Best way to play each power

[Roads]

Dang you're talking about an aggresive Britain.
 
I don't doubt that Britain can pull of your approach, but Russia needs to have a tougher stomach than that.  As noted before, Russia NEEDS Sweden, more than anyone other than France needs any minor. 
 
A Britain/Russia fight over Sweden hurts both of them dramatically, and so is in neither's interest.  But it hurts Britain rather more than Russia. 
 
What else did Russia have to do in the first 6 months of 1805 anyway?  Maybe she has some interest in helping out the Germans, but unless they are making very good offers in Jan '05, it's usually better to wait and see those offers get better.  Besides which you can still provide a fair amount of help to the Germans and fight Britain over Sweden at the same time.  You need to keep Turkey quiet, but with no British power in the Med at all Turkey will have plenty to do.
 
But Britain has lots to do in early '05, and not much to do it with.  She can fight and beat the Russian fleet in the Baltic, but that will stretch the 1805 Royal Navy to the limit (unless of course Britain has thrashed the French fleet before the dispute in the Baltic).  A simple hiccup from Spain and a French corps or two will be loose in England.  And Britain cannot fight in Portugal and Sweden at the same time, to fight in Sweden she will have to concede Portugal to Spain (and vice versa). 
 
Spain is the key for Russia here.  Unless Spain acquieses Britain cannot do anything stop Russia from taking Sweden.  And Russia in Sweden is very much in Spain's interest - even if she wants to ally with GB a Russian Sweden makes her that much more important to GB.  I'd talk the Spaniards head off about how much 3 Russian fleets and the Swedish fleet can do to help Spain down the road.   
 
And I'd turn Britain's approach to the Germans on it's head.  Britain is already getting Denmark, I say, why does she need Sweden too?  Which is more helpful to A/P, a British corps in Normany, or 5 Russian corps in Poland?  If the British weren't so damned obstiante about Sweden I could be much more helpful in Central Europe.  Russian players need to understand that while Russia does need to contain France, Austria, Prussia, and Britain all need to contain her much more than Russia does.  It's in Russsia's interest to help them, but not for free.  And the opening bid for Russian help in 1805 should certainly be Sweden. 
 
And Russia is much more able to ignore a passive aggresive GB than most other players.  The loss of trade and/or subsidies probably means fewer artillery and guards, which is a shame, but Russian trade really isn't that big, and she's usually last in line for British subsidies anyway.  Turkey is a real concern, but to Russia Turkey exists as a source of PPs and an aggressive Turkey is usually not a bad thing.  Especially if Spain is friendly.
 
Bottom line is Russia should want a basically friendly Britain.  But she should want Sweden more.  A showdown in 1805 hurts Britain far more than it hurts Russia.  And if Britain gets Sweden it'll be much harder for Russia to get her out later on than she will be in 1805. 

[Sardonic]

If I were Russia:

I would tell England that he can accept Russia getting Sweden, OR he can accept having Russia as an enemy
for the next 120 turns.

No negotiation, and no turning back.

France will be glad to ally with Russia if need be.

That will be Englands choice.


Sweden isnt a negotiable point. England preventing Russia getting Sweden is a unfreindly act.
It is obvious.

[Barbu]

A lot of the recent answers seem to have in mind a smart british players facing spanish and russian players with barely enough brain cells to keep breathing.

Roads is right on. Spain and Russia share pretty much the same interest - which is having the minor fleets in their hands, but not to have to actually fight the brits preferrably. And they have the combined military might to achieve that, and the initial political situation (france) greatly favors them.

[Joisey]

I have to admit that in all my games but one, Spain was played by a milqtoast player who was immediately in GB's pocket. For some reason, Spain is a very attractive country to play for timid players. Maybe its because they are not obviously on the French or the Coalitions list to confront at the outset of the game, and the Turks look easy to beat.

Without Spain as an ally, Russia has a hard time fighting GB for Sweden. Further, I've seen GB use its economic clout and naval superiority to pretty much dictate how the med and coastal minors would be divvied up by the coalition players before the game even started. I've actually seen the Spanish player repeatedly agree to not touch Portugal, leaving it for GB at its leisure, in return for a brokered deal whereby it gets southern Italy. As I said, timid Spanish players![8|]

On the other hand, I've also rarely seen the A/P player give Russia much of a problem about seizing the neutral Polish provinces.

