Ok I know this doesn't really fit this thread, but I have a good remark about CXL.
I really enjoy the depth that CXL brings to the economy in the context of a city builder game. The addition of trading between cities really changed the game from a city builder to more of a city-state builder.
To me SC4's greatest flaw was the trading of resources and services. In SC4 a factory was simply a place for people to be employed, and anything the factory produced got sent to the edge of the map to some magic resource hole where it was never heard from again.
Just as SC4 focused its main attention on traffic and mass transit CXL focuses its attention on resources, services, trade, and cost of living. Something that SC4 largely ignored / over simplified.
I'm not saying CXL is SC5, it is just a new and different challenge compared to SC4. Also, I am happy to buy this game and support MC since they seem to be the only ones aiming to make a good city builder ( not that CXL is one ). But, if you choose to let CXL and MC fail, I don't see how you have any right to complain when no company out there wants to make city builders. Sandbox city builders like SC are disappearing and the companies that take the risk to make a decent city builder deserve a little support from the tiny sandbox city builder community. ( they deserve atleast $39.99 for a decent effort, if you can't afford 39.99 you need to be doing something more productive )
I agree CXL isn't for everyone, it is harder and more complex than SC4. If you don't like CXL thats ok, all I'm saying is it did get one or two aspects right compared to SC and I believe that MC is trying to improve its games, comparing city life to CXL, they made a big leap. Im not saying im buying CXL b/c i like it over SC, what i mean is i support the future of MC games. But, if MC doesn't continue this positive trend im not going to worry about them anymore.
