Printable View
Sorry if this is obviously stated somewhere: I seem to recall that to absorb New England a British player must take New France and the Cherokee territories: Spain I haven't heard the conditions before.
Where is this listed? It doesn't seem to be in the manual or the GC briefings, and I'm wondering if I actually read it in pre-release reviews or something.
It gives you a mission in game.
Britain has to take 3 territories (Cherokee Territory, Georgia and New France), I havent played as France or spain.
France already has control over New France, but Louisiana is separate, right?
Correct. I'd really like to have this info from the getgo so I can plan. If you look at Spain, punching bag of the 18th century, being able to have all that territory in a TW style strat map would allow for some crazy revisionist fun.
Eh, Spain went down so hard because of Monarchial stupidity, and all the riches from SA, which inflated their economy past the point of recovery.
Look in your achievements screen. If you have a mission, it will be there. As France you have to capture three regions from the Iroquois and the Cherokee.
Yeah this information is stated by a pop-up on a certain turn and remains in your "Objectives" until you achieve it or until you mess up and go to war with them.
It gave me the British mission on turn 2, so I imagine the same goes with the others.
Spain's victory requirements are Texas (Pueblo Nation's only region), Trinidad and Tobago, owned by pirates, and Curacao, owned by the Dutch.
"Texas (Pueblo Nation's only region)":furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by GM1940
What the :daisy: is this :daisy: about Pueblos in East Texas?Is that what CA called them?
What the heck is in New Mexico?
You know I can tolerate some things and over look others. I mean I have not tried to incite violence over the Cherokee issue, even though it is stupid, I thought “name recognition” was the cause. There have been other things I have kept my mouth shut on as not being at all productive. But this, but this is this is much beyond the pail!:shame:
CA don’t you even Google history! You went to the work of getting ship plans but you can’t figure our which Indian Nations were where!
You may have accidentally seen that the name Texas is of Caddo origin. You could have found the only Indian Reservation in Texas happens to contain the name Caddo. If you looked at the history of the oldest town in Texas you might find that it was a Caddo town.
Kids are dumb enough in history and geography already. You don’t have to add to the stupidity levels like this. It serves no purpose at all. If you want Pueblos then put them in New Mexico where they belong. Even if you had be dumb enough to call the Comanche it wouldn’t have been this bad. They did raid there once. But Pueblo! Give me a break!!!!
You know, these people are still around. There are two whole continents where these people live…and they all know where you live! Some are very radical…
I am not saying that I condone permanent hair cuts, but it might be a form of poetic justice you would understand…
There is no excuse for this. If you are going to pretend to be historical you could at least get this right!
This is so wrong on so many levels!:whip:
I like it, it sounds Texas-ey.
I better not let Strike hear me say that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
This might make it a little easier, not that I'd condone that sort of thing, of course.
Easy 13 Colonies
Not much, Spain tries to give it away for good reason. First it dosn't actually connect to Tejas or Lower Louisana to it's almost the most isolated region there. Second, since the map quite literally just "ends" and there is no pacific ocean, you can't actually trade anything you make there. It had one small town, one plantation and a very small city.Quote:
What the heck is in New Mexico?
Lower Louisana and the 13 are much better regions do to ports.