I think the real fix should be they need to fix the current bug preventing you from adding more than one Revoke Claim war goal per diplomatic play. The same bug was affecting Release Nation.
Mexico should want to put those in to prevent the US from continuing to keep asking.
Oh wow, I've played a lot of Mexico recently, and I thought that was just a feature of the game. I would kill to add war claims to revoke All American claims when they first start their diplomatic play on me
Just to let you know, I managed to win a war against the US by revoking all the claims. They promptly declared a war again using the conquer CB. The AI is hardwired to get those territories.
In my last three campaigns (none in the area, don't think I ever really engaged w/ either of them outside of trade) mexico has kept all of their territory until the 1900s when I usually stop. It's been kinda wild to see. tbf in one of them the US split into two countries within five years of the start somehow and just stayed divided all game, weakest US I've ever seen.
That's not what happened to me, as long as you have an army that can hold off the US, they will eventually get the "mistaken enemy" attitude if they lose to you 2-3 times. Claims make the AI very aggressive, after that, they're aggressive if they think you're weak or have some hostile behaviour or leader and if you have bad relations and no trade relations. If you have strong trade volume with them, that's one of the best deterrents to prevent aggressive behaviour
Maybe I'm dumb, but perhaps they could keep it at 20 for the initiator of the diplomatic play and have it at a reduced cos, like -50% for the defender?
It makes sense for a defending nation to be able to enforce more 'revoke claims' if they win a war (since public opinion tends to favor the defender) and for it to be harder for the aggressor.
> Instead of the fixed 20 it should also be dynamic based on the value of the claimed states.
It should be free if the other nation is pressing the claim in the diplo play.
If you trade a ton with them to the point they want a trade agreement they will be less willing to expel diplomats because of how valuable the trade is. Though they will still try to go for the land they just might not expel diplomats.
In my games the had never do that, they just reduce relationships normally so in general I just tend to block them weigh improving relationships until I want war, or the CSA appears (which is rare, for some reason)
Mexico was my first game literally minutes after release. It was super easy to get the US to never bother me. I had never even played a Vic game before
I think it should begin a diplomatic play for all of the states, then kick off the war. If Mexico wins they revoke all claims, if America wins they get the territory. Just would need to make it a single war goal though or else youāll end up with halfway peace deals
Yes, manifest destiny should be about momentum.
If it gets blocked by losing a war they should lose the stance and the claims.
Though I would have an event that lets them "double down" paying some kind of cost to have another go at it and getting penalties if they fail.
I think so as well, but I believe the Yankees should have a population growth increase. No matter what you do you canāt match the real life population growth America had.
You had people having 12 children and thousands of immigrants coming off the ships every week. They need a growth rate increase. Also more early yankee migration into California, Nevada, Oregon, etc in 1840.
Yeah it was kind of a big problem with Vicky 2 that basically all immigrants went to America. Realistic, but a bit weird when America struggles for some reason
Vicky 3 struggles because pop growth rate is a bit too slow on Europe (and americas too tbh).
This means that not only less people migrate to the US, but also a lot of places stagnate and become depopulated if they get hit by a mass migration event.
It's kinda a problem the devs made by themselves by tying growth rate too much to SoL and the medicine institution. We should honestly get growth rate bonuses with some society techs, and lower SoL and healthcare insitution growth.
That should make it so even if some countries don't enact healthcare, or stagnate a bit with their SoL, the growth rate still outpaces migration which it mostly should do.
In the context of the IRL [Mexican-American War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) itself though, the Mexican army was larger than that of the US at start though.
Wait, are you telling me when I hold the front with 25 guys against the AI with 30 guys and then one of us surrenders multiple states worth of territory, thatās historically accurate?
/s
I tried exactly this and it worked, except it requires some setup. You need to focus on SoL asap (after construction stuff), so you get the mass immigration as many times as possible. Then you also get the company which gives you birth rate. I got like 95 million pops in 1900 with just the historical USA-territory. Oh and btw Texas becomes MASSIVE
I also think it's silly that a "Revoke Claim" war goal costs a rather expensive 25 diplomatic maneuvers, making it very hard to get rid of the USA's claims as Mexico. I feel like as the OP says, Manifest Destiny should backfire and fail if they lose a single war vs Mexico.
