Poll: Choose (3) States you would like to see next

[flight50]

That's what I am hoping for @Tails. We all have been back and forth on it. But I am on board with making ATS more like ETS2 once beyond Texas. So everything West of the Texas/Louisiana border, comes solo. Everything else, bundle it kinda like below. I use to be on the same bandwagon as fewer bundles but with SCS adding more mappers, I think it should happen sooner. Mainly because I honestly think SCS needs to keep ATS maps at only twice a year...Summer and Winter. I think trying to release 3-4 solo maps a year is a headache. Might as well keep things like they are now, but just give more map with each release. Michigan could be included East of the blue line but its out there by itself and doesn't really go well unless by itself unless SCS gave us Canada between Michigan and New York. So that would be Toronto and everything South of it.

[ external image ]

[Vinnie Terranova]

But I fear SCS is still not ready. (...) But I don't think SCS is ready for DFW, Houston, San Antonio Austin and El Paso all in one dlc. (...) More newbies needs to get up to speed so that they can do more basic mapping so that there will be enough seniors to do the large cities in Texas because Texas will need seniors primarily working those cities. We need at least 6 senior city mappers.

Why do you think the number of senior city mappers will be a problem? I'm not talking about now, but about the future, after Colorado and Wyoming are released. Why wouldn't SCS have 6 senior city mappers by then? Denver will be a nice test case for the big cities of Texas. If SCS knows how to do Denver, then DFW, Houston, etc will be no problem. And probably Los Angeles will have been revamped by then, too.
And what about Montana? What has Montana to offer for a junior city mapper to become a senior city mapper? Montana is the third-least densely populated state of the US (wikipedia). Billings is the biggest city with a population of just over 100.000. You cannot compare this to Denver or the big cities of Texas. So Montana is not that interesting for city mappers.

People have been craving Texas for years but every year I have Texas in the polls, it has always been the 3rd ranked. So I think people are okay with wait.

For now, yes. But I think Montana has a problem: no big cities. If we get Colorado, we'll have one big city. Wyoming also has no big cities. If Montana will be the state after Wyoming, we'll get another, second state without big cities. But by then we have sniffed at Denver. And I think that after Denver we want more. After Denver it's okay to have a small state like Wyoming, because of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. But another state without big cities? I don't know... I think that by then it is big time for Texas.

Pavel's words last xmas clarified, they weren't ready.

I remember that you've post a link to a video(?) where Pavel said that. I haven't watch that video yet. But in short: weren't they ready technically speaking? Or didn't they have enough senior (city) mappers? Were the map/assets teams not big enough? Didn't they have the third map team yet? But then again, I'm not talking about if SCS is ready now, but about if SCS is ready in the future after the release of both Colorado and Wyoming. And I think they will be.

For the time being, that one big one will have to be Colorado.

No. Colorado will be A big one (Rockies, Denver), but not THE big one. That will be Texas. And as Colorado will be a big one, that will taste to something more. After Colorado we don't want two less interesting states. One less interesting state is okay (Wyoming), but after that another one? No way. People will get impatient.

Wyoming and Montana adds real estate cushion and boxes up the map. It finishes both I-15 and I-25.

Texas will add a lot of industry, too. And it's nice to have the map boxed up, and to have finished I-15 (I-25 is finished in Wyoming), but for me it's okay if we have to wait for that after Texas. Besides, If Texas is released before Montana, team one can do Montana, team two Oklahoma, and team three Kansas. This will unlock Texas, as the main entry point will be just New Mexico. Maybe we'll have the US-385 from Colorado via northwest Oklahoma to Texas, but it's important that Texas will be unlocked.

[Gormanbros]

Yeah, I'd agree with Flight about Michigan. It would be perfectly fine releasing by itself. You can fairly comfortably fit 12-16 cities in the state without it feeling too cramped, and it has more potential for non-interstate travel (outside southeast Michigan) than any other state east or south of it.

[averyc2506]

same. michigan isnt a so-called "flyover state" as jason aldean would say (i hope someone gets this joke.) if youre driving into michigan, that is most likely the only reason youre on the road, to go to michigan...

[Bedavd]

I’m typing this while my SO and I drive down from Petosky and Sleeping Bear Dunes. Honestly, that’s what I’M most excited for. Driving along the lakes is one of my favorite things. I know I’m heavily biased toward Mi, but I think SCS can easily market it alone. The landscape in the north and the industry in the south make it special enough.

I think 16 cities is way too many. My money is on these in order of likelihood:

Detroit
Lansing
Grand Rapids
Traverse City
Saginaw (with Midland and Dow Chemical included in with Sag)
Alpena
Sault Ste. Marie
Marquette
Escababa
Kalamazoo
Flint
Houghton
Bad Axe (just so we can get into the thumb)
Ann Arbor (I’m very shaky on this one)

So 13, 14 is AA comes.

You know I can’t stay away from a Michigan discussion

[Gormanbros]

Believe me, as a Detroiter, I'm very excited for Michigan too.

I think 16 would be the maximum, but 13-14 (aka the ones you listed) is the most likely. The other two I had in mind is Ludington for the Badger, and an additional small town in the UP. Neither are essential, but I think there could be room for both.

I think they'll find a way to get Ann Arbor in there, as it is one of the biggest cities in the state. It's a little close to Detroit, but no more so than Salt Lake City and Provo are. They could always move Ann Arbor a little further west as well, but I think they could make it work.

Michigan will definitely feel a little out of the way until Ontario (hopefully) comes. That's not a bad thing, it will just be kind of a dead end without the border crossings at Detroit/Windsor, Port Huron/Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie. If we ever get Ontario, Michigan is going to go from great to perfect.

[Bedavd]

I could maybe see Cadillac, Grayling, or Gaylord just for something else in the northern LP. The UP should be sparse IMO because that’s what it is in real life.

Ludington, I think, will be scenery like Port Townsend and Coupeville in Washington. But who knows. It’ll make a good rest stop between GR and Traverse City if nothing else.

[supersobes]

if youre driving into michigan, that is most likely the only reason youre on the road, to go to michigan...

I'm sure Michigan gets a lot of traffic from travelers and commerce between the Midwest and Southern Ontario as well. The Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario is the busiest crossing between the US and Canada, with an average of 8,000 trucks crossing the bridge daily.

[parasaurolophus67]

yep. Theirs a video that proves how busy it is X_X

[Bedavd]

They’re building a new bridge as well, call the Gordie Howe bridge (hockey of course) south of the Ambassador. You can see the Canadian side all set up. They’re basically gonna bulldoze the entire neighborhood (it’s mainly empty lots, but some people do call it home) to build it. I don’t know if we’ll see both in the game though. Hopefully!