France OP?

[V22 Osprey]

From the AARs, france seems to be overpowered(OP).It seems France ALWAYS win.If I play a more minor country like sweden for example, and I dont win, does that mean france automaicly wins or can the other countries win as well?And if I sweden, can I win against france?

[arras]

Under diplomacy you can find Declaration of Alliance as well as Declaration of war. Napoleon was not brought down by single nation and in case you play against France I advise you to do what historical opponents did ...unite against him with other countries.

France do not ALLWAYS win, personally I beaten them several times.

[Russian Guard]

France is a tougher nut in 1.0.9, IMO, but that's a good thing. She CAN be beaten; using the new patch I just won a game in April 1815 playing Russia.

France was WAY ahead most of the game, but remember that a single decisive surrender will have a big affect on Glory points, which is what I did - I led a coalition against France is 1813 that smashed her. Then I held on for the win.

By the by, I tried an invasion of England after I'd won (continued the game). Hah! With the new invasion rules (non-French or English invasion forces suffer strategic disorder/fatigue and low supply), I got seriously whupped by the Brits. [:D]

[PDiFolco]

Historically France was the era's superpower, no surprise it is in the game, as it is realistic ! OTOH Sweden was an underdog, you can beat France as Bernadotte did, first Napoleon made it King of Sweden, then after 1813 he swapped side and leagued with Russia, Prussia, Austria and G-B. But no real chance to win alone, it's like playing WW2 Sweden vs Germany !!

[arras]

Bye the way this new invasion rules are really strange ...what's the reason why only France and England can perform invasions by water properly? If you speak of playing Russia, Russians did many amphibious operations during wars with Sweden and Turkey. Turks themselves excelled at sea invasions as they have demonstrated through Mediterranean. And what about Spanish with have build wast oversea empire, one of the first to establish marines. I shouldn't forget Swedes with their numerous invasions of Poland, Denmark and German states.

To me it resembles developer forcing player to recreate history (tendency which in my eyes disqualifies lot of otherwise promising games). Would you play France in order to end up on Elbe as Napoleon did? Of course not, you want to rule Europe at the end of the game. But for some reason, some developers feels that no, you should end up on that piece of rock. Namely Gary Grigsby's team excel in that.

[morganbj]

I've beaten France many times as Britain and Austria in the 1803 scenario.  A time or two in 1805 as Britain.  It can be done, but it can be a challenge.  I think the odds are better when it's the AI, rather than a human player, though.
 

[Franck]

it's easier if you don'T go with a 1000 glory win condition... It can b e pretty brutal playing 1805 scenario with that win condition... France will beat austria and get HEAPS of points from that surrender... But there's many scenario and 1792 is considered the best for balance by PBEM right now...

[V22 Osprey]

Thanks for the info.

ORIGINAL: arras

Bye the way this new invasion rules are really strange ...what's the reason why only France and England can perform invasions by water properly? If you speak of playing Russia, Russians did many amphibious operations during wars with Sweden and Turkey. Turks themselves excelled at sea invasions as they have demonstrated through Mediterranean. And what about Spanish with have build wast oversea empire, one of the first to establish marines. I shouldn't forget Swedes with their numerous invasions of Poland, Denmark and German states.

To me it resembles developer forcing player to recreate history (tendency which in my eyes disqualifies lot of otherwise promising games). Would you play France in order to end up on Elbe as Napoleon did? Of course not, you want to rule Europe at the end of the game. But for some reason, some developers feels that no, you should end up on that piece of rock. Namely Gary Grigsby's team excel in that.

I agree arras here, that is not fair that only the 'super' powers get to do overseas invasions without getting such a big penalty.I find it more interesting playing as minor power as its more of challenge, and imagine Sweden actually beating both France and Russia! This feature means that the best option is to play Great Britain, since they are on an island and only have to worry about france.This makes Great Britain OP now. If its optional thats fine, but if its manditory I guess I'm not using the latest patch.That feature has to go.

[Franck]

 
Latest patch added so much more that I believe you'll play it anyways...
 
When you look at it, I believe I never actually landed where there where opposition... Just land somewhere else and walk your way to where you need to be!

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Franck

 
Latest patch added so much more that I believe you'll play it anyways...

When you look at it, I believe I never actually landed where there where opposition... Just land somewhere else and walk your way to where you need to be!

Yeah thats a good point...the Disorder and such goes away over a cpl turns, so if you land nearby you may get a turn or two to reorder your forces.

[Joram]

France 1805 is a monster to be sure but in many of the other scenario's it is powerful but not quite the behemoth is in 1805.  If you are talking about 1805 in particular, I find setting France's power to '-1' is helpful in evening it out a bit.  I find playing with the glory limits actually makes it too easy to be honest so I try not to monkey with those myself.

[Mus]

France and Napoleon were pretty OP in RL.  This led to numerous coalitions to nerf France and Napoleon which eventually happened in 1814.  There were a few bugs though and Napoleon reappeared in 1815 and was still OP, leading to another coalition that resulted in a final nerf in 1815.

[Franck]

lol[;)]

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: arras
Bye the way this new invasion rules are really strange ...what's the reason why only France and England can perform invasions by water properly? If you speak of playing Russia, Russians did many amphibious operations during wars with Sweden and Turkey. Turks themselves excelled at sea invasions as they have demonstrated through Mediterranean. And what about Spanish with have build wast oversea empire, one of the first to establish marines. I shouldn't forget Swedes with their numerous invasions of Poland, Denmark and German states.

To me it resembles developer forcing player to recreate history (tendency which in my eyes disqualifies lot of otherwise promising games). Would you play France in order to end up on Elbe as Napoleon did? Of course not, you want to rule Europe at the end of the game. But for some reason, some developers feels that no, you should end up on that piece of rock. Namely Gary Grigsby's team excel in that.

France and England suffer 50% disorder chances from amphibious invasions whereas other nations suffer automatic disorder; this is a relatively small bonus, and it is still quite possible to perform amphibious invasions with other nations in the game. Naval historians I've read tend to put the naval logistical capabilities of France and Britain at a higher level than those of the other major nations of this period, and this rule is meant to reflect that superiority.