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

[joschac2]

No, i was in the passenger seat. I just think the avg traffic should be like that. Merging in and out, forceing they way in and have a few nutcases mixed in there

We don't need the program the AI to be @$$s the Ai do it to themselves, So we had Ai like i showed in the video, there would be a dangerous driver mixed in there. Just like how it is now with the current AI

[interstate trav]

I guess I just kinda wish the traffic in he game matched real life a little more. But that’s not a big thing for me considering the quality we get.

[BattlePeasant]

Frankly, Idaho and Montana, I will bypass. I'm tired of the mountains. Maybe I'll take a look at Texas. This promises to be interesting, but the abundance of common problems in the game is annoying.

[Shiva]

There is quite flat parts in Idaho.
And most of Montana is flat. Colorado has more mountains than Montana, if looking at %.

[BattlePeasant]

I would still prefer flatter states. California has mountains, but most roads don't look like snakes. I like the basemap and NM, but the north is too mountainous.

[Tristman]

I think California mountain roads not looking like snakes has more to do with the limitations they had when they made the base map. Hopefully they will include one or two in the rebuild.

[BattlePeasant]

CA-1 was the only road from San Francisco to Santa Cruz. Then they added the US-101, as far as I remember. This is not the first redesign of the California map. There were winding roads from the beginning. I don't mind a few winding roads, but when most roads are like this, it gets tiring.

[Tristman]

For me it depends, I generally like winding roads, but if you have that one truck in front of you that keeps braking at the most unnecessary moments, it gets tiring. You can usually choose to avoid winding roads by just sticking to interstates though. Unless you are driving the I-84 in eastern Oregon of course.

[flight50]

I agree with Tristam-94. The base map is done like it is because of limitations. Limitations in experience and limitation in tools available. Compared to the entire US, the West doesn't really have a ton of mountains like BattlePesant is making it seem. The current size of the ATS map might make it seem that way though. By the time all the Great Plains are in place, the mountains will be a nice change of scenery. Travel from flat lands, thru the mountains to the Pacific Coast will be nice. Then East of the Great Plains, you have another form of mountains to tend to with the Appalachian Mountains. But less elevation than the Rockies but these will be in the form of huge hills basically but filled with green vegetation. Once you string the entire US together, it will be one huge diverse map and you won't even think about mountains that you get to travel thru. The mountains may not be for everyone just like the flat lands might not be for everyone. But there is something in the US for everyone.

Then across the borders we go for even more diversity. The wait for them will be highly anticipated but with such a huge US map, the wait will less painful. North America as a whole will be a ginormous map if SCS can get there. I'd love to be around and be able to still play just like some of our senior players now. Kudos to them that find enjoyment in SCS games as well. You are never to old to enjoy gaming.

[tomservo75]

I would still prefer flatter states. California has mountains, but most roads don't look like snakes. I like the basemap and NM, but the north is too mountainous.

I chose Montana because it's still at least partly mountainous. I then chose South Dakota because it's closest bordered to Montana. But the other states are mostly flat and are thus tied for me. I really think states like Nebraska and Kansas should be released in pairs, since there aren't as many landscapes, mostly flat.