Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

[Calibuddy99]

@Sora Can we STOP going OFF TOPIC? This topic is about REBUILDS, not STUPID OL' TRAINS.

[Vinnie Terranova]

I would be utterly shocked to learn that there were trains that carry loaded trucks across the country in the United States. Might as well have a dragon come and pick the truck up and take it from New York to Arizona. It'd be just as realistic.

But having non-contiguous states in ATS isn't realistic either. Say you have the base map and Texas but not New Mexico. No matter how you are going from, say, LA to DFW, it is not realistic: moving by teleporting, train, or ferry is as realistic as having California, Arizona and Texas without having New Mexico.
If some players don't have New Mexico but do have Texas, they have a very unrealistic map. So, should they care about having a realistic transport between Arizona and Texas? I don't think so.

Ok, let's stop bringing this discussion more off topic than it already is! This topic is about rebuilds! Not stupid ol' boring dumb trains! I repeat! This topic is about rebuilds! Not stupid ol' boring dumb trains!

This train transportation idea is a small part of the discussion about the possibility of having different base maps, the problems it will cause and the possible solutions. And maybe trains are unrealistic, but in a 1:20 scale map there are a lot of things unrealistic. For instance driving with your semi + trailer in Yellowstone, or other national parks.

[Calibuddy99]

@Vinnie Terranova Yeah, but that is also off topic too! The topic is about discussing rebuilds of existing base game states, not discussing about making other areas as base map! Why am I the only one who understands that here? We all know what the topic was made for, and now you all wanna discuss stuff that should be discussed on other topics. If you wanna talk about making other states as base map, create your own topic then. That stuff does not belong in this topic. No, no, no, no, no, it does not belong in this topic.

[Vinnie Terranova]

I think it is all related to the base map rebuild: SCS has stated that they will first rebuild California. This however creates a quality gap between SF and SLC: I-80 in Nevada. This brings us to the (un)importance of California, and the problem of California being part of the base map. The next step is why we even should have a base map at all. This brings us to the question: what if players can have different base maps? What problems would it cause and what possible solutions are there? So, I don't think it is too off-topic.

Besides, we now have talked a lot about the Bay Area rebuild, but as we have no further information from SCS about this next phase yet, there is little left to talk about this phase 4. So I think it's no problem to dig a little deeper into the existence of different base maps.

[flight50]

Why am I the only one who understands that here? We all know what the topic was made for, and now you all wanna discuss stuff that should be discussed on other topics. If you wanna talk about making other states as base map, create your own topic then. That stuff does not belong in this topic. No, no, no, no, no, it does not belong in this topic.

We all understand you live in California but you're coming off as if you own everybody or you are above everyone........ You are a regular member just like us and you joined this forum almost 2 years after this thread was made, you didn't even create it. If you don't like what people are saying, ignore it or flag the post. You are making yourself look like a Karen here. The base map is about the base map, not just California.

[Optional Features]

Loaded trailers are definitely transported by railcar, and containers of course.

The usage of "loaded trucks" in the original post implies the truck is accompanying these trailers, which is the unrealistic part that I'm not seeing any evidence for.

Trailers, yes - those are indeed transported, which is why Rail Export is a company. But unless the truck is also transported, trains aren't a solution to the age-old "how do we bypass unpurchased maps" problem unless we accept that either we own trucks on both ends (and are apparently stowing away with the cargo)... or otherwise are just teleporting, but with extra steps.

Yeah, it would make no sense to bring the truck along with the trailer. All that would do is waste space.

I would personally love to see intermodal trailer shipping (including animated trailer unloading) included in the game. It's a cool part of the industry that needs more attention.

[Shiva]

Animated trailer loading/unloading, similar to the animations of the short ferry ride in Romania, in ETS2. Yes to that.

Stockton has 2 of those intermodal terminals, as linked earlier in this thread.

Question. New trucks, some are transported by rail too, right?

[flight50]

Not that I've ever seen. New trucks are piggy backed everywhere. They go to and come from tranfer forwarding centers and plants.

[killingjoke28336]

After the release of Texas which is hopefully near the end of the year the south corridor will be much more important than right now. I-40 and I-10, maybe it is not that bad to have a solid foundation in California and then make the Nevada and Arizona. One corridor will always be bad. Right now I-80 would be better than SoCal but I guess with Texas this changes.

[oldmanclippy]

But having non-contiguous states in ATS isn't realistic either. Say you have the base map and Texas but not New Mexico. No matter how you are going from, say, LA to DFW, it is not realistic: moving by teleporting, train, or ferry is as realistic as having California, Arizona and Texas without having New Mexico.
If some players don't have New Mexico but do have Texas, they have a very unrealistic map. So, should they care about having a realistic transport between Arizona and Texas? I don't think so.

I don't think non-contiguous states are any less realistic than having only the western third of the country like we do now. I don't think someone who is willing to buy Texas but not New Mexico is serious enough to want to do a Texas to Arizona trip anyways so I think it's a moot point. At a certain point, I don't think SCS needs to cater to people with weird DLC configurations. Especially if it introduces something wildly unrealistic to the game world. Usually I'm all for optional features that increase or decrease realism for people who want them. But IMO something like this would decrease immersion for everyone which is a no-no for me personally. Unless it was just a standard "skip time" teleport node at ports of entry to simulate *driving*, not some unrealistic mode of transportation.

We all understand you live in California but you're coming off as if you own everybody or you are above everyone........ You are a regular member just like us and you joined this forum almost 2 years after this thread was made, you didn't even create it. If you don't like what people are saying, ignore it or flag the post. You are making yourself look like a Karen here. The base map is about the base map, not just California.

Seconded.