Mexico: Screwed fron the start by the Treaty of Guadaloup Hidalgo?

[Agenor]

Mexico: Screwed from the start by the Treaty of Guadaloup Hidalgo?

I'm mad as hell about this. I start a Mexican campaign to see if I can keep the big blue monster off my land. The US declarers war, I actually fight for 5 years and the US ends up accepting peace with me when I have +2% warscore, and the Treaty triggers.

You win the war (or at any rate don't lose it) but lose half of Mexico anyway? Where's the logic? And I notice this event only affects the human player. Why?

 

[OHgamer]

I'm mad as hell about this. I start a Mexican campaign to see if I can keep the big blue monster off my land. The US declarers war, I actually fight for 5 years and the US ends up accepting peace with me when I have +2% warscore, and the Treaty triggers.

You win the war but lose half of Mexico anyway? Where's the logic?

The event only fires if the USA is the winner. If you start war, and do not get your enemy to give up land, then you are considered a loser by the game engine if you return to the status quo ante bellum with nothing to show for your efforts. A marginal positive warscore is not considered by the game engine as having won the war.

Win the war, not just white peace it, and the event will not fire.

Edit : this is based off the event in Revolutions. I think it is the same as in Victoria 1.4, but I don't have an installation of 1.4 on my system so I could be in error.

 

[Agenor]

The event only fires if the USA is the winner. If you start war, and do not get your enemy to give up land, then you are considered a loser by the game engine if you return to the status quo ante bellum with nothing to show for your efforts.

Er, I didn't start the war, they did. I thought I did really well getting them to sign a white peace, so seeing that as a loss is a bit harsh.

 

[OHgamer]

Er, I didn't start the war, they did. I thought I did really well getting them to sign a white peace, so seeing that as a loss is a bit harsh.

Unfortunately that is determined by game engine calculations - all we can do is say "won_war" in the trigger. We can't make the engine determine who the winner of a war is (alas, it would be handy to have such a command).

When in doubt, always fight wars to get at least one province from your enemy.

 

[unmerged(81390)]

If I humiliate and satelite my enemy after I've DoWed him, is that a "loss"?

 

[OHgamer]

If I humiliate and satelite my enemy after I've DoWed him, is that a "loss"?

I would think so, since the game engine (I hope) would recognize that the AI nation accepted demands for humiliate and satellite during the peace negotiations.

It's those peace agreements where you go with no tribute as the basis of negotiations that seem to be the area where how the engine determines winner or loser is the gray area.

 

[unmerged(69374)]

How the hell did you hold it at a stalemate with the U.S.?

 

[Agenor]

How the hell did you hold it at a stalemate with the U.S.?

By gaining a large chunk of Annam in a colonial war, and creating native troops as fast as I could and shipping them to Mexico.

All's fair in love and war. I was quite lucky the US had no pacific bases. Against a human player I suspect I would have been, quite literally, sunk.

 

[unmerged(69374)]

How far did you advance and did you end up losing Colorado?

 

[Wenceslaus II]

OP: Couldn't you just mod that event out. To me, it makes no sence if you take your own course.

 

[Agenor]

How far did you advance and did you end up losing Colorado?

I only took two US provinces. In the North there was a constant to-ing and fro-ing as they took a province, I took it back. I basically didn't have the troops to make a big push, and the attrition natives suffer is very high.