Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5383
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#511 Post by oldmanclippy » 11 May 2021 20:41

This is the city composition I'd like to see in California:

Removed cities (or change to scenic):
Hornbrook
Oxnard
Carlsbad
San Rafael
Santa Cruz

Added cities:
San Jose
Yreka

Dramatically expanded cities:
San Francisco
Oakland
Los Angeles
San Diego
Sacramento

The rest of the cities that aren't dramatically expanded or removed can get improvements slightly better than the Germany rework. I'd rather have California's major cities built to the same level as Portland or Albuquerque rather than have them spend too much energy on making the smaller CA cities better. I'd rather they do the minimum for the smaller cities, but if they have time to vastly improve all the cities then obviously I would want that. My priority would be the road network / environment, and the major cities. I really like the idea that someone had about turning the Bay Area into an Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle like corridor. I think something like @flight50 's map from here https://imgur.com/0stftwW will be the most likely scenario. Although I think they'll do the Bay Area in one go rather than splitting it apart in two phases, since the cities are so close to each other it wouldn't make sense to do it piecemeal. Los Angeles and San Diego will take a lot of work on their own so those might get done in a separate update from the rest of southern California. I don't think it will be 2 phases, more like 3 or 4. My prediction is that California's final rebuild phase will release right before Montana in Late 2022 or Early 2023.

Texas is gonna get a ton of publicity, probably more than any other SCS DLC because Texas is so famous and recognizable. This will show people that the quality of the DLC's is much much better than the base map, so it will help stave off some of the problems with having the base map be in such rough shape. But following Texas the states won't get recognizable from a global perspective for quite a while so they'll need to be able to directly show people that the game is quality when they play the demo or base map, and the CA rework is happening for that exact reason.

Having an improved California should do wonders for ATS's DLC attachment rate. Right now CA is not really inspiring and if someone doesn't know that the following DLC's are much better than they might just drop ATS entirely after seeing the base map. But California is one of if not the most famous US state, so if people buy the base game or play the demo and experience a solid California then they'll be much more likely to check out the rest of the DLC.

One more thing, I would bet a lot of money that LAX will come with the Los Angeles rework. It's one of the most important airports in the world, and SCS has put a lot of emphasis on airports with Iberia, Colorado, and the Germany rework. I think airports have quickly become one of the most surefire things that SCS will put in a major city, and LAX is probably the depot that I'm most excited about visiting with the California rework. The Port of Los Angeles also needs to come. Sure, it's cool to see the WORLD OF TRUCKS sign from Santa Monica in-game right now, but I'd prefer them to completely change their LA design philosophy to be more industry-focused.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#512 Post by flight50 » 11 May 2021 21:07

If the game won't have issues by removing cities cool. But I'm not positive how that works out. We might be stuck with what we have. They can always add without issue but removing could be problematic. Doesn't mean those cities have to remain as is but they will have to stay mapped with at least (1) depot. Its like if you have a map mod and if that city has a garage and that garage is removed, it throws an error for sure. I don't know if the city itself presents the same issue. Someone with more experience could answer to that though. The only modification I'd add to your list @oldmanclippy is adding Chico or Yuba City as marked. If we are to get an extend CA-99 to I-5 vs stopping in Stockton, one of those two will need to be marked and the other could be scenic. A few more scenic like Susanville and San Bernardino work great too with a least one remote depot. California has roads all over including thru the Sierra Nevada mountains. CA-120 turned out good at the time it came. But maybe SCS wants to do a few more mountain crosses. There's a ton of them to choose from. We don't need them all but it do provide more Nevada connections. A better US-395 and US-95 will help out a lot too.

I totally agree with the dramatically cities getting expanded though. If on the level of the newer cities, California will be golden. If you look at it, those 5 isn't that bad or too much to ask for. It is California we are speaking of. The 2nd largest of the lower 48 states. Texas as 6 huge cities so California and Texas by far should have the most largest cities per state that are high quality.

I'm guilty of mentioning the Bay area should be one huge metroplex. I see these huge metro areas as another dimension to the game. If the want to keep raising the bar.....well keep raising it then. ATS is still young. We have not reached the most busiest parts of the US but with Texas coming, we are inching closer. As we get into the meat and potatoes of the MidWest, a lot of new is gonna have to be in place. These areas could give not only that huge city feel but it can feel like a local delivery type setup with numbers depots. These areas should be loaded with depots imo. If not possible, fine but I'd at least like to know the devs attempted. Population wise, the US is smaller in size vs Europe. Its a bit more spread out here. Main reason why I'm so adamant about why ATS should have a lot more companies. There is space...there is room. We get too many non functioning depots when deliverable depots can occupy a lot of those spaces. I know how huge DFW is and what it will do for Texas. Houston will do the same for Texas. The other larger cities in Texas will play their roles well. NYC, LA and Chicago will have the same huge metro areas......I hope. I think the Bay area also fits that bill. Its not too far down the list of largest metro area in the US. The huge metro areas are not only a site seeing tool for ATS but they drive the economy the most in ATS. The metro areas should have the widest array of company diversity imo. It shouldn't be uncommon to get 15-20ish companies in these massive areas to deliver too. They don't all have to be spread out either. Most of the US shopping areas are condensed into several small pockets around cities. There could be 3-4 of these type of area in ATS. The game sort of does that already. Irl, there could be a solid dozen or more pocket areas of trucking opportunities available. So a little more more of that could take place in ATS if ya ask me.


