Mexican-American War II and Impeachment - A view from the Urals
•
by Dillan Stone
The date was March 1. The Poles had taken over the Mexican Congress, and stripped every last Peso from the treasury. Having completed my moral obligation to at least attempt to stop them, and failed, I resigned from the Mexican Congress (and I admit freely, I was there for 5 gold, nothing more), and made my way to Norway, to work for my new Iron company. The Americans had already invaded the northern tier of Mexico, but that was Somebody Else's Problem, as far as I was concerned - especially as the US had indicated they had no intention of keeping Mexico long-term - they were invading just because of the takeover. Well, ok, poor strategy, but I know you Americans are bloodthirsty.
The date was March 6. Mexico City (aka the Central Highlands), home of Mexico's only non-Q1 hosiptal, was about to fall. With it, would fall most, if not all, of Mexico's already limited fighting capacity, as a nation of about 500 tried to fight off a nation of about 10,000, with the help of only a couple relatively inexperienced allies.
The date was March 10. The US attempted, in one bold stroke, to eliminate Mexico from the map, with a three-front battle, primarily because of new MPPs that would be engaged at the end of the battle. Yet, at the end of the day, two of the three regions attacked remained Mexican, and the third was retreated from, only to be overwhelmed by a Portuguese counter-invasion.
So what went wrong?
Even bare-fisting, the US should have been able to wipe Mexico from the map by March 8th. The final MPPs that turned the tide came in slowly (and much of the "foreign" damage may well have been done by Mexicans who escaped overseas to allied hospitals). True, until March 6th, there was a bug preventing the US from proceeding south into the Mexican heartland. But after that date, the US won twice - Central Highlands, and Oaxaca, and won easily both times.
The proper military strategy, if Mexico was to be handled, would have been to proceed with a blitskreig. The US tried it twice - the first day of the war (taking all three northern regions), and the final offensive push (where the tide turned), but failed to do it on the day it would have made the most difference - the push for Central Highlands.
Mexico, on March 6, had five native regions remaining. Pacific Coast, Oaxaca, Central Highlands, The Gulf, and the Southeast. The US had borders with Pacific Coast, Central Highlands, and the Gulf. On the map, the proper course would be obvious:
Day 1 of renewed attack: Proceed to the Gulf and the Central Highlands.
Day 2 of renewed attack: Take the Southeast and Oaxaca.
Pacific Coast may be taken on Day 1 or Day 2 - probably wait to Day 2 for it, simply because of the greater resistance on Day 1.
The problem? Same reason America could not proceed into Central Highlands in the first place - the Borders do not match the Map. It appears that the Northeast has a border with the Gulf - except, oops, it does not. Even without that border (which is admittedly a short one), there is a long border from Central Highlands to the Gulf - it should have at least fallen day 2. Except, there is no border there, either.
Apparently, Mexico is a labyrinth of non-connected provinces.
So for those of you blaming Uncle Sam for the loss, you should be blaming the Admins. His slow advance into Oaxaca, rather than grabbing the whole, was the only course available. The only place you can really question is his holding off on taking Pacific Coast - and that is probably the least tactically important region of Mexico (although it, ironically, also lacks its border with Oaxaca.)
Mexican borders SHOULD run as follows:
* Baja - to Northwest and (maybe) Pacific Coast
* Northwest - to Baja, Northeast, Pacific Coast, and Central Highlands
* Northeast - to Northwest, Central Highlands, and the Gulf
* Central Highlands - to Northeast, Northwest, Pacific Coast, Gulf, and Oaxaca
* Gulf - to Northeast, Central Highlands, Oaxaca, and Southeast
* Pacific Coast - to Northwest, Central Highlands, Oaxaca, and (maybe) Baja
* Oaxaca - to Pacific Coast, Central Highlands, the Gulf, and Southeast
* Southeast - to the Gulf and Oaxaca
Instead, they run: (not counting the failure of a Baja-Pacific Coast link as an error)
* Baja - to Northwest
* Northwest - to Baja, Northeast, Pacific Coast, and Central Highlands
* Northeast - to Northwest and Central Highlands - GULF MISSING
* Central Highlands - to Northeast, Northwest, Pacific Coast, and Oaxaca - GULF MISSING
* Gulf - Oaxaca, and Southeast - NORTHEAST & CENTRAL HIGHLANDS MISSING
* Pacific Coast - to Northwest and Central Highlands - OAXACA MISSING
* Oaxaca - Central Highlands, the Gulf, and Southeast - PACIFIC COAST MISSING
* Southeast - to the Gulf and Oaxaca
Just three little links - Gulf-Northeast, Gulf-Highlands, and Oaxaca-PC. But the failure of the first two of those links meant the Southeast was out of reach until it was too late. The failure of the Northwest-CH and Northeast-CH links to be added for several days only ensured that fate.
Uncle Sam may have failed to win the war, and I certainly have no great admiration for the man, but if you're going to impeach him, impeach him for what he did wrong (failure to inform Atlantis), not what he did as well as anyone else could have done, given the way the admins handcuffed him.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
"The proper military strategy, if Mexico was to be handled, would have been to proceed with a blitskreig. "
I disagree. The US should have maintained a determined, yet paced movement through Mexico. This would have allowed for a far greater amount of commuication throughout the military and the nation as a whole, it would have allowed our weapons market to expand to meet demand in a less dramatic fashion, and it would have kept us from opening a border with Portugal.
Blitz's only work when you set out to do them from the get-go.
Very very good. I hope the border errors get fixed.
The presence of the so-called "bug" may be attributed to admin weirdness, but it was not some weird surprise. It was obvious to anyone who took the time to examine Mexico beforehand. Uncle Sam was (or definitely should have been) aware of the bug beforehand, and should have planned accordingly. He did not.
You have a valid point. Voted.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach--753872/1/20
I learned something from this article. Well written, voted and subscribed.
Ok, why weren't we aware of the connection errors with Mexico's geography b4 we went to war... The answer is that there was no war planning.
Love you, man, but you're off base here.
Southeast connects to Portugal no matter what. The instant the stars and stripes go up there, Portugal has a free pass to invade the US mainland.
What they REALLY should have done, if their goal was to keep Mexico as long as possible, was invade everywhere BUT the Southeast. Force Portugal to make war on Mexico to gain the counter-invasion route. Or let Mexico, despite having almost no money, pay for the privilege of attempting to retake its provinces from the Southeast. Taking Southeast, or allowing an ally (Spain?) to do so, would only open the PEACE corridor back to the Rio Grande.
Now, if Portugal is dumb enough to actually take the counter-bait, and try to invade Texas (for example), the US's MPPs kick in, and you have a real WW3, giving the US the opportunity to wipe both Mexico and Portugal from the map. But instead, my best guess is that Portugal will move up to Northwest and stop (and allow the other Mexican territories taken to be RW'd back to Mexico), giving both Portugal and Mexico (each with many MPPs) the threat of a two-pronged US invasion from the south, usable at any time.
Realistically Indonesia is stronger than the U.S, it's MPPs will remain active while you try it on with your MPPs, which are only with a couple of ATLANTIS countries. It'll just end up one huge fight, you will still have no chance of wiping Mexico and Portugal off the map.
Repost...lame.