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

[flight50]

Texas brings us a lot more of I-10 and introduces I-20 and I-30. We get a bit more of I-40 but more of I-40 comes with Oklahoma instead. I see I-44 being a good meal ticket to St. Louis and then Chi-town and I-44 starts in Texas as well. I'd hate for Arkansas to not come before Missouri. We can get I-40 all the way to I-55. I'm stuck on I-55 getting to Chicago from the South. So no Memphis is needed for that as I-55 picks us in West Memphis. West Memphis can be scenic in Arkansas. So that ties in DFW, OKC, KC and St. Louis on the road to Chicago.

If I was Pavel, its tie in as much of Texas as I can for this new path they are on. Tieing in more more Texas includes Arkansas in my opinion. We need I-30 which terminates in NLR @ I-40. I use to travel that junction quite frequently when I lived there doing my high school years with my dad. I-40 gets us to the Eastern most extends to I-55. I-55 gets us to connects to I-40, I-44, I-70 and I-80. If the next 2 years is going to bring us all the states North of Texas, we can still get a pretty nice shaped map to Chicago. Getting everything up to the Mississippi at that point. So get all those states that border the Mississippi and then its time for Louisiana if it hasn't come by then. It won't be pretty snaking from New Orleans to Chicago without all of I-55 but we can make do. The map would still be boxed.....but the routing won't be. Nothing much we can do about it until Mississippi and Tennessee are in.

I like what's to come East of I-35 though. From Laredo Texas all the way to Duluth Minnesota. Getting East of that bring all the mass interstate spaghetti that's coming. ATS will go thru less Interstates and mostly US hwys to more Interstates and less US highways. SCS can't completely abandon US and State highways though. ATS can't end up with Iberia and Black Sea comments. They will have to balance as best they can. It will help with the type of terrains coming though. We'll have tons of vegetation walls along side some open flat roads at this point.

[ external image ]

[oldmanclippy]

Yeah Louisiana would definitely suffer without MS and TN. That's part of why I think adding LA, as much as I want to see New Orleans and a new biome, would make things a bit tricky. Arkansas doesn't need TN or MS to get to Chicago nicely. LA does. And given Pavel's comments, MS and TN seem pretty far away at this point, at least farther than they used to be. We'll have to see what happens with respect to LA. I was really excited to get it, now its status is more up in the air.

[flight50]

I still won't give up on Louisiana though. It might not be easy to get to Chicago but we've had worse detours without Idaho and then without Montana. C shape and J shaped routes are not ideal but we can still get there. I think I-10, I-20 and I-49 are worth it to connect and close off Texas just to get a new biome. San Diego to New Orleans could be fun. New Orleans to DFW, OK and KC are more West than what Chicago is. We could work our way thru Arkansas to get to Kansas City. Louisiana could get pushed out further than we expected but to get more of the Gulf Coast should also be a plus imo. I at least would like to see everything filled in West of the Mississippi before going East of it.

[Trenero]

Pavel talked about reach the Great Lakes and Route 66 in the Montana release stream, we are only 3 states away from Chicago and complete route 66 when Texas launch(Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois).

I see to ways of do it:
-Split texas team in two and have the 3 teams working in one State each (Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois), and once finished do the states north of route 66 to close the map. that will be the fastest and we can have the complete route 66 in 1.5-2 years

-Complete the map in columns(like now) the first one starting on Oklahoma and once Canada is reached start the next column in Missouri and once canada reached start next in Illinois, that will give us route 66 in about 4 years once Texas launched, this option give the advantage of the map completed nort route 66 but is slow option.

I personally prefer the first option to have the route 66 as quick as posible, is a mithical route and i think the fastest we get it the better for the game(I can see every body playing and doing it), once the route is completed 2 teams(to close the gap faster) can model the states north Route66 closing the map gap, and the other team can start with states south Route 66 that way they can continue expanding the map to the atlantic and have launches of maps alternating zones.

Route 66 will probably be the new meta of ATS and that will calm the people to rush SCS to the Atlantic, after route 66 the other next big thing i can think of is being able to do the Cannonball Run in game.

[halbtollekreatur]

Pavel talked about reach the Great Lakes and Route 66 in the Montana release stream, we are only 3 states away from Chicago and complete route 66 when Texas launch(Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois).

And Kansas

[JoeAlex23]

Pavel talked about reach the Great Lakes and Route 66 in the Montana release stream, we are only 3 states away from Chicago and complete route 66 when Texas launch(Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois).

I see to ways of do it:
-Split texas team in two and have the 3 teams working in one State each (Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois), and once finished do the states north of route 66 to close the map. that will be the fastest and we can have the complete route 66 in 1.5-2 years

-Complete the map in columns(like now) the first one starting on Oklahoma and once Canada is reached start the next column in Missouri and once canada reached start next in Illinois, that will give us route 66 in about 4 years once Texas launched, this option give the advantage of the map completed nort route 66 but is slow option.

I personally prefer the first option to have the route 66 as quick as posible, is a mithical route and i think the fastest we get it the better for the game(I can see every body playing and doing it), once the route is completed 2 teams(to close the gap faster) can model the states north Route66 closing the map gap, and the other team can start with states south Route 66 that way they can continue expanding the map to the atlantic and have launches of maps alternating zones.

Route 66 will probably be the new meta of ATS and that will calm the people to rush SCS to the Atlantic, after route 66 the other next big thing i can think of is being able to do the Cannonball Run in game.

So, you basically want the map to look like this after Texas just because of Route 66?

