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

[Sora]

It's easy to say "let's pick the most interesting/beautiful/whatever state", but that state also has to integrate neatly with the road network. Imho, the next step after New Mexico, Utah and Colorado might be Wyoming because at least you can close the I-80 corridor and connect northern Colorado, northern Utah, northern Nevada and northern California. After that, it gets really ugly because both Montana and Idaho sucks: first one has only one major connection with the rest of the map (I-25) and the second one has an odd shape and brings only some major roads in the southern side and a little stretch of I-90 that doesn't really matter. Only if you manage to succesfully move on from this dilemma you can move to Oregon, then Washington

This is something that I think a lot of people are underrating, and definitely a key reason why I'm not in any hurry to move into the northwest. Idaho is basically the absolute worst shape possible for this game, and you can't even just ignore it because you need it for Oregon, Washington, and Montana to work well.

That would be bad enough in its own right, but because Utah isn't part of the base map, you need to go through a single rural road in the corner of Nevada to even reasonably access it -- or, at best, maybe they'll add NV-225, which doesn't actually help much but at least provides a second route. So you can barely even justify adding it on its own, either; you need to either bundle it with something, give something away, or design a state that violates all manner of logical game design. But even bundling doesn't really work -- there is no state that makes for a convenient bundle with it. To recap:

• Oregon leaves Washington, which is smaller than both, isolated in the corner.
• Washington has a very narrow border with it, and only an isolated interstate connection.
• Montana is already a huge state in its own right.
• Wyoming does not have a direct interstate connection with it, and in fact barely has connections with it at all.
• Utah is strangely the best bet, but it would likely be a heavy investment this early on, and most people would probably prefer to see Colorado if anything.

Actually, you know what? Utah+Idaho might not really make much sense as a bundle, but it's probably the only real shot at handling the Idaho problem before it becomes a serious concern. It would also get two less-popular states out of the way and establish a lot of important groundwork that can set the stage for Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. It's a good deal of landmass, but since both Utah and Idaho are relatively sparse, they could probably get away with normal "full expansion" price. And you'd even have a good bit of not-desert! I kinda want to see this happen now, even if I know it's a long shot.

[CarCat]

Never gonna happen. But Rhode Island. (lol)

[flight50]

To me, the only way Idaho works, if we do indeed get 1 state per year is if both Oregon and Washington is in place first. If Utah comes next, Oregon, Washington and Idaho would get along. So far, all the borders work with what is provided in the game now nicely. Even with NM coming, borders are still nice and crisp. Idaho will be the first oddly shaped state to come about. Texas works because of the way it borders with New Mexico. So not having Oklahoma right away, won't hurt. Utah borders perfectly with Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Oregon works great with California and Nevada. Utah is really the key right now.

If Texas or Oregon is next, so be it, both will work fine. I will take whatever we can get. But Utah would have to come before Idaho and Colorado. Colorado is definitely more appealing but you can't have it without Utah in place first. Utah, does provide a change of scenery as well as Oregon. Both will have nice views worthy of photos shoots I am sure. I'd much rather see Utah or Oregon before seeing Texas though. As far as highways, the highways system going thru Salt Lake city is key to tying in Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado with the existing map. I really can't wait to get New Mexico release, just so we can get the announcement for the next state.

[Voltaire1971]

I say screw Texas until we have the whole west from New Mexico to Montana.

[pigbrother]

Nobody screws with texans, beware!

[flight50]

Pigbrother, are you from the U.S. or something, lol. It seems as though you know a lot about the Region here and your across the pond, lol. This poll has well over 800 views, yet less than 50 votes. If half of those views actually voted, SCS would look more into it I am sure. Either majority don't care or they are not truly reading the thread. But you sir, contribute a good amount in the ATS thread. I know ET2 is the bread and butter but getting ATS more landmass would be an added benefit to SCS. Having 2 games blossom would be awesome.

I wouldn't say screw Texas now, lol. But I do agree that Texas should yield to the west development first. But SCS may be thinking $$$$ by providing Texas. All other states just may be $ or $$ in comparison to Texas's potential $$$$$. Texas should cost more than the base game itself. I would expect Texas to be $20-25 USD.

Lol, the commercials all say don't mess with Texas and that things are bigger in Texas, but I don't think anyone actually takes those saying literally, lol.

[Grafsky]

To me all the same what there will be Utah or Oregon, a question: how many will take time, several months or year?

[Hell_Raiser]

I guess there is one more option that I haven't seen mentioned, and would break from the current trend. They could break away from the state borders and add an area that encompasses part of multiple states, similar to what they did at the start, in ets2 (ok, I actaully have never played ETS2, and was still playing 18wos when released, so I might be wrong). This could make it significantly easier to add the oddly shaped states with roads that wouldn't make sense without an adjacent state.

I am not sure I like that approach better, adding the entire state would look a lot nicer, and feel more refined, however the benefits can't be ignored. It would also appear that the recent trend in ETS2 has moved away from that approach, so it is probably unlikely that they would adopt it hear, just some food for thought.

Also, flight50, where do you keep getting that Utah/New Mexico border from? The two states are opposite each other at the four corners, so the border would be infinitely small, if you decide that a one dimensional point counts as a border. Further, that point is not in a road, so it is impossible to cross the border without first going into one of the other adjacent states first, in a vehicle anyway.

[flight50]

@Hell Raiser, opposite at the 4 corners, huh! I don't get your reference. Are we looking at the same map. Utah's Southeastern point touches/borders New Mexico's Northwest point. So yes a one dimensional point is still a border. If two states touch, they border. We need Utah to get to Colorado without having to go thru New Mexico. If they gave us Colorado before Utah, travel from Nevada to Colorado would be very asinine. If you zoom into the map at that one corner where all (4) states meet, there are roads that make travel possible via State Hwys (191,64 and 491) to all (4) states. Now whether SCS provides these state hwys is a different story. That quadrant of 4 states does have a nice little network composed of State hwys that I would definitely use if SCS put them in the game. But I never refereed to Interstate travel with Utah to New Mexico specifically as it seems that you are implying, for there are none. At any rate, we will always need one state to get to another without asinine travel. I am just saying Utah is a great choice next because all it's borders are surrounded by another state. It has Interstates that connect to all bordering states on all its long border sides in each direction. Is saying long border Interstate travel, a bit more clarifying?

@Grafsky. I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say but I think you are saying that whether we get Utah or Oregon, it makes no difference to you. Also, in this thread viewtopic.php?f=178&t=246218&start=50, MandelSoft's 55th and 65th post basically broke down a little bit why SCS can only do so much right now. So to answer the question on how long it will take per state, from start to finish will more than likely be no less than 8 months based on how New Mexico is working it self out. That time table with fluctuate as the game progresses. Me, I am setting my thoughts on 1 state per year now until SCS lets us know otherwise. There blogs is the best we have to get that info.

[Trident R.S.]

Voted Oregon, because after almost 2 years is time to going north.
Texas is very big compared to the other dlc, so maybe can be splitted in 2 parts (south Texas, and north Texas + Oklahoma).