Freebot said:
Only if it thinks you are a lot stronger than it and/or it has high WE.
-
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.
Only if it thinks you are a lot stronger than it and/or it has high WE.
The current (1.02) events allow for the purchase of Texas and New Mexico/Arizona. The cost is extremely high, however (200k for NM/AZ, 300k for Texas).
I've played the USA almost exclusively so far. The best way to get the historical outcome is either conquest (fairly easy, but you lose all the 1840's fighting and rarely have any colonies) or purchase (buying Utah, California, etc. is expensive but can be done). I've went the nice guy route twice. In both cases, I bought the areas from Mexico per event and had them paid off by the mid 1850's. The rest of the areas I bought with claims, colonies and tech and had the entire historical USA by 1880. Needless to say, this means you actually have to go overseas to colonize just to get 'trading land' for your Mexican deals.
Personally, I think the entire West should be nothing but a mix of colonial buildings--USA and Mexican (just like Colorado starts out). This will allow whoever declares war to go in and grab the land plus get the prestige of forming colonies. Maybe it will encourage the US AI to be less aggressive in Africa if it has more to do in North America.
I've played the USA almost exclusively so far. The best way to get the historical outcome is either conquest (fairly easy, but you lose all the 1840's fighting and rarely have any colonies) or purchase (buying Utah, California, etc. is expensive but can be done). I've went the nice guy route twice. In both cases, I bought the areas from Mexico per event and had them paid off by the mid 1850's. The rest of the areas I bought with claims, colonies and tech and had the entire historical USA by 1880. Needless to say, this means you actually have to go overseas to colonize just to get 'trading land' for your Mexican deals.
Personally, I think the entire West should be nothing but a mix of colonial buildings--USA and Mexican (just like Colorado starts out). This will allow whoever declares war to go in and grab the land plus get the prestige of forming colonies. Maybe it will encourage the US AI to be less aggressive in Africa if it has more to do in North America.
I just satellited Mexico and got all the land.
Unhistorical sure. But so is fighting 4 wars.
Unhistorical sure. But so is fighting 4 wars.
I've gone in on mine and set up a set of events that create the California Republic (it requires Mexico to own at least 1 of the 7 Northern/Central CA provinces, and be at war with the USA during 1846-79) and then give Mexico a choice of declaring war or letting it go, as well as a post-war choice to California to join the USA, become a satellite or stay independent.
I also changed Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico to Colorado-style colonies - though without editing the pops as I haven't figured out how yet. Only problem is that since Mexico must own a colony that hasn't been given statehood yet in order to declare a colonial war - and they're very fast about giving statehood - they need to be able to claim Utah (they can't give it statehood due to the pop situation there). So I wound up (in my test game) selling them back the one American claim in Utah....
Still, I think this is the best situation that I can come up with (without actually coding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).... bonus points for the fact that it automatically creates the California Republic....
I also changed Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico to Colorado-style colonies - though without editing the pops as I haven't figured out how yet. Only problem is that since Mexico must own a colony that hasn't been given statehood yet in order to declare a colonial war - and they're very fast about giving statehood - they need to be able to claim Utah (they can't give it statehood due to the pop situation there). So I wound up (in my test game) selling them back the one American claim in Utah....
Still, I think this is the best situation that I can come up with (without actually coding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).... bonus points for the fact that it automatically creates the California Republic....
Freebot said:
This is utterly ahistorical. The US Congress would never have ponied up for that. IRL, authorized strength of the entire US Army at the beginning of the war was 8,500 men. This was down from 12,500 men in the Second Seminole War. The reduction was achieved by reducing the number of men per unit rather than reducing the number of units, so the army could be expanded.
When the war broke out, Congress authorized increasing the enlisted strength of a company from 64 to 100 men, bring total authorized strength of the existing units to 15,540 men. They also authorized creation of one additional regiment (dragoons, in Victoria terms). The President was additionally authorized to raise up to 50,000 volunteers for 1 year or the duration of the war.
No US force engaged seems to have been more than about a 1 Victoria-division force. Read about it on the US Army site:
THE MEXICAN WAR AND AFTER
The problem I have is not the size of the US army, but the size of the Mexican army. In 1846, the Mexican force had an authorized strength of 18,882 permanent troops in 12 regiments, augmented by 10,495 activos, active militiamen. I typically see at least 50,000 Mexican troops in action in Victoria in the beginning of the war, if not more. So, if we want to tone down the US strength, we need to do the same for Mexico to balance it out.
Mettermrck said:
Agreed. I did not have any overall figures for the Mexican army, but it looks like they never used a force in any one engagement that exceeded about 2 Victoria-divisions worth.
Sheridan said:
Kind of weird. Utah doesn't have much to do with the Mexican-American War. The Mormons arrived and set up Salt Lake City in 1846. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo wasn't until 1848.
Kenrony seems to have a good idea about these regions.
In the VIP forum we are discussing this very solution. We should have a 'solution' (but probably not 'the' solution) soon 
True, the Utah thing is weird. The problem there is that there's no way to limit Mexico from granting statehood to California, etc. And once it does so it's far more difficult to conquer; in a colonial environment you can simply seize the trading posts and automatically get them in peace without using up war score. My solution allows this to be done in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado... which means you only need warscore for California, Utah and Texas. (And I further reduced it by adding events that make California independent during any US-Mexico war in the right time period, then (post-war) give California the option of joining the USA as Texas already had; the Bear Flag guys did indeed have the intention of remaining independent if California was not included in the peace settlement, and Mexico didn't have the forces on hand to stop them.)
So, according to the editing I did, you only need warscore for Utah and whatever parts of Texas Mexico still has.
You're right, though - perhaps I should develop a similar set of events for Deseret....
So, according to the editing I did, you only need warscore for Utah and whatever parts of Texas Mexico still has.
You're right, though - perhaps I should develop a similar set of events for Deseret....
Even if you reduce the size of the Mexican army, you still need a large US army to fight all the partisans that pop up. The main problem is the vast amount of occupied land needed to get the war score (the provinces I got in one war were worth exactly 100% warscore).