Issues about Mexico

Issues about Mexico

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Petermil's picture
Issues about Mexico

Morelos is replaced by Guerrero in 1814 (Ok!), but I think other mexican caudillos have too much chance for life. I proposal:

-Hidalgo: survival end year 1812

-Matamoros: survival end year 1814

Generic "Caudillo" or other leaders could replace them: Guadalupe Victoria, etc.


Petermil's picture


Spanish troops should not be able to cross Missisipi river to invade regions of the United States (Mississippi, Louisiana, etc).  And the Spanish troops of Cuba were barely able to make a garrison in Florida. The true enemies for the Adventurers were the Seminole warriors.

Petermil's picture

Adventurers and Filibusters are very important in both Floridas, Texas and northern Mexico.  A well-know example was the expedition of Xavier Mina in Texas and northem Mexico (others was Gutierrez-Magee, Perry, Long, Clairborne, Matheews, Mc Gregor, Aury, etc etc a lot).

Another very important aspect is the US privateers, about 10,000 sailors and about 100 ships of privateers. They fought in the sea equal to the naval war of 1812, blocking Spanish trade and ports.


MiguelST's picture

We have some cards regarding texas, Mina and USA so this area is covered.

The Spanish cannot go into Lousiana, only USA should. Fixed

I dont think we have to force the historical death of the leaders, Im sure Mexican people will love to play with Hidalgo more time. 

Its different when they were replaced imo.

Petermil's picture

M:"We have some cards regarding texas, Mina and USA so this area is covered."

    - Its not enough.  Texas is very important. Florida too. But I not see nothing there. There are very few units of rebels and adventurers (or none).  Im not see the help of Indians (for example nothing about war of Seminoles).  Sorry but in East Florida at least is needed the republic of East Florida and the expedition of Gregor Mc Gregor.  Also doesn't look no one of hundred ships of american privateers (Point of pivateers are prizes with cards -no units playable-). At least fleets of Laffite, Aury, Taylor, etc the more famous.

M:"The Spanish cannot go into Lousiana, only USA should. Fixed"

      OK. Baltimore need the same, and the bay of New Orleans (St Louis) and bay of Baltimore (Cheasepeak bay), British Bahamas waters, Fort Royal bay (Jamaica) , french Antillas bay (Guadalupe), etc.  The few spanish warships not to do nothing in neutral waters (Although the insurgent privateers leave there precisely under flags of many countries).

M: "I dont think we have to force the historical death of the leaders, Im sure Mexican people will love to play with Hidalgo more time". 

   What it is sure is that it is gamey (and not wargame). To explain the emergence of múltiple guerrillas the priest must be captured, and its movement be dissolved and dispersed. I do not know how many Mexican people love it, but I know that there are a lot of  mexican leaders as Morelos, Guerrero, Guadalupe Victoria, Osorno, Mier y Teran, etc. to do it historically correct.

M: "Its different when they were replaced imo".

   You can remplaced Hidalgo by Morelos (or any other). It is more accurate. 



MiguelST's picture

tt is just way of how you see that conflict relevance like Florida and me. Imo we could even have removed completely Florida and USA from the game unless we add a fictional scenario involving UK, France and USA. But we cant afford that right now.

The main conflict here is Mexico, but we give the player some details about other conflicts during that time in the former Spanish territories in that era.

With Texas happens the same, some small armies in several ocasions crossed the border with USA to fight for Texan independence. That happens in the game, for me is ok, for you no. But I understand that this happens with wargames, each player has different points of view, thats ok.



Petermil's picture

The Mexican scenario without the United States is incomplete (It is not a matter of point of view or relevance).  It's the same as have a scenario of Buenos Aires and ignoring Montevideo. Having a scenario limited only Mexico, even more worked (although we have not talked about it yet), is no excuse to have an incomplete scenario in Texas or nothing in Florida.

The role of the europeans and UK or France is completely different from the United States of America. These european countries have nothing to do with each other, and what we are talking about North América.

The territorial expansion of the United States in the regions of Florida and Texas doesn't happen sweetly and peacefully, without the participation of adventurers and privateers.  These are true guerrillas that remain in the territory, and enter from the borders. The adventurers failed in Texas' first independence (battle of Medina), but the adventurers succeeded in liberating Florida, which annexed to the United States. Many adventurers was military dressed as civilians.

The territorial annexation of the United States of these new republics of West Florida and  the attempt in East Florida and Texas are part of this war according to historiography, although it is done with irregular troops and privateers (nothing new).

Remember that this is a war between unrecognized states (as republic of Florida or Texas), and also, for the territorial expansion of two powerful countries: Portugal (annexation of Uruguay) and the United States (annexation of Florida). However, you have detailed Portugal, but you prefer to ignore the United States. I do not understand why you do not put at least the groups of adventurers, their units and their leaders that we mentioned in this conversation:

1-Augustus Magee (Texas)

2-James Long (Texas)

3- William Claiborne (West Florida)

4-George Mathews (East Florida)

5-Gregor Mc Gregor (East Florida) 

As in all border territories, such as Araucania (Chile), troops of Indian warriors support both sides in Texas and Florida. 

