Montana Discussion Thread

[Aves]

@Ceco Not only, but size of cities and population...

[flight50]

Yesterday I compared the size of Texas and Montana, I'm really glad that Texas was announced earlier and that it comes out sooner it's a really huge state, bigger than Iberia and maybe it will be bigger than HoR, Texas is probably double Montana

Land wise its larger than Iberia but its not as dense as Iberia population wise. Texas is actually not double the size of Montana. Texas has 268,596 sq mi. Montana is 147,039. 2 Montanas is 294,078 sq miles. 2 Montana's is 25,482 sq miles larger. That is basically the size of West Virginia that 2 Montana would have over Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... es_by_area

IMO us89 and 191 both will come. the connection between west Yellowstone and us89 in the park will be a bonus for those who buy all three WY, MT and ID dlcs.

I totally agree and I think SCS saw that 3 state connection. Without US-212, SCS can push US-89 a bit more East in Wyoming. With all the curves and the real big one in Carbella, MT, SCS can pull a hard curve there to line up for Livingston if they can make US-89 fairly long with all the wavy curves. Livingston has to give Bozeman space while being absorbed. It would be nice if US-89 continued at least to US-87 just South of Great Falls. I don't see SCS giving us US-89 between Browning and Great Falls with I-15 being so close. I'll take it of course but its not a necessary. Now I could see US-89 from Browning and then in Choteau, MT, we can hit US-287 to Helena. Now that gives us a chance to get the last portion of US-287. US-287 from I-15 to Townsend @ US-2 will make the game. Might as well just make US-287 connect to I-90. US-12 is a no brainer. So it'll at least run concurrent with US-287. We get US-89 is parts in the South so finish out strong with US-89 gives us one more connection to what they do with YS. Not everyone wishes to go thru YS but for those that do, the option is there. Its better to have it and not us it than to flat out avoid YS. Its an optional route. More harm is done keep YS out the game though. Good move by SCS including it.

I love the route to the North gate of YS though. Not only that, but US-89 gives a small percentage to sneak Canyon Village in for another remote depot. Maybe a Tidbit or Eddy's. Its pushed East of US-89 and again, there should be space if no US-212 is not in. I'd rather see US-14/Cody than US-212. But if Canyon Village is a no go, no biggie. I just think with a Winter 2022 release, they should have some go time to seriously polish up the map. Texas 2022 will put us over this Montana releases. Eastern Montana should be pretty smooth going so use the time to polish Montana and add some density so such a large state.

[VTXcnME]

I really think Montana will utilize a lot of the same existing map assets as it's basically an extension of what already exists in game. I think current map assets will cover plains/prairie type landscaping as Montana transitions to the Dakotas easily, and more important, correctly.

I agree for the most part. But Montana is still its own state. It will have to have its specifics to somewhat separate it and that is where the research department has to come into play. The unique things about Montana will have to surface. Otherwise, people will see it as a copy pasted Wyoming, Eastern Colorado and even a little bit of Idaho. The economy is where I'm hoping to see the biggest shake up. That's where I mention Agriculture taking a another leap. I'm not feeling the attention is going towards Agriculture like it should. Texas and California will do its thing but Montana needs to pick up from there. California serious has to pick up the pace for Agriculture. Its the US number one Ag state. Same for when Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Dakota's and Iowa kick in. Each one of those needs to add something new to Agriculture. The North American Agriculture link in my signature gives a ton of options. Hopefully SCS can ink a deal with a licensed Ag manufacture.

Specific parts of the industry can be introduced in Montana or any GP state based on a lot in that Ag link. Prime examples...
1) Case/Holland/JD type retailer. That is missing. Parody or license works. We shouldn't keep hauling from HMS as its a repair shop, not a retailer. We see equipment depots in game as non functional depots. Hauling from a train yard is ok but still its not a retailer. Retailers in the Ag are in small and/or remote areas in the US. Lots of space for SCS to get retailers in imho.

