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

[flight50]

@angrybirdseller your speculation is no different than others.......speculation. You once speculated that ATS would never get more than 1 map team way back in 2017 if you recall your words. They are working on 3 maybe even a 4th now. Sure your entitled to think everything will be solo or most of them. Just as others are entitled to say bundled. Those of us that talk about it though, its about a 50/50 split it seems. In the end, we'll see who guessed right though, that will be the fun part to see come. But nothing will get bundled for awhile. We are 3-4 years away from that possibility even taking place. I have fairy dust that I sprinkle around the ATS map. If I sprinkle it, the devs have to walk thru it to get to (x) state. I have magical powers to my my dreams come true. Secret is out, lol.

@Vinnie Terranova you are comparing SCS to Promods in regards to density? ProMods is a mod in which they don't have to factor in the audience like SCS does. That's not a fair comparsion. There is a reason SCS is not as dense as ProMods. Which is why ProMods is who they are. You are better off comparing the ATS team to the ETS2 team in regards to how density is made. Or somewhat compare ProMods to Reforma, or PaZz. We couldn't even get new companies in Idaho.....that is a trim down for the economy. What dlc doesn't bring new companies. We didn't get US-2 from Spokane to Sandpoint. We didn't get any connections from I-84 to US-12. US-12 to US-93 is debatable but we didn't get that. No ID-28, no ID-21 (debateable too). We just got UT-56.......it didn't come day one Utah. Not UT-95/UT-24/UT-12 either. Roads are trimmed out in every dlc and sometime get them later. OR-38 is another that was planned but didn't come. US-6 and US-89 that parallels I-15 in Utah isn't there.

There is proof in the past of trimming all ready and it will only continue. Every time a new road came in the previously dlc's, those were roads that were planned in the old dds files. There is no dds file now but trimming will still happen. We just don't know what they will be. That is the porting of trimming I am talking about. They can't fit everything in day one. If they focus to much on one thing, we will not get as dense of a map day one. 75% trimmed down? That is a huge number. I never gave any numbers. I just said trimmed down but I wouldn't put such a total on it. We don't even get 75% of a state's total roads now. We are lucky if we even get 30%. I am sure the total is 20-25% or less of a states actual roads though.
New Mexico came with 4,000 miles. True miles 77.2k
Oregon came with 5,000. True miles 79.2k
Washington came with 3,800. True miles 80.4k
Utah came with 3,500. True miles 49.2k
Idaho came with 3,300. True miles 52.4
source. This source is not using the total lane mile chart like this one.

Be careful what you ask for though. The East is very dense. If you want all the density there is, you will get a lot of cities that are like Spokane to Coeur d Alene or Nampa to Boise. Me personally, I don't want that everywhere. I 'd rather skip a city if we have to just to get some space. If we have that all over the map, that is too dense and you loose sense of distance. That is why many people are wanting the Great Plains so bad......space. Not everyone wants to drive on top of every city though. Drive 3 mins and you're in the next city. Not every city can make the map. Like it or not, SCS will have to provide some space. ETS2 is quite dense and cities are not on top of each other like that. I expect ATS to have a sense of distance like ETS2. ETS2 isn't perfect but its not bad. Some areas it can't be avoided, like the Seattle corridor. I expect I-95 to be like that but all over the East, would be weird to have Spokane to CDA distances. We do have the Appalachian Mountains in the East. Like the West, they take up space. It will be much more difficult to get in density plus the mountains. For me, you can't skip on the mountains but you can skip on roads. Something they have been doing already. Where they can get in density, I am sure they will as long as huge mountain/hills don't occupy the scene.

@CodArk2 Gotcha. Combing ATS states definitely can't follow the ETS2 naming convention. If its not abbrev like Al/MS they'd have to come up with something interesting but that is the least of their worries. They just need to establish the map and worry about naming later. I am sure they will sale the states separately still for people that don't want bundles. But the option to bundle should be there for us that want to buy both. The word bundle doesn't have to mean you are forced to buy both states. Bundle for ATS can mean that two adjacent states are worked simultaneous and can release as a bundled option. If they are sold individually they can just keep their state name. For bundling, SCS has been coming up with bundled names like the Enchanted or PNW. Just buy bundles like the current bundles...as you want.

