Tearing the country in half, and leaving the millions of native hispanic non white catholic residents under a puritanical US colonial state?
Cab only lead to peace and stability in Mexcio...
-
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.
Tearing the country in half, and leaving the millions of native hispanic non white catholic residents under a puritanical US colonial state?
Cab only lead to peace and stability in Mexcio...
The war was hard, but it is now won, and Mexico will now think twice before militarily opposing the USA again.
Why did you split Mexico in half? Also, why haven't you annexed Baja California? It's right on the border...
Why did you split Mexico in half? Also, why haven't you annexed Baja California? It's right on the border...
Public opinions and elections are another aspect that don't get represented perhaps as much as they should. More an observation than a criticism - no game is going to do everything, after all.
Morelia as the initial war goal had me wondering, but I wasn't expecting you to carve out such a large exclave in Mexico! One way or another, I don't see these new borders lasting. More than a warning not to mess with the US, I think Mexico is warned that the US will be back for more.
Well... You're entirely right, of course. But I'm role playing, also of course.
And no, as a role player, I'm not interested in the continued stability of the "Empire" of Mexico. Nor do I think I should be. Realistically the best course of action is to destroy the empire.
Well, one goal I have -- probably not stated up front -- is to build the United States as a more cosmopolitan country. Baja California would have been the obvious choice. But, gosh -- I HATE obvious choices!
Honestly, I wanted bases further south, to extend my reach into South America. And I also wanted to give Mexico a gut-punch. I WANTED Yucatan. But it was too much warscore to demand it. So I settled for taking the very heart of the country. I also wanted to increase my reach into the heart of Mexico -- their capital. And I wanted to disrupt their internal supply lines as much as I could, and increase the amount of "frontage" I had with Mexico, so that I could attack them more directly next time and avoid the obvious problems of starting so far from their center of power.
Yes, indeed. See my reply to @HistoryDude for explanation. And yes, Mexico probably knows this is their death knell. Eventually. Or maybe not. There are only so many years left...
Thank you for your replies and questions! This isn't intended as a "strategy AAR", but I'm always happy to add points of strategic interest when they come up.
Oh, and btw @VILenin ... I mentioned that I was thinking about doing a V2 game as Prussia. And I started one... and quickly got bored with it. No particular reason. Maybe I was tired from how much time this game took up, and I really am wanting to spend more time on my personal novel writing (I got the new cover laid out, and it looks great!).
But I did <chuckles to himself> start an EU IV game as Brandenburg...
And I'm actually having quite a bit of fun with it. I don't remember for sure if you followed by Sforza!!! game. But I really loved EU III for many years, and I'm re-acquainting myself with all that fun fuzzy feeling with EU IV. I feel like there are some major similarities at the same time as there are some very important and needed improvements in EU IV.I might do an AAR... We'll see.
Thanks again!
Rensslaer
- 1
Well... You're entirely right, of course. But I'm role playing, also of course.
And no, as a role player, I'm not interested in the continued stability of the "Empire" of Mexico. Nor do I think I should be. Realistically the best course of action is to destroy the empire.
Well, one goal I have -- probably not stated up front -- is to build the United States as a more cosmopolitan country. Baja California would have been the obvious choice. But, gosh -- I HATE obvious choices!
Honestly, I wanted bases further south, to extend my reach into South America. And I also wanted to give Mexico a gut-punch. I WANTED Yucatan. But it was too much warscore to demand it. So I settled for taking the very heart of the country. I also wanted to increase my reach into the heart of Mexico -- their capital. And I wanted to disrupt their internal supply lines as much as I could, and increase the amount of "frontage" I had with Mexico, so that I could attack them more directly next time and avoid the obvious problems of starting so far from their center of power.
Yes, indeed. See my reply to @HistoryDude for explanation. And yes, Mexico probably knows this is their death knell. Eventually. Or maybe not. There are only so many years left...
Thank you for your replies and questions! This isn't intended as a "strategy AAR", but I'm always happy to add points of strategic interest when they come up.
Oh, and btw @VILenin ... I mentioned that I was thinking about doing a V2 game as Prussia. And I started one... and quickly got bored with it. No particular reason. Maybe I was tired from how much time this game took up, and I really am wanting to spend more time on my personal novel writing (I got the new cover laid out, and it looks great!).