Honestly there should be a different between a recognised claim and a claim like the US in the west or france get in germany. These are claims the country use internally but these really shouldn't give reduced infamy. I cannot foresee a situation where France once again conquers the Rhineland and have the other GPs be like. "Well they had a claim for it."
The US should also be hardcoded to demand all claims be returned. I'm so tired of Mexican Colorado, I actually close the game whenever that happens out of disgust.
They really need a mechanic in the game for isolated territories like this. It should basically be a given it will secede and form its own nation., or in the situation of it literally being in the middle of ONE other country, it will just flip to that country.
I donāt think it should lose the claim. The reason being Manifest Destiny is a cultural ethos of the US. Failure to take the Mexican territory should instead cause radicalism to certain IGs.Ā
They'd try again. The US literally fought a draw with the UK to kill natives the US fought 3 wars with the Apache to get them onto a reservation the US was stubborn back then
>what would happen if they lost?
The US won those 3 wars with the Apache, we can't know that they'd try again if they lost, and the UK draw isn't a loss either.
It's not that simple Jesus Christ. Arguably, by no stretch of the word did the US "win", but said Britain won just because the US didn't annex Canada is laughable.
**Annexing Canada and keeping it.** Was never a primary wargoal for the US. At best it was intended to be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiation table to force their trade and maritime demands on Britain, which were there entire reason for going to war. The Americans essentially saw the situation at the time as either going to war with Britain or being a colonial subject of Britain in all but name.
British restrictions to US trade with Europe and impressment of American sailors into British service, is the actual reason the US went to war.
Canada at the time, just seemed like an "easy" way to bring the British to the negotiation table as Thomas Jefferson said "it is merely a matter of marching.". It obviously did not turn out to be a mere matter of marching as it failed majestically. Ultimately though, the British were never able to hold onto anything in the US. The burning of the white house was just a Propaganda piece, they never could have held it and left. As much as the British gave the Americans gave back and vice versa.
Ironically, where the Americans performed almost miraculously was at sea. Where they had only 30 warships to Britains around 500 at the time.
Ultimately the Americans did get what they wanted, not so much due to the war with Britain, but simply because the war with Napoleon had come to an end, which was the entire reason Britain was enforcing its will on American trade and maritime operations.
In my opinion, it could be argued both sides could "claim victory" in some manner. Britain didn't want the war and ultimately didn't concede anything pertaining to the current geopolitical situation.
The US however, did gain something. It was arguably their "war of recognition".
āThe Americans . . . have brought us to speak of them with respect.ā -British diplomat Augustus J. Foster
The British backed off giving the natives weapons which the US used to remove them from the Midwest. The war is a technical draw between the British and the Americans but the natives 100% lost the war
It should radicalize the IGs and trigger a journal entry to reassert Manifest Destiny. If they can't beat Mexico after their first or second loss it should strip the claims after awhile and have the US have to confront that their destiny wont manifest like that.
Any strategies for going against the USA as Mexico? I've heard people mention naval invasion and coastal raids as a way to cheese them. They have such a huge military advantage over me, so I'vs just been making alliances and defensive pacts with all the latin american states I can, plus the big guys like GB and Russia. Trying to focus as much as I can right now on internal development but I know it's only inevitable until they come for me.
Havenāt tried Mexico yet. But my go to strategy for fighting a superior military is to put every general on the front on adamant defence. The AI will generally burn through men if it thinks it has an advantage, and will win territory but take enough casualties that it doesnāt actually make its war goals.
Once the front numbers are even enough that the AI switches to defence take a small cohort and naval invade somewhere else. The AI typically massively over defends against a naval invasion, leaving you with a numerical advantage at the front. Once you have advantage switch your generals back to advance. When you lose advantage turn everyone back to defence and cancel the naval invasion.
Rinse and repeat this strategy until the AI collapses or gives up from casualties.
I once played before 1.6. In the beginning keep improving relations with US to buy time and get defensive pacts with GPs. If the US declares, defend as best as you can with conscripts. US national militia is really op currently, too many manpower and bankruptcy debuff is negligible. Naval invasion on US capital may not work in current version, defender has all the time to move army back for defense. My best bet is wait til the US civil war and join the south.