I include Arkansas with Louisiana as needed to get to Florida for 5 reasons:
1) it borders Texas Texarkana would be nice to complete Texas but also start Arkansas. I think Texarkana comes with Ark and not Texas
2) we need Ark because it connects to the entire Northern half of Mississippi with something
3) Oklahoma could come with Texas or soon after. We need Arkansas to continue I-40. I-40 can stop in Forrest City, Ark. We can take back roads to get into Mississippi from that point. No Memphis required.
4) it creates a gap between Oklahoma and Mississippi
5) its my home state as well so I'd like to see it sooner than later. Well its my parents really. I grew up there from 8 mnths to 6 and then again from 12 to graduation from high school. So I was there for a good portion of my youth but I've lived in Texas more years now.

But to get to Florida, we can't go Florida right after Alabama. That is a serious corridor drive. We need Georgia. We need both I-10 and I-20 at the least. At least there are 2 busy interstates to get us back West to a more boxed up and open map until TN and the Carolina's can come and give us I-40.

But this is where I think things go South when people keep thinking bundled. The quality will not go down in Arkansas or any other state if it comes with Louisiana or whatever. There is no way Arkansas comes with 4/5 cities. That's why I was explaining above map teams above. It really doesn't matter if Arkansas comes solo or bundled. If you combine (1) map team of 10 people with another map team of 10 people. You now have 20 people. You now have a super team. They both still take a state. 10 on Ark, 10 on Louisiana. The states are still produced just like any solo state. The only difference is that are worked on at the same time under (1) super team as bordering dlcs and can release at the same time as one dlc. Or at least, the option to buy both bundled to make it seem like one dlc. I think that is where people are misunderstanding the super team concept I mentioned. The same detail, the same amount of time, the same everything happens as before....only thing that changes in that you get the option to bundle. Under a super team, if lets say team Arkansas finishes first, some can go help team Louisiana so that both can release simultaneously to make the bundle available instead of releasing both individually. Both Arkansas and Louisiana have been guessed at having roughly 10-11 cities each. That is 20-22 cities total for (1) bundle. Not 10 cities as (1) bundle. I have to agree with the 20-22 cities for both those states.

If (1) super team is doing Ark/La the 3rd team can be doing Kansas. Now if we have (2) super teams, that other team can be doing both Kansas and Nebraska. We move both North to fill in and box the map and we move East to fill in. If Arkansas is skipped, that will cause a gap in the map between Oklahoma and Mississippi and that will be ugly. It severs I-40 well before Fort Smith. Lets say we have to go from Tulsa to Tupelo. Well now you have to go thru Texas and Louisiana when you could just go I-40 to Forrest City or Brinkley. That's the 50% of the reason Arkansas should come with Louisiana...that gap. We can get from OKC, to Fort Smith to Little Rock and then to MS much smoother and faster. From Little Rock there is no direct highway to Mississippi nor Louisiana so its back roads anyways. But getting I-40 as deep as we can go helps getting to Florida. We can do without Tennessee and the Carolina's for awhile. I threw in Mississippi because instead of (2) super teams, we can have (1) team on Kansas and (3) on a super team. Each of those 3 can be doing Ar/La/Ms. 10 people on each state. All can be solo worked on but available as a bundle at once.

[55sixxx]

I strongly agree with @flight50 SCS will need to finger pick just a few cities to make it to the official release (In case of the small states) and if they don't, you'll end up with a ton of cities that are really close to each other. Having a small state in ATS with a very dense road network won't work and it will break the immersion.

Edit: I admit that some places can't be avoided, like NY City and Philadelphia , Chicago and Milwaukee, Baltimore and DC, Tampa and Orlando...

[Shiva]

55sixxx, yep, there is a limit on how much roads and cities 1 state ingame can have, before it gets way too tight.

I do agree with flight50.
On one thing I partly do not agree on tho. IRL truck routes to and from Florida to Texas, those do not need Georgia.
But mapwise and ingame, it would look a bit odd with Florida, without Georgia.
A Georgia and Florida DLC bundle? yes please!

Waaait, what?! Florida is bigger than New York?!
Ah yeah, it is, oops, brainfade, I blame it on 2 weeks of really bad sleep.

[rip_c_bennington]

Imho when Texas comes after Wyoming, Oklahoma and Kansas are then a lot more important to get then Montana.

