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

[Shiva]

I wish Boise City OK, would have had somewhat up to date streetview, but it is from 2008/2009.
Only US-287 has a newer streetview of 2018.
I tried to find on who have to use the Weight Station Cimarron County, that is in Boise City.
On US-287 , I did not see any sings for it, at all.
Well, there is this, going north, towards BC, but, I see nothing on it. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7162549 ... 384!8i8192?
Southbound, I found even less, regarding Weigh Stations.
Driving west, US-412, towards it https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7286058 ... 328!8i1664? sign says closed. 2009.

flight50, remember me writing about a 2ndary base map? Texas + Oklahoma combo? I still think that would have been nice. But that would take even longer to release.
But atleast it would have had less trouble with the Oklahoma Panhandle

[Texshi]

I certainly hope we get that roundabout and little bit of city it connects 2 other states and has a lot going on there but of course we've talked and mentioned all this in the research thread I've made my case all I could for that city and I fully support it over Guymon just because it's location for CO/NM/TX the roundabout is all a cool little feature going around the courthouse and the mini landmarks.. just good scenery all together but if it ends up a scenic town I hope they at least get that stuff in game like they did with Kit Carson

I just hope for that small chance they give connect TX/CO with 287 that tiny 40 miles.. makes a difference if you gotta cut through New Mexico constantly when you could just slip through Lamar to Springfield on south...

But if it doesn't happen well It's bound to be the next state after Montana? if not OK, Then Kansas would be great to appear an odd one but most states I've seen appear in this game have always had major connections so obviously Montana is after Texas due to so many states covering it and Oklahoma due to the same deal

[flight50]

If we get US-12 from Guymon to run to US-87 or I-25, then we'll have a shot at needing more of the town and we'd get that roundabout thingy. There is no other way to continue West without it. It's still scenic for me. I can't put it over Guymon though. Guymon just has too much industry compared to BC. Guymon is the only city that is really worth marking in the panhandle that can bring us reason to explore that far West in Oklahoma.

I agree that between NM, Kansas and Oklahoma though, if we are to get US-54, US-56, US-412 and US-87, we'll have to go thru BC. Its the shortest route to NM. That area creates a little diamond which I can see in the game.

[Texshi]

Exactly why I think Boise City will be a pinnacle piece with all those routes it connects but I understand Guymon has more for it in the panhandle I suppose will see.. still going to be inconvenient to run 287 up to where Boise City is only to run US-412 to Guymon... Unless they add US-54 which directly connects Tucumcari to Guymon I see that road working perfectly honestly it makes sense to get all these tiny roads.. look at how they all intersect perfectly?

Tucumcari to Guymon through US 54

Amarillo to Dalhart on wards to Raton with US-87

Tulsa to Guymon Boise City to Raton with US-412 that is such a long stretch it's bound to make the cut

Every single one of those roads runs into 287

Running from Tucumcari to Amarillo up to guymon using Highway 40 would be fine but missing out on that countryside roadway.

[flight50]

US-54 is a must have in my option. We really don't even need US-412 between Boise City and Guymon but they might as well add it if there is space. If space is critical, its not that big of a deal to go Sought on US-54 from Guymon to US-287 and head North to Colorado, US-87 West to New Mexico or just continue US-54 South to New Mexico. The part of US-412 that would matter the most is West of Boise City. If we get US-56 from Kansas, it should parallel US-54 into New Mexico.

Yep, US-287 is the key. Its the artery in that entire region. US-54 and US-87 are next imo. Whatever else squeezes in is a bonus.

Tucumcari to Guymon via I-40 is scenic if you take US-287/US-87 North from Amarillo. Me, I'd rather take US-54 all the way in. Between Tucumcari and Guymon, there is only Dalhart, Stratford and maybe Texhoma that could be scenic before hitting Guymon. I am keeping my fingers crossed for Dalhart being a small marked town. There is just too much livestock available to not be marked. There is good industry there between cattle and feed. At least 2-3 depots. I think Dalhart is a bit far out to get tagged to Amarillo but we'll see. I wouldn't care if it was tagged to Amarillo though. As long as we get a few depots, all is good with me.

[Texshi]

Cactus has a huge Livestock plant so i'd like it to mimic in game as RL so maybe it can be a distant delivery spot kind of like those construction road holes in Nevada.. but yes I hope Dalhart makes the cut that bunch of road connecting is great little spot or Dumas.. just because it stays on 287 and the name lol and personal reasons but I think 412 should be slipped in because it's a huge road that connects from NM all the way to Tennessee that is quite a stretch similar to 287.

[oldmanclippy]

This has been discussed here before but I wanted to chime in about the Kansas City situation. SCS has three options:

Split it into two, with Overland Park and Kansas City KS coming with Kansas and Kansas City MO coming with Missouri. This could work because they did a similar thing with Ontario OR, but that was with a much smaller city. Plus I think it'd be too much of a tease to get almost all the way to the big city but then stop just short, and if they're not gonna do the whole thing they might as well put that effort into increasing density across the state. This is my least favorite option and I really hope they don't do this.

Give it to Missouri. Kansas will get us to Lawrence/Ottawa at the closest, and the Kansas map can focus on adding lots of density to the great plains. Considering Kansas has a very dense road network IRL this could be a solid option. The problem then lies with marketing the state, as the largest city in Kansas is Wichita, which has lots of aviation industry and history but it's not very well known. Idaho had Boise which is smaller than Wichita, but Idaho also had mountains and deserts and the Craters of the Moon as selling points. Wyoming has Cheyenne which is smaller than Boise but it has exciting scenery as well. Kansas has the great plains and a smidget of Utah-esque rock formations, and that's pretty much it from a nature perspective. I'm excited for it but I don't think the general public shares my enthusiasm for seas of grass. For this reason it's my second favorite of the three options. It is my first favorite option if Kansas is bundled with Nebraska, because then Omaha can carry the bundle.

