United states in eurpoe

[sharkscott2]

I'm playing as the French. Early on the Indians took out Louisinia so I no longer had that direction to pursue after taking a few Iriquoi territories. My king then died propmpting Austria to declare war and their ally GB. I blockeded up Great Britian and begain raidin new-england which was hardly defended. While this was going on the United states appear in Carolinia, they capture Georgia and Kaintuk territories. As I expend through the rest of north america taking both parts of louisinia, texas and everything from Virgninia north I find I can't request a trade agreement with the United states even though our borders touch, (however they have no port). Upon taking floridia I trade it for an alliance with the United states which they agree to (but no trade)

It's 1758 and the United states still hasn't developed a port.


And back in Europe Denmark has Sweden blockaded making my trade agreement with them worthless. So I take a ship full of one of my experienced colonial armies to Copenhagen and storm it putting Denmark out of the game. I then give the region to the United states which they accept. And they now have a port trade port and ship building port but I still can't request a trade agreement from them. Not only that but it appears that the United states can't build units in Europe. It's been 10 turns and they haven't garrisoned Copenhagen yet. I do see them making ships but no land units.

Will the US never make units in europe? Will I ever be able to trade with them?

These are just little questions that bug me as I plot to take on the Ottoman and pick up a few cities in India

[Prussian to the Iron]

i thought this wsa going to be some crazy story where the united states invades prussia and takes out poland and denmark. silly me :P

to your question: the a.i. almost never garrisons non-capital cities, so it may not be that they can't build units, but that they dont think they need to.

as to the trade: the only ports that count are in your capital and (i think) directly adjacent provinces. so even if they had 50 ports, if none of them were in or next to carolinas, they still cant trade.

what do i reccomend: either

A) take a province next to carolina on the coast, build a trading port, then give it back for a ceasefire,

or

B) trade a coastal province next to carolina with 1 you don't need, build a trade port, then swap it back out. if they wont give you back your province, at least give them theirs. for this reason, use your poorest region.

[pevergreen]

as to the trade: the only ports that count are in your capital and (i think) directly adjacent provinces. so even if they had 50 ports, if none of them were in or next to carolinas, they still cant trade

Trade routes avaliable are calculated by ports connected to the capitol city by land.

The US AI may not be prepared for building in Europe, I presume it should be.

[sharkscott2]

Thanks for the suggestions folks,

I traded the US Virginia and Maryland +cash for Floridia. Virginia had a port and i was imediatly able to set up a nice trade agreement.

Stupid US was building a fishing port as its first port in Georgia.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i dont know what the purpose of fishing ports is; it doest offer much of a population bonus, and it gives almost no income.

[pevergreen]

a population bonus,

There you go.

Getting more towns = good
How to get more towns? Farms and fishing ports.

[Fisherking]

Yes but the thing about Georgia is that it only gets one town. That port! Once your region is all grown up which does you more good?

I do have to say that now when Denmark is chased out of Denmark and Norway they convert one of the fishing ports to a trade port in Iceland.

[Marcus Caelius]

Trade routes avaliable are calculated by ports connected to the capitol city by land.

The US AI may not be prepared for building in Europe, I presume it should be.

Could you clarify this? When playing as GB with a successful Americas empire i thought i had traderoutes emanating from many ports, from the Hudson bay company to Louisiana.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

All trade goes via your capital. You import goods from your colonies and export them to other factions. Both imports and exports will go via your ports that are connected by land to your capital. You can import furs from North America which is shown by a trade lane from NA to your capital. Then you export them to faction X which is shown by a trade lane from your capital to the capital of faction X.

By the way: faction X is where the Powerpuff girls are living

[Prussian to the Iron]

that was a little vague. let me clarify:

with GB, your capital is london. which means any ports in london region that are trade ports will trade with other factions, and import goods from america as well if you have colonies there.

however, if you have roads built, then the ports in scotland are connected to london by roads (which you can check on the campaign map). but, since ireland is not connected by land routes, its ports cannot trade with other nations.

since you had an 'Americas empire', it makes sense that you would think those ports can trade as well. unfortunately that is not the case. it is, however, it is in your best interest to build up fur and other valuable resource buildings so you will become richer from your trade with other nations.


I know its hard to understand.

[anweRU]

thowever, if you have roads built, then the ports in scotland are connected to london by roads (which you can check on the campaign map). but, since ireland is not connected by land routes, its ports cannot trade with other nations.

Is that myth about Ireland still going around? Ireland is connected to London via a land route, it simply doesn't show up as a nice shiny trade route line on the sea.

To prove it to yourself, start as GB, count the number of ports in Britain & note their levels, total up the number of trade routes that you should have available for trade agreements with other nations.

Then go to diplomacy and start making trade agreements. How many do you get? More than would be possible if Ireland were not connected to London via land.

Disclaimer: What I wrote above was true in 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. I haven't played 1.3 yet, so you'll have to double check.

[Marcus Caelius]

this is interesting, but maybe it should be in another thread. i will make one!

[sharkscott2]

Well back to my original topic. The United states still shows no interest in making land units in Europe (even though they are enemies with Sweden and Prussia). Further more the trade port in Ampsterdam doesn't have a trade route connecting it back towards north america (virginia). The US does seem to be setting up trade routes on the ivory coast, brazil, etc... And they march armies all over north america, they're no enemies to be found (just France and Spain)

But it looks like my little experiment of bringing a new major power into Europe to "shake things up" hasn't turned out too well. If I don't protect US held Ampsterdam the European powers will take it. I don't think CA gave the US a set of units or the AI to handle a European situation, which is disappointing.

Meanwhile my current french campaign is nearing an end, only a few more cities to take and a pile of allies rooting me on, I'll think I'll try the ottomans or Austria next.

[Prussian to the Iron]

US is not a major power in that time. it is crap.