But I did <chuckles to himself> start an EU IV game as Brandenburg...
I might do an AAR... We'll see.
Thanks again!
Rensslaer
I still feel that the 19th century US, if it turned manifest destiny southwards, would be using their old tricks and philosophy. That is, they want the land. Just the land.
If there happen to be people already there...they will correct that mistake through various means untill its empty again.
So potentially there's a mass exodus into northern south America for the fleeing Mexicans...and those are the lucky ones.
Haha, fair enough. I was around for Sforza!!! although I think I may not have lasted all the way to the very end; it was rather epic in length! I also loved EU III quite a bit, although I never really got into EUIV despite having owned it for the last 8 or 9 years. I'll admit that at this point I'm somewhat intimidated by the amount of dlc out for it, and the learning curve that would come with a decade's worth of mechanics being added to the game. Maybe I'm just a lazier gamer than I was back then.Oh, and btw @VILenin ... I mentioned that I was thinking about doing a V2 game as Prussia. And I started one... and quickly got bored with it. No particular reason. Maybe I was tired from how much time this game took up, and I really am wanting to spend more time on my personal novel writing (I got the new cover laid out, and it looks great!).
But I did <chuckles to himself> start an EU IV game as Brandenburg...
I might do an AAR... We'll see.
- 1
Yeah Sforza!!! lasted 6 years I think.Haha, fair enough. I was around for Sforza!!! although I think I may not have lasted all the way to the very end; it was rather epic in length! I also loved EU III quite a bit, although I never really got into EUIV despite having owned it for the last 8 or 9 years. I'll admit that at this point I'm somewhat intimidated by the amount of dlc out for it, and the learning curve that would come with a decade's worth of mechanics being added to the game. Maybe I'm just a lazier gamer than I was back then.
You might find EU IV pretty approachable and not as different from EU III as I expected. Different surely, but the basics of play are very familiar. Diplomatic options are very much expanded for the better. There are some new elements but the tooltips generally explain stuff. It's frankly a more fun game than EU III, and I never thought I'd say that.
I asked on the general forum which DLCs to get and the general consensus was to pay $5/mo for the subscription so that's what I've done. You get all of them. The implementation is pretty seamless.
Rensslaer
- 1
In the wake of the Third Mexican War some soldiers and reporters were excited to note the addition to the United States of attractive beaches along the Mexican Pacific coast. Businesses quickly sprang up to take advantage of the new exotic locations the US owned, and also to support what was expected to be a permanent military presence.
The new acquisitions by the United States shifted the US center of gravity quite a bit. Americans were proud to have taken land from their disliked southern neighbor. But were somewhat apprehensive what it might mean to be sharing citizenship with a large population of “foreign” people who most Americans really didn’t know very much about.
The addition of California and Texas had created the same issues, however, and those didn’t seem to have caused any undue long term problems. The Mexicans were a new and growing people within the United States, not unlike the Irish when they had seemingly flooded in. Not to mention the new citizenship afforded to Blacks, many of them from the Southern states. Such shifts in population were messy and uncomfortable, sometimes, but not permanently scarring. The people of the United States had been shifting since it’s very founding.
Economic shifts occurred also. Many of the new mountain provinces produced primarily grain as an export commodity. But timber, cattle, sheep, fish, iron, and even precious metal mines diversified the US economy.
Perhaps more to the point, for the more strategically minded Americans, these industries and export commodities were also now denied to the Mexican Empire, which was expected to be much weakened for the changes.
Three states worth of modern industry were added to the US economy too – textiles and clothing industries, both conventional and luxury, were added. Along with a small wine industry and the glassmaking to support it. Soon there would be a liquor factory, also, and some explosives and artillery factories.
(I’m not sure I can explain why there are no workers shown with the Morelia factory – it shows manned factories – could this be some aftereffect of Mexican mobilization?? – it would be easy to say they died in the war, but that doesn’t make sense with the graphics that are represented – any ideas?)
The Mexican transportation infrastructure to support the industry was surprisingly good.
Overall, the American economy was booming.
