Spinmaster

Funny, isn't it? This thread is primarily about whether or not it's an MMO ... but we're not even sure it's single-player, either! I don't know if it is or isn't an MMO. Seems to be a lot of arguing about whether or not it is technically an MMO. Well ok, let's go ahead and accept that technically it is an MMO. And? There's nothing interesting about it MMO-wise. I for one couldn't care less whether it's called one or not... technically.

I hadn't realized it until now, but that StrategyInformer review nailed precisely in two words what all the fuss is about, and why the subscription model apparently infuriates most of us. little gamequote> Very little point to the MMO side of it so far (chat and trade, yeehaw!), and even less for single-player.

I'm tempted to say this should be in a CXL forum... but I fear, it's too late for that one. Still, CXL at least does have a foundation - the graphics and online session "stuff" is already done. Unfortunately that's all that's done so far, and at the expense of single-player to boot, nevermind the missing sounds and apparent zoning issues. The rest of what would make it truly enjoyable as the MMO they insist it must be... well, so far I doubt we'll ever see it in CXL. sc4d forever!! or untill all that happensquote> I'll second that!

NAM still rules and just gets better and better. Not sure what the last version was you saw, but recent major advances include draggable GLR, rail viaducts, FLUPs, curved streets, rural roads, single-rail railways (RAM add-on), and FARR (12-degree angled roads/rails). And RHW ... the 'R' isn't just for 'rural' any more. Oh, not to mention the new simulators - z seems to be the most popular one, and in my opinion for good reason - it actually takes congestion at intersections into account (i.e. it weighs congestion much more heavily than the other simulators, not just overall capacity). Let's see... oh, it's reported that SC4 works great on Windows 7. Extra good news there, since SC:Societies really bombed, and so far, Cities XL isn't looking much better for the long run. Maybe it'll improve, so worth keeping your eyes on it. It is visually stunning, but as it stands now, single-player is crippled in terms of future content, and even the subscription-based MMO still lacks mass transit (and per the last official word, MC still has no intention of making it available to non-subscribers; we'll see about that, it's clearly not going over well with most ST folks). No need to rehash everything here, the CXL forums has it all, good, bad, and ugly. Bottom line is, SC4 will likely remain the dominant city builder for a good long time. Ah... and CAM was released just over two years ago. It's one of those major game-changing mods though, and it begs downloading scores of building packs and their dependencies, so it's basically received lukewarm attention, largely due to that never-ending dependency debate. If you're just getting back into things though, this would be a great time to check it out for yourself - it's better to start a new region with CAM than try to hammer it into an existing one. That's really it for the "major" advances and news, aside from the gazillion great lots/bats/modds splattered all over the place the past couple years of course. Can't think of any new "must check out"s for a veteran such as yourself. All the things I'd say to a newer member, I'm pretty sure you already knew before I did. (Hmm... need a "bow down" smiley, too). So... welcome back! p.s. I'm not one to say "don't ___" so I'm not saying don't buy CXL, obviously that's your own choice to make - I'm just saying be aware of what it has, and more importantly, what it doesn't... it caught an aweful lot of people by surprise who had preordered it.