Give it to Kansas. This would be the most radical inclusion outside of a state that SCS will have done up to this point most likely, and it is radical indeed. Kansas City is the largest city in Missouri, but Missouri has St. Louis to help market it. Kansas needs a big city IMO. Nebraska has Omaha, but Kansas needs more than just Wichita to sell it. The problem with this isn't that it will take away from Missouri; like I said Missouri has St. Louis plus it could be bundled with Iowa potentially. The problem is that the research team will have to do Missouri's research ahead of time so that signage and other Missouri-specific things are included with the Missouri portion of Kansas City. That being said, in America states are very similar from a roads and signs perspective, so the toll on the research and assets team might not be too demanding especially compared to the differences between countries in ETS2. I think they could pull it off, and this is the best option IMO. Kansas just doesn't have enough "star power" on its own without Kansas City. This is my preferred option unless Kansas and Nebraska are bundled, in which case Kansas City can come with Missouri.

I think Louisiana or Louisiana and Arkansas will come before Kansas anyways, so if they are bundled then we can maybe expect a bundled Kansas and Nebraska. We still don't know if ATS will transition to 3 maps per year or if it will stay at 2 maps per year with state bundles. In the concept map in my signature from October I predicted that bundling will start with Louisiana and Arkansas and Oklahoma would be the last solo state, but I am not sure if I fully am confident with that now. 3 maps at 11.99 will make them a slightly less amount of money compared to 2 at 17.99, so if I was Pavel I'd only release two per year to maximize revenue and reduce the load on testers and QA. But it might be easier from a project management standpoint to have smaller releases. BUT in ETS2 they haven't switched to 2 per year, instead releasing larger and larger maps each time with no end in sight to this strategy. So who knows what they will do with regards to map size and frequency. Only time will tell, but that's my analysis of the situation as it stands.

[Bedavd]

Hahah. I mentioned this over the Texas thread, too, but I think I completely disagree with your hierarchy of choices. The most preferable and, to me, the obvious option is that we get Overland Park with Kansas and then KC comes with Missouri. We won't see Kansas City, KS as a marked city, only scenery. Overland Park is the second-largest city in Kansas, technically larger than Kansas City, KS, and has a couple of connections running to and through that area that I think Kansas would be worse off not having (particularly because the N/S running is on the wrong side of the Mississippi). It'll be more of a Portland/Vancouver thing than with Ontario, OR and I think that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure what you mean by it being a tease to stop just short of the city, you're still in the metro area and there will be tons of industrial areas and connections between I-70, I-35, US 69, US 73, and either one or both of I-435/I-635. Sure we won't be able to go through the downtown "proper" but outside of Interstates, this wasn't going to happen anyway. I also don't think it'll be too tight. The far side of Topeka is about 60 miles from the Missouri border, and SCS could fit Topeka, Lawrence, and Overland Park into that area if they did some creative shifting. The distance between Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett is about the same size. In fact, I think this is preferable so that the metro area of KC feels really large and like it fills out across both states.

Having Kansas stop at US 59 is fine I suppose, but I have to agree that Kansas would feel like it's lacking something. I'd disagree, however, that bundling it with Nebraska would allow Omaha to carry the bundle. Maybe I don't know much about Omaha, but I get the feeling you might be overconfident in its marketability hahaha. Omaha to me is basically on the same level as Wichita, a step or two below my interest in seeing the KC metro area, even if only though the Overland Park side.

Having the entire city, both Kansas and Missouri sides, come with Kansas does not make sense to me and I doubt SCS would do that. If they're not willing to give US 12 and US 93 in Missouri, I really really don't think they'll give us a marked city and depots that lie in another state. I think this is by far my least preferable option and I'd rather they wait to do the entire city at once with Missouri than stitch it over to Kansas. Of course. One way to fix this might be to bundle Kansas and Missouri, rather than Kansas and Nebraska. If we have Texas, then OK and MT, then we might see LA and AR come after. It makes more sense to me, personally, to see KS/MO and NE/IA come as pairs than KS/NE, both because of road connections, city placement, and marketability.

That's all just me and my opinion, though.

[oldmanclippy]

Yeah I get that, and I don't think there's a perfect solution to the Kansas City issue, I guess I personally value the skyline of the cities a bit more than most people so if we got the industrial areas without the skyline that'd be a tease for me. That's par for the course for ETS2 since most cities were built way before freeways, but part of what I like about ATS is that you get to really feel like you're there. Others might not be so fixated on the downtown areas as I am though, so Overland Park would be enough for them.

As for Omaha, I'm headed there this weekend so I'll report back about how interesting it is lol. Omaha is much larger than Wichita though. The metropolitan area is about 50% more populous and the area is about twice as large. Also a lot more industry there as far as I know. It's not much more flashy than Wichita is but it's a lot more relevant to trucking IMO. If someone with more knowledge of the cities wants to correct me then go ahead but that's my impression.

[angrybirdseller]

Nebraska slightly larger than Washington and panhandle has lots of buttes and small canyons. Nebraska-can fit 3500 in game road miles and 10 cities. Omaha wont be easy to build as I-80 is mess into Iowa. Iowa is 4/5 size of Washington get 3000 in game road miles but 9 cities would fit would sit have space for rolling rivers and river ravines. States do not really get small enough to bundle till east of Mississippi river.

Think bunding like ETS2 not going to work ATS the highway density more freeways and interstates further east and the truckstops and cities still need to model out. Most ATS map DLC are going to continue to be 3000-5000 in game road miles.