[Roads]

What neutral Polish provinces? Those provinces belong to Prussia (mostly) and Austria in 1805. While it can make sense for A/P to give them to Russia, they'd better make sure they get a good deal.

[Joisey]

Oh, I must be thinking of the 1792 scenario.  Never mind.

[Murat]

Usually if we get a weak player they end up in Turkey. Maybe they feel more comfortable killing off feudal corps.  We usually start our new players in Prussia if we can so they are less likely to get overwhelmed by the machiavellian diplomacy. "You are Prussia, you will learn every aspect of this game. Britain will show you how he is doing his naval battles. You only have to remember one thing - Austria is your best buddy, no matter what."  I mean Austria and Prussia spend most of the game coordinating anyway and we always had strong Austrian players, so why not have them train the newbie?

[Joisey]

I've never played EiA with a seventh player.  I've always seen Prussia run by GB.
 
Tips For Turkey:  How many of you have seen this one?  Turkey charges a $1 access tax for allowing British trade with Russian Black Sea ports (paid by Russia).  In the same vein, Turkey will charge a negotatied fee for sheltering any fleet in the Black Sea that wants to hide from the British Navy (ussually France or Spain).

[montesaurus]

In regards to an opening Turkish  strategy, I once saw Turkey trying to form an alliance with Russia. In that way TU could help discourage a back stab due to the big loss of political points. Initially the Russian player refused because I think he wanted to keep TU as a possible expansion area after France was contained. So, during the initial set up, since TU sets up after RU, the Turkish player set up most of his army on the Russian border, while the Russian was dispersed, and poised to take on SW or to send troops to assist the AU/PR coalition. During the first diplomacy phase the Turkish player advised the Russian either he forms an alliance or he would declare war on Russia and attack him. The Russian seeing the error of his ways, and not wanting his rich southern provinces overrun before the first economic period acquiesced and formed the alliance! Plus, this is one of the few times in the game the Turkish player will have a large numerical advantage over the Russian player.
Another opening Turkish ploy was to form an alliance with Prussia. Players might think why would any self respecting Prussian want an alliance with Turkey? It is mutually beneficial! Pr has an ally to help him with a back stabbing Russian or Austrian, which could occur if France is contained. Both AU and RU would hesitate on declaring war on PR if their rear areas are not secured! Or, if Prussia/TU are ambitious and doing well they could coordinate to attack either RU or AU.
Viva La Bataille!

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

If I were Russia:

I would tell England that he can accept Russia getting Sweden, OR he can accept having Russia as an enemy
for the next 120 turns.

No negotiation, and no turning back.

France will be glad to ally with Russia if need be.

That will be Englands choice.


Sweden isnt a negotiable point. England preventing Russia getting Sweden is a unfreindly act.
It is obvious.

Ive read a lot of viable options and this is the beauty of this game, but with this one a heartily disagree.
EiA is so much more than this WW2-like posture (TOTALER KRIEG!). You'd throw all options overboard for the entire game like this. This game is usually won by the shrewdest diplomat, and this isnt shrewd diplomacy.

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: Norden

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

If I were Russia:

I would tell England that he can accept Russia getting Sweden, OR he can accept having Russia as an enemy
for the next 120 turns.

No negotiation, and no turning back.

France will be glad to ally with Russia if need be.

That will be Englands choice.


Sweden isnt a negotiable point. England preventing Russia getting Sweden is a unfreindly act.
It is obvious.

Ive read a lot of viable options and this is the beauty of this game, but with this one a heartily disagree.
EiA is so much more than this WW2-like posture (TOTALER KRIEG!). You'd throw all options overboard for the entire game like this. This game is usually won by the shrewdest diplomat, and this isnt shrewd diplomacy.

I dont recall saying it was shrewd. But it is blunt, and will be self-fullfilling. Russia needs Sweden to gain Dominance.
As Russia, I want the English cards on the table at the start. Will he oppose me becoming Dominant or will he not?
I want the answer at the start of the game. Not after 60 turns and assisting England against France.
If England intends to oppose Dominant Russia, that is an unfreindly act. What could possibly be clearer?
And it isnt very sophisticated of England, to throw the two largest land powers in Europe, into a coalition
against England.

