Kansas Discussion Thread

[oldmanclippy]

I do think that Pittsburg being marked makes it more likely that US-69 will be the eastern-most extent of Kansas, and that could mean that we'd be set up nicely to get Kansas City, Kansas as a marked city in the Kansas DLC, with depots in Overland Park and near the BNSF railyard in Kansas City, Kansas. Yeah Overland Park is more populous but KCKS is more relevant to trucking. I-435 and I-635 would not be modeled (which means that US-50 would be discontinuous in the KC metro area). US-69 could be the main way to get us from Pittsburg to I-35 and from I-35 to I-70.

Then when the Missouri DLC comes, Kansas City MO would get most of its depots along the Missouri River North/Northeast of downtown. US-50 under these assumptions would then be absent between Overland Park, KS and Jefferson City, MO, which I think would be likely to happen anyways.

The BNSF railyard is too massive to ignore, and it would be strange to have to wait until the Missouri DLC to get it since it's fully within Kansas. I think SCS could just have two Kansas City marked cities and be done with it. They would only need a skyline model of Kansas City Missouri included in the Kansas DLC, not the actual thing.

This will-they-or-won't-they discussion will likely continue until very close to release I imagine

[xXCARL1992Xx]

bundling bigger states would be nonsense, then we would wait longer between releases where people are already cry that 2 are not enough, only the smaller states make sense to be bundled

also, California and Nevada only came as one with release because the map was way smaller and the mapping was way worse then today

[Shiva]

Wasn't California and Nevada a single release when the game started?

Bundling should have been happening all along. Washington with Oregon, Idaho with Montana, Wyoming with Colorado, Oklahoma with Texas, etc.

Releasing states one at a time creates weird situations like Texarkana, which was started last year and will be complete in like 2025. Or northern Idaho, which had a sliver of I-90 for several years.

Geography and road systems are not necessarily split on state lines. Splitting them by state means things will never look proper until the whole map is released in like 2040.

They bundle European countries, so it makes sense that states should be bundled as well.

Cali and Nevada, yeah.

Texarkana, there is a possibility, that part of it could come this year, I think. We'll have to see how SCS does it.
Bundling, what would you have bundled Utah with?

Bundles with different regions, or something similar, would have been nice. Maybe bigger rivers etc, as DLC borders?

Iberia DLC and Black Sea DLC, those, so far the only complete 2 country bundles. "well, except for Turkey, but it had the mainland europe part in the DLC"
Italy DLC? Base map has a nice chunk. Same with France.
Denmark, Norway Sweden? in the North DLC? Denmark the only of those 3 complete. Greenland can't really be counted there, not enough roadnetwork, as far as I know.
West Balkans DLC? It will have one Italian city, it looks like. The rest will be 8 countries.

Texas and Oklahoma map DLC bundle?
If SCS could have had base map options.

[fra_ba]

BNSF Argentine yard is the largest BNSF facility, so think there is huge chance to see that in game. There are some options to connect I35 and I70 on KS side. The easiest is US169 which directly give access to surface streets without the need to make extra interchanges, so that's more space-friendly. US69 and I635 are other alternatives.

[Optional Features]

Bundling, what would you have bundled Utah with?

Probably Arizona. It shares some geography, although it would need a rebuild by now.

I just want to see the map finished, and if they release one plains state at a time (three a year), we're going to be reading about grass and water towers for half a decade.

[flight50]

Yeah Overland Park is more populous but KCKS is more relevant to trucking. I-435 and I-635 would not be modeled (which means that US-50 would be discontinuous in the KC metro area). US-69 could be the main way to get us from Pittsburg to I-35 and from I-35 to I-70.

Maybe it won't have to come to cutting out US-50 in KC. If SCS makes the I-435 @ I-35 junction more South, that still gives us room to make the I-435 @ US-69 junction to the East. We only need about a mile in between the 2 junctions. We have a few tight consecutive junctions already in game. Its similar to the triangle we got in Denver with I-70, I-25 and I-76. I-435 can push South. Only that junction is needed for the Kansas dlc. Then when Missouri comes, complete I-435/US-50. Cutting out that much of US-50 between KC and Jefferson City would be quite sad. I don't think they have to go there though. Too much space South of KC metro area to play with. and US-50 can stay intact.

I-49 coming into KC on the Missouri side can side East a bit. Straighten out I-49 from I-435 to Harrisonville a bit more and that gets the I-49 junction space from US-69. KC on the Missouri side gets buggered up pretty good with roads. Might as well just connect I-435 to I-70 since I-49 stops @ I-435/I-470. That way we still get US-50. We know I-49, I-29, I-35 and I-70 must be present. Only I-70 and I-35 need to be the interstate locks going thru KC. Lots of surface streets and surface roads that can go thru KC. So they might as well just make I-435 between I-35 to I-70 but all that, put on the Missouri dlc.

bundling bigger states would be nonsense, then we would wait longer between releases where people are already cry that 2 are not enough, only the smaller states make sense to be bundled

Longer wait is no different than a supersized team working on ETS2 maps. With enough people, one team works one state, another team works the second state. It take 12 months or less to do one ATS state (excluding Texas). If there are 2 teams working together simultaneously on individual states, that is still only 12 months. If 2 states combined are the same size as Colorado, Oregon, Wyoming, New Mexico.....I'm not sure how two team working in tandem goes beyond 12 months if each of those states where made within a calendar year. Its not non sense to me at all. Arkansas + Louisiana is barely larger than Colorado, yet the terrain is way friendlier to map. Even if AK/LA are denser, they are still friendlier maps to develop than Colorado West of I-25.