I must also remember that American privateers from New Orleans and Baltimore blocked Spanish trade, totally blocked. American privateers, under flags of liberators, was decisive as in the naval War of 1812 (UKvsUS).





MiguelST's picture

I will answer with an example:

Magee. Crossed the Sabine commanding 180 men in August 1812, joined another Patriot army (dont know the number but they used to call army a very reduced number of men) So image, in the game this is a leader and a weak unit. They took a city and he died in February 1813 while he was under siege by the royalists, So he should be in the game 1 single turn, same for his unit.

Interesting for a game covering Texas, only Texas. Not in a game o 6 months per turn, IMHO, not relevant.

Rest of players can join the discussion ;)


Petermil's picture

I accept your example. Let's see, I think Agustus Magee is one of the Liberators and his fight was relevant in Texas. The same as the rest of American patriots and Texans. Its number of 180 men without explanations can lead us to a mistake, if we do a superficial reading and do not have a deeper knowledge of the subject. So I will try to explain with your own example to take knowledge and come to some conclusions.

 Maybe you already knew that the Texas revolution began long before 1813 or maybe you didn't know:

(Turn 1_1810) The priest Hidalgo revolts in Mexico on September 16, 1810 and immediately sends his revolutionaries to Texas (the leader Aldama arrives that October). After some conspiracies finally the whole garrison of San Antonio de Bexar (800 men) revolts in favor of the Patriots on January 22, 1811, at the hands of his commander, Brigadier Juan Bautista Casas (at that time the priest Hidalgo is at the gates of taking Mexico). Therefore the First Texas Rebellion begins in the same turn that priest Hidalgo appears in 1810 (Texas Rebellion begins at start the game and not mistakenly 1813 late).

(Turn 2_1811) But Hidalgo is defeated in Mexico, and tries to flee to Texas, but is captured and shot at the border by Spanish frontier troops from Texas. (But Miguel say: "he should be in the game 1 single turn"..."in a game o 6 months per turn, IMHO, not relevant". But Hidalgo dies in Turn 2, then, according to your reasoning, Hidalgo isn't relevant Miguel or what? Because you said the opposite too:  "I dont think we have to force the historical death of the leaders"​).  OK. Immediately, the Revolutionary Board of San Antonio de Bexar sends the leader Gutierrez de Lara to ask for help from the United States of America in March 1811. Spain, advances and mobilizes large forces to retake the province of Texas. Not only all border and presidial garrisons. Also disembark all the Regiment of Veracruz, in Tamaupilas, and march to the Texas border.

(Turn 3_1811) Gutierrez has arrived in Louisiana and travels to Washington, meets with the secretary of state of the president of the United States James Madison and gets material and moral help. The United States claims the province of Texas as part of Luisina that bought Napoleon Bonaparte (and a Bonaparte try to be king of Spain).

(Turn 4_1812) In April 1812 the Texas Republican Army is already created in Lusiana based on adventurers and filibusters. At his head is a bright and young West Point officer Agustus Magee, of Irish descent, who had participated in the takeover of Baton Rouge in Florida. This officer disciplined and shaped this small army but of excellent quality. They immediately cross and make raids on the border through Nacogdoches.

(Turn 5_1812) The entire army of Augustus Magee moves to Texas. They fly a new completely green flag of freedom. The army consists of 1300 adventurers of excellent training and three field cannons (1,300 soldiers you read correctly are not 180 is a mistake). Along the way they are joined by Indian warriors to add 2,000 men (Coushatta tribes).

  (Turn 6_1813) The liberating army of Texas has taken the capital San Antonio de Bexar. The patriotic garrisons of Texans join the liberating army of the north. The president of the United States is informed. But Augsutis Magee dies from illness in the Siege of Espiritu Santo that concludes with a victory of the patriots.



(Turn 7_1813) On this turn, the Spanish army of Joaquin Arredondo crosses the Texas border through Laredo, and attacks San Antonio de Bexar. The battle of Medina takes place. It is the bloodiest battle in all of Texas history. Underlines that we should been play seven turns of six-month playing the First Texas Revolution to get to this moment of the game. The order of battle is as follows:

ORDER OF BATTLE MEDINA (1813) , Medina river or Encinal de Medina, cross Arroyo Galván (Galván creek).


