Why is America so poor?

[sillyfrenchman]

I am by no means knowledgeable on the United States' history, but they seem really poor, barely worth transporting armies to conquer. I thought about doing so as the Prussians, but the "13 colonies" have just a few plantations. I'd rather jettison those colonies and focus on India, where one province there is richer than all of the "13 colonies" combined (check one SE India province- it can make like 12k!)

The Americans seem awfully poor. I thought George Washington et al. were owners of vast estates full of wealthy plantations.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

It'ss becuz the darn africens that waz imperted by the Britissh wer steeling frum them an taking there welth to India!

[Gen. Discomfort]

Once you build up your provinces a little and you take out a couple of natives the money starts rolling in. Make sure to trade as much as possible, you have a lot of good harbours. After a decade or so I had 4 full army stacks and 2 naval ones. Be sure to demolish native farms though, so you can build plantations.

The thing that bothered me is that somehow the European factions had all their techs researched and the Americans were way behind with only one school.

Nevertheless, the lack of naval landings and the complete lack of interest of the AI in their colonies makes playing the Americans ridiculously easy.

[HordeOfDoom]

The US is poor because their population is low, and the territories are underdeveloped. If you get immigration going (by setting taxes in the colonies low/those in your home provinces high) they will grow incredibly rapidly, and a plethora of new towns will pop up.

[Pickle_mole]

The US is poor because their population is low, and the territories are underdeveloped. If you get immigration going (by setting taxes in the colonies low/those in your home provinces high) they will grow incredibly rapidly, and a plethora of new towns will pop up.

Is there really an immigration system in place?

[Zenodox]

Is there really an immigration system in place?

Yes, it's implemented as a negative growth factor in your home provinces and a positive one in colonial provinces.

[Caliburn]

I am by no means knowledgeable on the United States' history, but they seem really poor, barely worth transporting armies to conquer. I thought about doing so as the Prussians, but the "13 colonies" have just a few plantations. I'd rather jettison those colonies and focus on India, where one province there is richer than all of the "13 colonies" combined (check one SE India province- it can make like 12k!)

The Americans seem awfully poor. I thought George Washington et al. were owners of vast estates full of wealthy plantations.

Because the slaves are not implemented in the game, so there is no one to tend the fields.

[the_mango55]

You can develop America to be pretty profitable. Cherokee Territory is especially valuable.

New Spain (Mexico) and New Andalusia (Venuzuela) are much richer than the 13 colonies though.

[Rotaugen2009]

Plus, the idea of a central govenrnment with the ability to raise money was not agreed to by everyone. Washington had a heck of a time getting ANY pay for his men, and the continental banknotes were practically worthless. Its quite simply amazing that Washington managed to hold the Army together long enough to finish the war.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

America started to really get on the ball with the advent of rail and automobiles. Prior we were not particularly special or great.

And Political Apathy is not an excuse to want to slap politicians around. Slap around your fellow citizens for not properly voting/caring about the elections, government.

[Faris ad Din]

I am by no means knowledgeable on the United States' history, but they seem really poor, barely worth transporting armies to conquer.

The Americans seem awfully poor. I thought George Washington et al. were owners of vast estates full of wealthy plantations.

America started to really get on the ball with the advent of rail and automobiles. Prior we were not particularly special or great.

I'm going to give a historical reply - part based on real historical knowledge I read and heard (anything can be inaccurate, however), and my personal best opinion and understanding of the question.

America was po'!

I distinctly remember on a History Channel program that Great Britain's wealth was one thousand times greater than that of the Thirteen Colonies'. Of course, this may be a bit of an exaggeration and seems absurd - but not completely. Furthermore, (in the play "1776" I saw) - I heard the relative population figures as "an nation of 2 million people against an empire of 10 million?"

There were lots and lots and lots of things you could find, do, make, and buy in Great Britain that you couldn't in America. All the manufactured goods were shipped in - it was NOT easy to boycott British paper, tea, cloth, cutlery, crockery, tools, and glass. This is real money back then. The stories of Yale printing its 1774 (?) graduation ceremony program on colonial-made rough paper and bars serving sassafras (herbal) tea instead are real stories of adversity.

