Montana Discussion Thread

angrybirdseller
Posts: 3300
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3801 Post by angrybirdseller » 17 Aug 2022 10:53

:lol: Laurel to Salt Lake City add miles to your truck quickly. Sometimes take back-round and other just do leisurely drive past Casper to I-90. Get local radio mod get all those farming radio stations and talking 4A club you know its rural while. Sidney MT to Everett WA its pretty smooth drive if you keep the cruise at 55 mph just need feature to avoid driving at night time. Montana some deliveries refuse to take as Missoula to Great Falls, but Laurel and Glendive where you can use Wyoming a lot is good. I only delivered once to Butte as prefer Eastern parts of Montana over the forested areas.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30304
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3802 Post by flight50 » 17 Aug 2022 11:35

Lol. I always avoid certain patterns to drive. Although Montana boxes up the map, I never take C-shaped routes nor J-shaped routes. Whether there is a dlc gap or lack of a road, I just avoid these shaped routes. For me in Montana its Salmon to anywhere East of I-15 or anything along US-2 in Montana to anything to North Washington on WA-20.
pigbrother
Posts: 3315
Joined: 03 Jun 2016 07:36
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3803 Post by pigbrother » 17 Aug 2022 11:50

I'm the total opposite, I had like 7 different routes from Hobbs to Bellingham and now I have 2 more. :lol:

I wish I could have so many choices in ETS2, but the shape of the continent and in-game map are not helping too much.
I have approximate knowledge of many things
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30304
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3804 Post by flight50 » 17 Aug 2022 12:39

^I'm surprised to hear that. It seems like ETS2 has a ton of route options. ETS2 seems like it sets up better with the detour feature. Something that current ATS can't really do. Now with the Great Plains coming, I hope for more road density so that I can reactivate the detour feature. It would also help if SCS gave it some tweaks.
pigbrother
Posts: 3315
Joined: 03 Jun 2016 07:36
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3805 Post by pigbrother » 17 Aug 2022 12:46

Neah… Going two Italy? Same two north-south routes. Leaving Spain? A chokepoint with two routes. Going to Scandinavia? Another chokepoint with a road and a ferry. Only from Finland and Estonia I have a real choice, going through Poland or ferry over the Baltic to Scandinavia. There are detours options only in the Germany/Switzerland/Austria area, but I don’t have too much options for routes that are different from start to finish like in ATS.
I have approximate knowledge of many things
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30304
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3806 Post by flight50 » 17 Aug 2022 12:50

Difference in dead ends. Central Europe is what I had in mind as far as options though. Not the perimeter countries. ATS does have the benefit as its all landlocked. So the more ATS fills in, the more options will come.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5536
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3808 Post by oldmanclippy » 17 Aug 2022 15:35

It's cool that they linked the PCInvasion review. A.K Rahming is pretty much the only "traditional" gaming journalist who regularly reviews ATS expansions. In fact I'd say that his Washington review was probably the tipping point that pushed me to give ATS DLCs a try after pretty much only playing ETS2 for years. The review isn't all positive either which does surprise me because this is probably his most negative ATS review so far. Even with my misgivings about I-94 I'd still rate Montana higher than Idaho or Utah for sure. A reminder that different people want different things out of each DLC. Hard to balance all those different desires from fans I'm sure. I can only give my own opinions, there are countless other kinds of opinions out there that SCS has to consider as well. Heck even with I-94 we've seen others here who have firsthand experience with it say they don't mind it, others do mind it, so collecting feedback has got to be a big headache for whoever's job that is.
headquartered in Denver [ external image ] and Brussels [ external image ]
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | German Cities
prediction maps: Greece+Nordic Horizons | Nebraska+Arkansas+Missouri
User avatar
saur44l
Posts: 956
Joined: 07 May 2016 22:16
Location: Macedonia

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3809 Post by saur44l » 17 Aug 2022 20:26

Well I am having a difficult time rating the latest map dlc,there are parts that are done exceptionally well and it would not be fair to judge the map as a whole,but I will just say that now I think that it was a mistake working on Montana at the same time with Texas.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30304
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3810 Post by flight50 » 18 Aug 2022 05:02

Why do you think it was a mistake? There was an obvious gap in the map that needed to be filled asap. There is no other state that fit the bill without a weird shape. Sending everyone to work Texas instead of worrying about Montana would have produced another year of just one state.

If everyone worked Texas, we could have gotten it late Spring perhaps. Not enough time to then do Montana before the year is out. Pavel explained why Montana went into deployment last year.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: joshuatree, polskagrom, TOFTG and 16 guests