america and europe at 1700

**jo the greek** · December 06, 2007, 05:49 AM

It is interesting to see what they would with all semi autonomus areas
italy looks interesting and venice i think it has a problem.

13 colonies propably wont capture europe lol

sorry to moders for big pictures !!!

**urias03** · December 06, 2007, 06:21 AM

you dont really want to capture europe you want to get rid from Englad mostly

**drak10687** · December 06, 2007, 10:11 AM

In terms of historical accuracy, no... but this is a TW game. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to build up an American army and Navy, make some alliances, and starting with some smaller European nations conquer a large part of the 'Old World'. It was completely possible to do with small factions in previous TW games, so unless CA have completely changed the dynamics of this one, the same should be true.

**Sol Invictus** · December 06, 2007, 10:17 AM

I imagine that most American Players would be content with throwing Britain into the sea, conquering Canada, and then Florida. That would be quite an accoplishment and very much within the realm of historical plausability.

**Erunion Telcontar** · December 06, 2007, 11:56 AM

Some, Inevitably, will try and conquer England and the old world.
Just because they can...

**english tyrant** · December 06, 2007, 12:26 PM

@jo the greek
put your pics in spoiler tags.

**urias03** · December 06, 2007, 12:59 PM

I like to play realistic as much as I can
like in M2 I didn't conquer all europe becasue I could
with Venice I could rule most of roman empire and Fracne but that was pretty stupid so I "just" conquered all Italy including Rome and slaughter the pop and appoint new pop from Venice
it's pretty realistic all though I think Venice didnt conquer Milan like I did

**Roman14** · December 06, 2007, 01:06 PM

I want realistic game play when it comes to battels but i do not want to be told what i have to conquer and then the game ends when you take those regions.

**Leutrim** · June 01, 2008, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Roman14

I want realistic game play when it comes to battels but i do not want to be told what i have to conquer and then the game ends when you take those regions.

Yeah, I hate it when your on a campaign for instance taking western europe as the Turks and you're asked to invade Eddessa or Rhodes. Although those aren't great examples, you catch the drift.

**persianfan247** · June 02, 2008, 03:08 AM

Does anyone know of a map of Asia for the year 1700

**Ludicus** · June 02, 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by persianfan247

Does anyone know of a map of Asia for the year 1700

Schematic Map:

European colonies in India in 1700

What one should connect to this map is: The dominance of the Dutch East Indies Company at the time; The remains of the Portuguese empire that was still strong in West India; The good position the English had to dominate Bengal one day (closer to the sea, and a somewhat stronger factory at Kolkota); The emergence of the Marathas

http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/indiacol.html

**MehemtAli_Pasha** · June 02, 2008, 11:07 AM

actually i like how the game makes u go to a certain direction like the historical one...2 a certain limit. so if u r playin the 13 colonies, u have to get rid of the British in ur land and manage a strong economy then u think about conquering the old world.

same thing with the Ottomans too, they have to manage the rebellions in their provinces and manage a strong economy before conquering more land or expanding their colonies and compete with west.

I think it's way much better than starting off with the 13 colonies and the first couple of turns u find ur self in the old world destroying the strongest empires of the time (France and Britain).