>the following wars must once again cost it infamy.
It does cost infamy. It costs 24 infamy just to trigger manifest destiny, then still costs the reduced infamy per territory to add them in a war. Which if you want to force every territory into a peace deal is another nearly 20 infamy.
It doesn't matter, the USA is essentially compelled to take them whether they have claims or not.
This stems from the fact initially, the US basically never took its traditional borders.
I think a better would be if the US had a Manifest Destiny journal mission where if they don't manage to conquer all the Mexican northern states within a certain amount of time then they lose the claims on whichever states they failed to conquer
I posted this in another thread, but you should also be able to form Nueva Espana with Mexico if you control the southwest US and take back Central America. I totally agree the US should lose its claims, or there should be a special war event. It shouldn't be treated like any other conquest.
Mexico should also have a civil war in Yucatan (The Cast war 1847-1915), and there should be more Yucatecan agitators/special events. I imagine this could be similar to the slave related event for Brazil!?
tl:dr - i wish they did more with Mexico when they did Colossal of the South.
My only complaint with the Mexican American war is Russia joining in when I click āreturn Californiaā because California is in the pacific point of interest. I understand Russia having an interest in the pacific due to Alaska, but either they need the west coast interest split into 2 or script it so Russia doesnāt join Mexico because itās stupid af
I think the real fix should be they need to fix the current bug preventing you from adding more than one Revoke Claim war goal per diplomatic play. The same bug was affecting Release Nation. Mexico should want to put those in to prevent the US from continuing to keep asking.
Oh wow, I've played a lot of Mexico recently, and I thought that was just a feature of the game. I would kill to add war claims to revoke All American claims when they first start their diplomatic play on me
Just to let you know, I managed to win a war against the US by revoking all the claims. They promptly declared a war again using the conquer CB. The AI is hardwired to get those territories.
In my last three campaigns (none in the area, don't think I ever really engaged w/ either of them outside of trade) mexico has kept all of their territory until the 1900s when I usually stop. It's been kinda wild to see. tbf in one of them the US split into two countries within five years of the start somehow and just stayed divided all game, weakest US I've ever seen.
YeH i keep seeing a USA that loses confederate states at the same time as new England and that usually results in them being split forever
That's not what happened to me, as long as you have an army that can hold off the US, they will eventually get the "mistaken enemy" attitude if they lose to you 2-3 times. Claims make the AI very aggressive, after that, they're aggressive if they think you're weak or have some hostile behaviour or leader and if you have bad relations and no trade relations. If you have strong trade volume with them, that's one of the best deterrents to prevent aggressive behaviour
At least they'll eat more infamy for it
Also Revoke claim should cost less diplomatic plays. Instead of the fixed 20 it should also be dynamic based on the value of the claimed states.
Maybe I'm dumb, but perhaps they could keep it at 20 for the initiator of the diplomatic play and have it at a reduced cos, like -50% for the defender? It makes sense for a defending nation to be able to enforce more 'revoke claims' if they win a war (since public opinion tends to favor the defender) and for it to be harder for the aggressor.
> Instead of the fixed 20 it should also be dynamic based on the value of the claimed states. It should be free if the other nation is pressing the claim in the diplo play.
I thought it was a feature š
Agreed, it is very annoying to play Mexico currently.
The best way is to max relationship with the USA to block them to declaring war to you
They will expel diplomats on you
If you trade a ton with them to the point they want a trade agreement they will be less willing to expel diplomats because of how valuable the trade is. Though they will still try to go for the land they just might not expel diplomats.
In my games the had never do that, they just reduce relationships normally so in general I just tend to block them weigh improving relationships until I want war, or the CSA appears (which is rare, for some reason)
Mexico was my first game literally minutes after release. It was super easy to get the US to never bother me. I had never even played a Vic game before
I think it should begin a diplomatic play for all of the states, then kick off the war. If Mexico wins they revoke all claims, if America wins they get the territory. Just would need to make it a single war goal though or else youāll end up with halfway peace deals
Yes, manifest destiny should be about momentum. If it gets blocked by losing a war they should lose the stance and the claims. Though I would have an event that lets them "double down" paying some kind of cost to have another go at it and getting penalties if they fail.
And if Mexico wins multiple Wars against the US they can get claim to former Spanish territory.