Tunnels, FLUPs, Big Dig, and Marrast's underpasses... all have their places. Just depends what you're trying to go under, and whether or not it can be a straight route. Note though, that tunneling is very expensive - hence most tunnels even in the real world are straight and short as can be. The only cases where the tunnels twist and turn is where there really was no other cost-effective option. The Big Dig in Boston was a fine example of that. In other words, if you're looking for realism, plan your underground routes to be as short and straight as possible. Even the Big Dig only stays underground as long as it has to - its purpose was to replace the impossible-to-widen elevated eyesore that used to be I-93 through the center of Boston, without shutting that stretch of I-93 down completely during its construction. Anyway, each has its pros and cons. Tunnels (the default in-game ones): generally can go anywhere (so long as you're at least 15m above sea level, otherwise you can't dig), and handle emergency vehicles and UDI... but can only ever be straight. Also, you have to terraform the entrances yourself, which may take up more space than the other options (and as mentioned you have to have enough ground to dig in). Still, personally, I think they look the best when dressed up nicely - when they can be used effectively. FLUPs: can twist and turn, and they also handle UDI and emergency vehicles - but you can't build anything on top of them, basically because they're not "really" underground - it's an illusion only. At best, you can plop mayor-mode trees on the empty grass pieces. Best use for these I've found, is for a tunnel underwater (where I can't build anyway) that can't be perfectly straight. Big Dig: converts road traffic to subway. As such, it can twist, it can turn, it can go underwater, and you can build anything you want on top, because unlike FLUPs it really is underground. But (of course there's at least one) because it converts road traffic to subway, emergency vehicles and UDI can't use it. And you'll incur the extra cost of the subway tubes to support it (not a significant issue though; if you're implementing Big Dig you probably have a city large enough to support the extra cost already). And finally, you have to be careful not to cross your "Big Dig" pseudo-subway lines with actual subway lines. Marrasts Underpasses: great for a dip-under-the-rails or other short over/underpass network intersection. These by far are the simplest sollution - plop 'em, draw networks, done. But they don't have much use beyond that, they're independent, static lots - so going under buildings or water, or an actual stretch underground, they were never intended for those things. Note that the ones on STEX are "eye candy only" - but there are functional ones (emergency vehicle and UDI compliant) on SC4Devotion's LEX.

Depends. For the first couple mass transit options, no. Bus and at least one other thing (maybe commuter rail) should be free, as they should've been in the base game to begin with. I really wish they'd just taken their time - development and marketing - and not rushed this thing out, which it very much sounds like they did. Is it really true there aren't even any city sound effects?? Sorry to be blunt, but that's just plain pathetic and inexcusable, if it's true. Someone please, tell me the posts I've read about that were simply wrong. If it's wrong, good, and sorry MC. If there really aren't sounds in the game, time to put down the wine and pull some all-nighters - and get the job DONE first. Anyway, back to the question - would I pay for additional expansions, including more mass transit options? Sure I would!! I'd buy building packs. I'd buy GEMs. And if the multiplayer idea ever evolves into something more than chat and trade, then I might try that out, too. I bought Rush Hour, and as I'd stated in previous posts, I would've paid for many of the well-known acronym expansions (NAM, CAM, peg's CxK's, MTP, etc...), had their teams been legally able to charge for them. But it all depends on whether or not I've given up by the time MC "sees the light." Hopefully they have the capital and backbone to make CXL what the fans really want. It does have that potential - I'll give them that. But the path its going down now, I fear, leads only to a software graveyard, and I for one have no intention of following it there.

Originally posted by: ASheroo I will just say again in this thread (since its more relevant) about potential mass transit for single player... Matthew told me that he has passed on the suggestion and interest of a mass transit expansion pack for single player,so they are talking about it, and it could well and truly happen. It makes perfect sense, and will be a massive win/win situation, with MC getting lots more money and support, and us getting mass transit in single player. Nothing is official yet though, but it is a lot of potential and hope, and it could happen, so don't jump to conclusions yet on mass transit in single player.quote> Good to hear. If it happens I'll buy it. I might even be open enough to "try" the PO short-term (though I've also heard that 7-day trial starts by-force the moment you register... bad idea there, let me try that out when I'm ready to, which won't be until I'm familiar with the basics of building offline anyway). And while I believe it's highly unlikely in my case, being purely objective, yes, there's even a chance I'd be hooked. But only because of the features that make sense to be online for, such as trading, chat, blueprints, visiting each others' cities, etc.... Would be even better if we can cooperatively work on building the same city; maybe not at the same time, that would probably be technically impractical if not impossible. But a turn-based (e.g. timed or owner-moderated) or ad-hoc one-at-a-time thing could work. That might actually hook me into the online play; the other stuff alone, probably not. If their goal was to entice as many players as possible into at least trying the PO subscription, I think cooperative building - which only makes sense in multiplayer - would've been a much better choice than mass transit. But I absolutely refuse to subscribe with a monthly fee to an online service to get a feature whose only reason for being an "online only" feature is simply extortion. That may sound like a harsh word, but it's accurate - mass transit has no reason to be "multiplayer only." Even MC themselves haven't attempted to fabricate such a reason. I'm not saying they need to put every transit option in at once, nor even try to match SC4's options - even SC4 just had bus, train, and subway to start, before RH came along. But pick two of those options as "free" because something of mass transit should've been in the base game to begin with (and at least some form of highway). I'll gladly pay extra - as an expansion pack, not a subscription - for additional transit options. Would I pay for an expansion to go from "nothing" to "something" ... probably, but I'd feel robbed if I have to pay anything over the base price for the first one or two transit options. After that, no problem. But that's all moot, if they remain steadfast about mass-transit being an online-only feature.