This is the list of the largest US metro areas. The yellow highlights are metro areas that are in the game, could be in the game or about to come to the game in the next year.

[ external image ]
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#513 Post by Shiva » 11 May 2021 23:24

If those to be removed cities have garages, then there will be trouble.
If no garages, less or no trouble.

If the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge is deleted from game, then Oakland can get more space, yes.
Shrinking San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge even more than what has been done? No.
How much longer is San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, compared to the Golden Gate Bridge? Ingame and IRL?
SFOABB, yeah, the turn on the road at Yerba Buena Island, is a bit less than IRL.
Western span turn, if it differs from IRL, I'll let others to check.
Online ATS map https://ets2.online/map/ats
Google maps https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8066728 ... a=!3m1!1e3

What is the opposite word for exaggerated?
SFOABB is that x2 compared to Golden Gate Bridge.

What eats quite a lot of space in SF, is the area where "Charged" is.
Well, where that road is, vs The Embarcadero.

Redoing SF, I'm glad I am not on that task.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3298
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#514 Post by angrybirdseller » 11 May 2021 23:35

San Francisco will be minor rework if that and Oakland will be where resources will be directed. Cities like San Rafael and Carlsbad not likely getting removed.

Los Angeles with I-405 to connect to the ports is likely and maybe LAX. Carlsbad wont change too much and San Diego will get face lift not rework.

Only Los Angeles and Oakland will get some real work done. San Francisco think scs wont mess with it like Oakland.

I-5 will get newer style truck stops and removal of old sections and minor refreshes on re-scale sections.

I-10 and I-5 along with US-101 will re-routed to make it more accurate in Los Angeles.

Think realistically California will be improved, but bigger cities like Oakland and Los Angeles will be actually rebuilt from scratch. Cities like Frensno and Bakersfield they will add truckstop and freeways bypass the the towns.

Sacramento rework will likely connect CA-99 to I-80 and spur for US-50.

SCS wont remove existing cities in California they will just work around them.
leo.arevalo12ss
Posts: 1231
Joined: 22 Aug 2020 01:32

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#515 Post by leo.arevalo12ss » 12 May 2021 00:00

oldmanclippy wrote: 11 May 2021 20:41 This is the city composition I'd like to see in California:

Removed cities (or change to scenic):
Hornbrook
Oxnard
Carlsbad
San Rafael
Santa Cruz

Added cities:
San Jose
Yreka

Dramatically expanded cities:
San Francisco
Oakland
Los Angeles
San Diego
Sacramento

The rest of the cities that aren't dramatically expanded or removed can get improvements slightly better than the Germany rework. I'd rather have California's major cities built to the same level as Portland or Albuquerque rather than have them spend too much energy on making the smaller CA cities better. I'd rather they do the minimum for the smaller cities, but if they have time to vastly improve all the cities then obviously I would want that. My priority would be the road network / environment, and the major cities. I really like the idea that someone had about turning the Bay Area into an Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle like corridor. I think something like @flight50 's map from here https://imgur.com/0stftwW will be the most likely scenario. Although I think they'll do the Bay Area in one go rather than splitting it apart in two phases, since the cities are so close to each other it wouldn't make sense to do it piecemeal. Los Angeles and San Diego will take a lot of work on their own so those might get done in a separate update from the rest of southern California. I don't think it will be 2 phases, more like 3 or 4. My prediction is that California's final rebuild phase will release right before Montana in Late 2022 or Early 2023.

Texas is gonna get a ton of publicity, probably more than any other SCS DLC because Texas is so famous and recognizable. This will show people that the quality of the DLC's is much much better than the base map, so it will help stave off some of the problems with having the base map be in such rough shape. But following Texas the states won't get recognizable from a global perspective for quite a while so they'll need to be able to directly show people that the game is quality when they play the demo or base map, and the CA rework is happening for that exact reason.

Having an improved California should do wonders for ATS's DLC attachment rate. Right now CA is not really inspiring and if someone doesn't know that the following DLC's are much better than they might just drop ATS entirely after seeing the base map. But California is one of if not the most famous US state, so if people buy the base game or play the demo and experience a solid California then they'll be much more likely to check out the rest of the DLC.

