if the resources are finite (water table, minerals in the mountain areas...) what happens when the resources run out? Will there be weather effects to replenish aquifers? Or once the resources get used up, there is a pre-programmed end game where users battle for resources? I am thinking the main thrust of the game will be this stage, where the "lead city" wins over all. In the real world, it happens like this, but I would like to think the dev team tweaks the model a bit, to grant more playability to the game.

But these ideas you write would make it more realistic (we're talking playability, not necessarily graphics..), but still leads to a possible "end game" scenario. I don't like having to constantly remake a new city every so often, when i got my city just way i like it. Also, how will these ideas impact solo players (who opt out of the server-game??)

[Azurespecter 506]

Although I do think that SimCity will see a much better system for transporting/trading/shipping goods and resources via highways, trains, airports, and seaports... I personally think that Maxis will try to keep the system much simpler than you would like it Badfish. I would love for a system to be as intricate as you suggest.... but the majority of players (especially the new ones) would get overly frustrated by the complexity.

[flyer2359 92]

I have a feeling as time goes on in the city you'll be able to switch everything to be "green". From electric cars, Solar Power etc. I think that's what you'll end up having to do as your city gets older. As for as goods go, they were saying something in one of their videos that it comes from the industries and trucks will transport it to commercial zones or something like that.

[Cob92 360]

I was wondering something else..if the resources are finite (water table, minerals in the mountain areas...) what happens when the resources run out? Will there be weather effects to replenish aquifers? Or once the resources get used up, there is a pre-programmed end game where users battle for resources? I am thinking the main thrust of the game will be this stage, where the "lead city" wins over all. In the real world, it happens like this, but I would like to think the dev team tweaks the model a bit, to grant more playability to the game.

But these ideas you write would make it more realistic (we're talking playability, not necessarily graphics..), but still leads to a possible "end game" scenario. I don't like having to constantly remake a new city every so often, when i got my city just way i like it. Also, how will these ideas impact solo players (who opt out of the server-game??)

The developers have said that some resources are finite while others are renewable. Water, for example, will be replenished by rain.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I agree on goods transportation. I am unsure how detailed GB will handle resources. Is food a resource? Is steel? I think they mentioned ore and oil as well as coal, but how detailed that will be who knows. I'd like to be able to have a proper port system and proper resource system but from what we've seen so far they seem to have a simple one.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I would hope that they would have water, food, lumber, coal, petroleum, refined oil, iron (and maybe bauxite) ore, refined metal (steel), gold, gems, manufactured goods, high tech goods, and uranium as resources needed for buildings. Office services and hotel rooms being more like passenger "resources."

  Edited June 12, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[lazy tiger 22]

I was wondering something else..if the resources are finite (water table, minerals in the mountain areas...) what happens when the resources run out? Will there be weather effects to replenish aquifers? Or once the resources get used up, there is a pre-programmed end game where users battle for resources? I am thinking the main thrust of the game will be this stage, where the "lead city" wins over all. In the real world, it happens like this, but I would like to think the dev team tweaks the model a bit, to grant more playability to the game.

But these ideas you write would make it more realistic (we're talking playability, not necessarily graphics..), but still leads to a possible "end game" scenario. I don't like having to constantly remake a new city every so often, when i got my city just way i like it. Also, how will these ideas impact solo players (who opt out of the server-game??)

The developers have said that some resources are finite while others are renewable. Water, for example, will be replenished by rain.

That's good to hear, but then what about resources that take longer to replenish, like oil and minerals? There would have to be a "green system" as stated by Flyer2359, to overcome the shortages, much like the state we are in now in real life. Will be interesting to see, if the game truly is going to be endless, how they work this out. But it looks like it will be set up like Civilization, where you have the top/greatest city, come out on top, then the game basically resets to a predetermined time. I hope it isn't like this option, I was discussing this game with a coworker, and if EA or Maxis or Origin, whatever pulls the servers years from now, what is left of the game? Is it playable, or if the net connection dies, so does it?

If not a green system, there would have to be other ways to make minerals, perhaps there will be volcanic activity or geothermal issues in the area, or perhaps even plate tectonics (among the regions..) or even stranger still, ...random asteroid strikes (lots of iridium there...)...