ARMY OF THE NORTH (2.300 men)

Commander Henry Perry (second in command, later he invades Texas and Mexico in 1816 with filibusters expedition of Xavier Mina)

Regimient Washington (800 adventurers from  USA)

Regimient Madison (adventurers from USA)

Infantry Militia Tejanos

Artillery (22 cannons)

6 cannons 8 punds

1 cannons 6 punds

9 cannons 3 punds

6 cannons 1 o 2 punds

Cavalry Miguel Menchaca (colonial officer)

Riders Tejanos and Americans

Indians Coushatta 200 warriors



Commander Brig. José Joaquín de Arredondo


Regimment of Infantry Fijo de Veracruz, Col. Pedro Lemus ( 3 X Battalions)

Garrison  Bahía Espíritu Santo (Presidial)

Company Voluntarios de Tula

Militia Nuevo Santander

Militia Presidio Río Grande


11 cannons (12,8,4 punds), 80 artillery men

Cavalry (1.195 riders) LTn Coronel Zambrano

Squadron Dragones Nueva España

Squadrons Presidiales

Squadrons of Elizondo 180 riders, Tn Coronel Ignacio Elizondo

Squadrons of Zambrano 150 riders, Tn Coronel Juan Manuel Zambrano



(Turn 7_1813)  The Spaniards are forced to send a European expeditionary troops recently landed in Mexico to consolidate the territory of Texas against Texan insurgency, and defense of Luisiana borders against adventurers. Extremadura embark the full infantry regiment Extremadura: (1000 expeditionary men) Commander: Col Melchor Alvarez. A convoy of seven transports escorted by Warship "Miño" (54 cannons). From Cadiz (February, 1813) to Veracruz  (April). Extremadura countermarch from Xalapa to Veracruz and weaken Mexico, and goes to Texas and Luisiana borders.


Che Guevara with a small group of 82 men embarked in Tuxpan, Mexico and landed on the beaches of Cuba on December 2, 1956. We all know what happened. In the war against insurgency you cannot despise a small group of combatants. You cannot underestimate the strength of hearts and minds. I know that you are accustomed to the hundreds of thousands of men of the regular armies of world wars, Airplanes and Tanks. I'm sorry. This is the war against insurgency. A Guerrilla. A revolutionary war You cannot despair or be confident and calm. Because a handful of men are able to change history.

MiguelST's picture

There is already a Card in the game that can be draw from turn five and gives Magee and Gutierrez Lara into the game. So no issue with Magee at all.

You can see Ldr_P_Magee.png graphic in the Grapchis\Units folder

Maybe no one has played yet the card, that could be a bug.

Petermil's picture

Sorry as you can see It is not just a card (please). The Mexico scenario must be historically corrected at these points:

1- In Turn 1 there must be a group of Patriots Militias in San Antonio de Bexar (The Texas rebellion is in 1810).

2- The territory of the Rebels and Adventurers must include regions: El Paso and Tamaupilas and also Mobile, West Florida and East Florida. Regions are not territory of the United States. (But a given Card + Dice should append territories of Texas and Florida to the United States, but only if they are without Spanish troops. This will force the Spanish player to send the expeditionary regiments to Texas and Florida.

3- Mexican units should not go beyond Bexar. The Rebels must not go beyond Guanajuato (Group of Xavier Mina 1816).

4- Augustus Magee's units group must play in Bexar in 1813 with two regiments of adventurers (1,300 men) + Indian Warriors (Luisiana).

5- Henry Perry  units Group must play in Tamaupilas in 1816 (Adventurers)

6- James Long units Group must play in Nacogdoches in 1819 (Adventurers)+ Indian Warriors (Luisiana).

7- William Claiborne must play as Card in 1810 (Florida)

8- George Mathews units Group must play in East Florida in March 1812 (Adventurers).


Spain must fight to eliminate totally these invasions of Adventurers with Spaniards Expeditionaries  or Indian Warriors (in Florida); or the Rebel territory can be annexed to the United States with a CARD and DICE: The congress of the United States approves the annexation of the Rebel Territory of...

That is, precisely what the United States government paid to Napoleon or Spain (Texas, Louisiana or Florida).


PS leaders

 You must to review the Biography of leaders to put the Rank and Hierachy. It is not possible like this:

- (Priest)  Miguel Hidalgo rank (2**) Hierachy (A)

- (West Point)  Augustus Magee rank (1*) Hierachy (B)

And Your approach does not work:  The priest Hidalgo never led any army NEVER! (Hidalgo is a priest has his own generals-Allende,Aldama,Abasolo,etc) and was executed in the first turn. But Augustus Magee lead an Army of the North, he did not lose any battle and died by illness. The Leader who must have the opportunity to live must be the one who dies by illness. And not Hidalgo, the executed (which is also not a Militar, and  he never planified o executed any battle, he was a inspirational leader or politician). Hidalgo should be a Card (maybe the first of this scenario).

MiguelST's picture

In the first version of the mod already existed Hidalgo as unit, it wasnt added by me. Anyway I maintained him, I know he wasnt a general, but the figure was together with other military leader, that is what I represent. 

I see that now I have to explain every single design decision, but believe me, I have a lot of other things to do and not to redo a complete scenario.

You can be sure this is not going to happen.