While I was attending a macroeconomics class taught by a famous economics lecturer, he made a point that struck me until now - he referred to the common people of the past as all peasants: "It doesn't matter if you were a Russian peasant, an Indian peasant, a French peasant, an American peasant" - the free farmers making up the bulk of the American population back in 1700 were subsistence farmers who had relative freedoms and owned their own land, and enjoyed a little better standard of living than some other farmers around the world - but face the facts, America was made up of peasants (in many ways). There were some slave-owning gentlemen - George Washington (Pres. #1, Virginia), Thomas Jefferson (Pres. #3, Virginia), James Madison (Pres. #4, Virginia), James Monroe (Pres. #5, Virginia - "The Virginian Dynasty"!) - but most of the rest in both the southern and the northern United States were dawn-to-dusk hard-laboring farmers, and farmer-village-craftsmen. There were men with wealth like the Southern plantation owners who made up four of the first five presidents, and New England and New York businessmen - but make no mistake, the British native elite were FAR more affluent and had higher status than their American counterparts. Britons looked down upon Americans as some roughneck howdy-doody provincials - part of the reason why George Washington sided for American independence.

America was poor for a long, long time - it just had steady economic growth of about 1% for 230 years to bring us from basically peasant lifestyle to the richest large nation in the world. (Nowadays if we don't get 4% growth a year, we feel we're getting poorer.) It only surpassed Great Britain in total industrial output in the late 1800s.

Repeat, now that you've heard the facts and analysis:

America was po'!

EDIT:

Far from. The US founding fathers weren't poor but they certainly weren't wealthy(by European standards of the time). The wealth of the colonies came from the south, and those colonies were the most resistant to declare independence. You also have to realize that the American Revolution was late in the 18th century, so towards the end of the ETW campaign.

If your looking for quick cash head to India where the most wealth was at the time - the colonies represent untapped wealth.

INDIA - the Mughal Empire rather - was considered to be one of the richest nations in the world per-capita, and TOTAL GDP output too. Some figures put their GDP share as 40% of the world's total. I personally don't buy into that quite so much - European technological discoveries and dominance of the Indian/Chinese goods trade already put them ahead of the Muslim world which used to control the trade - but pnokey has a point. Go East, Young Man.

[coman]

Two turns away from claiming the colonies for Great Britain per the initial Mission from 1700, Boston becomes a new nation!

It's 1722 FFS.

[Faris ad Din]

Two turns away from claiming the colonies for Great Britain per the initial Mission from 1700, Boston becomes a new nation!

It's 1722 FFS.

That's retarded for it to take so long. AI Great Britain and Spain automatically receive The Thirteen Colonies and New Spain, respectively, as their sovereign territory, automatically (I think), as part of the script between turns 4 and 8 or so.

By 1722 you could have conquered half of Europe. More campaign design fail.

[coman]

So I suppose we'll have to do the whole revolutionary war thing... twice.

So be it.

I'm steamrolling through the Americas now, two 3/4 full army stacks with 6 irregular foot in the van. Just obliterating everything I come across.

[Irishmafia2020]

All of the American areas are pretty poor in the game. I have an excellent game going as Louisiana, and part of the challenge is dealing with the fact that the country can only afford a 1/2 stack of troops, and is surrounded by multi-stack native tribes. Most of my provinces have fewer than 10,000 people in them - so the tax base and trade income is tiny. Population is the key, the old-world provinces have hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who can be taxed, and who also increase the trade benefits. In contrast, the new world has provinces that have only 1% of a population of the mother country, and they are not growing because you have to keep your taxes high to sustain your military against hostile natives. However, over the course of 80-90 years, with low taxes and the mother country's military support the population can grow into the millions and the American regions can become quite profitable.

That is exactly what happened in US history. The population grew rapidly from 1700-1780, because taxes were low and land was cheap. Additionally the Americans relied on the British Army to do their fighting for them, so they did not have to have high taxes to pay for their wars against France/Spain/Natives. The result was that the American colonies became very profitable for trade goods and cash crops by the end of the 18th C. Ideally if you manage the in game colonies well you will get the same result after 30 - 40 years. If you want quick money though, capture the Caribbean islands, which would also be a historical strategy.

[Thanatos]

I've had to delete several posts in this thread for being completely and totally off-topic. Do not make off-topic posts in threads.

Thread moved to Gameplay and Strategy Discussion. PM me if you have any questions.

[up_and_adam]

When im low won cash i usually turn all towns into $$ and 1 palace in the regioin for happyness. Tax upperclass highest, trade most valued recources. Best option is to take inian traders to whatever is worth most. Usually ivory for me.

Stop major wars as they suk up ur cash, state gift + peace treatie usually does the trick. But make sure your army is in their region, helps with persuation.

In summary tab you can see what money is incomming and outgoing.

[hanibalthegreat]

yea america is kinda poor at first

[hanibalthegreat]

[]

[the_mango55]

As soon as you start the campaign as America I send out brigs and sloops to "reserve" 1-2 trade slots per trade theater. It's probably cheap and an exploit, but it's a good way to boost your income, which can struggle.