In 1873 US among top 5 producers of Canned Food, Artillery, Small Arms, Ammunition, Furniture, Regular Clothes, Luxury Clothes (access to Chinese market), Wine, Liquor, Tobacco (top producer), Grain, Fish, Cattle, Explosives, Clipper Convoys, Steamer Convoys, Fabric (top producer), Lumber, Glass, Steel, Timber, Iron (almost first – just behind France), Cotton, Sulphur, Coal and Machine Parts.
The American education system improved, with the addition of new reforms in that year also (Functionalism - +10% Education Efficiency). Other tech improvements in the mid-1870s included Delegated Power (adding 50% Morale to armies) and Naval Plans (Supply Range +10%). Later we got Late Classical Theory, which improved Factory Input efficiency.
The face of Europe changed dramatically with the consolidation of the various Italian states into the State of Italy.
The elections in the USA continued to change nothing – the liberal and socialist parties continued to gain ground, but not enough to affect anything. No new policies were allowed, and Democrats continued to get 100% in the Presidential elections.
It’s frustrating – in OTL Americans have always been restless and changeable. US History has always been filled with significant non-radical changes that caused policies to shift from one side to another like a pendulum. The American people would want change, and they’d get it, but then they’d get tired of change and want less change, and things would settle, then in 4 or 8 years there would be another desire for change. It doesn’t come across in these election results.
In May of 1874 the Mexicans started to cause trouble along the border again, and voices were raised again for war. But the truce didn’t end until 4 years later, and the furor over the border tensions didn’t last that long.
Back to the political frustrations… We have been itching to increase our Social Reforms – something like limiting work hours in the work day to 8 hours or adding pensions or unemployment subsidies. I wanted something that would do good for the people. But the entrenched interests of the Democrat Party were dead set against anything of the sort, and the Liberal Republicans weren’t that interested either. The Socialists had only 11% support at this time, so they were of little help.
Perusing the available Political Reforms, I found none to my liking. So we pursued no action, given nothing useful to realistically pursue.
Factory construction continued steadily through the years 1874 and 1875, with Capitalists opening new factories regularly (often without a lot of sense as to which products they would produce. New techs assisted with Diplomatic points and Navy organization.
And then, finally, the old enemy reared its head once more…..
Old England wants New England to be part of Old England again!!!!
- 3
I guess Britain got offended that they no longer controlled New England? Why? Why now? This timing is strange.
Does Italy control land north of Switzerland? How?
Victoria 2 is an abstraction. It can't get everything right. Even so... no change in government in a democratic society is weird.
Does Italy control land north of Switzerland? How?
Victoria 2 is an abstraction. It can't get everything right. Even so... no change in government in a democratic society is weird.
The timing is strange, but I figure it may have taken this long since the previous war (1858 - 18 years?) to get to a point when they were ready to come after me again? It may have taken a while to build their navy back up. And I'm also thinking the US is NOT its primary interest. So maybe it just took a while to come back around to this lost territory.
As for the land north of Switzerland, I think Baden just has the same approximate color on the screen as does Italy. Germany is a mess -- too many little countries, all needing their own color.
Thank you!
Rensslaer
- 1
The UK AI is smart and has realised the US is ran by the player character, and thus only attacks semi regularly, rather than constantly...
This doesn't save them from defeats, but it does mean they do better elsewhere than everyone else flinging themsevles at the US.
It's looking like the US will run most of North America by the 20th century. Wonder what impact that will have on public life and culture, esepcially as it will make the WASPs a minority much faster than OTL.
This doesn't save them from defeats, but it does mean they do better elsewhere than everyone else flinging themsevles at the US.
It's looking like the US will run most of North America by the 20th century. Wonder what impact that will have on public life and culture, esepcially as it will make the WASPs a minority much faster than OTL.
- 1
- 1
It seems like an Anglo-American rapprochement won't be happening any time soon in this timeline. I trust you'll defend my native New England against Perfidious Albion!
It is a bit odd that the conservative Democrats keeping winning election after election even though liberal voters now look to outnumber them by a decent margin in both the electorate and the upperhouse.
It is a bit odd that the conservative Democrats keeping winning election after election even though liberal voters now look to outnumber them by a decent margin in both the electorate and the upperhouse.