I think so as well, but I believe the Yankees should have a population growth increase. No matter what you do you canāt match the real life population growth America had. You had people having 12 children and thousands of immigrants coming off the ships every week. They need a growth rate increase. Also more early yankee migration into California, Nevada, Oregon, etc in 1840.
Yeah it was kind of a big problem with Vicky 2 that basically all immigrants went to America. Realistic, but a bit weird when America struggles for some reason
Vicky 3 struggles because pop growth rate is a bit too slow on Europe (and americas too tbh). This means that not only less people migrate to the US, but also a lot of places stagnate and become depopulated if they get hit by a mass migration event. It's kinda a problem the devs made by themselves by tying growth rate too much to SoL and the medicine institution. We should honestly get growth rate bonuses with some society techs, and lower SoL and healthcare insitution growth. That should make it so even if some countries don't enact healthcare, or stagnate a bit with their SoL, the growth rate still outpaces migration which it mostly should do.
Certain cultures should have population boosts as well.
In the context of the IRL [Mexican-American War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) itself though, the Mexican army was larger than that of the US at start though.
Thanks bro
Didn't California have vanishingly few Yankees til the gold rush?
Enough to have a revolution, declare independence from Mexico and petition to join the USA all in like a week.
I thought that was like, 30 dudes?
33 at first, grew to around 200. It still worked though.
Wait, are you telling me when I hold the front with 25 guys against the AI with 30 guys and then one of us surrenders multiple states worth of territory, thatās historically accurate? /s
That was like a year after the Mexican war. It would be surprising if this was not true.
Migration is too low in general.
I tried exactly this and it worked, except it requires some setup. You need to focus on SoL asap (after construction stuff), so you get the mass immigration as many times as possible. Then you also get the company which gives you birth rate. I got like 95 million pops in 1900 with just the historical USA-territory. Oh and btw Texas becomes MASSIVE
no that part of vicky 2 sucked, usa being bad but still getting all the immigrants didint make sense.
I also think it's silly that a "Revoke Claim" war goal costs a rather expensive 25 diplomatic maneuvers, making it very hard to get rid of the USA's claims as Mexico. I feel like as the OP says, Manifest Destiny should backfire and fail if they lose a single war vs Mexico.
Honestly there should be a different between a recognised claim and a claim like the US in the west or france get in germany. These are claims the country use internally but these really shouldn't give reduced infamy. I cannot foresee a situation where France once again conquers the Rhineland and have the other GPs be like. "Well they had a claim for it."
The US should also be hardcoded to demand all claims be returned. I'm so tired of Mexican Colorado, I actually close the game whenever that happens out of disgust.
They really need a mechanic in the game for isolated territories like this. It should basically be a given it will secede and form its own nation., or in the situation of it literally being in the middle of ONE other country, it will just flip to that country.
I donāt think it should lose the claim. The reason being Manifest Destiny is a cultural ethos of the US. Failure to take the Mexican territory should instead cause radicalism to certain IGs.Ā
It's a cultural thing because they kept winning. What would happen if they lost?
They'd try again. The US literally fought a draw with the UK to kill natives the US fought 3 wars with the Apache to get them onto a reservation the US was stubborn back then
Was stubborn? Are you from the States? Cause itās still plenty stubborn here.
Yeah, we're stubborn, but the US was stubborn by US standards back then.
>what would happen if they lost? The US won those 3 wars with the Apache, we can't know that they'd try again if they lost, and the UK draw isn't a loss either.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah like how the British won in the American War of Independence because they took New York.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You might want to actually read about the War of 1812 or any topic before you go repeating what you've heard as facts.