They'll grow, yes - but how does your freight get out???

Minor correction about ped malls with industry - you still need some road, or rail, for industry. Freight has to be able to get out.

Two things complicate landfill decay. 1) the rate of decay depends on how much actual garbage there is - i.e. when the landfill is down to that last little bit, it takes a LONG time for that last little bit to decay. Note that other disposal methods do not actually "take" garbage from the landfill - they simply result in no more garbage being added to the landfill, allowing it to decay at full-speed. But even at full-speed, once it's down to that last little bit... best advice here is to literally try to forget about it for a while - the ol' "a watched pot never boils" thing applies here. 2) take care not to dezone the landfill irregularly - there is a known bug whereby the garbage will NEVER decay if it's on a 1 x m landfill. Be sure to keep at least a 2x2 landfill zone until it's all gone, even if you "see" one of those four tiles empty, and you won't have to worry about this. If you get angry enough at it, some have suggested dropping meteors works. Actually, I think it does, but then of course you'll have to deal with the crater - assuming the meteor lands exactly where you want it to. Good luck with that. Plus if "it feels like cheating" is a concern, well the mayor somehow magically pulling meteors out of the sky qualifes, methinks. Personally, I would agree that PEG's chute is "cheating" with the garbage (though even that's only because "our" world isn't really flat... the sims' is, so is it really cheating?), but the docks are certainly not cheating. Lots of cities around the world have to ship their garbage out, it's simply cheaper in some cases to ship it away... ... even though sometimes... it comes back.

Even the Tidy Bowl man needs a little R&R sometimes, I suppose.

Originally posted by: jim 546 The above is NOT a solution. To properly change the name, Download and run the SC4 Startup Manager, and change the region configuration, the name change is in there somewhere.quote> Correction: it's half a solution. You can change the name of the folder. But also, inside that folder is a region.ini file. Inside that file (it's a simple text file) you'll find a "Name =" entry... change that, too. SC4 Startup Manager can do that for you, and has other potentially good uses, too. I don't use it personally, but check it out for yourself, I'm certainly not disparaging its use by any means - just pointing out it's not the only way to change your region's name.

One idea I go with often might help. Most streets are in fact straight as can be. It's just cheaper to make 'em that way - unless there's an obstacle that would otherwise be more expensive, but even in the real world, it doesn't take much. So... make some obstacles! Some plopped water/pond/stream, a couple of boulders, a small hill or divot, maybe even a special clump of trees (think park, historic forest, whatever), and wind your streets around those things. As for traffic concerns, just make sure you don't have any really long stretches of street without some connection to a higher-capacity road, so no one street gets overwhelmed. Also, watch out for shortcuts - traffic driving through a neighborhood that doesn't actually live in that neighborhood. This is a matter of ensuring you don't have a path through your neighborhood that's faster/shorter than the roads going around it. If you've ever seen "local traffic only" signs, think about why they exist - and try to avoid the same mistake in laying out the streets (especially since such a "traffic blocker" in SC4 is, unfortunately, not possible). Easier said than done, sometimes... but critical if you want your quiet streets to stay quiet streets.

