Will be possible and realistic in this game to Mexico conquer the US? In Hoi4 sometimes the AI does that, but what about Vic3?
- 1
-
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.
No its physically impossible, when you are about to win the war as Mexico the game just closes itself and deletes your savegames.
- 66
- 9
- 2
- 1
Totally defeating the US? Remains to be seen if you can do it alone due to the hands-off warfare system, but anything's possible with the right allies. Annexing the US? Almost certainly not, because I doubt you can do it in one go, and I doubt you'd be able to hold on to the provinces long enough to conquer all of it without a rebellion causing them to secede.
Would it be realistic for Mexico to singlehandedly occupy the whole US during a war? No shot in hell. But I can imagine Mexico participating in a total defeat of the US if it had strong enough allies, and Mexico beating the US in a border war is certainly realistic, given some minor alterations to the timeline.
Would it be realistic for Mexico to singlehandedly occupy the whole US during a war? No shot in hell. But I can imagine Mexico participating in a total defeat of the US if it had strong enough allies, and Mexico beating the US in a border war is certainly realistic, given some minor alterations to the timeline.
- 8
- 4
- 1
Frankly, the Mexicans won that war. The Mexicans were tricked. Santa Anna gave his sword to General Scott thinking that he was a blacksmith and he was going to sharpen it.
- 16
- 1
- 1
Should be doable with no upper limits for your demands, want to puppet usa in a single war? You can.. if you have the military strength, power projection, economy and so on. Or for that matter get a tiny lil asian colony by puppeting qing, afterall, britain has a india so your empire should have its own "india" too!
Japan kinda did that tho, occupy the capital on China, so a puppeting should have fired. Unless adding a occupy also 80%(?) of country population/economy something like that addition. And if Russia can overrun balkans, anatolia.. that should have a qualifying puppeting trigger on Ottos sans Eggies.
Granted 1937, so waaay later than 1936 when the game ends and thus all totally invalid. lol.
Japan kinda did that tho, occupy the capital on China, so a puppeting should have fired. Unless adding a occupy also 80%(?) of country population/economy something like that addition. And if Russia can overrun balkans, anatolia.. that should have a qualifying puppeting trigger on Ottos sans Eggies.
Granted 1937, so waaay later than 1936 when the game ends and thus all totally invalid. lol.
- 2
If the question is "Can Mexico win the Mexican American War" then the answer is no. 1848 Mexico is too much of a mess and too weak, the US is well on it's way to being a world power.
If the question is "can Mexico conquer and rule all the territory of the US?" then honestly, I kind of hope that's a no.
In Vic 2, my general approach was to the US was to get them to leave me alone for awhile, you just need time to catch up and it takes a bit.
But I've been in "it might be winnable" with a well played Mexico by 1890, and "definitely winnable" by 1910. So in an alt history, yes, Mexico could in theory side with Germany in a WW1 and take on the United States and win.
But conquering the whole thing? I think that's stretching plausibility.
I mean, even at the end of WW1, where all the Central Powers basically collapsed into chaos, civil unrest and/or civil wars, none of them were meaningfully occupied.
You don't see that kind of total conquest occur until WW2, and I think there's a reason: the logistical, military and governmental organizational ability to meaningfully flatten a great power to the point you could simple rule over them just wasn't there. Even in WW2 Germany was split up, and both Germany and Japan were only ruled directly by the Allies for a few years until friendly governments were put in charge.
You could I think *break* the US as Mexico, I think that would be plausable. Fight a war, probably with allies. Break of the CSA off as a friendly puppet (it will help if they already exist, perhaps you tipped the scales earlier during the ACW). Give your allies some chunk of the US to occupy while you occupy another part. Leave the North East as a rump US and you've got yourself a managable secondary power.
If the question is "can Mexico conquer and rule all the territory of the US?" then honestly, I kind of hope that's a no.
In Vic 2, my general approach was to the US was to get them to leave me alone for awhile, you just need time to catch up and it takes a bit.
But I've been in "it might be winnable" with a well played Mexico by 1890, and "definitely winnable" by 1910. So in an alt history, yes, Mexico could in theory side with Germany in a WW1 and take on the United States and win.
But conquering the whole thing? I think that's stretching plausibility.
I mean, even at the end of WW1, where all the Central Powers basically collapsed into chaos, civil unrest and/or civil wars, none of them were meaningfully occupied.
You don't see that kind of total conquest occur until WW2, and I think there's a reason: the logistical, military and governmental organizational ability to meaningfully flatten a great power to the point you could simple rule over them just wasn't there. Even in WW2 Germany was split up, and both Germany and Japan were only ruled directly by the Allies for a few years until friendly governments were put in charge.
You could I think *break* the US as Mexico, I think that would be plausable. Fight a war, probably with allies. Break of the CSA off as a friendly puppet (it will help if they already exist, perhaps you tipped the scales earlier during the ACW). Give your allies some chunk of the US to occupy while you occupy another part. Leave the North East as a rump US and you've got yourself a managable secondary power.
- 10
- 5
- 1
Honestly, I disagree. I would argue that Mexico had a far better chance than the CSA did at winning their war.