2) Farming equipment manufacturer. That is missing. Someone has to make all the parts and pieces to even get a retailer to sell the equipment. HMS is still fine as the repair depot. They can get parts from a manufacturer as well. HMS can use a makeover or better yet, make a newer HMS prefab that is HHY and ST friendly. ATS has outgrown the current HMS depot in ATS. We should see a lot more equipment and even more buildings at HMS repair shops.

Agree 100% There is a lot of agriculture in the midwest. Montana starts to show us that (as did parts of Wyoming). There needs to be a push for more agricultural type hauls. Even spoof brand equipment would be nice for immersion. I agree with the HMS repair shops. I really like the Volvo equipment that goes to HMS for repairs instead of a volvo dealer. (eye roll here) Agree. Agree. Agree.

3) Boost in crops/orchids. There's a solid 50+ different crops that can be cargo (see my Ag link). My wish is to someday have complex farms that can host 2-3 different areas on the same farm in which each area produces a totally different crop. 1 farm producing 2-3 crops saves space and allows more cargo to get in the game. Mix it all up. One farm could have all 3 have the same crop. Another could have 2 of the same crops and 1 different. Variety is what I'm looking for here. Make the game more dynamic in certain ways vs static. If the game could have a pool to choose from with certain thing, we the players can visit a prefab 9 times and each time we get something different than before. Innovation/diversity if its possible for dynamic is what I'm getting at. I might not be possible but its just the way I envision the game getting more advanced.

4) new farm companies. I'd love to get 2-3 more new farming companies. SunCrops and Bushnell are running their course. It will be sad to see the entire US covered with just these two without diversity. The biggest issue is that only one farming prefab can come per city. We might get 2 Bushnells or 2 SunCrops but 1 is not a crop producing prefab. We need additional crop producing companies if we are to have 2-3 farms in the same city. The Great Plains should be loaded with multiple companies and SunCrops and Bushnell won't cut it. We need more farming companies. Make more farms could finally make the Ag industry deeper. There are not only 2 Ag companies in the US. There are numerous ones. Why is ATS limited to just 2?

I feel they've missed to boat on this since California, if we're being honest. California grows nuts, Avocados, tree fruits, root crops, has vineyards. There was a HUGE opportunity to integrate crops as a large portion of haul cargos from day one, and it was missed. It would have been very easy to visit a location and had a choice of hauling a host of things out of the storage depots.

I wholeheartedly agree we need more companies. Especially with how big the map is getting. Each area (I would love) to have it's own diversified cargos. Lumber and seafood out of the northwest. Livestock out of Wyoming/Colorado area. Texas will be huge for oil/energy cargos. We need more than the standard fare. And a little nitpicky thing for me, Delivering things out of character for the business. Anyone else still delivering cable reels to retail stores? Awkward. (It's been a bit since I've done that, but as of last update I was still pulling those in to sellgoods retail fronts)

5) Livestock boost. This is part of Ag but still its own little division. Currently we only have cattle. We don't know what Texas will do but we need poultry (chicken/turkey) and pork/boar at the least. I'd love to throw sheep/lamb in there as well so that we can get wool as a by product. Perhaps we get leather for a much needed clothing industry that brings is fair share of industry companies. There are other goods that can come along side wool. That would also create a Textile industry for ATS. At some point, Clothing and Textile industries make their way to ATS. Anywho...live stock. There are several new farm depots that cater to specific livestock. The current Bushnell can't house all of ATS's livestock. We won't get slaughterhouses but other things can happen still. Pork and poultry farms have a totally different look that cattle farms. We'll need this stuff. There are also eggs as a by product that comes from chickens. That's a cargo that should make ATS. Milk and cheese is in and eggs fit right long with that. Corn meal, flour, sugar.....there are tons of consumable products that can be condensed for certain Ag companies that could come to ATS.