Negotiation would imply that England ACCEPT a Russian Sweden. And try to obtain a good position by acquiescing.

But all too often England wants to have it all....I agree there.

[yammahoper]

If Russia seeks dominance, I think every nation on the board will oppose it.  Sounds like a great way for Russia to face a coalition of powers who will divy the prize of a conquered Russia.  As GB, I would gladly sponser the war, put off the fight againt France, and grap all the out lieing minors as the others surge into Russia.
 
lynn

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

If Russia seeks dominance, I think every nation on the board will oppose it.  Sounds like a great way for Russia to face a coalition of powers who will divy the prize of a conquered Russia.  As GB, I would gladly sponser the war, put off the fight againt France, and grap all the out lieing minors as the others surge into Russia.

lynn

Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek.
If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple.
Otherwise, your asking for altruism.

And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France.
Especially if Russian troops are helping him.

But have it your way.

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

If Russia seeks dominance, I think every nation on the board will oppose it.  Sounds like a great way for Russia to face a coalition of powers who will divy the prize of a conquered Russia.  As GB, I would gladly sponser the war, put off the fight againt France, and grap all the out lieing minors as the others surge into Russia.

lynn

Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek.
If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple.
Otherwise, your asking for altruism.

And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France.
Especially if Russian troops are helping him.

But have it your way.

I think this "demand" that Russia become dominant is a fundamentally undiplomatic course of play. First, its a given that Prussia and Austria are going to be natural allies with England against France. Rather than make obnoxious demands on England regarding Russia's pursuit of dominance, all you need to do is let this coalition work against France for you. Sending a small contingent to help potentially nets you PP to stay on track to win.

Instead, you counsel the Russian to play like a mafiaso running a protection racket. Yeah, Austria and Prussia are going to be screwed as a result of your selfishness. But the big winner will be France. France will take 3 provinces from Prussia and Austria, precluding you from getting the territories you wanted for dominance. And when the Grand Armee enters Russia, you'll be facing the French collossus alone, as your failure to be a team player resulted in Prussia and Austria being laid prostrate, and a pissed off England letting you swing in the wind. Expect Turkey to invade along with France, because you will have obviously alienated anyone from being your ally! [8|]

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

In regards to an opening Turkish  strategy, I once saw Turkey trying to form an alliance with Russia. In that way TU could help discourage a back stab due to the big loss of political points. Initially the Russian player refused because I think he wanted to keep TU as a possible expansion area after France was contained. So, during the initial set up, since TU sets up after RU, the Turkish player set up most of his army on the Russian border, while the Russian was dispersed, and poised to take on SW or to send troops to assist the AU/PR coalition. During the first diplomacy phase the Turkish player advised the Russian either he forms an alliance or he would declare war on Russia and attack him. The Russian seeing the error of his ways, and not wanting his rich southern provinces overrun before the first economic period acquiesced and formed the alliance! Plus, this is one of the few times in the game the Turkish player will have a large numerical advantage over the Russian player.
Another opening Turkish ploy was to form an alliance with Prussia. Players might think why would any self respecting Prussian want an alliance with Turkey? It is mutually beneficial! Pr has an ally to help him with a back stabbing Russian or Austrian, which could occur if France is contained. Both AU and RU would hesitate on declaring war on PR if their rear areas are not secured! Or, if Prussia/TU are ambitious and doing well they could coordinate to attack either RU or AU.
Viva La Bataille!

Turkey has a tough road to hoe. It is naturally an ally of France against Austria, Russia, and Spain. Unfortunately, Turkey's aspirations for the Ottoman Empire are completely at the mercy of the Royal Navy, which is liable to take a dim view of the Turk becoming a French poodle. [:-]

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

If Russia seeks dominance, I think every nation on the board will oppose it.  Sounds like a great way for Russia to face a coalition of powers who will divy the prize of a conquered Russia.  As GB, I would gladly sponser the war, put off the fight againt France, and grap all the out lieing minors as the others surge into Russia.

lynn

Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek.
If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple.
Otherwise, your asking for altruism.

