The Dakotas (North and South) Discussion Thread

[Marcello Julio]

Recently with Montana Release Stream, Pavel talked about that he want arrive in the 'Great Lakes', what it means that before getting there, we would pass through of the Dakotas states.

This thread has objective to discuss about the two states. The question that I leave, do you believe the North Dakota and South Dakota will be a single DLC or would each state be divided into its own DLC?

---
Update June 7th, 2025:

On May 25th, 2025 SCS make a teaser blog, showing the Actual Geographical Center of the United States, located in South Dakota, hinting that we might get the Dakotas separated into their own DLCs, starting with South Dakota. On June 7th, 2025, an announcement blog was made and officially confirming South Dakota and also confirming that SCS will be making the Dakotas in their separate DLCs.

View on Steam

Original Poll Result:
[ external image ]

[Tristman]

According to the wikipedia list of states, the total area of North and South Dakota combined is about as much as Montana.
Montana is a bit on the larger side compared to what we're used to, but I think it's not overwhelming. I think I'd be happy with two separate DLCs as well, but my preference would go to bundling the Dakotas into one.

[Marcello Julio]

Both states share many characteristics. My opinion would be to be a single DLC. It would even be more impactful from a sales point of view.

And yes, both states together in real life gives around 147,816 sq mi (382,840 km2), more or less the Montana size (147,040 sq mi - 380,800 km2).

[CodArk2]

I would prefer standalone to focus on what naked each state unique. They can also likely get them out faster as single states than bundling

[rookie31st]

I would vote for separate DLCs assuming it means more states released in a year. They aren't that small to be bundled on release in my opinion. Geographically, however, they are fairly similar, but they split in two because of some differences and those differences may still exist in some sense. I just don't know.

[LegoTechnicFanBoi]

.

[halbtollekreatur]

Didn't he also say it should go along Route 66? That would mean Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri & Illinois first, wouldn't it?!
EDIT: The assets in 1.45 also tend to speak against the Dakotas: https://truck-simulator.fandom.com/wiki/States --> Upcoming

[angrybirdseller]

If each state had 8 cities and 16 settlements would need extra asset maker for each state would need to resreach each state separately.

There are differences between North and South Dakota geographically culturally. Also, Missouri River is divider as get further east it's greens up little bit there alot of lakes and marshland.

The cities won't be as difficult to pick and choose like Nebraska and Kansas as it far fewer of size.

It will be equal amount of work as more lakes, bridges, landmarks than Montana. The mapping layout is easier, but signage is different in North Dakota than South Dakota.

It's 50-50 bundle, but I could see as well sold seperate too.

[Sora]

Geographically, however, they are fairly similar, but they split in two because of some differences and those differences may still exist in some sense. I just don't know.

The three main reasons why North Dakota and South Dakota are separate:

• The Northern region and the Southern region followed different trade routes. This one is easy to intuit even now: North Dakota follows I-94, while South Dakota follows I-90. Of the two, I-90 is considerably more useful for the map in the short-term, so there is merit to doing South Dakota first.
• Related to the above, there existed serious dispute over where the capital of the region should be. The Dakotan capital being abruptly moved from Yankton (in modern South Dakota) to Bismarck (in modern North Dakota) was seen by many as a final straw.
• The federal government, meanwhile, was dominated by Republicans at this point. Splitting the Dakota territory meant more states that were assumed to vote Republican, which is of course very useful for their purposes. The Democrats, for their part, went along with this - they would rather agree to a compromise where three Republican states (ND, SD, and Washington) and one Democratic (Montana) state were added, than the worst case scenario of being shut out completely. While the political sphere is pretty different now, the fact that certain states mostly exist to inflate the strength of their dominant political parties remains very relevant - just not to ATS.

At any rate, there are certainly fewer differences between the Dakotas than there are between several countries that are bundled together in ETS2. And while differences certainly exist, you could say the same for several states that aren't split, like Northern/Southern California or Western/Eastern Washington. Or Western/Eastern Texas, for that matter.

Personally, I feel like whether the Dakotas are split comes down to one very important question: how hard are we pushing for Chicago? South Dakota offers one very important stretch of road for that connection: I-90/I-29, which combine to form a relatively efficient route from the Northwest to Chicago. I-94 in North Dakota, on the other hand, requires you to go through Minnesota and Wisconsin for the same routing. If the goal is simply pushing for Illinois as fast as humanly possible, then it may be worthwhile to do South Dakota a fair while before North Dakota so that they don't need to immediately commit to North Dakota and Minnesota and Wisconsin. On the other hand, if we're fine meandering through those three states first, then bundling the Dakotas is probably the way to go.

[rookie31st]

And while differences certainly exist, you could say the same for several states that aren't split, like Northern/Southern California or Western/Eastern Washington. Or Western/Eastern Texas, for that matter.

Well, two Dakotas are actually two different states, while California, Washington, and Texas are all single states without legal division between north/south or west/east. It's just not comparable.