[ external image ]

That's not happening, yes, Pavel said that they are aiming for Route 66 and the Great Lakes, but he never said it will be a straight line to there...

[flight50]

I think people are taking what Pavel said wayyyy to literal. There will be some common sense behind it. We cannot shoot directly to the Great Lakes leaving so many gaps. First, go ahead and fill in North of Texas at least to Nebraska. Thennnn slide over to the next column. Missouri to me doesn't make a lot of sense without Arkansas but it can be done. Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas are absolute must haves before even attempting to go to Chicago. Worst case would be we'd be looking at this:

[ external image ]


This keeps I-44, I-70 and I-80 in play. I-40 is only one state away with Arkansas and I-90 and I-94 2 states away from connecting to Chicago. We'd get Iowa 80 Truck Stop though. I honestly wouldn't have too much of an issue this way with 3 map team. Its central and then team can go in 3 different direction to the coast. North, East and South.

The North completes in 5 years with SD,ND, MN, WI and MI
The South could go bundles with AK/LA, AL/MS,GA/FL, TN/KY, NC/SC could complete in 5 years
The East, everything else. Not sure how long it would take them because help comes after 5 years. Once the North is done, they go help the East. Once the South is done, they go to Canada or Mexico. I bet the North and East could finish up at the same time as the South. But with this direction, Nevada Phase 1 needs to take place to tie in Northern California along the entire I-80 corridor before Nebraska. Nevada makes that route even worse. You can't do Chicago to San Francisco in full glory with Nevada I-80 looking like it does.

[halbtollekreatur]

Pavel talked about reach the Great Lakes and Route 66 in the Montana release stream, we are only 3 states away from Chicago and complete route 66 when Texas launch(Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois).

I see to ways of do it:
-Split texas team in two and have the 3 teams working in one State each (Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois), and once finished do the states north of route 66 to close the map. that will be the fastest and we can have the complete route 66 in 1.5-2 years

-Complete the map in columns(like now) the first one starting on Oklahoma and once Canada is reached start the next column in Missouri and once canada reached start next in Illinois, that will give us route 66 in about 4 years once Texas launched, this option give the advantage of the map completed nort route 66 but is slow option.

I personally prefer the first option to have the route 66 as quick as posible, is a mithical route and i think the fastest we get it the better for the game(I can see every body playing and doing it), once the route is completed 2 teams(to close the gap faster) can model the states north Route66 closing the map gap, and the other team can start with states south Route 66 that way they can continue expanding the map to the atlantic and have launches of maps alternating zones.

Route 66 will probably be the new meta of ATS and that will calm the people to rush SCS to the Atlantic, after route 66 the other next big thing i can think of is being able to do the Cannonball Run in game.

So, you basically want the map to look like this after Texas just because of Route 66?

That's not happening, yes, Pavel said that they are aiming for Route 66 and the Great Lakes, but he never said it will be a straight line to there...

I see your point. But then the whole statement would be superfluous, because you'll get there sooner or later anyway. I understood it to mean that they were mapping along Route 66. On the other side assets for Kansas and Nebraska are already in 1.45.

[Sora]

Just to kinda get this down officially, right now, I consider the ideal "short-term Route 66 map" to be this:
[ external image ]

All states from Texas up, all states from Arkansas up, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Of the lot, the top three (North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) are slightly more disposable because I-90 and I-29 form a viable route between Montana and Chicago; however, this comes with the understanding that once Chicago is done, those three states will immediately become high-priority.

This map has a very important trait: almost every route on it is ultimately funneled onto an Interstate route, resulting in a "rounded map" where almost all roads eventually lead back to Chicago. While US 77 and US 59 are not strictly Interstate routes at this point in time, they are both part of the future I-69 corridor, and from Texarkana onwards it's Interstate all the way up. For the most part, the handful of places that do get screwed within existing states with this setup (Beaumont and Southeast Arkansas) aren't really helped that much by Lousiana/Mississippi/Tennessee anyway.

In other words, I recommend the following order:

• Texas establishes the foundation for eastern expansion.
• Oklahoma doubles down on this foundation by connecting I-35 to I-40.
• Kansas cleans up Oklahoma's mess by formally tying Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas together.
• Nebraska is actually probably a slightly worse choice than Arkansas, but not by enough that I feel like SCS needs to change course. The problem with Nebraska is the Omaha-Kansas City Connection, which runs through Missouri and Iowa. But you can probably get away with the various US routes since there isn't a really good connection between Kansas and Nebraska anyway.
• Arkansas helps set up a foundation for Missouri by ensuring that Texas doesn't have to do weird gymnastics to reach it.
• Missouri connects I-44 and I-70 in St. Louis, which will be a milestone when it happens. Doing Arkansas first means that the southeastern portion of the state has a smooth transition to the rest of the map, too.
• Iowa, at this point, will have been necessary for some time. While not as bad as the Idaho or Montana gaps, I-29 will be a sticking point for some time, and once Missouri's up it's probably the most important thing to resolve.
• South Dakota IF it's not being bundled, to connect Wyoming to Iowa. Otherwise Illinois, because it's a milestone state and only needs Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas.
• Illinois if South Dakota wasn't bundled. Otherwise, both Dakotas here.
• North Dakota (if not bundled), Minnesota, and Wisconsin to clean up the northern map.

After this, hammer out Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesse. Then it finally makes sense to send people into the northern (Michigan, Ohio) and southern states (Louisiana, Mississippi). And then it's pretty much just cleanup the rest of the way.

[flight50]

@Sora, is that suppose to be Route 66? Or you are making a new Route 66?