Mexico had numerous disadvantages they wouldn't have with a player controlled Mexico. Such as being rife with corruption, many independence movements constantly threatening to tear the nation apart, a complete lack of education and sufficient military structure. A lack of national identity. But man to man on the battlefield, you'll find that the Mexicans either matched or outnumbered the Americans wherever they fought. But the Americans were better equipped, better trained, and had better generals across the board. They were just flatout better in every way shape or form and even when heavily outnumbered, Americans squashed the Mexicans even in battles where the Mexicans had 5 to 1 odds.
A lot of people need to study this war more because one you dive down into it, the more you'll find how incompetent the leadership of the Mexican government is at this time in history. The government had made next to no investment in their armed forces and had made no meaningful preparations for even a national army. Even after Texas fell, the Mexican raised a 6 thousand man army within a month ready and willing to take back Texas. But again, corruption got in the way, with the army being split up and used to protect the properties and assets of government politicians instead of fighting the Americans.
I'm going to quote an account of the battle of Palo Alto, one of the first battles of the conflict. And honestly, this reads like a fantasy war novel where the good guys are beating the bad guys:
And those trends continue throughout the war. It's gonna be pretty hard to model the incompetence of Mexico in this time in history. But if you as the player make even the most modicum of preparations...surely your Mexico could do better than this. I mean, this is downright sad.
- 8
- 2
- 1
Its still of a blur, but I have a vision... alternate ending of Mexican-American war... P.G.T. Beauregard become Emperor of Mexico in 1848... by 1865 the border is not the Rio Grande but Mississippi and the Louisiana become the personal demesne of the Emperor.
Conquering the entire US sounds like a huge stretch, actually successfully holding it even more so.
I would guess the immediate obstacle is getting sufficient military strength to occupy US lands for even a limited victory. Not entirely hopeless I suppose, if Mexico gets one or two Great Powers on their side? But I would assume Great Powers do not particularly welcome wars of aggression against the Great Power Club unless they have something to gain themselves. Doubly true if Mexico is Unrecognized (No idea if it is) since it's supposed to make the AI much less likely to take their plays less seriously.
I would guess the immediate obstacle is getting sufficient military strength to occupy US lands for even a limited victory. Not entirely hopeless I suppose, if Mexico gets one or two Great Powers on their side? But I would assume Great Powers do not particularly welcome wars of aggression against the Great Power Club unless they have something to gain themselves. Doubly true if Mexico is Unrecognized (No idea if it is) since it's supposed to make the AI much less likely to take their plays less seriously.
- 15
- 3
- 2
- 1
Would it be realistic? Probably not.
But it ought to be remembered that unlike in Victoria 2 the US here is not predestined to be a great power. It is entirely possible for it to flop early, lose out on millions of potential immigrants who prefer to move somewhere else. So long as the player (or maybe on the off chance even the AI) is capable of making Mexico attractive enough, it is entirely possible for Mexico to have the manpower and industries to take on the US. And that isn't considering the possibility of Mexico gaining a few great power allies in a war.
At the end of the day, this is a game - it is bound to derail historically within the first year, hell giving the US civil war isn't predestined to happen in 1861 it may even be possible for that to occur in 1836! or 1837! With a bit of luck and good playing the sky's the limit.
But it ought to be remembered that unlike in Victoria 2 the US here is not predestined to be a great power. It is entirely possible for it to flop early, lose out on millions of potential immigrants who prefer to move somewhere else. So long as the player (or maybe on the off chance even the AI) is capable of making Mexico attractive enough, it is entirely possible for Mexico to have the manpower and industries to take on the US. And that isn't considering the possibility of Mexico gaining a few great power allies in a war.
At the end of the day, this is a game - it is bound to derail historically within the first year, hell giving the US civil war isn't predestined to happen in 1861 it may even be possible for that to occur in 1836! or 1837! With a bit of luck and good playing the sky's the limit.
- 8
I once conquered Argentina, Uruguay and Chile with Prussia just to make a meme, yes, you can conquer the USA with Mexico if you wish, but why you will want to get all these Floridamen into your nation?
- 3
All the disadvantages you are listing pretty much capture why I think a player should not be able to win a historical 1848 Mexican American war. I believe most of those disadvantages can and should be modeled, especially the independence movements. The game starts in 1832, IIRC? The state of Mexico in 1848 was not an accident, it was an outcome of problems that had been endemic since its independence and had, if anything, gotten worse by game start. If the player doesn't have at least some of those challenges at game start or if the challenges exist and then the player can solve them by 1848, then I will know they have made the game too easy, not modeled Mexico correctly, or some combination of both.
The use of artillery you mention in Palo Alto speaks to the gap in logtistics, training etc that take awhile to solve.
<waves> Hi, I grew up in Mexico!
- 1
If you make a bug list of historic issues thar means a player can't change the outcome of events 10% through the playthrough, you are mostly just arguing that pretty much everything in that timescale can't be changed.
- 1
- 1
The way peace deals seem to work, it's going to take a dozen wars at the least. Unless Mexico overwhelmingly defeats the US, they might need to compromise on their war goals, and even then, You need to add those war goals during the diplomacy phase, and if you add every single state you have the diplomatic weight for, then everyone with an interest in North America is probably going to intervene on the side of the Americans as well. I'm not gonna rule out what players can do, since where there's a will there's a way, but I wouldn't bet on the AI pulling that off.