VIP - North America - Canada, Mexico, USA, + Revolters

[Theodotus1]

A few more fixes are up on Yahoo, specifically:

-Yucatan independence date changed to mesh with return of Santa Anna.

-Santa Fe Expedition events had a defective flag, which kept them from firing. This has been fixed.

-Second Texas statehood proposal has had birthdate changed to 1845, to adjust average time of occurance for frequency of firing rate. (Random = 5 in the trigger seems to result in the event firing within the first several months, and 1844 was just too early, all things considered.)

-USA Free Soil and Liberty parties are now anarcho-liberal, not liberal. (This will marginalize these parties, as happened historically, and will give the Whigs more of a chance.)

The main issue I'm seeing now is strangely ahistorical with possession of California and Utah. California is easily addressed by having the Bear Flag revolt occur once Mexico and USA go to war. I already have the events for this written, and I'll add them in a few minutes. (California will become independent when the war starts, as it did historically, and then will join the USA 95% of the time.)

Utah is a bit less straightforward. If USA happens to be allied with a European power when the Mexican-American War happens, the Europeans tend to make a separate peace with Mexico and end up with the bottom half of Utah. (Why they like it there so much, I'm not certain.) I've seen both England and France do this, and it's just not based in any sort of history I'm aware of. Therefore, it seems to me appropriate that Deseret also declare independence if not owned by the USA by the point in time at which representatives from Deseret historically approached the USA about statehood. Deseret would then also join the Union about 95% of the time.

I'll be working on this Deseret event, and will incorporate the new things when they're ready.

 

[Theodotus1]

Here are the Bear Flag revolt events:

event = {
id = 213315
random = no
country = MEX

trigger = {
owned = { province = 514 }
owned = { province = 515 }
owned = { province = 516 }
owned = { province = 517 }
owned = { province = 518 }
owned = { province = 519 }
owned = { province = 520 }
owned = { province = 521 }
owned = { province = 522 } #California
war = { country = MEX country = USA }
}

name = "The Bear Flag revolt"
desc = "Incited by American encouragement, a group of Anglos marched on Sonoma, which was then the northernmost center of Mexican authority in California. Capturing the town, they took its leading citizen, Mariano Vallejo, prisoner. They then announced the establishment of the California Republic, declared themselves independent of Mexican rule, and raised the famous Bear Flag."
style = 0

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1844 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 1851 }

action_a = {
name = "This is a disaster!" #
command = { type = independence which = CAL }
command = { type = pop_consciousness which = mexican value = 1 }
command = { type = setflag which = flg_mexamwar value = 1 }
command = { type = trigger which = 132066 } #CAL
}
}

event = {
id = 132066
random = no
country = CAL #triggered by MEX 213315

name = "The Bear Flag revolt"
desc = "Incited by American encouragement, a group of Anglos marched on Sonoma and took its leading citizen, Mariano Vallejo, prisoner. They then announced the establishment of the California Republic, declared themselves independent of Mexican rule, and raised the famous Bear Flag. Mexican residents, however, fought back against the anglos."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "This land is our land!" #
command = { type = revolt which = mexican value = irregular where = 518 }
command = { type = revolt which = mexican value = irregular where = 521 }
command = { type = revolt which = mexican value = irregular where = 1143 }
command = { type = add_division which = irregular value = none when = 518 }
command = { type = pop_militancy which = mexican value = 5 }
command = { type = pop_consciousness which = mexican value = 4 }
}
}

 

[Theodotus1]

Here's the Utah revolt event. This is based on the fact that settlers in Utah actually mustered an infantry unit that marched off to join the Union Army:

event = {
id = 213316
random = no
country = MEX

trigger = {
owned = { province = 527 } #Utah
owned = { province = 528 }
owned = { province = 529 }
war = { country = MEX country = USA }
}

name = "The Utah revolt"
desc = "After learning of war between Mexico and the United States, settlers in Utah declared for the United States."
style = 0

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1845 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 1851 }

action_a = {
name = "This is a disaster!" #
command = { type = independence which = DES }
command = { type = pop_consciousness which = mexican value = 1 }
}
}

 

[IanRacey]

Can you have a New England secession that way? Will the game keep track of negative numbers?

Or do you mean we have setflag = 10 and when the number hits 0 or 20 we have an ACW.

I'm not sure, but can the trigger read it that way?

Sure it can. Just use NOT.