1.) Absolutely right! 2.) There is an industry doubler. 3. and iLive's Reader - these definitely go together, for a small town. The default civics are fine for suburbs and cities, but for a small, sprawled out town... well I grew up in such towns, and we didn't have 20 schools to cover the a 25x25 mile area, let alone 4km x 4km (size of "large" city tile in SC4). We had one school, which even serviced other neighboring "big little towns" as a "regional" school. So, me: I downloaded several rural-looking civics (gshmails' Complete Rural Set is convenient and looks pretty good), and used iLive Reader to make them functionally rural, with small capacities* and large radius, enough to cover an entire large tile. The capacities are low enough that I can't really "cheat" and use them in a larger area where they don't belong, they'd be under strikes almost immediately if I did. The buses/ambulances are a bit cheaper for their distance (i.e. I didn't increase the costs of the transportation), but I figure 5 buses driving 25-mile routes on empty roads and rural highways vs. 20 buses driving 5-mile routes on heavily-traveled surface streets...not much difference in the end cost-wise. I would also add SC4Tool, not instead of but as well as iLive's Reader. Sometimes SC4Tool is a bit easier to use, it tends to translate more of the exemplars and their values into their actual meaning, but the Reader has better search and seems to be more stable (on Vista x64 at least). * take care about lowering capacities, there's a hard-wired value under-the-hood that's basically the "minimum maximum" capacity for schools and hospitals, I think it's 500. E.g. if you tweak a clinic's max capacity to 499 it won't function at all. It won't complain, it just won't function, either.

Actually, ncd... you just helped my point. The point of this thread's beginning was to compare the 65-month (actually 78-month, 6 1/2 years) cost of SC4 vs. the CXL. My point is, SC4 was only "so cheap" because we did not have to PAY for any of the "expansions" that have made it so enjoyable for so long. If we had, or if SC4 hadn't been so amazingly extendable - for free - as it is, this thread wouldn't exist, trying to compare games by their costs. We would've either spent a small fortunate on numerous expansions, or we would've moved on to other games (in which case this SITE probably wouldn't exist... so thankfully none of those things happened ). Mind you, I'm not challenging that CXL will cost "ridiculously" more than SC4, but in all fairness, you can't really use the original base price of SC4 as a comparison. We only paid for ONE expansion. One. I'm just challenging the use of the "SC4 was soooo cheap" chant as a basis for this cost argument. It was cheap for a reason which we cannot expect another game company to honor. I don't blame them at all for trying to cash in on it. I don't like it any more than you do, but I don't blame them for trying. I would hope that'll change eventually, at least allowing free custom content in the form of buildings and lots, if not full themes and functional gameplay changes. The MMO is another issue entirely though. Charging for a feature that - from most of the criticism I see - very few people really want. Some are content to give in, pay the subscription, and deal with it. Some are not... count me in that group. Even without having to pay a subscription fee, I for one don't feel I should have to play it online to enjoy it. If CXL were $5, and every bit of additional content was free - but I had to play online to enjoy it, I still wouldn't buy it. Also, I'd like to point out, "yes, we're all different." (I'm not). I also bought a few other games, including everything to do with Half Life 2... great fun those were. But you also bought a heck of a lot more "other" games than I did. So no, I would not still have those 13 games. I bought maybe 4 or 5 at most since buying SC4 - most of those, HL2 et al. And I also waited for their prices to drop - which not everyone does for every game. And you yourself have had the time and patience to learn about and create a LOT of great custom content, much of which I've enjoyed myself (thank you, by the way)... time I've never had. And I can't imagine how many more games you might've bought over the years, had you not spent that time creating custom content for SC4. Maybe it's something to do with our jobs, I dunno. But note the conspicuous - and deliberate - use of "I" in my first scenario. I did not mean to imply everyone would've followed the same course. Some would've bought a lot more, some less, and probably most of us bought at least a few others. But I do know for myself that, had I not enjoyed SC4 as much as I do, I would've bought a heck of a lot more "other games" in the past 6 years. Can't tell you how many times I did NOT buy a game, simply because I thought "hmm, I won't enjoy it as nearly much as SC4, and it'll take away what little time I do have to play SC4... so why should I waste the money?" Not surprisingly, that's the same thought in my head now about CXL.

