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

[Gazer75]

We would need Colorado as well to get a proper route from the northern Nevada area.
Only places that would use the I40 would be Reno, Carson City, Tonopah and Las Vegas.

[flight50]

I am Texan but Texas can yield to the West. I agree that Utah isn't exactly exciting. Colorado is definitely more attractive but you must have Utah in order to have Colorado. If we knew SCS would bundle both Utah and Colorado, it would win hands down without a doubt. In RTobi's thread for boxed style, the Utah/Colorado bundle is referenced a ton. Utah ties in others that make it critical to move East from Nevada. It is the first State that SCS will encounter as a puzzle piece state. You can't go Northeast without Utah. Sweeping South just makes the map too awkward with Texas. Add in Oregon or Texas before Utah and/or Colorado and the map get weirder and quite disappointing to make such linear travels. We are all in agreement that Texas adds a ton but we can get by without it for now. If people complained about the price of New Mexico, imagine what will happen with Texas. It should be around the price of the base game given that it will get NM detail and quality. No reason why it won't get that type of attention though.

As mentioned above, Utah opens up every single bordering state it borders and introducing ones that don't border the existing map. We can't have Idaho, Wyoming nor Colorado without Utah first. Utah does not have many Interstates running thru it true. But look around. Neither does Colorado, Idaho or Oregon. Texas is the next state in line to have as many highways as California. All states to be made that border the existing ones will all have more US highways running thru them than Interstates. Interstates a spread far and wide in the desert and mountain states. It won't be until we go east when we start seeing the tree limb effect of highways. Small town or big town, we need them to complete the West. We need to get to Salt Lake and Denver next. Salt Lake to Vegas, Salt Lake to Denver. Denver to Albuquerque. These routes up the existing Arizona map and the newly acquired New Mexico to make travel to Page, Kayenta, Farmington and Raton much more of a joy.

Oregon doesn't offer as much as people think it will. I am afraid that if SCS does go that route next, people will be highly disappointed in what they found out is actually there....more desert and not as much greenery as they anticipated. Below is Oregon's geography. It's not as glamorous is it, lol.
[ external image ]

I do think we get two maps next year though but what two is the question. I honestly would prefer to wait a whole year and release both at the same time. This would kill several birds with one stone. Whether it is Oregon/Utah, Utah/Colorado or Oregon/Idaho. We just need the next state of two to open up existing parts of the map more. Texas will take 12-16 months by itself I am sure so that is the second biggest reason why Texas can wait unless they take a chance at the external team again and give them Texas. Texas is a state that can come when ever so making an attempt with them or another worthy team allows the internal ATS team to focus on adjacent states in the West.

[Gazer75]

Not sure if that image paint an accurate picture though flight50.

There are some forests around the US26/US395 in Grant County.

[Hell_Raiser]

@flgiht50: I had to go all the way back to page 1 to find the last time I mentioned adding Texas, so I am not sure what you where replying to. My best guess would be my comment about Oregon being next, and you basically summed up why I don't want Oregon in your third paragraph. I prefer Texas as the next state, because I don't care about what shape the map is, as long as it has areas that are cool to drive through. They could make a squiggle across the country for all I care.

However most people want to box off the map, that way they have another east/west interstate corridor, and all the jobs don't run down I-10 and I-40. I support Utah and Colorado being the next two states, bundled would be even batter, what I don't want is just Utah, because it doesn't do much good without Colorado, since the only north/south interstate is I-15.

That said, it looks like Oregon is next, and that is the only popular option I don't support. It offers very little in the form of new scenery and does nothing to address the issue people have with a linear map. In a different topic I went into detail on the geography of Oregon, but it is basically Nevada and Northern California, just further north.

@Gazer75 That map is pretty close to accurate, most of the eastern part of Oregon is dessert or semi-arid steppes (basically still desert, the vegetation is the same, but it has more water or less heat). Just look at it on goegle earth/maps. While there are some forests in eastern Oregon, they are very thin and inconsequential.