6) Distribution centers/Packaging facilities. At some point, Ag companies need this middle man. 1-2 new companies in ATS should come for this. Thennnn we go to retail/market. Many times we go from farm to retail. That's a break in the cargo chain. So there are lots of parts and pieces that can come at any point with any state as those middle man companies to allow cargo to make sense. We can't go from A to Z without everything in between. No state should come empty handed like Idaho did.....every. That was inexcusable and to me showed a lack of effort to add much of anything to create diversity. Micron could have been a one off company in ATS but they used Charged....I don't get it. When you have deep industries like agriculture and construction, there should always be something new.

With the intro of livestock trailers in the last state, I'm hoping SCS is working on developing this further. There's a couple companies and added jobs right there. Like you say: Farms we pick up livestock from and companies to drop them at for processing and packaging. On the other side of the same depot there could be pick up points for the frozen/refrigerated goods and take them to grocery stores.

Now Montana does have a few mines. SCS just released 1.43ob that brings owned dumpers. This is great for Mining and Agriculture. Montana can bring something new to mining. One example here is limestone. There's a couple places that can have this. We should be able to get a handful of cargoes there. Limestone is also part of a cargo chain so it adds to the cement industry. We don't have sand quarries/depots either that I recall and that too will need to come to ATS. Sand, gravel and soil could all be one depot. Heck, I'd even add compost/mulch to the mix for dumpers. They can also go toe the same quarry as sand and the others. Adding to the aggregates for materials goes hand in hand with the construction side in ATS.

As I said above: 100% agree. With the current map size, and the projected map size after Texas and Montana release, there is no reason we aren't getting more diversified businesses. More regional specialization. It's at a point it *REALLY* needs to be looked at. More than font fixes (don't remember anyone really complaining about that).

[flight50]

Thanks for the comments. I called myself going thru and proof reading it before posting but there are sooooo many typos I made...as usual. I'll try to remember to go back and make edits. But its nice to see several others jump in to agree that ICCs in ATS needs a make over. I play ATS for the economy of delivering goods. To me, that is why the game exist. But that focus is just not there. The focus seems to be on making the game look pretty. The focus of the game needs to be reiterated in my honest opinion. That dedicated cargo team, some of us see this for a reason.

ICC
Industries - you can't haul cargo and you won't get diversity if industries are not in place. The map isn't large enough to house all industries but it is large enough to take advantage of industries that are in these regions that are in the game. Currently is really only the West.

Companies - cargo diversity comes with the more companies placed in particular industries. This is where the middle men in the cargo chain makes its mark. The limitation here, limits the cargo chain. The limitations here, creates over used companies. Imo, no city in ATS should have the exact same name. Although they are two different types of prefabs, its does not create diversity. I never see 2 of the same companies in ETS2...never. What can't ATS add company diversity to avoid these double company names. Add more companies and thin out the overused names. The US has tons of competition companies to help thin out all the repeats.

Cargo - the holly grail. No cargo. No game. Cargo is the entire point of the game. People may not play ATS to care about the other 2 above but SCS did not make the focus just a driving sim. The point is to haul cargo. No cargo, no industries, no industries, no point in companies.....no ATS. We should have a lot more cargo in ATS at this point but because focus is now on trucks, that's resources SCS does not have to make more cargo. My hope is that SCS does 2 things. One of the other, both, it doesn't matter. 1) outsource for a dedicated cargo team or something. That is the one aspect of the game that shouldn't matter a ton on how perfect or in unison one is. Assets for the maps are created by remote people employed by SCS. Why can't cargo be done the same way. 2) that new floor SCS just made for the vehicle team and QA team, fill that bad boy up. Roll in that dedicated cargo team. Even a 2-3 person team can make a huge impact. Each update, there should be new cargo rolling in. Choose an industry...a trailer and add some cargo per update. Def files, 3d models...doesn't matter.