One more thing, I would bet a lot of money that LAX will come with the Los Angeles rework. It's one of the most important airports in the world, and SCS has put a lot of emphasis on airports with Iberia, Colorado, and the Germany rework. I think airports have quickly become one of the most surefire things that SCS will put in a major city, and LAX is probably the depot that I'm most excited about visiting with the California rework. The Port of Los Angeles also needs to come. Sure, it's cool to see the WORLD OF TRUCKS sign from Santa Monica in-game right now, but I'd prefer them to completely change their LA design philosophy to be more industry-focused.
Oxnard won't be removed or made scenic because it's the only freightliner dealer in the base map and seeing san rafael and Santa Cruz won't likely be removed
Take it with a grain of salt nothing is 100% sure
User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#516 Post by Xaagon » 12 May 2021 00:29

I also vote for NOT removing cities.

Maybe make Hornbrook the exception, but instead of removing, rename it to Yreka and rebuild it as Yreka. Maybe leave the truck stop there - I think there was one there in real life?

I see Oxnard and Carlsbad remaining in ATS, but really merging with LA in a Seattle-Tacoma kind of build. Maybe even add Anaheim, San Bernardino, Riverside, etc. LAX plus port of Long Beach would be awesome.

San Rafael I think we need to keep. It's actually three cities in one, San Rafael, Vallejo, and Napa. Signage should be improved to tell you the difference between these.

Santa Cruz, I also want to keep. It's a legacy city from 18 WoS. I would shift it west along with CA-1 and maybe reduce its size or make it hug the coast more to leave more room for a San Jose/Santa Clara expansion. Add more of the Bay Area highways, lots of cargo depots, and you could play the game as a local city driver if you wanted to.
User avatar
rbsanford
Posts: 2007
Joined: 15 Sep 2018 02:11
Location: Duluth, MN

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#517 Post by rbsanford » 12 May 2021 01:16

I wouldn't mind some cities being removed, but I think that at least one new city, preferably in the same area, should take the place of each one removed. So in California I was thinking the removed cities could be Carlsbad (replaced with San Bernardino, which would encompass the entire Inland Empire in the same way Los Angeles does with the LA Basin), Huron (Coalinga, or maybe Hanford), Santa Cruz (San Jose), Oakdale (Modesto), Truckee (Chico and/or Yuba City), and Hornbrook (Yreka). I think Oxnard is fine, it helps expand the LA area, and I don't think it's taking up any space LA would need in a rework; besides, it was already improved in the Rescale. Pioche doesn't have much of a point as it is, and could be replaced with Fallon; Pioche's mine, which is necessary for the Nevada mining achievement, could be replaced with the Robinson mine just west of Ely. As for Arizona, Wilcox or Douglas would work better than San Simon, and Ehrenberg should be replaced with Blythe (it may not be in the same state, but it's in the same area). Maybe Camp Verde could also be switched for Prescott.

Switching cities like this wouldn't weaken the map the way full city removal would, but would strengthen it with more logical choices that offer more opportunity. The cities removed in this case could still exist as scenery towns; for example, San Simon's truck stop is still useful on lonely I-10, Pioche would still be visible from US 93 (and the road through town is a nice alt route), and Santa Cruz could still have a presence on CA 1.
The Journeys of Zephyr of the American West

Handy maps and diagrams.

Furthermore, I consider that I-80 across Nevada must be redone next.
Crysta1ake
Posts: 46
Joined: 19 May 2020 13:31
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#518 Post by Crysta1ake » 12 May 2021 14:52

Guys, what do you think about the redevelopment of Southern California, in particular the area around Death Valley National Park? I think it would be nice to add the Death Valley Junction on the Nevada border. And also add CA 247 for easier travel between int 40 and 10
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#519 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 16:07

I think we already have the one road that goes thru Death Valley with CA-190. It can be done better though with the new rock formation tool. CA-247 doesn't make a lot of sense for me with I-15 being so close. That brings CA-62 into the mix as well. I don't see anything coming between I-40 and I-10 honestly (North to South). All of US-95 is the only thing I'd add. Between US-95 and I-15 (East to West), that area doesn't do much for the game imo as its all scenic desert driving. Unlike UT-12, UT-24 and UT-95 in Utah, this area isn't that unique to me. It will be a big hole in the map just like other places that are similar.
Crysta1ake
Posts: 46
Joined: 19 May 2020 13:31
Location: Kazan, Russia
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#520 Post by Crysta1ake » 12 May 2021 16:50

flight50 wrote: 12 May 2021 16:07 I think we already have the one road that goes thru Death Valley with CA-190. It can be done better though with the new rock formation tool. CA-247 doesn't make a lot of sense for me with I-15 being so close. That brings CA-62 into the mix as well. I don't see anything coming between I-40 and I-10 honestly (North to South). All of US-95 is the only thing I'd add. Between US-95 and I-15 (East to West), that area doesn't do much for the game imo as its all scenic desert driving. Unlike UT-12, UT-24 and UT-95 in Utah, this area isn't that unique to me. It will be a big hole in the map just like other places that are similar.
But CA 247 is located between the 40 and 10 freeways and not 15, as you wrote, so its addition is very even and to the place can be. Moreover the distance between 10 and 40 is quite large and the introduction of 247 can significantly help in overcoming this distance
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brothergun, GaryOwen, Google [Bot], LegoTechnicFanBoi and 12 guests