Set the flg_acw to 10 in the .eug file. You then increase it when the South gets upset, and decrease it when the North gets upset.

If you want the South to secede at 15 or greater, the trigger is

trigger = { flag = { name = flg_acw value = 15 } }

The event then fires if flg_acw is 15 or greater.

You want New England to secede if the flag has dropped to 5 or lower?

trigger = { NOT = { flag = { name = flg_acw value = 6 } } }

No problem

Ian

 

[ImperialMog]

I was curious if it has been discussed but has anyone brought up a situation where either California or Deseret would be more likely not to join the US and remain independent? I would think that depending on policies of the US and certain actions that Deseret might be more likely to set their own path and not join if they were felt that they weren't going to be treated fairly if for example a group like the know-nothings were in charge. I know it seems odd but maybe some alternate events that change the odds of joining would be in order if the situation makes it where they are less likely to join or if the US is less likely to accept them for some reason.

 

[IanRacey]

I was curious if it has been discussed but has anyone brought up a situation where either California or Deseret would be more likely not to join the US and remain independent? I would think that depending on policies of the US and certain actions that Deseret might be more likely to set their own path and not join if they were felt that they weren't going to be treated fairly if for example a group like the know-nothings were in charge. I know it seems odd but maybe some alternate events that change the odds of joining would be in order if the situation makes it where they are less likely to join or if the US is less likely to accept them for some reason.

Well I think the issue is that neither of these groups really had any choice about annexation to the USA. They're not like Texas -- they haven't had an extended period of independence prior to admission. California (really, it seems to me from my research, the city of San Francisco) declared "independence" in reaction to the US declaration of war against Mexico, and it was really just a stepping stone to annexation by the US. The Bear Flag Republic existed for a matter of weeks before a US expedition arrived and took possession of the area. And I don't think Deseret declared independence at all, did it?

This is why California and Deseret, unlike Texas, were annexed to the USA as territories, rather than states.

Now, I could certainly see a Deseret declaration of independence from the USA becoming more likely depending on US policies.

Ian

 

[Jon F. Zeigler]

Sure it can. Just use NOT.

Set the flg_acw to 10 in the .eug file. You then increase it when the South gets upset, and decrease it when the North gets upset.

If you want the South to secede at 15 or greater, the trigger is

trigger = { flag = { name = flg_acw value = 15 } }

The event then fires if flg_acw is 15 or greater.

You want New England to secede if the flag has dropped to 5 or lower?

trigger = { NOT = { flag = { name = flg_acw value = 6 } } }

No problem

Ian

Mmmm. That is a lot simpler than the complex OR statement I had in mind. About the only thing your scheme wouldn't do that the two-flags scheme would is handle cases where one side's attitude is affected but the other's isn't. But we may not have any cases that clearly require that.

 

[Jon F. Zeigler]

Alrighty. Good ideas, Jon, I'm very interested in working on the flag project. I've made a list of all my antebellum events . . .

Right - this is exactly the kind of analysis we need to start with.

I would add a few more items to this list. The admission of Texas, certainly, and the outbreak of war against Mexico - those events were what really got the sectional dispute going in the first place. Likewise, if the USA won a major war against the UK in Canada, I imagine the South would have been horrified - think of all those potential new Northern states in which slavery would have been almost impossible to impose. Maybe a few others as well - even the Gadsen Purchase had some sigificance in the sectional dispute, since it was initiated largely to provide a potential southern route for the transcontinental railroad.

I don't know if I'll have time to work through this today, but I'll get to it as soon as I can and produce an initial cut at the flag scheme. One nice thing about this idea is that we don't have to actually rewrite all the events to do some evaluation of the scheme.

 

[aprof]

Theo, I know you have some new events that need ID reservations, so I'll make a list and submit to Generalisimo today.

Does anyone have any events near to being ready that should be included on the list?

 

[Theodotus1]

I was curious if it has been discussed but has anyone brought up a situation where either California or Deseret would be more likely not to join the US and remain independent? I would think that depending on policies of the US and certain actions that Deseret might be more likely to set their own path and not join if they were felt that they weren't going to be treated fairly if for example a group like the know-nothings were in charge. I know it seems odd but maybe some alternate events that change the odds of joining would be in order if the situation makes it where they are less likely to join or if the US is less likely to accept them for some reason.