I'm torn in how to fix the AI in terms of ongoing, simmering tension and how/when it breaks into war. Yes, there's going to be lingering resentment if lands have been lost in war. But what sense is it to begin another war to take that back, when it's equally possible more land will be lost? The AI isn't good at anticipating what level of strength they need to prevail against a human player (and higher levels of difficulty can only solve this by cheating). On the other hand unwinnable wars sometimes crop up out of frustration or political need. Argentina's invasion of the Falklands didn't, on the face of it, seem very wise. They were hoping the UK was too weak and fading of a power to mount an operation to take them back. But they attacked a principle and British honour, which demanded a response. China was more successful by promising the moon in Hong Kong and welching on their deal when it was too late to do anything about it.
I feel like the "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" label is something of a red herring. The mere fact that most United States citizens, and certainly the most influential of them, were WASPs for much of American history doesn't necessarily credit this pejorative notion that it was a monolithic movement. Protestantism itself is fractured like crazy, with competing emphases and interests, and not at all homogenous (both sides in the Civil War were driven by Protestant fervor). Supposedly, Anglicanism = Protestantism in Britain. But in the US there are probably 100 different sects, many of them VERY different.
And the label "Protestant" is often meaningless (Catholic also) because of the widely varying degrees to which people hold to the actual beliefs and creeds of the faith, as opposed to simply being Protestant or Catholic by birth and not attending church more than once a year and similarly not knowing or caring anything about the creeds or beliefs of the church or Bible (and I believe this was more common even 100 or 200 years ago than is often thought).
And the fact that every significant movement for many decades was driven by WASPs doesn't mean there weren't 3 or 4 competing "WASP" visions of direction that were anathematic to one another. Liberalism and Conservatism, warmongering and pacifism, slaveholding and freesoilerism, expansionism and isolationism (I could go on) -- these were EACH and ALL driven by WASPs for a century, and so what really does being a WASP mean in terms of policy or direction? I would argue nothing.
I believe New England to be safe, Sir!
I think there's something in the political model that's been screwed up for some time. It may be isolated to the US. But something wasn't set up right -- it's too likely to tend toward equilibrium. It's true that the vast, progressive sweep of opinion that was manifest in European history (away from conservatism and tending toward socialism) didn't occur in the US historically. But the reason why it didn't happen in the US is far more due to the pendulatic nature of US politics. I do not view the "political spectrum" the way most do -- using the bipolar left vs right model. One might suppose that liberals would never have introduced reform were it not for the socialists, whereas I see liberal reform as very different and in many ways contradictory to socialistic reform. Anyway...Thank you for your comments! Anyone else out there lurking? I feel like this AAR has more attention now, certainly, than when it started. But I know there must be others reading who haven't commented yet.
Also, I want to remind everybody that voting is underway for the rest of this month (and slightly beyond) in the Q3 2023 AARLand Choice AwAARds! I would be honored by anyone who votes for this work, but I'm far more concerned that you go vote and support our AARthors in the Forum! One need not vote a full slate -- vote for the areas you know, it would be great if you would check out AARs in games you don't normally peruse, but it's not required. Some people place only one vote, and that's okay. The more votes, the healthier it demonstrates AARLand remains!
Thank you!
Rensslaer
Two things:
I am actively working on the next update. However, this war is covered in my files by 1,000 screenshots (), and it is taking longer than usual to parse the war into a reasonably comprehensible 3 updates or so. I hope to have this ready sometime this week. Please bear with me.
Two is that I have started another AAR. Rex Germania is an EU IV Strategy AAR, starting as Brandenburg. I know EU IV is 10 years old, but believe it or not this is my first real attempt to play it. The strategy part is both me sharing my thoughts on strategy and asking others their thoughts. I figured at 10 years EU IV has changed enough it might be worth a re-examination from a strategy standpoint.
I will attempt to balance the two AARs in terms of pace of update.
And, of course, please remember to vote in the Q3-2023 AARLand Choice AwAARds, and begin thinking about votes for the 2023 AARLand Year-End AwAARds!
Rensslaer
I am actively working on the next update. However, this war is covered in my files by 1,000 screenshots (
), and it is taking longer than usual to parse the war into a reasonably comprehensible 3 updates or so. I hope to have this ready sometime this week. Please bear with me.Two is that I have started another AAR. Rex Germania is an EU IV Strategy AAR, starting as Brandenburg. I know EU IV is 10 years old, but believe it or not this is my first real attempt to play it. The strategy part is both me sharing my thoughts on strategy and asking others their thoughts. I figured at 10 years EU IV has changed enough it might be worth a re-examination from a strategy standpoint.
