I'm confused, EIC is 8th, not 7th in the picture?
Also, the numbers are obviously not final - none of them are.
- 9
- 1
Twitter teaser 06/10 - East India Company as Great Power?
- Thread starter Muezzinzade
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Also, the numbers are obviously not final - none of them are.
My mistake, corrected, sorry.
Anyway. USA and Spain had a similar GDP and population in 1836. There shouldn't be that much difference at the start of the game, although organically USA should get more powerful through the game in a few decades.
Also I really enjoyed the 2 superpowers of EU4's timeframe (Ottomans and Spain) starting as GP in Vic2 and watching them decline in favour of new emerging GP.
- 7
- 6
not those of us who have been waiting on a Twitter HIgh Court decision since, like, January! but i digress...Assumed that pretty much everyone here checks those themselves
The US had almost 4 million more people at game start, about 1.25x Spain’s population. And while estimating GDP that far into the past is difficult, I’d say if anything the USA’s GDP would be even higher than Spain’s than you would expect given that population difference. The US was already beginning to industrialize in both the New England and Mid Atlantic states.
Also, GDP is not the only factor in rankings. Prestige plays a role, and I would assume military power does too (though I don’t think this has been confirmed).
- 1
- 1
No. In 1830 the US had 12 million people (2 million of them where slaves).
In 1830 peninsular Spain (without counting colonies) had 13 million people.
Most of the internet sources say this numbers.
Take into account in 1836 is small USA, it doesn't have Texas and all the west states... plus the inmigration boom from Europe came later.
- 4
- 3
I assume subsistence farms don't count or add very little to the prestige score. East India Company is 8th probably because of cotton plantations and other raw resource buildings that export to Britain.
- 1
"Most of the internet sources" isn't really how citation works.
To cite wikipedia (not the best citation, but certainly the easiest
):US = 12.8 M in 1830, per US census: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_United_States_census
Spain = 12.2M in 1833, per Spain's NSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain
- 6
- 2
- 1
Thanks!"Most of the internet sources" isn't really how citation works.
To cite wikipedia (not the best citation, but certainly the easiest
US = 12.8 M in 1830, per US census: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_United_States_census
Spain = 12.2M in 1833, per Spain's NSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain
If you check other sources it will probably say the same: Spain and USA had a very similar population size.
1830 is 6 years before the start of the game, and in its 1830 census the United States recorded 12.8 million Americans, a little more than 12 million.
In its 1840 census, it recorded 17 million people. Spain had only grown to 13.9 million. The US did not acquire Texas until 1845, so that is not why the population jumped this much.
If we assume a linear growth from 1830 to 1840, that would give the US an approximated population of 15.3 million to Spain’s 13.6 million. So not quite as big a difference as I said, but still substantial, especially when combined with the fact that the US economy was more developed than Spain’s.
- 5
Based on the numbers from the Maddison Project, the US GDP would have been somewhere between 30%-100% larger than that of Spain by 1835. (The lower end is their older 2018 estimates and Maddison's own, the higher end is from after they changed their methodology in their 2020 estimates).
Those numbers are based on modern borders, so the difference would be somewhat smaller, however most of the modern western United States likely contribute very little to the US' numbers with how sparsely populated it was.
A more notable oddity in the rankings in the tweet is how low Prussia is - their GDP was ahead of the US and the Ottomans, and they of course had a much more powerful army than either. Though, again, WIP numbers so I wouldn't think too much about it.
- 6
These Spain numbers look better than what I was using:"Most of the internet sources" isn't really how citation works.
To cite wikipedia (not the best citation, but certainly the easiest
US = 12.8 M in 1830, per US census: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_United_States_census
Spain = 12.2M in 1833, per Spain's NSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain
Population of Spain 1800-2020 | Statista
In 1800, the population of Spain was approximately 14.7 million.
www.statista.com
Your numbers make this comparison even more lopsided. The US was already bigger than Spain in 1830, and it looks like it actually lost population between 1833 and 1846. So the US should have an even bigger economy than Spain than I assumed.
I was also curious about that. Even granted that it’s still WIP, I wonder what the logic is behind it being so low.
The EIC's entire government was appointed by the UK by the start date. It was not independent.
- 1
- 1
Something odd about the Twitter teaser is the country flags. Specifically, Russia and Austria: Russia just has a coat of arms on a gold field rather than using either of the historical tricolour flags, and Austria's flag is defaced with some variant of the Austrian coat of arms for some reason.
I'm pretty sure it's been stated that there's more types of subjects than just puppets (not that we know what they are), so to me one becoming a a Great Power depends on the type, and based on whether it's overlord is also a Great Power. Like, I could sea an autonomous Dominion like Canada, Australia or South Africa in 20th century being able, but if Britain no longer is a GP when that happens, it would make sense if they at least had the option to break free, since they've clearly eclipsed their nominal master. Same for a tribuatary or protectorate type subject.
I am also curious about their logic. Because they seem to have a more dynamic system, I get the feeling they want to use a flag that is representative of a particular or situation government instead of the technical official flag. Another interesting example is the Swedish flag seem here. As far I could find on Wikipedia, this flag was only used in distant waters and the civil flag was still the same as the modern one. But that flag is great to represent the union with Norway so it is used in game.
A less positive example, in my opinion, is the Japanese flag seem in Yesterday Groogy preview. The Chrysanthemum Throne symbol represents the emperor and since Japan didn't have an officialnational flag at the time it seems like it make sense to use it (even though the modern flag was already in use). However, the emperor didn't have power at the time, so the symbolism feels wrong. It would make more sense to use a flag to represent the Tokugawa Shogunate instead (they even had an official naval flag on European molds, with a "tricolor").
So, yeah, I am curious about the logic surrounding the flags. I doubt it will be 100% consistent and they certainly will make some mistakes, but I kinda like the idea of having dynamic flags representative of specific situations and governments instead o more static flags. The Vic2 system was kinda limited but I still liked it.
- 2
I understand the idea behind a dynamic flag system, but it would make sense to use the correct flags.
- 2
Bad idea if you are Scotland. Never put your money there.
Now the fun part... the number of GP is not fixed... so that means I can molest and humiliate other GPs to one day become the only GP in the game.
One GP to rule them all, One GP to find them,
One GP to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
- 3
Don't worry too much about that, I'm pretty sure you will be able to become GP as Spain pretty quickly, it has much easier situation than Ottomans for example
Well if this is 1836 then it is before most countries besides UK were industrialized, I guess the chart will change a lot by 1870
- 1