Oh, mostly designing Raid on Bungeling Bay....quote> Ooooo.... let's remake THAT one!! I'm serious (well, almost) - that game probably contributed the most to the sudden decline of my GPA!

I'm going to play "Devil's Advocate" here. Since my main gripe is being forced to play online to get mass transit and other content which I'd need to be happy, money isn't the issue for me. And I see another perspective about SC4 and its cost. What if we had never actually liked SC4? What if it had "sucked" and there was simply no community support for it? Perish the thought, I know! I love it too! It pains me to even imagine this!! But I'm thinking: SC4 plus RH: ok, $70... but I didn't like it, not enough to play for more than a few months. So then, another $30 - $50 per game every few months looking for something else to occupy my time. Over the course of 6 1/2 years, let's say on average every six months (some less, some more) - so 13 times, I buy a new game, at about $30 each (which is a pretty low price for a game). Yeah, that's $460. Add "incidentals" and I would've spent well over $500. Nevermind any hardware upgrades. Now imagine another scenario: you have to pay for NAM, CAM, and various other mega-packs e.g. SimGoober's stuff, Peg's MTP, CDK, CSK, etc... as if they're official, licensed "Game Expansion Realism Modules"... or GERMs. Maybe because folks can charge for it, or because it was officially released by Maxis/EA instead... either way. If you had to pay for those things...would you have? Dunno about anyone else, but I would've, for most of them. I don't even use the CAM, and maybe I never will - but I probably would've bought it, if I'd had to pay for it (and having paid for it, I probably would be using it). Thank God for my wallet they can't legally charge for it! This probably would've been cheaper than the first scenario, but we're still talking a lot more than the original $70. I'm not saying it's not a lot of money, it is. And I, too, would have had to budget my money carefully, maybe having to sacrifice things so I can buy each "thing" (new game or GERM) along the way, or wait a while until can afford it. I'm pointing out that, I probably would've spent a lot more in the end than the initial $70 anyway - IF I hadn't enjoyed SC4 so long for so little money. And as others have correctly pointed out, that's primarily due to the vast wealth of free custom content available. I actually stopped playing in early 2004 - because I hadn't yet discovered NAM (it had a different name back then, and numerous competitors, and none were anywhere near as sophisticated as NAM is today), and the default "brainless zombie" pathfinding was unbearable to me. Between then and when I picked it up again, I probably did burn another $150 on other new games, and in some cases I was very disappointed or ran out of interest pretty quick. My issue with the PO thing is that I have to pay the continuous fee, and play online, to enjoy it. That and, if I stop paying the subscription fee, I can never see my cities again. If it's just a matter of a good base game and some expansion packs, and I can enjoy everything offline and know that 10+ years from now I can probably still play it on an "old" Vista emulator/virtual machine, and still enjoy the cities I'd built before, I wouldn't care about buying expansion packs. Bring 'em on. But trying to compare the two games by cost, I dunno, just doesn't seem to fly straight.

Health and Education adviser, hands-down. Every other one complains about something that you really have to do at least some work to deal with, IF you care about their complaint. But what do we do about those "not enough funding" messages from H&E? We hunt for the derned thing, and move a slider. That's it. Why can't that lazy dingbat just move the sliders herself?!?