I will attempt to balance the two AARs in terms of pace of update.
And, of course, please remember to vote in the Q3-2023 AARLand Choice AwAARds, and begin thinking about votes for the 2023 AARLand Year-End AwAARds!
Rensslaer
- 1
I've caught up to this after having it on my reading list for a while. I'm surprised the UK decided to go for another round. I wonder what you'll take from them this time. Although, your infamy might be too high from the war with Mexico.
Welcome @jak7139 ! Thanks for taking the time to read and get caught up!
They could certainly use my Infamy as an excuse, or the fact that I hold (now) several of their recently relinquished territories. I keep really hoping they'll decide that I'm too difficult to fight over long distances! I'm not Argentina!
And those conquests were all from defensive wars, so... the costs of bad decisions!Anyway... Anyone else following who hasn't spoken up? I love hearing from lurkers, even just to know that you're there. The V2 Forum can be kind of quiet...
Also, a reminder to please go vote in the Q3 AARLand Choice AwAARds! No pressure to vote for this work, but every chance I get I push for participation in this key measure of the vitality of AARLand. Voting is more than halfway over already, and only 10-12 individuals have voted. That's low. We want to show how many people are out there reading -- it's an encouragement to participation. Let's show 'em!
Rensslaer
So, war it is… With the United Kingdom and the Queen herself, once more.
We immediately mobilize our population in the form of conscripts – this war will demand all, I’m sure. Soon after the beginning of the war we finish Cheap Iron research and quickly pivot to Point Defense Systems, which provides bonuses to defense. It won’t be ready until this time next year, but it’s an easy bet this war will still be on and we’ll be needing that tech.
The Ledger shows the British have 6 times as many troops as do we, but approximately an equal number of ships (361 US and 346 British). Do we have a technological advantage? Hmm… I’m guessing maybe a small one. We may have replaced our sail-borne ships to a larger degree than they with steam-driven ones. By the way, we’re now using maybe about 12-15 detachments of 3 men-of-war to sail out and act as scouts. We can’t have the British sneaking up on us, so these small fleets will act as alarm trips to let me know when they’re coming.
I’ve decided that the only way to tell this story in a way that makes sense is to divide things geographically. I mentioned previously that I had to parse through 990 screenshots that describe this war, and you would find it as confusing as I if I covered everything in strict chronological order. So, we shall start with the battles in the Americas.
The US Navy quickly moved to blockade most of the Canadian coast. A small British force quickly moved into Montana. Meanwhile, no fewer than 62,000 Redcoats were marching into the Dakotas, where 3,000 Bluecoats (US Army) watched with anticipation.
There was, of course, the traditional British move upon Watertown, New York, which was quickly opposed by a large number of New York and Pennsylvania conscripts under Gen. Christopher Atkins. As well, US greenhorns (untrained conscripts) hurried into the undefended Great Lakes regions of southern Canada. We’ve seen all this before.
Now, it should be noted that in one location we did not blockade. And that’s around Vancouver Island. Why? Why not block that 36,000 strength army which already telegraphed its intent to cross Puget Sound into Seattle? Well… I had a plan.
Gen. Francis Porter was waiting in Seattle with 18,000 veteran troops and a strongly entrenched position. The British had no general of note, and were making an amphibious invasion into forest against these bulwarks and breastworks. That’s a -7 against their attack!. They immediately began taking serious casualties, and the battle dragged on through the month of February and into March.
Finally, March 10th, the British gave up and retreated toward Vancouver (their retreat to Vancouver Island now cut off by the US Navy). Only 5,000 US soldiers had been taken out of action, whereas the British lost 19,000. Gen. Porter used the US Army’s superior techniques to get ahead of the British and set up defenses along their route of travel.
And so it was that by late March the two forces met in battle again, with far worse consequences for the Redcoats. While this time they faced only -6 modifiers, they still were a sapped force. On 5 April they retreated again, having lost another 3,000 men and left virtually no impact on the Americans. Gen. Porter would harry them across the British Columbian mountain ranges, next defeating them at Prince George at the end of April (with the further loss of 16,000 British troops).