[Resender 18]

I think maybe they take a block of CIties XL and have imports

[Supertask 29]

Even single player regions will be connected to the world economy, so as long as people continue to make new regions, there will continue to be resources like coal on the global market, hence you should never need to go completely green.

Or once the resources get used up, there is a pre-programmed end game where users battle for resources? I am thinking the main thrust of the game will be this stage, where the "lead city" wins over all.

I think this might be taking all the snipes about it being an "MMO" a bit too seriously. From what we know so far it seems individual regions are only connected in an abstract way to the global economy (they can buy from it and sell to it), and it is in the regions that some resources are finite, not the global economy (because people can just make more regions).

[Jabberdau 1]

Hi Badfish

The thing to remember is that goods in themselfes is very much alike when it comes to what you are going to see.

A tire for a car and a television both share the same chain of production. Resourches are collected, brought to a factory and then shipped to a distributor. This is the case for many things. In that context the abstraction isn´t so terrible. What you are going to be concerned about is the total amount of traffic this creates. If you counted all the trucks going from somewhere to somewhere else, you would probably end up seeing that in the big picture, it correlates roughly to the amount of people there.

One could definately start dividing up, but then where should you stop? I can divide food into categories like dairy, meat, fruit, vegetables. I can then divide meat up into chicken, cows, pigs and then different kind of cows and then...well you can continue for quite a while!

What you really want to be looking fore when dividing up is different TYPES of goods. Goods that have a different chain of production that makes it worthwhile to look into. For instance a lot of food has a very short shelf life. Therefore dairy in particular is produced localy or not that far away. This could perhaps give a meaningfull element to the simulation if it where handled specifically. Also in all agriculture harvest happens at certain times during the year, and not like many other things continously. That could have an effect too.

Also a lot of freight today goes by airmail. Some things though are too large to be transported by air, like cars. That could also be an element in itself.

All in all I´d say the 1 type of good isnt too bad when you take the context of the game into consideration, seeing as other major resources are handled seperately, like oil, coal, water etc.

Food i agree have enough quirks to make it seperate, but it would still fall under 1 label: agriculture. Further division wouln´dt have enough of an impact to make a difference..in this game.

Its an interesting subject though. A game called StarPeace did exactly what you ask. Here is an interesting article about it http://procworld.blogspot.dk/2010/12/simulating-large-virtual-worlds.html

Also remember that the goal is to create the illusion of a simulation as Will Wright would say it.

[Supertask 29]

^

This

Detail is good as long as it gives you options that significantly effect gameplay and allow you to explore different outcomes, but there's no point in adding it in just so some arbitrary level of "realism" is reached. It would be easy to pack in loads of information and options, but it makes for a better game if it all fits into a coherent system, and that requires some abstraction.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, I suggest food to be separated into perishable and processed at the very least. A difference between processed products (heavy industry producing refined metals, fuels, and building materials), manufactured goods (take processed products to be sold to shops and high tech factories), and high tech goods (made from manufactured goods and sold to shops and offices).

  Edited June 13, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[lazy tiger 22]

Even single player regions will be connected to the world economy, so as long as people continue to make new regions, there will continue to be resources like coal on the global market, hence you should never need to go completely green.

Or once the resources get used up, there is a pre-programmed end game where users battle for resources? I am thinking the main thrust of the game will be this stage, where the "lead city" wins over all.

I think this might be taking all the snipes about it being an "MMO" a bit too seriously. From what we know so far it seems individual regions are only connected in an abstract way to the global economy (they can buy from it and sell to it), and it is in the regions that some resources are finite, not the global economy (because people can just make more regions).

Unless they explicitly state its not an MMO (and so far they have not, or talked in circles about it..),...i will take it seriously.

As far as the "global economy"...we still would have issues. Say I make a region, idk...Tampa Florida, and invite my friends to play in my region. Tampa isn't known for much except Tourism, there is no oil, or minerals...so can it be implied that "globally" sims come to visit our collective towns? What if we aren't globally connected, meaning linked to someone else's region (like Orlando, or Miami..) is these figures, resources, still calculated?? How is this accomplished? If I elect to keep my region off the main grid, does my setup wither up when the resources dry up? I can make a case for online to simulate tourism, weather, etc...but how do they come to the numbers needed? What if there is more than one Tampa region that people are working on? Or will it be first come first served?