Some of this, at least, has been taken into account. Historically, both California and Deseret were eager to join the Union as states. And this is reflected (in the fixed files I'll be posting today on Yahoo) in both of these places facing the statehood choice as soon as they become independent. There is at that time a 5% chance they'll choose not to apply for statehood. If they do apply, there is likewise a 5% chance that they'll be rejected.

With Deseret, there is a later episode (called the Utah War) in which USA can choose to treat the Mormons badly enough that they break away from the US. The likelihood here is that they don't, however.

There will also be an event sequence in which Deseret and California break from Mexico around 1852 if there's been no Mexican-American War by then. (For example, if Texas stays independent.) In this instance there is a 10% chance they end up staying independent.

Having further events like you describe, where Deseret breaks away due to conditions in the US, is a good idea. I think I'll write something along these lines soon, after I research the historical politics somewhat more.

Well I think the issue is that neither of these groups really had any choice about annexation to the USA. They're not like Texas -- they haven't had an extended period of independence prior to admission. California (really, it seems to me from my research, the city of San Francisco) declared "independence" in reaction to the US declaration of war against Mexico, and it was really just a stepping stone to annexation by the US. The Bear Flag Republic existed for a matter of weeks before a US expedition arrived and took possession of the area. And I don't think Deseret declared independence at all, did it?

This is why California and Deseret, unlike Texas, were annexed to the USA as territories, rather than states.

Now, I could certainly see a Deseret declaration of independence from the USA becoming more likely depending on US policies.

Ian

California declared independence as a result of encouragement by a "scientific expedition" composed of Union soldiers under the command of John C. Fremont, who spread rumors that Mexican troops were headed to Anglo regions of California to suppress the settlers there. At the time of the Bear Flag revolt, the fact of war between USA and Mexico was largely unknown to people on the scene, and completely unconfirmed. The Anglos in California were eager to join the Union, but then word got around that maybe Fremont couldn't be relied upon as a leader, which lead to calls for California independence instead. However, once the Mexican-American War was known about, the Bear Flag was taken down and the Stars and Stripes raised in its place, and California became a US protectorate until it was granted statehood. The California Republic lasted a total of 25 days.

Utah was more sparsely settled than California, but the settlers there still formed a 600 man infantry unit in 1846 upon learning of the Mex-Am War, which marched off to join the US army. The Mormons arrived toward the end of 1847, and applied for statehood (as Deseret) in early 1848. They wanted Deseret to include what is now Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and southern California. They were granted territorial status instead, following which Mormon leaders organized a shadow government (of Deseret) which ran things locally behind the scenes for several years. (The leader of the shadow government also happening to have been chosen the governor of the Territory.) Historically, Deseret never formally declared independence, unlike California. However, in some ways it was much more independent than California ever was.

(It should be noted that in 1836 the man who later became the Mexican governor of Alta California declared California to be independent, and it kept that status for two years, until the formal governorship was granted. I intend to include this in VIP eventually.)

 

[Theodotus1]

Right - this is exactly the kind of analysis we need to start with.

I would add a few more items to this list. The admission of Texas, certainly, and the outbreak of war against Mexico - those events were what really got the sectional dispute going in the first place. Likewise, if the USA won a major war against the UK in Canada, I imagine the South would have been horrified - think of all those potential new Northern states in which slavery would have been almost impossible to impose. Maybe a few others as well - even the Gadsen Purchase had some sigificance in the sectional dispute, since it was initiated largely to provide a potential southern route for the transcontinental railroad.

I don't know if I'll have time to work through this today, but I'll get to it as soon as I can and produce an initial cut at the flag scheme. One nice thing about this idea is that we don't have to actually rewrite all the events to do some evaluation of the scheme.

The Treaty of Guadalup Hidalgo should be included in the list. Southern leaders wanted the US to keep all of Mexico (most of which the US did indeed control by the time the treaty was signed). They wanted all that territory as possible slave states, and all those natives as potential servants. They were quite unhappy when US let Mexico go. (And apparently the US president did recall his envoy, so that the peace offer could be changed and more territory demanded. But the envoy, supported by Winfield Scott, ignored the recall and negotiated the Treaty according to his previous instructions instead.)

 

[Theodotus1]

Theo, I know you have some new events that need ID reservations, so I'll make a list and submit to Generalisimo today.

Does anyone have any events near to being ready that should be included on the list?