In answer to this and every other "give them a chance" post/thread I've seen lately, I have a simple question, the answer to which could admittedly change my mind about not buying Cities XL: IF: a) I buy Cities XL, to "give MC a chance" as several have proposed, and b) I don't like it, which is fairly certain if in fact I'm forced to play online (with or without a subscription fee) to enjoy the features I want; and c) they don't actually build the "next-gen" city builder you (and I) hope for within the next, oh, 5 years (I'm being very generous with that timeline, I think)... ... will I get a full refund of every penny I'd spent on Cities XL? Show me a "yes" to that in Monte Cristo's EULA, and I'll happily buy the game... twice. Optimism is one thing. Pizza is another. Guess which one I'd prefer to "give a chance" to.

- Transport GEMs are more small tycoon modules that could for example let you manage an airport: place the terminals and control tower, draw the landing tracks... Such a GEM would have an impact on passenger and fret capacity. GEMs will indeed be available both for solo and online play quote> Excellent idea!! And if this concept were used for some form of "expansion pack" (whether you call it a GEM or not) to add mass transit networks, I'd be all for it (though I would grumble at not having at least some basic mass transit in the solo game to begin with, at least buses and trains, maybe subway). But alas: - Mass transit tools refer to transportation networks one can build in his city and that provide additional traffic management tools. They are features like buses, trams, railways, etc. And indeed, these new city building features will be made available to Planet Offer subscribers as we further expand the game.quote> All I can say is...

Mass transit is the biggest deal breaker. Multiple interconnected cities is pretty much the rest. With those two things in single-player, offline, "don't have to pay a recurring fee" game, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I know there are many differences in gameplay vs. SC4, and on that level I agree 100% it's unfair to compare the two games feature-for-feature. Like comparing apples with... avocados. Yeah, I know it's supposed to be "oranges" but I have my reason for choosing avocados - I hate them. Except in guacamole. Here's the thing - I can't compare individual features of an apple vs. an avocado, but I definitely can say I like one more than the other, or I like them both for different dishes, etc.... There's nothing unfair about that. I expect a different style of gameplay from a new game. Even SC:S didn't disappoint me because of that particular aspect, I just really didn't like plopping everything and worring about "synergies" between buildings. And to be honest, I'm not sure I'd care at all for the idea of "selling" my people for cash just because I send them out of town. I won't say what that reminds me of, but it doesn't take more than a second for most sane people to realize it was a bad idea. Other than that, the general gameplay differences don't bother me at all - provided I can still build a city, including most of the things that make a city look like a real city... which I believe is what a city builder is for, no? Am I really being so terribly unrealistic about that?!? The goofy thing far as I'm concerned is, if they make a great base game, and it sells well (and if they don't cripple the single-player game, it probably would)... they'd have money to develop an expansion pack. If that goes well, along comes another. And maybe even another. SC4 missed out on that, but to be honest what more "real content" could EA have added and charged money for, that the fan community wasn't already making for free? I can understand MC's concern there - but their GEMs concept is an excellent middleground. I was very happy when I first heard that idea. My thought was "sweeeeeeeeeeeet .. an easy way to add a bunch more optional extra content, and make sure MC gets the revenue they need to continue supporting and expanding the game, unlike EA's hot-potato drop of SC4." And I would've happily paid for at least some, if not all of them, and in the end, probably spent a lot more money on expansion packs than on a monthly subscription. But online play? For a city builder? It's a nice option, but to call it a "core requirement" to get the basic content needed to build a realistic city... it's just ludicrous to me (even it were free, which it won't be). MC should really check out how well "Uru Live" did. That was a great single-player game (unlike Cities XL, its core fun wasn't crippled for offline play; and it even had two great expansions). But its creators had the same idea - making a "magical online MMO-style universe" for a very small monthly fee. The game came out years ago, and while they haven't given up 100%, it never really got off the ground and is now merely an open-source dream, far as I can tell. And probably at least half the people reading this are now Googling "Uru Live" because they'd never even heard of it. Will Cities XL go the same route right from the start? I guess we'll find out soon.

