I love that the game ends in 2038 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Year_2038_problem" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Year_2038_problem</a>).<p>Also well-done is the rule that the state of the economy determines the highest zone that can be built, since a zone does no good if not actually populated, and ghost towns benefit nobody.<p>The rules about how commute times change if you build adjacent to C&#x2F;D zones or out in the middle of R zones seem quite well thought-out as well.  Though that does raise the question of why they can&#x27;t be brought down again by building a D zone (so more people can live closer to work).<p>This does rather subtly demonstrate the primary problem: players in this game have to <i>care</i> about goals like &quot;keep small towns small&quot; or &quot;at least 5 R-1 zones in ...&quot;, and treat those as having parity with rent and commute times.  (Obviously, without conflicting constraints there&#x27;d be no tension and no game; that this is a game nicely demonstrates the problem.)  Not to mention rules like &quot;Upzoning brings a zone up one level&quot;, since within the rules of the game, C and D zones are strictly preferable to R zones, and having more housing is strictly better than having less housing.  (And, obviously, repeatedly re-zoning the same area in reality would be more disruptive than changing it once.)<p>As another commenter said, &quot;the only winning move is not to play&quot;.  A game like this makes a clearer and cleverer political statement than a pile of ads and protests.