And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France.
Especially if Russian troops are helping him.

But have it your way.

I think this "demand" that Russia become dominant is a fundamentally undiplomatic course of play. First, its a given that Prussia and Austria are going to be natural allies with England against France. Rather than make obnoxious demands on England regarding Russia's pursuit of dominance, all you need to do is let this coalition work against France for you. Sending a small contingent to help potentially nets you PP to stay on track to win.

Instead, you counsel the Russian to play like a mafiaso running a protection racket. Yeah, Austria and Prussia are going to be screwed as a result of your selfishness. But the big winner will be France. France will take 3 provinces from Prussia and Austria, precluding you from getting the territories you wanted for dominance. And when the Grand Armee enters Russia, you'll be facing the French collossus alone, as your failure to be a team player resulted in Prussia and Austria being laid prostrate, and a pissed off England letting you swing in the wind. Expect Turkey to invade along with France, because you will have obviously alienated anyone from being your ally! [8|]

Really? It is ok for England and France to be dominant, but NOT Russia.
I suppose you feel the same for the other 4 powers?

And somehow it is ok for ENGLAND to get Sweden, but not Russia? Why is that again?
No, I will fight an England with that attitude, and I can tell you exactly what will happen.

He will quit playing roughly 36 turns into the game when he realizes that he cant stop the French.
Who's fault is that again?

Seems to me that a Dominant Russia makes it much easier to contain France.
Silly me.

BTW I dont fear a solo invasion of Russia by France nor with his sidekick Turkey.
Only ENGLAND has the kind of cash needed to allow Turkey to move his corp around.

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

ORIGINAL: Joisey

ORIGINAL: Sardonic




Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek.
If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple.
Otherwise, your asking for altruism.

And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France.
Especially if Russian troops are helping him.

But have it your way.

I think this "demand" that Russia become dominant is a fundamentally undiplomatic course of play. First, its a given that Prussia and Austria are going to be natural allies with England against France. Rather than make obnoxious demands on England regarding Russia's pursuit of dominance, all you need to do is let this coalition work against France for you. Sending a small contingent to help potentially nets you PP to stay on track to win.

Instead, you counsel the Russian to play like a mafiaso running a protection racket. Yeah, Austria and Prussia are going to be screwed as a result of your selfishness. But the big winner will be France. France will take 3 provinces from Prussia and Austria, precluding you from getting the territories you wanted for dominance. And when the Grand Armee enters Russia, you'll be facing the French collossus alone, as your failure to be a team player resulted in Prussia and Austria being laid prostrate, and a pissed off England letting you swing in the wind. Expect Turkey to invade along with France, because you will have obviously alienated anyone from being your ally! [8|]

Really? It is ok for England and France to be dominant, but NOT Russia.
I suppose you feel the same for the other 4 powers?

And somehow it is ok for ENGLAND to get Sweden, but not Russia? Why is that again?
No, I will fight an England with that attitude, and I can tell you exactly what will happen.

He will quit playing roughly 36 turns into the game when he realizes that he cant stop the French.
Who's fault is that again?

Seems to me that a Dominant Russia makes it much easier to contain France.
Silly me.

BTW I dont fear a solo invasion of Russia by France nor with his sidekick Turkey.
Only ENGLAND has the kind of cash needed to allow Turkey to move his corp around.

Are you serious, or are you just roleplaying the stereotypical paranoid Russian????[&:]

Although I've commented on seeing an agressive Britian press it's claim for Sweden, I didn't say that I thought that was how it should be. Really, from the Coalition's point of view, Sweden should go to whatever power can most effectively use it to benefit the coalition. If that means an experienced Brit with the cash to build it quickly, and a good plan to hit France in the rear, so be it. If that means going to an agressive Russian with a hot hand on the chit picks and the dice, then Yip Yip Yahoo for Russia!

BUT, let's go back to your fundamental premise: That you "demand" that Britain sell out its allies, Prussia and Austria, at the outset of the game, in order to serve YOUR selfish desire to be dominant. That they agree to let you declare war on, and take territory, from Britain's two biggest continental allies, not to mention distracting them from taking on France. I think that is mind bogglingly arrogant.