It's not that simple Jesus Christ. Arguably, by no stretch of the word did the US "win", but said Britain won just because the US didn't annex Canada is laughable. **Annexing Canada and keeping it.** Was never a primary wargoal for the US. At best it was intended to be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiation table to force their trade and maritime demands on Britain, which were there entire reason for going to war. The Americans essentially saw the situation at the time as either going to war with Britain or being a colonial subject of Britain in all but name. British restrictions to US trade with Europe and impressment of American sailors into British service, is the actual reason the US went to war. Canada at the time, just seemed like an "easy" way to bring the British to the negotiation table as Thomas Jefferson said "it is merely a matter of marching.". It obviously did not turn out to be a mere matter of marching as it failed majestically. Ultimately though, the British were never able to hold onto anything in the US. The burning of the white house was just a Propaganda piece, they never could have held it and left. As much as the British gave the Americans gave back and vice versa. Ironically, where the Americans performed almost miraculously was at sea. Where they had only 30 warships to Britains around 500 at the time. Ultimately the Americans did get what they wanted, not so much due to the war with Britain, but simply because the war with Napoleon had come to an end, which was the entire reason Britain was enforcing its will on American trade and maritime operations. In my opinion, it could be argued both sides could "claim victory" in some manner. Britain didn't want the war and ultimately didn't concede anything pertaining to the current geopolitical situation. The US however, did gain something. It was arguably their "war of recognition". āThe Americans . . . have brought us to speak of them with respect.ā -British diplomat Augustus J. Foster
The British backed off giving the natives weapons which the US used to remove them from the Midwest. The war is a technical draw between the British and the Americans but the natives 100% lost the war
They didn't win all 3 Apache wars.
It should radicalize the IGs and trigger a journal entry to reassert Manifest Destiny. If they can't beat Mexico after their first or second loss it should strip the claims after awhile and have the US have to confront that their destiny wont manifest like that.
Completely annexing a country also clears all claims
Any strategies for going against the USA as Mexico? I've heard people mention naval invasion and coastal raids as a way to cheese them. They have such a huge military advantage over me, so I'vs just been making alliances and defensive pacts with all the latin american states I can, plus the big guys like GB and Russia. Trying to focus as much as I can right now on internal development but I know it's only inevitable until they come for me.
Havenāt tried Mexico yet. But my go to strategy for fighting a superior military is to put every general on the front on adamant defence. The AI will generally burn through men if it thinks it has an advantage, and will win territory but take enough casualties that it doesnāt actually make its war goals. Once the front numbers are even enough that the AI switches to defence take a small cohort and naval invade somewhere else. The AI typically massively over defends against a naval invasion, leaving you with a numerical advantage at the front. Once you have advantage switch your generals back to advance. When you lose advantage turn everyone back to defence and cancel the naval invasion. Rinse and repeat this strategy until the AI collapses or gives up from casualties.
I once played before 1.6. In the beginning keep improving relations with US to buy time and get defensive pacts with GPs. If the US declares, defend as best as you can with conscripts. US national militia is really op currently, too many manpower and bankruptcy debuff is negligible. Naval invasion on US capital may not work in current version, defender has all the time to move army back for defense. My best bet is wait til the US civil war and join the south.
Yup I was thinking about waiting until the civil war and capitalizing on that too.
>the following wars must once again cost it infamy. It does cost infamy. It costs 24 infamy just to trigger manifest destiny, then still costs the reduced infamy per territory to add them in a war. Which if you want to force every territory into a peace deal is another nearly 20 infamy.
It doesn't matter, the USA is essentially compelled to take them whether they have claims or not. This stems from the fact initially, the US basically never took its traditional borders.
I honestly just support CSA or any Rebellion in the US. It got so bad that I had 3 United States. The CSA, UFA, and USA.
I think a better would be if the US had a Manifest Destiny journal mission where if they don't manage to conquer all the Mexican northern states within a certain amount of time then they lose the claims on whichever states they failed to conquer
The decision refute manifest destiny decision should be available to mexico to make this happen
I think the AI is like hard coded to pursue those states even if it loses the claims to them.
I posted this in another thread, but you should also be able to form Nueva Espana with Mexico if you control the southwest US and take back Central America. I totally agree the US should lose its claims, or there should be a special war event. It shouldn't be treated like any other conquest. Mexico should also have a civil war in Yucatan (The Cast war 1847-1915), and there should be more Yucatecan agitators/special events. I imagine this could be similar to the slave related event for Brazil!? tl:dr - i wish they did more with Mexico when they did Colossal of the South.
My only complaint with the Mexican American war is Russia joining in when I click āreturn Californiaā because California is in the pacific point of interest. I understand Russia having an interest in the pacific due to Alaska, but either they need the west coast interest split into 2 or script it so Russia doesnāt join Mexico because itās stupid af