Despite the success in the far west, parts of Washington State, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas were soon under attack by the British Canadians. Gen. Ambrose Conrad fought gallantly in April at Minot, N. Dakota, but was forced to retreat having lost 4,000 of his 32,000 men. Gen. Richard Arthur had better luck against mobilized British conscripts at Walla Walla, Washington. He had victory there on 9 May.
At the end of June, Gen. Russell Jackson was forced to retreat from Bismarck, North Dakota by an approximately equal force of Redcoats. But the losses were 10,000 American, 14,500 British. That could be considered a strategic defeat for the Brits. Especially since Gen. Edward Ford was gathering regiments in the region, and he struck back at Bismarck in September. The second time the battle was won.
Far away, in the Caribbean, the US Navy was landing troops in the British islands of the Antilles. The Venezuelans were taking Trinidad. US troops under Gen. Don Johnson departed Miami and were landed in British Guyana in the tropical heat of summer, but the army that had been troubling America’s Brazilian allies returned and engaged in October.
American victories continued during the last part of 1876, with Gen. Ford pushing and harrying the army from Bismarck south into Wyoming. Again, the American troops were faster than the Brits, and were generally able to reach a blocking position along the British path of retreat so that they were forced to accept combat at a disadvantage.
By this time, warfare in the Americas was winding down. US troops were attacking British colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and in the outpost islands of the mid-Atlantic (St. Helena and Ascension, etc.) and South Atlantic (Falklands). By spring of 1877 all of eastern Canada was fully occupied, and Vancouver Island had fallen. Africa had become the theatre everything was focused upon.
Nevertheless, the British proudly stood aloof from the peace table, not at all willing to consider a 12 warscore defeat despite the US warscore being up to 40! The British were defiantly confident they could turn things around – their Royal Navy remained strong (on paper – many of their ships were locked in losing battles with US fleets), and their Redcoats remained without peer in numbers (though many of them remained in British India and other colonies worldwide).
The Crown offered merely Guyana as a prize, despite the still unsettled situation there.
Fighting did indeed continue in British Guyana, where Gen. Don Johnson (made famous for his adoption of sunglasses in the field – an inspiration to the later Gen. George Patton) vied with a persistent British garrison.
American allies – part of the extensive US Sphere of Influence – contributed significantly to the war in South America, and beyond its shores. While Brazilian and Colombian ships waylaid British transports, Brazilian troops fought for the capture of Biloka, and Venezuelan troops secured Essequibo. By May, 1877, all British possessions in the Caribbean and South America were occupied by their enemies.
By the summer of 1877 US forces were pursuing the last stragglers of the Redcoat presence in Canada. Vast swathes of Canada were already fully occupied, and the rest was soon to be.
The war at sea continued, with great battles occurring off Vancouver Island (once the port was taken), off the coasts of Africa, and even offshore from Britain, where a blockade was being set up.
The relative strengths of the powers had shifted. The US had added 35 brigades since the start of the war (in real terms, I believe, the first figures already included conscripts), and the British had lost approximately the same number of brigades (that’s 108,000 soldiers!). The shipyards of the United States had produced enough ships to keep up with losses (359, compared to 361 at war start), whereas the Royal Navy had lost at least 50 vessels (assuming some have been produced new, this number could be 60 or higher).
This war had, by late 1877, taken on the character of a full “world war”, with conflict on every continent except Antarctica (unless you count the Falklands as Antarctica).
- 4
A nice bit of maneuvering out there in Vancouver! It's interesting to see the US fighting in so many theaters and so far abroad in 1877; repeated conflicts with a globe-spanning power like Britain necessitates a wider involvement. If these Anglo-American conflicts keep breaking out every decade or so, I feel like the US military is going to be a rather fearsome thing by the 20th century.
- 1
Wait, this general was a real person?
I loved the severe penalties the UK took in Seattle/Vancouver. Some excellent maneuvering there.
The US is doing really well here. It's strange that the UK won't negotiate.
Will you add more war goals as payment for the British being intransigent? Maybe some more land in Africa?
Why not annex Canada?
Will you add more war goals as payment for the British being intransigent? Maybe some more land in Africa?
Why not annex Canada?