Post Texas, mapping is not as intense as the West rock formation states. The Great Plains is much much easier to map. Lots of tricks SCS can use to gain speed for the Great Plains. Their tricks won't sacrifice quality either. SCS will get the job done faster than what people think. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah took 8-10 month respectively. Each GP state won't take longer than that. But what SCS shouldn't do is continue to keep selling states solo for 11.99. Not post Texas. Outside of AK/LA, they could get away with solo states. But get to AK/LA and East of the Mississippi, they will find themselves in a bind if they don't start bundling.

[Gormanbros]

Re. Lawrence again, I never said Boulder was on I-25. I know it's not. But it is still located between the metro areas of Denver/Fort Collins and wouldn't have fit with all the Rocky Mountain scenery. Also to the other reply to me, I was agreeing with you that there wasn't room for Temple between Austin and Waco.

Really, I was just trying to compare Lawrence to other cases of college towns with less industry than their neighbors a county or two to either side of it. And I think that like with those other cities, it won't be marked as to give its bigger neighbors with deeper industries more room to feature interesting depots and scenery

[flight50]

I didn't say you said Boulder was off I-25. I made the statement to provide reference to people that don't have a clue where Boulder is by simply saying it's not off I-25 while providing references to cities in the game that are along the same interstate and close proximity to other marked cities.

[Trakaplex]

Re. Lawrence again, I never said Boulder was on I-25. I know it's not. But it is still located between the metro areas of Denver/Fort Collins and wouldn't have fit with all the Rocky Mountain scenery. Also to the other reply to me, I was agreeing with you that there wasn't room for Temple between Austin and Waco.

Really, I was just trying to compare Lawrence to other cases of college towns with less industry than their neighbors a county or two to either side of it. And I think that like with those other cities, it won't be marked as to give its bigger neighbors with deeper industries more room to feature interesting depots and scenery

Yes, but Belton is in the same county as Temple and Killeen, imagine having three medium cities in one county. SCS obviously had to compromise there by leaving one out (Temple) because it was too close to an expanded Waco. Killeen and Belton are scenery towns. Lawrence is just one city stuck between KC and Topeka, like I said. If they move Topeka more west, they could easily fit Lawrence. I-35 in Texas didn't have much room because pushing Austin more south would invade San Antonio and pushing that would invade Laredo. Kansas west of Topeka may be Manhattan, Abilene (KS), and Salina, but those could be single little exits. Nothing like mega-interchanges. Boulder is away from the I-25 but on US-36 (which is nonexistent in ATS) so it's dismissed. Could've been background props though.

[flight50]

Yeah, I think Boulder was 100% background. In order to set the mountains, Boulder was not gonna fit. Not when you look at the areas with the dev cam. I was for sure Boulder made it........until the map got reveal. Once the dlc released, I had to go see why no Boulder. It was the mountain range. It would have threw off Loveland and Loveland would have thrown off Fort Collins. Technically, Fort Collins was thrown off. It got push further North than it really is irl.

Manhattan is a fairly popular town but since its so far off I-70, it can be omitted. Lawrence on the other hand, has to at least make scenic but its chances of marked is still possible if Topeka shifts West. Imo, Kansas needs everything it can get to make it attractive. Same will happen with Nebraska, both Dakota's and Iowa. Those states must become as interesting as possible. Neither has the attractions of the previous dlc's before it. SCS can't make fiction of them though. Just exploit what they do best.........agriculture.

I do think SCS will make good of the remaining GP states. When NM was w.i.p., I thought very little of it. At the time, turned out the be very good for what it did. I think every state has the potential if SCS digs deep. The best part about SCS now is their growth. Many improvements map design wise since 2016. They have a full research team to concentrate on bringing out the best of each state. That allows the mappers to focus on design. In the early days, the mappers had to do their own research and that took time away from mapping. So hopefully the research team has the pedal to the floor on finding every possible thing to exploit per state. Then narrow down those options to fit the scale of the game. I say it all the time, but I seriously hope we NEVER see another Idaho economy in ATS. It brought nothing new and I still feel cheated big time on Idaho. How can you not bring at least one new industry or one new company. I seriously don't understand that logic and then sale it for 11.99. That can never happen again. They never did it for ETS2, why try that in ATS?

So for me, its time to flesh out agriculture like never before with Kansas, Nebraska, Dakota's and Iowa. I think its the perfect time for this game engine to ramp up game mode options to help these states. Until we can get to the next column of states to bring in a different set of industry like manufacturing, agriculture should probably be the main focus. The Lode King dlc and sale nicely with more farming options. Hopefully other trailer manufacturers come on board per industry. Lots of positives moving forward if SCS takes us there.