Actually, in a way there IS a "single player" version of WoW. It was just never called that. Rather, there are countless fantasy RPG "slay the oddly-named monster" games out there, many of which I've enjoyed myself, and even toyed with online from time to time. But I don't usually enjoy playing them online much, even for free, which pre-WoW most such "online experiences" were. I'm not knocking anyone who does enjoy that and feels SP "doesn't even make sense," just stating that, myself... I have no intention of being locked into online-only play to enjoy what I want in a game, free or not. I'm with geek12, though for different reasons. I'm not poor and college is 16 years behind me. But I'm not a continuous player, either, and I don't care about interacting with other folks while I'm building my city. Nothing against any such folks, I just want to build my game in peace, pause it when I want to, walk away for 5 minutes or 3 hours if I want to, and not really care about trades and projects. I just want to unwind from a long day of work or sop up an otherwise boring Sunday afternoon, and build a city. Heck, sometimes I don't even really build a city, I just spend an hour or so seeing what kind of strange road or transit layouts I can come up with, or slapping a few parks together, or repeatedly blowing up a power plant, whatever mood I'm in. And I want to know I can simply take a break from games altogether, maybe not play at all for months (or maybe even play a different game for a while), and know that, if I do come back to this one, I can still enjoy it, and haven't lost anything... nor paid a subscription fee just to keep it in a coma. I understand the PO offer. I like the idea of maybe building in coordination with other real people. I like the idea of trading. I like the thought of others visiting my city, and me visiting theirs. And the idea of large projects requiring multiple players to cooperate? Genius!!!! I probably would try that out eventually, maybe even get hooked into paying an ongoing fee for it. But I had not imagined they would basically force me to play online to get content that does make perfect sense for single-player offline. I would pay for expansion packs. I bought Rush Hour. Had there been more, I'd probably have them all by now. I would've paid for NAM if they could've legally charged for it. And I'd probably end up spending more money in the long run than I would with a "cheap" subscription fee. Even GEMs - I'd pay a reasonable price for each one I wanted, eventually I'd probably get them all (though maybe I'd skip on Barbieworld). But I have to play online for 'em? I have to play online for mass transit? I have to play online to create multiple interconnected cities? Nevermind that I have to pay a fee, I won't be strong-armed into playing online, not even for free. So ok... I simply won't buy the game, until/unless an expansion pack is released including at least basic mass transit (at least what was in SC4 vanilla) and multi-city for single-player, offline. When MC does this, I'll buy the game. If they never do, then I never will.

Note that the slope mod only takes effect while you're dragging the network, doesn't affect anything you've already laid down. So you can simply take the slope mod out, draw your really steep road, and put it back in. I think we're using the same mod though, I have the same one from Ennedi. It's a pain with streets sometimes as I usually run with the "smooth" file. Ah, there's a question - did you take the other two out? That particular slope mod comes with three files for the streets, for smooth, moderate, and mountainous. You're only supposed to keep one in your plugins though. Not sure what happens if you leave all three in.

Getting HT in a "clean" area of the same city with dirty industry? That's a challenge. One factor all industry really likes - is other industry. So you're basically fighting against that, and it's a major desirability factor. Other things that attract them are as previously mentioned, parks, and clean water. I would suggest not only bulldozing the HT where you don't want it, but also dezoning the space they occupied. If they can't build there, they'll be forced to build where you zoned near residential. Take care though - because you can't zone for "HT" but industry in general, so you could end up with a factory next to a mansion. You can adjust the taxes for ID and IM though, but just up them enough to be sure ID and IM demand is lower than HT (lowering HT's taxes a little will help a bit too). Don't max ID/IM though, or your existing industry will abandon. There is still some potential for HT to "take over" existing ID and IM though. The only way you can deal with that would be to mark those ID and IM you want to keep as historic. Then, they can't redevelop. You may or may not need to do this to the outparcels as well (those tiny 1x1 lots that are generally just auxiliary lots for the main factories, e.g. burners and tanks).