I do have some new events. I haven't updated the list on Yahoo yet, though, or posted the new events there. I intend to do that this afternoon. (I want to run a hands-off test with the new Mexican-American War scheme, to make sure there's no glitches involving California and Deseret breaking away and then joining the Union.)

 

[IanRacey]

Mmmm. That is a lot simpler than the complex OR statement I had in mind. About the only thing your scheme wouldn't do that the two-flags scheme would is handle cases where one side's attitude is affected but the other's isn't. But we may not have any cases that clearly require that.

Yeah, I would expect that in a dispute where there are only two sides, anytime one side perceives a victory, the other is going to perceive a loss, and vice versa.

My major concern would be the problem of what happens if neither side gains enough dominance over the other to get the minority side to secede. Basically, we need to ensure that the two "trigger values" are close enough together to ensure secession in the vast majority of games, but far enough apart that we don't routinely have the ACW starting in 1850.

Ian

 

[Theodotus1]

I've been doing more testing, and there will be further fixes posted later today. (Texas will always get the choice of applying for statehood sometime in 1846, for one thing. No more random factor there. Eventually I intend to tie it to which party is in power in the USA, but that comes later.)

EDIT - There are now more fixes up on Yahoo. This is the current change log:

-Deseret and California now decide on statehood as soon as they become independent, if they become independent between 1845 and 1851.

-The Rio Grande Republic revolt has been tuned down, as it was ahistorically powerful.

-The Yucatan Reunifies event had its trigger modified to include the flag which indicates the first Yucatan revolt actually happened. (This prevents the event from firing if the revolt was settled,which typically happens if Santa Anna isn't around.)

-The Deseret annexed by USA event had its trigger modified to include the requirement that Deseret be at war with USA. (This prevents the event from firing when Utah wasn't conquered.)

-The Gadsen Purchase events have had the payment amounts fixed temporarily at equivalent levels. (USA was paying 100,000, while Mexico received 400.)

-The Mexican Civil War event had the random element in the trigger removed, which fixes anomalies in the flow of Reform events.

-The date on the Spanish response to the Black Warrior Affair had the date removed, so that it wouldn't trigger by itself.

-The USA Republican party event had 14110 in the trigger changed to 304997.

-The flavor_eng file (modded), event 36906 (Irish Harvests ruined) has been #'d out. (It's been replaced by the Famine chain.)

-Texas recognition events have been prevented from firing for UK and France if early Texas statehood happens. Same for US admiralty claims events.

-Yucatan independence date changed to mesh with return of Santa Anna.

-Santa Fe Expedition events had a defective flag, which kept them from firing. This has been fixed.

-USA Free Soil and Liberty parties are now anarcho-liberal, not liberal. (This will marginalize these parties, as happened historically, and will give the Whigs more of a chance.)

-The second Yucatan rebellion events have been fixed so that unapplicable Texas revolt support events do not fire inappropriately.

-The later Texas statehood event has been changed so that it will always fire sometime in 1846, if relations with USA are high enough. (Random factor removed from trigger.)

-The Montezuma Affair events have been fixed so that Mexico now gets the frigate unit it contracted for.

-California and Deseret now secede from Mexico if there is war between USA and Mexico between 1845 and 1851. They will then immediately join USA 95% of the time. (This is historically accurate, and eliminates certain issues with the Mexican-American War.)

-Events in which Texas supports a rebellion in Mexico have been changed so that when Texas chooses to follow the Lamar Doctrine it will support the revolts 95% of the time (as long as it's not at war with someone other than Mexico) and will gain added cores (just like when Texas is a military dictatorship).

-Events in which Texas supports a rebellion in Mexico have been changed so that they will fire either when Texas is not at war or when Texas is at war with Mexico.

-Texas blockades Matamoros event changed so that there is now a delay between imposition of blockade and USA response.

EDIT:
There are now even more fixes on Yahoo, incorporating these changes:

-Texan culture added to USA upon Texas statehood.

-Date on Yucatan reunifies event changed to be more in accordance with history.

-Santa Anna returns event now includes militancy and consciousness decreases for Mexican POPs in Mexico. (Hope springs eternal.)

-Santa Anna downfall date changed to be more in accordance with history.

-Dates for Texas support for second Yucatan rebellion event changed to coincide with second Yucatan rebellion.

-Mexican counterrevolt decreased in Bear Flag revolt event.