[flight50]

On one thing I partly do not agree on tho. IRL truck routes to and from Florida to Texas, those do not need Georgia.

I agree that Georgia is not necessary for Florida but without Georgia the only way into Florida is I-10 from the West. From the North, that would make US-271 as the Eastern most US highway and I-65 as the Eastern most Interstate possible. Atlanta, Macon, Augusta and Savannah would be nice to have though. Not only that, but we get a very critical player to the game with Georgia.........I-95. Add Georgia and we get 3 major Interstates into Florida with I-10, I-75 and I-95. All three of those are major truck routes. So most definitely I'd go for a Ga/Fl bundle. But to keep it in pairs that means Ms/Al and then Ar/La. The height of all the Gulf States allows both I-10 and a new road in I-22 to play well until we can get I-40. We can do without Memphis for the time being because a US highway from Arkansas can gain access to I-22 and I-10 to hit the East coast. Once we get to an Interstate, all is good. US and SH roads are just bonuses that connect us from Interstate to Interstate. In the east though, majority of those road will be tree wall roads. With cutplanes we get a little density but still SCS just can't make things to dense.

@rip_c_bennington. Why do you think both Oklahoma and Kansas are more important than Montana? Just curious on your thinking. The public research thread doesn't even have Kansas listed. Texas doesn't depend on any state to sustain itself. Idaho is a lot more depended on Montana than Texas needing Oklahoma. Oklahoma needs Texas, not the other way around. With Kansas, its a non factor. It doesn't help Oklahoma nor Colorado like Montana helps Idaho. Colorado can sustain itself as well. It doesn't depend on Kansas. Oklahoma can follow Texas just because its the smallest possible state that can come with Texas. Kansas is self sustaining though. Its considered a flyover state and SCS is better off doing the most profitable states first. Get the popular and/or dependent states in first. You also have to factor in that both Oklahoma and Kansas share a decent length border with much busier states. Idaho and Wyoming benefits more from Montana.

Kansas just fits in nice and snug with Colorado and Oklahoma. I-70 and I-76 in Colorado can hold steady for quite awhile. If Oklahoma comes after Texas, we can get from Denver to OKC and North Texas without ever needing Kansas. We will have access to between Denver and North Texas with ease. US-287 would be the most taken route by truckers anyways instead of going I-35 to I-70 then to Denver. Kansas can come when it comes. Its not a must after Oklahoma.

[angrybirdseller]

Montana is fine to square off the map and make it compact for players can wait for items further east.

Montana could see small towns along US-2 and lots of sheep, cattle as well maybe some bears.

[SmokeyWolf]

Georgia is needed as 20 runs from Texas to SC.

[flight50]

I like to look at I-20 as an extension of I-10. Because Texas and the rest of the Gulf states go much further South than Arizona and New Mexico, that causes I-10 to also drop. I-20 looks like it could pull off I-10 all the way East but that isolates Southern Texas and the rest of the Gulf states. Texas houses I-10, I-20, I-30 and I-40 East to West. All are major trucking corridors. So the more of those (4) that can get us to the East coast, the better. It really all depends on how Pavel wants to get to Florida. The easiest with Texas in play within the next 2 years, is the Southern corridor. So maximizing the roads to get there is beneficial for us gamers.

Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and the Carolina's, they all have a very nice hard Northern edge. By the time those all get in the game, we could have Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakota's in the game as well perhaps. That is a huge portion of the US filled in. At that point, its a Northeast sweep to Maine to fill it in. We seriously get into density then as we hit the MidWest and close in on the Northeast.

[Mohegan13]

Before making the push to Florida I would hope that we have the Dakotas > Texas filled in, other wise we'd end up with a really horrible L shape that would be worse than when NM released.

Even with all those states it would be a bad L shape, but from there the states start to shrink in size so they'd probably be able to even it out fairly quickly. I like long drives but I really wouldn't want to do Florida to Northern Montana without some of the Mid West in there.

[flight50]

Yeah East of Texas, L shape probably won't be as bad because the states are so much smaller. You cross those Southern states pretty quickly. But Wyoming and Montana definitely need to be in place. By time they get to Florida, there should be Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas for sure. Nebraska if 50/50. It really depends on how the plan things.