Kentucky Discussion Thread

[Brothergun]

Yeah it's certainly the most obvious option to do KY+TN together. You could do KY with a state or two north of it and TN with a state or two south of it, but the shape of both states really lend themselves to being bundled with each other.

@Brothergun What do you think of this list of cities?

Frankfort
Louisville
Lexington
Bowling Green
Owensboro
Paducah
Somerset
Pikeville

I think you could try to squeeze one more city in maybe, but part of Kentucky's appeal is its scenery so I don't think I'd want them to compromise on that.

Ashland and Hopkinsville are too close to Huntington and Clarksville respectively, I think, in order to be marked themselves. There was more room for Lawrence KS compared to those two situations and Lawrence didn't even come as scenic. Owensboro is similarly close to Evansville, and Frankfort to Lexington, but those cities are too important to not try to make work regardless, I think. Frankfort especially, I don't see SCS ever leaving out a capital city.

I'm hoping we get lots of mountaintop removal coal mining sites around Pikeville, coal mining is gonna be a good industry to represent that area it seems and those types of mines are really interesting if environmentally tragic.

I think it’s good, I’d still probably cut Frankfort and make it scenic, and add Hopkinsville and Ashland

Hopkinsville I maybe can see why it will be cut, but Ashland is too big to be really cut, there is also space to put it in if SCS knows what they’re doing, Hopkinsville I still think has a chance to be in the game as marked because of I-24 and I-169 and it connects to BG well so there’s that.

I have a prediction map under my signature if you do want to see what I think KY+TN will look like

[oldmanclippy]

@Brothergun I looked at the map in your signature and it would be pretty nice to get something like that. My KY+TN map is less dense but hopefully we get something in between yours and mine. I like seeing which roads and cities the locals think are important. For example I had Union City TN marked, but seeing you marked Dyersburg instead changed my mind and I agree Dyersburg makes more sense.

I think Ashland could maybe work if they do something similar to what I hope they'll end up pulling off for Hannibal and Quincy: make Hannibal (Ashland) have a few depots and not take up too much space, and then let Quincy (Huntington) be a more fleshed out marked city. That way both cities could be represented in a tight space. The good thing about Ashland is it looks like the best depots are further down the Ohio River from I-64 so there's room for them to play with by shifting Ashland to the northwest away from the WV border.

Can I ask why you didn't connect US-23 between Pikeville and Kingsport? Looks like it's a dual carriageway south of the US-119 junction, are there truck restrictions?

[fra_ba]

maybe didn't want to use that small part of Virginia? you may spot per google street view that trucks use the route:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6544274 ... ?entry=ttu
but it seems to be more helpful for KN-TN connection than for the VA

[oldmanclippy]

Yeah that's the same situation as the sliver of West Virginia on I-70 that will almost certainly be assigned to the Pennsylvania DLC. Or how that sliver of I-15 in Arizona is assigned to the Utah DLC. No issue there I don't think.

[Brothergun]

As of today, Missouri has been officially confirmed as the 3rd DLc in line for ATS, meaning we finally have a state that will border Kentucky! I hope when we see MO, we can see KY in the game one way or another.

[Brothergun]

Hey everyone! After some thinking, I've decided to change this thread to be about Kentucky/Tennessee Bundle Thread, mostly because of SCS's previous comments about bundling Tennessee with another state (most likely Kentucky) and the overall community's consensus about bundling KY with TN. In the event that KY actually becomes its own DLC or TN gets bundled with another state (or is its own DLC for some reason), I'll change this thread back to the Kentucky Discussion Thread. I also decided to update my old prediction map to make it look better.

[flight50]

To be honest, the thread should have stayed as Kentucky only. Its not confirmed that both will come as a bundle. Until it is confirmed, this could be misleading. Especially for people that use translators. This sends the wrong message. The moderators can actual merge threads later if need be.

We already have a Tennessee Discussion thread started. viewtopic.php?p=1849109#p1849109

[tbnoce]

If Kentucky is bundled it makes more sense in my opinion to be with Indiana and/or Ohio than Tennessee because of the overlapping Louisville and Cincinnati metros. There aren't any substantial cross-border Kentucky/Tennessee metros that I am aware of.

[flight50]

^If metros mattered Texas and Arkansas would have gotten bundled to get Texarkana as a whole. Kansas and Missouri would have gotten bundled to get Kansas City as a whole. Nebraska would come with Iowa for Omaha/Council Bluffs. The states are about to get much smaller so its about the road network at this point, not the metros. The road network is about to get quite compact and roads have to terminate somewhere. If a city is on the edge of a border and it happens to a larger metro, at least we can access a portion if it. The other half comes later. The metros you mention are large enough per state to come later.

If Kentucky goes with Indiana, what's to come of Tennesee? Tennessee can't come as a solo state if Kentucky goes with Indiana. Tennessee only makes with one state unless SCS tired it with both Mississippi and Alabama which is too much work. That's a 2 year project at the least. If SCS builds from the South to the North the options could stick with 2 state bundles in Mississippi + Alabama, then Tennessee + Kentucky, Indiana + Ohio can follow granted that Illinois is in place before IN/OH. If Kentucky goes with Indiana, might as well include Ohio. Same thing with those 3, another 2 year project. SCS is better off doing 2 states bundles for that column of states.

ATS is on the door steps of finally getting 3 maps a year. Going with 3 states takes us back to 2 maps a year or even worse, 1 map a year if the dev times is more than 2 years for a three state bundle. I am sure many people would be okay with a IN/OH/KY dlc and a TN/MS/AL dlc. Those knock out a huge portion of the US. That works but people will have to wait for it. I'm not sure ATS is ready for back to back 2+ year projects. Luckily we got Wyoming while Texas was still not ready. Then we lucked out and got both Texas and Montana the same year. Texas took a lot of resources. The results was good but not everyone had the patience for that extended wait time.

[Brothergun]

It looks like another highway shield was blanked out in the 1.50 for Kentucky, this time it's in Bowling Green

[ external image ]