 

[Theodotus1]

I'm pleased with the way the new event scheme for California and Deseret and the Mex-Am War is working. Not only does it eliminate certain strangenesses, but it actually seems to help computer Mexico organize its response a bit. The war lasted about five years this last time, and Mexico put up a good fight, though it was facing both USA and England. USA ended up with its historic borders plus a few provinces. England ended up with Yucatan and several other provinces on that end of Mexico -- no strange clumps of European territory in the middle of Utah. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo trigger conditions were never met, so it didn't fire. (Peace happened just before USA took Mexico City.)

Soon I'll add the California and Deseret secession events for when Texas stays independent. But first I'm going to work on finishing out Mexican history up through the Reform.

 

[unmerged(21828)]

My understanding is that the problem of having the event fire is due to the fact that Britain always declares war on Mexico along with the U.S. With this, the British are able to beat the U.S. to Mexico City (especially with Texas blocking Yankee troops and forcing them to take the long way to the capital), therefore not allowing the U.S. to gain its modern borders at Mexico's expense.

Also, Mexico's vulnerability to European intervention results in its take-over by many nations. In a game I played today as Japan, the Netherlands owned lands in California and former Texas. It was a sore to my eyes. Perhaps if Mexico's defeat only led to them becoming a satellite of France, then Mexico can be saved from partition by European powers.

 

[IanRacey]

My understanding is that the problem of having the event fire is due to the fact that Britain always declares war on Mexico along with the U.S. With this, the British are able to beat the U.S. to Mexico City (especially with Texas blocking Yankee troops and forcing them to take the long way to the capital), therefore not allowing the U.S. to gain its modern borders at Mexico's expense.

This can be fixed by changing the trigger condition from

control = { province = Mejico City data = USA } (or whatever the command is)

to

NOT = { control = { province = Mejico City data = MEX } }

This way it will fire regardless of which member of the coalition occupies the city.

Also, Mexico's vulnerability to European intervention results in its take-over by many nations. In a game I played today as Japan, the Netherlands owned lands in California and former Texas. It was a sore to my eyes. Perhaps if Mexico's defeat only led to them becoming a satellite of France, then Mexico can be saved from partition by European powers.

Though if you satellite a power, I think it might automatically cede all provinces occupied by a power other than you to the occupying power. Or maybe all provinces occupied by powers not aligned with you. Whatever the rule is, I've seen some pretty weird and pretty substantial cessions in the past.

Ian

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Well, I do know that satelliting as a war result does cede all provinces the new master has a claim on that the new satellite owns.... I'm not sure what effect there might be for third-party invading countries like France in Mexico... but I've achieved the modern US/Mexico border by playing the US and satelliting Mexico.

 

[IanRacey]

Well, I do know that satelliting as a war result does cede all provinces the new master has a claim on that the new satellite owns.... I'm not sure what effect there might be for third-party invading countries like France in Mexico... but I've achieved the modern US/Mexico border by playing the US and satelliting Mexico.

Well, the specific instance I encountered was a lot worse than just receiving claimed provinces. Playing as Italy (allied to France at the time of intervention), I satellited Mexico, and Mexico ceded to France and Spain all the provinces occupied by those two countries, leaving it with about a third of its territory.

Ian

 

[Theodotus1]

My understanding is that the problem of having the event fire is due to the fact that Britain always declares war on Mexico along with the U.S. With this, the British are able to beat the U.S. to Mexico City (especially with Texas blocking Yankee troops and forcing them to take the long way to the capital), therefore not allowing the U.S. to gain its modern borders at Mexico's expense.

Also, Mexico's vulnerability to European intervention results in its take-over by many nations. In a game I played today as Japan, the Netherlands owned lands in California and former Texas. It was a sore to my eyes. Perhaps if Mexico's defeat only led to them becoming a satellite of France, then Mexico can be saved from partition by European powers.

Actually, in the test I just ran, England reached a separate peace with Mexico, and then the war went on. USA almost took Mexico City, but actually ended up with more territory than Guadalupe Hidalgo would have provided, and didn't have to pay anything. It turned out to be a more flexible result than I'd hoped for.

I've thought about changing the trigger condition so that it fires if anyone other than Mexico holds Mexico City, but I'm not in favor of that yet. If further testing shows a significant problem with foreign allies and the end of the war, I'll make changes then. (As it is, the US is not allied with Europeans every time, and it's not yet proven to be a problem when they are. The changed scheme for California and Utah apparently fixes the problems that used to come with European allies and their territorial demands in North America.)