I'm trying to learn to code by writing a life sim of sorts, taking on small pieces at a time and wanted to get some input from people regarding staring to build a world. I would like to start of with one city, with a handful of buildings, and some of those buildings with a handful of rooms (like a house, or apartment). Wondering in you guys opinions what would be the most straightforward solution for this for someone with a bigginner to intermediate experience level.

I was thinking something like a 'city' class that contains a list of building objects, which in turn contain rooms objects. Would this be simple enough? Sorry for my basic use of terminology, just trying to keep it simple enough that I can still understand it.

Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide.

Ultimately, you are the only person that can decide if it is simple enough for you. However, the fact that you ask about it, rather than know the answer, suggests to me, it's too complicated at this point.

There is no shame in starting very small. Less elements means less things going on at the same time, so better chance in understanding.

A second point is that I don't see what "city" or "building" adds. Basically, interaction happens between or more persons in the same room, or one person in one room (if you can interact with the room itself). So, maybe you should ask yourself how "two rooms in one house" is relevant, and how "two houses in one city" is relevant (in interacting).

I never considered writing this kind of program, but maybe a good starting point is a single room. One person interacting with the room, and then two persons in the same room interacting.

You'd get experience in how these things work, and some building blocks to scale up later to cities, the world, and ultimately, the universe!

(ho wait, that was about ruling worlds, never mind ;) )

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that because someone has to ask a question about something means it's too complicated for them. How is one supposed to learn anything if that's the case? But that aside, I do plan on stating small, like one room at a time, but I want to structure this in a way that I can build on it, rather than rewrite everything when I am ready to move forward. I am not understanding the next part of your reply. 'Two houses in one city' is relevant because the cities will (hopefully) eventually be filled with more people with their own houses. 'Two rooms in a house' seems relevant because different rooms will serve different functions (bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, etc.). Cities will eventually have more than one building (houses, shops, etc.), and ultimately the goal is to have more than one 'city'. Not trying to be difficult or hostile, just having conversation.

How have I been impolite in any way? Because I disagreed with his initial statement of 'if you have to ask, it's too complicated'? I asked for clarification of his statements becuase I wasn't sure if I was understanding correctly, and then pointed out where I thought a few things WERE relevant. I think that's an unfair criticism.

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that because someone has to ask a question about something means it's too complicated for them. How is one supposed to learn anything if that's the case?

Fair enough, but in my experience, the biggest thing you'll learn is that you get very solidly stuck, and get terribly frustrated by it.

If you continue programming, you'll get plenty opportunities to take a too big bite, no need to look for it

But that aside, I do plan on stating small, like one room at a time, but I want to structure this in a way that I can build on it, rather than rewrite everything when I am ready to move forward.

You didn't mention this in your first post, so how was I to know that?

The strategy itself is sound, except you may be putting too much emphasis on re-using the code (but that is normal).
In my experience, the thing that really counts is not the code with the solution, the method of solving is what is really important.
Once you know that, you can rewrite the code in a few hours to a day. When I do that, the code usually also improves until the 3rd or 4th rewrite, as you have the room to start again but you have better knowledge where you want to go.

I am not understanding the next part of your reply. 'Two houses in one city' is relevant because the cities will (hopefully) eventually be filled with more people with their own houses. 'Two rooms in a house' seems relevant because different rooms will serve different functions (bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, etc.)

I meant in terms of interaction. I can see two persons in one room interacting with each other (which I guess is a large part of the game). I cannot see one person in one room, and another person in another room, interacting with each other (other than by a quite limited thing called 'phone').
As such in terms of interaction, multiple rooms or multiple houses don't look very relevant to me, it's just (many) more two-persons-in-one-room cases that happen at the same moment in time.
(But you probably have thought about things a lot longer than me, you may be able to point out a flaw in my reasoning.)

Not trying to be difficult or hostile, just having conversation.

Not sure where that is coming from, but I have no hostile intentions.
It's just that a text-only medium with smileys as only way to express emotions, has a lot of room for misunderstanding. I write text that I believe to be completely understandable, but you interpret it differently from my intended direction. That's not my fault (other than having to try better), and it's not your fault, it's just the medium that makes communication very difficult. This also happens the other way around; your remarks and questions get interpreted in ways you don't expect.
The only way to solve this is to try be more clear in what you mean in follow-up posts.

Oh no, I wasn't point out that you were being hostile, sorry if it came off that way. I didn't want you to think I was by slightly disagreeing with you on a few things. None the less, I appreciate the responses. Apologies for not making it more clear that I was intending to start on the smallest level and work my way up, but you make some good point about the possibilities of maybe having too at some point. I agree with 2 people in different rooms not directly interacting with each other. I guess what I am trying to convey is that eventually I would like to have multiple people other than the player character 'living' in the world doing (or at least simulating) their own lives independent of the player character. Thank you for your clarifications. Your input has given me a few things to think about!

I would suggesting considering if there is a difference other than data between a city, building and room and then consider if there is a need for separate classes. It would seem to me that each of "city", "building" and "room" could actually be done with one "location" class that can contain other locations (which could be none). This way you could the add additional "levels" to your structure such as building being made up of floors, cities made up of districts, states made up of cities, etc. without having to create additional classes for each type.

Yeah, I really like the idea of using a single generic Location class. Since each location could have a variable number of sublocations, would using a 'list' to hold sublocations be a good way to solve that?

I definitely intend to start small with a single room, and start working my up from there

Thanks for the additional replies!