Louisiana Discussion Thread

[flight50]

If Kansas is in the mix, I don't think they can do Arkansas + Louisiana. Oklahoma is the likely state to follow Texas. All 4 can't come 2023. I do like LA/AR as the first bundle still. Now if Oklahoma is dropped already, KS,LA, AR would be nice in the same year. My guess is what SCS thought way back in the day with Arizona, NM and Texas. SCS thought that similar areas could be mapped at once. Turned out similar is not what their asset library could do. Each state is different in their own way.

But when it comes to KS,NE, Dakotas...they are a lot more similar. It's possible SCS shoots directly North due to that vs multiple directions. Easier mapping is good as it produces states faster but at the cost bringing diversity. East of Texas taking a back seat to the North isn't ideal for most, but what can we do. Then you have the stair step. I like adding to what Eastern Colorado did in Kansas but I also like added East of Texas with all the full vegetation. I'd rather multiple directions hands down.

[oldmanclippy]

Yeah I'll reiterate that I personally don't really care what direction they go in at this point. The map shape is solid with the addition of Montana so no concerns there. Every state that is on the table as a possibility for 2023, is one I'm excited for. Kansas gets us more of I-70 and hopefully lots of good road density. Nebraska gets us more of I-80, as well as Omaha which will be a fun city to have in ATS especially if Council Bluffs comes with Nebraska. Louisiana brings a new biome, tons of green, more of I-10 and I-20, and of course the Big Easy itself, New Orleans. Arkansas brings us the Ozarks and more of I-30 and I-40.

Honestly we're at the point where I wouldn't even be mad if they decided to upend expectations and go back to a C-shaped map with North and South Dakota. Yeah Sioux Falls to Tulsa would be hilariously borked but the map shape is in such a good spot that I wouldn't even mind. Montana and Texas were the states that needed to get out the door to open up ATS's future. From here on out we're not gonna have a Winnemucca or I-90 gap situation that hampers the overall experience. Sure Raton might be a bottleneck until Oklahoma, but that's a minor problem IMO and those are only going to get fewer and farther between as we move forward.

When I push for Louisiana, that's more from a marketing perspective. Sure I would probably choose Kansas and Louisiana to follow Oklahoma in a perfect world, but my preference isn't nearly as strong as it was for Montana to come before Texas.

[angrybirdseller]

Can cordinate alot easier with plain states can't do that so much working with Louisana with complex road system espesically the bayou system and channel system. They probadly have good reason to develop OK, KS, NE as next slate of state it allows scs to free up more mappers to help with base map rebuild. Louisana will require senior mapper stuck on mock ups of New Orleans tear down then scrap and rebuild this will take months. The Arkanas and Louisana will be harder to pull off as bundle than the Dakotas its more than land area have to think about cities needed to build along with new assets necessary for the region.

[Optional Features]

Honestly we're at the point where I wouldn't even be mad if they decided to upend expectations and go back to a C-shaped map with North and South Dakota. Yeah Sioux Falls to Tulsa would be hilariously borked but the map shape is in such a good spot that I wouldn't even mind. Montana and Texas were the states that needed to get out the door to open up ATS's future. From here on out we're not gonna have a Winnemucca or I-90 gap situation that hampers the overall experience. Sure Raton might be a bottleneck until Oklahoma, but that's a minor problem IMO and those are only going to get fewer and farther between as we move forward.

Honestly, that would be awesome. I've hoped to see quality roads from the West to Chicago for a while (for the meat packing industry and general trucking culture associated with the place). Starting from the north would make that happen far faster.

[Trakaplex]

Honestly we're at the point where I wouldn't even be mad if they decided to upend expectations and go back to a C-shaped map with North and South Dakota. Yeah Sioux Falls to Tulsa would be hilariously borked but the map shape is in such a good spot that I wouldn't even mind. Montana and Texas were the states that needed to get out the door to open up ATS's future. From here on out we're not gonna have a Winnemucca or I-90 gap situation that hampers the overall experience. Sure Raton might be a bottleneck until Oklahoma, but that's a minor problem IMO and those are only going to get fewer and farther between as we move forward.

Honestly, that would be awesome. I've hoped to see quality roads from the West to Chicago for a while (for the meat packing industry and general trucking culture associated with the place). Starting from the north would make that happen far faster.

True, but Pavel did say they needed to reach Florida as fast as they could. So I expect to see a zigzag motion: OK then AR/LA. KS, and then MS/AL. NE, and TN/KY. SD/ND and GA/FL. And yeah, Florida could be its own DLC.

[flight50]

@Trakaplex That zigzag is what we refer to as stair step. We the community thought of that pattern keeping in mind what Pavel wanted. He didn't say as fast as they could though. He just said it was his ambition. As fast as he could is b-lining to Florida which won't be ideal. A mix of South corridor and going North simultaneously is more ideal to keep two different biomes going. It holds interest more. But SCS will do as they want and as they see fit.

But they can alter that. People complained about too much desert back in the day and then came Oregon and Washington when they were thinking NM and Texas.

[harishw8r]

Stairstep is neat. I would like things to be exactly as @Trakaplex proposed. Florida can be combined with Georgia. We are talking about four years from now, they can very well increase the team size to build a DLC that big.

I know maps take up most of SCS' content, but the fact that MT and TX will be mapped by this year is too exciting.

[flight50]

Technically we have a team that can build a dlc of that size. Texas is much larger than both Georgia and Florida and then some. We have 2 teams working Texas and a team working Montana that also takes a decent amount of people. Then there's the small team working California. The team is only small because people where taken to increase production for Montana and Texas so that they get pushed pushed out.

[ external image ]

[Shiva]

Regarding Florida and truesize page. Florida gets a bit beefed up on the coastline.

For me, it seems that people are now more into multiple state DLC's than years ago?
The states east of Texas and Oklahoma. Those would be nice candidates for 2 state DLC's. Mexico size, or smaller.
But will they be single state DLC's or double?

Louisiana, it could come as a single state. But Louisiana + Arkansas, would in size, in my opinion, make more sense.
The states above Arkansas? Of those, I would put Iowa, on the a bit "too small" state. But still, maybe a single state DLC?

[oldmanclippy]

Sounds like Louisiana might be a bit further out than previously believed, now that Pavel has stated that the Great Lakes are the target. Could be more like 2025 or 2026 now depending on their strategy, i.e. how aggressive the push is. Could still be 2024 but based on Pavel's comments I'm thinking later. Arkansas definitely has a place in that strategy to get us to I-55, but Louisiana not as much.