[saur44l]

Oregon offers nothing in form of new scenery?US-101 is one of the most scenic drives on the western coast(at least judging from all those videos and images on the net).......I-5,that stretch north of Medford looks really wonderful,also Siskiyou Summit on the border with California........US-97 also looks quite interesting........I-84,Columbia River Gorge and Cabbage Hill........we all thought that NM has nothing to offer yet SCS has made one of best dlc's so far,to be honest can't wait to see what is next in line for ATS and ETS2.

[Hell_Raiser]

I believe I said very little, not nothing. Either way, US-101 and I-5 already have similar scenery in California, I-84 will be cool, but besides that, none of the scenery is really new, it is just more of what we already have. I imagine the dlc will be nice, and I am definitely looking forward to the release of the next state, no mater what it is, but for me, Oregon is the lowest on the list of possible states (ok, maybe Idaho and Oklahoma should be, since there is no Interstate connection I don't count them).

[flight50]

@hell_raiser. My apologies. Yes that was page one I reference for some odd reason. I work with two monitors and I was using page 1 to reference something and didn't realize I was not at the most recent post at the end of the thread. So again my apologies, lol. I guess I need to stay off that stuff huh, lol.

Now in regards to Utah offering nothing, yes correct. As far as most of us know, there is just Salt Lake city but I am sure SCS will bring it to life still just as they did with New Mexico. Bundling with Colorado would be awesome. Part of why I was mentioning if we can get two states next year, I would be okay with them holding the first one until the second one is done which may be this time next year but we 2 maps instead of one. This is only if that combo is Utah and Colorado. A combo that is desperately needed for Arizona New Mexico. But I am sure SCS will release what they when it is completed to start getting some funds back. Now if both Utah and Colorado are worked on in unison, they the bundle should happen much easier.

I also agree with Hell_Raiser that Oregon is just and extension of Northern California as well as an extension of Nevada to the East.

@saur44i. Yes SCS definitely made something out of NM. They exposed the good in it for sure and I agree with you Hell_Raiser in these regards that what ever is next on the menu will be awesome. It's just sad to see all the negative reviews for such a wonder job they did on NM. Good thing is that those negative reviews is a very small percentage compared to the ones that approve of it.

@Gazer, I replace the Oregon map with an image from Google Earth that Hell_Raiser reference. He was correct that there are a few more scatter forest to the East but not by much. So the original pic I had was still fairly close to GE.

[angrybirdseller]

Utah have I-15 with I-80 then you have I-70 with US 6 and US 40 and US 191 routes that offer non l-shape access to three other states.

Colorado and Utah being standalone with amount detail in both too distinct to combine, and Idaho with Utah works better and Wyoming with Colorado the same. The thing is combine states instead of 8-12 months for each state to be released it will be 18-20 months and price tag will reflect that.

The twitter post of about ABQ big I interchange with 118 sections with Salt Lake City I-80 and I-15 interchanges are just as complex as ABQ and then you have commuter trains along I-15 and noodle mess with US 89 to the north.

Best to make map people dont have L-Shape corridor. Denver and Front Range region same thing as Salt Lake and Watsch Front but far more work have CO-470, I-25, I-70, US 6 lots of work to scale it.

Salt Lake, Denver, Seattle, Portland all these cities will be time consuming to create 3 of 4 are packed into mountian ranges and have water as natural boundary. All have just much work as ABQ in itself and recommend all states get released as stand alones.

As stated before Utah and Colorado would not release them as one region too much work and turn around time to get it done within 12 months is not possible. Its going have to be one state at time till like Montana and Wyoming could release as one region

Texas should held off till other states are made.

Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado need to be made first before Texas and each will have to stand alone to get qaulity of detail like New Mexico.

[EricWilson2012]

What worries me the most is what will happento to Nevada next. It’s already a fairly unpopular state as it is, and with Oregon being next, the important Interstates would be 5, 10 and 40, none of which go theough Nevada.

The interstates that go into Nevada, 15 and 80, will therefore be useless as they still wouldn’t have been developed/expanded. Either way, I see Nevada’s popularity decreasing throughout the years as people continue to realize how long and boring the state’s roads are

[xDope]

To square off the map - Utah.