Montana completes the west. Go out with a bang. If new companies come with Montana, let that be for the West region. What's used in Montana could actually go for all the other states in the West if they are not assets locked to dlc's. Reduce some of the over used companies in the West with new companies now. Montana is in production and with it completing the West, SCS should be able to take a hard look back and see how the West can get overhauled with the mentality of thinking regions, not the whole US. There should be a solid group of companies for the entire US, but the ones we have, that whole roster is not it. I'd only consider 4 as national companies. Home Store, USBB, Charged and Wallberts. Everything else, their names can easily change even when under the same parent company. So my question is....what will Montana add to the growing list for ICCs. What changes come to Montana to smooth out this aspect of ATS. Fix it asap before more fans start caring and see the same copy paste companies for the entire US as an issue. I saw it along time ago and I've been talking about it for awhile now and others are starting to see it as well. I mention this a lot to emphasis that its an issue because North America is a lot more diverse than ATS is indicating. The more people that start seeing it, the more apparent it will become. Fix things while the map is small because its only getting bigger and it becomes harder to do so. Rethinking now can save a lot of headache later. There's always a way, it just need to implemented as efficiently as possible.

I'd like to see SCS take a breather just like they did for the new lighting system, the new cargo system. Take a step back and make a few dozen new company prefabs on a national level and on a regional level. There's a solid 12-18 national companies can be in ATS by the time the US is done. For regional companies it can be doubled that. As a guide, come up with these companies before the other dlc's are even made. When those dlc's do come, you already have prefabs for them. You already have programming in mind to know what they will need and how they fit into the cargo chain. For the current states, its might be tougher to implement but they need it as well. Montana and Texas are the last to huge states. If the mindset is or was in place, even these two can get some of that overhauled ICC mentality. Montana will look great I'm sure but outside of visuals, what will it offer?

[oldmanclippy]

I think they can pull off both US-191 and US-89 if they exaggerate the distance between them and the curves enough. It could be tight but I think there's enough room. We can't not get US-191. That'd be a shame as we already have it north to south besides a small bit in southern AZ. Plus it's the main route between Idaho Falls and Bozeman. US-89 is much more of a road for tourists going in and out of YS. US-191 has more broad utility.

[interstate trav]

I have to say for the map shape I’m glad Montana is next, I like keeping it more even, and do the step map.

[TheAmir259]

flight50, i'd also like to remind you that Montana might not be the end for Western companies as we stil have the 3 pending states for rework, especially California. Although i don't have high hopes for them, there still is a chance that they'll add more companies during these reworks. US-191 is definitely what i want to see so as to have a complete representation of them in the game rather than getting cut off, and as oldmanclippy said, US-191 definitely has more utilization and as such cannot possibly be missed out.

[flight50]

Yeah I’ve mentioned the base map getting new companies over in the base map thread a few times. So no, I didn’t forget

I was just saying here, the same as I’ve said over there. Anything new added anywhere in the West could be regional based. When Texas comes, we’ll see how much carries over from the West. The companies that carry over, we could expect them to cover the entire US. I’m pretty sure a huge portion carries over. I’m not to confident that Texas will be treated like a new region. I’d love to be proven wrong in these regards. It will get some new companies for sure but not as many as it could to treat it like a new region. Hopefully we’ll find out by next Summer.

Montana on the other hand, maybe we can get another 3-4 new companies there, maybe not. Based on Montana’s economy, the same industries will carry over that is already in place. So I’m not sure what new depots could come. In Sidney, we could get the sugar plant, but I’m sure it will come as a company we already in the game. Farmers Barn or Global Mills perhaps.The Mines that are there, if we get any, they will be NAMIQ mines. Same Suncrops, same Bushell, same HMS, Plaster & Sons, Butimen. I wish the base map added all the 18 WOS companies to thin it out.

[harishw8r]

I badly want to see some new companies in the agriculture sector. They did a wonderful job with NAMIQ by extending it to NM covering the entire Rocky Mountain region. They should do something along that lines for Sunshine and Bushnell too.
(… and not to forget Wallbert, Sellgoods and Plaster and sons.)

IMO, the longer interstates and US routes should not be cut. More importantly, routes 89 and 191 are crucial ones from the game’s point of view.

[Xaagon]

All of the NAMIQ assets in New Mexico were already there, previously branded as Coastline Mining. I'd prefer to see SCS drop new companies into existing states without losing old ones, though I understand there's some technical challenges with doing that.