That's just it, Cody shouldn't be a dead end if YS was planned. Although if Cody isn't planned or marked day one, SCS could go back and give it the Clifton, Az treatment. SCS added US-191 well after Arizona and gave us Clifton along the way. YS to Sheridan is pretty much that scenario. In fact, it was the 1.32 update that brought Clifton.
https://blog.scssoft.com/search?q=clifton. So if necessary, it could be 1.42 or 1.43. But Cody should really be a day one release city. Cody can't be scenic if YS was not planned for Wyoming. No point in a scenic dead end Cody.
Without YS, then yes Cody could be a dead end like Jackpot, Nv was for years until Idaho came. Even still, why dead end if it doesn't have to be. Sure its not ideal to go thru a National Park, but if you've been putting other parks in the game, there's no reason to not plan Yellowstone of all parks. Soooo since other parks are in, YS is a must. You get YS but then the best way to continue is with the same route that got you in the park from the West gate. Cody is along this route. Why alienate Northwest Wyoming. Lets say Cody is in and YS does not get Canyon Village to make YS itself a deliverable location. Now Cody comes into play and/or use Jackson for remote depots into YS. There is a high chance, YS doesn't get a marked city. So now SCS can maximize YS using 2 cities. If we can only get one type of depot per city, with (2) marked towns in Jackson and Cody, it maximizes Yellowstone's options like I mentioned previously.
With Jackson and Cody combined one is sure not to have a : Tidbit, Eddy's, Bitumen roadworks, Plaster & Son's Construction site, HMS machine repair or last, a gas station in which semi trucks fuel at rarely. This are the worthy YS depots imo. That is 6 depots that YS could affective have if you have (2) marked cities instead of one. So yes, Cody should be marked if you want to maximize the dlc and allow people to explore. I'll give you another example looking at the image
@ads678 just posted. Look at US-40 between Steamboat and Rangley. The City of Craig could have been marked. CO-13 doesn't connect to I-70 but it will connect to I-80. Craig is in a crossroad that one could argue its validation for marked. Its just like Rangley as is passes thru while connecting major roads. FYI, Rangley had a population of 2300 people in 2010. Not telling what it is now. But the point is, its marked. So population has zero to do with marked or not. If it has industry and valid for the ATS economy....mark it. Make it deliverable.
[ external image ]
US-40 with Craig is the same thing as US-20 with Cody. Can Cody be scenic, sure it can. But you just removed the (6) depot options I mentioned. There are zero other cities that could give YS a deliverable depot. If you don't want to go thru YS, don't drive it. I'm sure those who want the ultimate immersion don't drive thru Yosemite nor Rocky Mountain National park. But for those that do not have an issue with YS, you increase your route options with US-20 and allow more exploration with the dlc. One thing we all have in common is the need for options. Whether its settings, roads, trucks or trailers...we all want that adjustability to cater to our own needs.
Vinnie Terranova wrote: ↑31 Jul 2021 13:08
Why are there unmarked towns in the first place...? I think it would be nice if there were no unmarked towns anymore. Each unmarked town that we now have should get at least one company we can deliver to/from.
This boils down to separating ETS2 from ATS. There is typically more space in ATS/US in general. So to portray this, load up cities with more depots vs make more cities with fewer depots. So in ATS a large city could have 12-15 depots. A mid sized city could have 6-11 depots while as small city/town can have 1-5 depots. So ATS is tailored differently. I don't think I'd like all town having something. But I would like to see a few more 1-2 depot towns for the Great Plain states. I'd love to see tons of farming options. Change up the pace for Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and parts of Minnesota, Montana and Oklahoma. SCS should make the Great Plains a focus on Agriculture for sure. In those remote areas, it would be quite realistic to get 1-2 depots to very low population towns. They needs supplies too. Sometimes these locations could have a nice industry addition to add to ATS. Most of this would be tagged to Farming,Oil/Gas, Renewable Energy and mining though. Take the Agricultural thread and add locations in the GP that can showcase Agriculture in the GP states.