parmenio

Definately need hotdog stands :-). Also, Deeejayeee already mentioned this, but I think it needs reiterating. We need the ability to limit the height of buildings in certain areas. In SC4, the lack of this capablility resulted in skyscrapers, or at least overly-tall buildings, appearing in small towns and areas meant to be low rise. Giligone's idea of upgradeable public institutions is also very good. I wouldn't mind also seeing the "societal" aspect present in SCS somewhat implemented. This would give the cities character. This would be even better if players could mod their own scripts as well, allowing for an infinite variety of different "feels" a city, or neightborhood, could have.

May not do much good, but it can't hurt. We might as well do it.

As much as I dislike this game, since this thread is devoted to the more positive aspects, I'd have to say the idea of "societies" is interesting and needed. I'm still boycotting the game however.

As much as I dislike this game, since this thread is devoted to the more positive aspects, I'd have to say the idea of "societies" is interesting and needed. I'm still boycotting the game however.

The developers attempted to provide players with the opportunity to give their cities character, something I have always wanted in previous simcity versions. I admire them for trying to implement such an awsome aspect into the game. But it looks like they only managed to sap all the life and soul out of every detail. If these screens are anywhere near what this game looks like, it is absolutely abyssmal. I had kept an open mind until I saw these latest pics and read the "gingerbread houses" article. So frustrating too! It seems like they systematically eliminated from the new version everything that is most popular on simtropolis: realistic structures, variety, networks, flora, variation of props, and, of course, OPTIONS! From what we know so far, this game is based upon eliminating options for the sake of simplifying it. Unless all of this has been an incredibly poor job by EA at communicating what the game truly is, SCS appears to be next to worthless.

As a U.S. citizen very upset by our nation's rapidly deteriorating credibility in the world and all that this entails, I see very little merit in a viable Israel if the price is an isolated America. U.S. foreign policy has never been defined by other nations' well-being nor charity, but about how America's strategic position can be made stronger. Occasionally this stance results in greater prosperity for the nations involved and the U.S. can rightfully claim the moral highground, such as was the case with U.S. dominance of Japan and parts of Germany after WWII. But improvement of other nations are incidental and secondary relative to the primary goal of elevating America's global position. This is why the U.S. relationship with Israel is all the more perplexing. Upon the conclusion of the Cold War, the U.S. had no strategic reason to give the nearly unconditional support it currently provides Israel. It no longer needed a working democracy in the area (and it's a terrible myth that the U.S. has promoted democracy exclusively during the Cold War. The Carter administration basically had the South Korean president assassinated when the latter attempted to move his nation TOWARD democracy in 1979!) nor did the U.S. require Israeli assistance in carrying out illegal activities to fight communism around the world, like selling arms to Columbian death squads, for instance. Without this need, there was no strategic purpose for the U.S. to continue its unwaivering support for a regime that is essentially an apatheid state, especially in view of our energy concerns in the area and the incredible economic potential of increasing ties with the vast population of the region. The rhetoric from the Bush administation has been that Israel is America's staunchest ally, and therefore the U.S. has a responsibility to protect her. But to what extent Israel is a U.S. ally remains very questionable. The U.S. provides Israel with three billion annually, sells them advanced weaponry, like the Patriot missile and Blackhawk helicopters, vetos all but the most minor criticism of their actions in the U.N. security council, supports the regime's preemtive wars and brutal treatment of the Palestinians, refuses to bring action against the Israeli nuclear program (even Iran is part of the non-proliferation treaty, but not Israel!), and simply willing to use U.S. military power in an attempt, botched as it was, to destroy Israeli's enemies. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Israel has reciprocated with absolutely nothing. And for this nothing, the U.S. has enraged the greater portion of the Muslim people and endangered Americans around the world. Absolutely nonsensical. The U.S. has nothing to benefit from protecting Israel and everything to lose, and this runs contradictory to everything international politics are typically based on. The question is: Why? As for Rumsfeld, he was a disaster. Sustaining Iraq after ousting Saddam would have been difficult with any number of troops, but to send in 80,000 initially, which was less than a fourth of what military planners had wanted, is demonstrative of the extreme ideologue that Rumsfeld is. He should hang. Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, thundercrack. Good points.