How does taking provinces from Prussian and Austria make you a "team player"? How is that constructive to the task of building an effective coalition against France?

I stand by my original assessment: You want to play that way, fine. But don't expect anyone on the Coalition side to be your buddy for it. All you do is ensure that France is able to defeat Prussia and Austria in detail. From there, France will take all the German and Italian prinicipalities, and then it will come for you.

And with France owning every province from Brittany to Warsaw to Naples, why you think France wouldn't have enough of a slush fund to pay for Turkish supply is beyond me. Having effectively sabotaged the Coalition against France, why should you be surprised if Britain herself funds Turkey against you. It's not like you could do anything about it anyway.

In summary: If it got you to play nice with your neighbors, I'd let you have Sweden as the British player. But no way am I, as Britian, going to stand by and let you carve up Prussia and Austria for your own self aggrandisement---Russian dominance isn't required to defeat France, only that you be willing to send Kutusov and a stack of corps to fight France. Such a course of action by Russia is self-defeating: France will get the provinces you covet in Austria and Prussia long before you do and with no help from other allies, the Russian WILL lose to a co-ordinated invasion by France and Turkey.

Your course of action only leads the Russian to playing the spoiler to the benefit of the French player.

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

ORIGINAL: Joisey




I think this "demand" that Russia become dominant is a fundamentally undiplomatic course of play. First, its a given that Prussia and Austria are going to be natural allies with England against France. Rather than make obnoxious demands on England regarding Russia's pursuit of dominance, all you need to do is let this coalition work against France for you. Sending a small contingent to help potentially nets you PP to stay on track to win.

Instead, you counsel the Russian to play like a mafiaso running a protection racket. Yeah, Austria and Prussia are going to be screwed as a result of your selfishness. But the big winner will be France. France will take 3 provinces from Prussia and Austria, precluding you from getting the territories you wanted for dominance. And when the Grand Armee enters Russia, you'll be facing the French collossus alone, as your failure to be a team player resulted in Prussia and Austria being laid prostrate, and a pissed off England letting you swing in the wind. Expect Turkey to invade along with France, because you will have obviously alienated anyone from being your ally! [8|]

Really? It is ok for England and France to be dominant, but NOT Russia.
I suppose you feel the same for the other 4 powers?

And somehow it is ok for ENGLAND to get Sweden, but not Russia? Why is that again?
No, I will fight an England with that attitude, and I can tell you exactly what will happen.

He will quit playing roughly 36 turns into the game when he realizes that he cant stop the French.
Who's fault is that again?

Seems to me that a Dominant Russia makes it much easier to contain France.
Silly me.

BTW I dont fear a solo invasion of Russia by France nor with his sidekick Turkey.
Only ENGLAND has the kind of cash needed to allow Turkey to move his corp around.

Are you serious, or are you just roleplaying the stereotypical paranoid Russian????[&:]

Although I've commented on seeing an agressive Britian press it's claim for Sweden, I didn't say that I thought that was how it should be. Really, from the Coalition's point of view, Sweden should go to whatever power can most effectively use it to benefit the coalition. If that means an experienced Brit with the cash to build it quickly, and a good plan to hit France in the rear, so be it. If that means going to an agressive Russian with a hot hand on the chit picks and the dice, then Yip Yip Yahoo for Russia!

BUT, let's go back to your fundamental premise: That you "demand" that Britain sell out its allies, Prussia and Austria, at the outset of the game, in order to serve YOUR selfish desire to be dominant. That they agree to let you declare war on, and take territory, from Britain's two biggest continental allies, not to mention distracting them from taking on France. I think that is mind bogglingly arrogant.

How does taking provinces from Prussian and Austria make you a "team player"? How is that constructive to the task of building an effective coalition against France?

I stand by my original assessment: You want to play that way, fine. But don't expect anyone on the Coalition side to be your buddy for it. All you do is ensure that France is able to defeat Prussia and Austria in detail. From there, France will take all the German and Italian prinicipalities, and then it will come for you.

