Montana Discussion Thread

User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 885
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1961 Post by SouthernMan » 04 Jul 2022 01:12

The comparison made with Colorado was about the size and height issue, I think. Of course, Montana has its look and Colorado has its own.

About the goats; I also found them extremely iconic and interesting, as they must be a landmark for this place. :D
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1962 Post by Optional Features » 04 Jul 2022 02:15

rbsanford wrote: 04 Jul 2022 00:56 I don't think these mountains are Colorado-level; these are Montana-level, setting a new paradigm for ATS mountains. To be fair, though, the Lewises of Glacier are definitely some of the most beautiful and dramatic mountains of the West, and few ranges in the region come close (the San Juans of Colorado are somewhat similar, but not as crazy). I guess the mountains have the same technical quality they've had since Utah introduced the new rock tools, it's just that these mountains are like nothing else in the West IRL, so the artistic quality is off the charts, and they've really been done justice, IMO.
Yeah, maybe not. I was mainly thinking about the height. Most of the map has nice mountains, but you can see way too much of them from inside the cab. These remind me of what Reforma did with Donner and Nevada and what Promods did with the Coq. A player looks out the window and just sees terrain filling the whole view. It makes one feel properly small in a properly impressive place.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5380
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1963 Post by oldmanclippy » 04 Jul 2022 04:11

Yeah pic 6 in particular is nuts, combining the ambition of Sierra Nevada with the quality of Utah-to-present SCS. Of course I will still be supremely bummed if Going-to-the-Sun makes it and US-20 doesn't, but if we were going to get Going-to-the-Sun, at least it looks amazing. Well done Montana team.

[ external image ]
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: Montana Discussion Thread

#1964 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 05:46

Yeah Montana is filling out nicely. It would be a shocker to see this dlc go for $11.99. I just don't see it. Montana and Texas should go beyond. I'm not saying Montana is a $17.99 state but it sure ain't $11.99. I'd like to see it $1-2 bucks more. I really like a dev that goes above and beyond. Patrik is the same way on his maps. If Idaho and Utah did this, those states would get a lot more love than they do. Time will tell what Texas does.

But the potential road network that we could get with Montana will should be the most since paid dlc's kicked in with Oregon. It brought 5,000 miles of roads. Montana could be 6,500-7,000 road miles.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1965 Post by Optional Features » 04 Jul 2022 05:51

I just hope we have some nice stretches of open highway without cities. I was playing Montana Expansion tonight, and if they capture a similar vibe, it'll be an amazing state that'll complete Wyoming nicely.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1966 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 06:06

East of I-15 should be pretty open. Both interstates and US/State roads. Cities aren't like I-80 and Montana is a bit longer East to West. I think you actually meant complement Wyoming though. That I can agree. Montana will get some nice extension roads going into it from both Idaho and Wyoming for sure. The way I like to break in new states will be pretty fun for me for the Cruising Montana event.
hangman005
Posts: 997
Joined: 02 May 2019 02:50
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1967 Post by hangman005 » 04 Jul 2022 06:20

The thing that gets me with Eastern Montana and the bits of North Dakota i happened to find myself in playing geoguesser or just exploring via street view is how rediculously flat it looks, not minimal rolling hills just flat lol like the border area near sweetgrass and into Alberta looks like someone has come through with a giagantic iron.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1968 Post by Optional Features » 04 Jul 2022 08:53

flight50 wrote: 04 Jul 2022 06:06 East of I-15 should be pretty open. Both interstates and US/State roads. Cities aren't like I-80 and Montana is a bit longer East to West. I think you actually meant complement Wyoming though. That I can agree. Montana will get some nice extension roads going into it from both Idaho and Wyoming for sure. The way I like to break in new states will be pretty fun for me for the Cruising Montana event.
I meant the area around Sheridan that needs a Montana connection to the northern parts of the map. Montana will complete that: really, it'll complete a lot of things. The western US will be complete; Idaho will have its sister state; the last of the Rockies will be added; I-15 will be done; I-90 will be connected to Idaho and Washington, and more. It's a big deal, and I'm glad to see it coming before Texas. I think Texas will be a great state, but Montana is needed more.
hangman005
Posts: 997
Joined: 02 May 2019 02:50
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1969 Post by hangman005 » 04 Jul 2022 10:27

A lot of the above is why even as TX was announced I'd hoped MT and would come first, TX expands and moves the map into the next "phase" so to speak, Montana completes and compliments what is already there, ID is especially is going to feel more complete. If we can get I-80 Reno - Wells even just the rural bits fast tracked next year the Northern Section of the map is gong to be in pretty good shape, especially with the Bay Area redo, but that's a conversation for the rework thread. Back on track, It's going to be nice not to travel the same two roads to get from the PNW to Colorado, UT, NM... Texas.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1970 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 13:32

Ahhh. Yeah I totally agree in those regards. I'd rather refer to it as.....complete the West. Montana does all that and like many others, I wanted Montana for the same reasons a mentioned above. I've always seen Montana as coming first. Texas is a business move. It does a lot for SCS and the map but Montana is more critical imo. Texas can stand on its own but Idaho can't. We need those important connections.

Imho, with the size of the map team now, I the shape of the current map, I don't see us every getting into a situation when outside the obvious gap doesn't exist. Example after Texas we wait for connections to link I-40 to I-35. After Oklahoma we wait for connections to link I-70 to I-35. After Kansas we wait for I-80 to I-35. Then you have your next column of states with Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, etc. So Montana does box up the map nicely. The direction after Oklahoma can go either one way, or map in 2 directions. Its been noted to have an East Team and a North Team. If we go in 2 directions we keep things more interesting though.

Montana offers a huge chunk of the Great Plains. So if you loved Eastern Colorado, Montana should be up your aisle. Its also an extension to Wyoming's terrain. So if you love that, Montana is a no brainer. There seems to be enough spread out smaller towns in central and Easter Montana to make travel worth exploring the entire state. If Montana comes pretty boxed up with roads, we good. The only holes should be Northeast and Southeast though.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flight50, gaillard, LegoTechnicFanBoi, Neoba and 6 guests