And with France owning every province from Brittany to Warsaw to Naples, why you think France wouldn't have enough of a slush fund to pay for Turkish supply is beyond me. Having effectively sabotaged the Coalition against France, why should you be surprised if Britain herself funds Turkey against you. It's not like you could do anything about it anyway.

In summary: If it got you to play nice with your neighbors, I'd let you have Sweden as the British player. But no way am I, as Britian, going to stand by and let you carve up Prussia and Austria for your own self aggrandisement---Russian dominance isn't required to defeat France, only that you be willing to send Kutusov and a stack of corps to fight France. Such a course of action by Russia is self-defeating: France will get the provinces you covet in Austria and Prussia long before you do and with no help from other allies, the Russian WILL lose to a co-ordinated invasion by France and Turkey.

Your course of action only leads the Russian to playing the spoiler to the benefit of the French player.

All that is YOUR synopsis, not mine.

I said nothing at all about declaring war upon Prussia or Austria.
YOU did.

I said nothing at all about not helping them against France, unless I am busy fighting England of course.

My original post was about SWEDEN.

You see in MY experience, the English player likes to grab Sweden to ENSURE Russia not become Dominant.
He can already do that, by declaring war of course, but that isnt as subtle.
As I said, I want the English cards on the table at the START.

I might point out that the historical result was Russian dominance.

And if you fear other player dominance, then I am sure you understand why the entire world allys against
England to take away YOUR dominance?
Since you apparently feel Dominance is bad.


As for spoiler for France, that is exactly what the English call players that dont conform to their idea of how to play.
If England was more concerned about actually fighting FRANCE, than ensuring Russia knuckle under, then maybe
France would be contained.

[McGuire]

@Joisey & Sardonic (alphabetic)
From my point of view this game is about diplomacy. Not moving chits somewhere and having luck with the dices...
That's part of it - but not the main one!

@Sardonic
I think it's pretty short-sighted to start a game as RU with the announced goal: DOMINANCE
1. There will be a good laugh in the group of players.
2. You will have at least 3-4 players on your borders making sure this does'n happen. Named AU/PR, TU an
GB by sea. Not mentioning that FR (ok, not really at your border).
3. If you really manage. Well the above players will do their very best to take it away again.


I think there's only one way to get dominant as RU. That is if at least AU/PR want you to. For example if the last fight was a draw (with lots of territorial losses for AU/PR) just because you came rushing to assist AU/PR against FR.
This way they'll want a strong ally in the backhand lending them troops.
And we should always remember: another dominant power is weakening FR.

My two cents!

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: McGuire

@Joisey & Sardonic (alphabetic)
From my point of view this game is about diplomacy. Not moving chits somewhere and having luck with the dices...
That's part of it - but not the main one!

@Sardonic
I think it's pretty short-sighted to start a game as RU with the announced goal: DOMINANCE
1. There will be a good laugh in the group of players.
2. You will have at least 3-4 players on your borders making sure this does'n happen. Named AU/PR, TU an
GB by sea. Not mentioning that FR (ok, not really at your border).
3. If you really manage. Well the above players will do their very best to take it away again.


I think there's only one way to get dominant as RU. That is if at least AU/PR want you to. For example if the last fight was a draw (with lots of territorial losses for AU/PR) just because you came rushing to assist AU/PR against FR.
This way they'll want a strong ally in the backhand lending them troops.
And we should always remember: another dominant power is weakening FR.

My two cents!

For France to win, he must attack and defeat Prussia and Austria.
He has no choice.

Since I am aware of this, and since Turkey is a natural target for me.....

But let us assume Your right. Then France will crush them easily.
Defending against a Russian attack that never comes seems a futile endevor.
Because I dont see the play of the game the way you do.

I didnt say I would attack Prussia or Austria. In fact I doubt it is needed.
But Sweden IS needed. And if the English intend to dictate what I do, and how I do it, then
I must say that doesnt sound much like an ally to me.

You see I have played the game many times, and I have found ENGLAND angers far more people than France.
In fact so much so, that often there is a continental wide building of ships with French money.
And no matter how good England is, or how lucky he is, he cant hold off the entire world.

When I play England, I offer 2$ per French casualty, unless it bankrupts me.
Thus the potencial allys know exactly what to expect from me.