Napoleon vs. Louis XIV: Who Brings Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité to France?

[monkspider]

France is a civ that is generally considered among the weakest in the game. However I think that France is actually quite a bit stronger than they are generally given credit for.

One of the main items of dislike for France is it's UU the musketeer. The musketeer is considered by most players to be one of the bottom tier UUs because of it being obsoleted so quickly by chemistry, and it's actual movement bonus is rather odd and unwieldy. I won't make any arguements for the musketeer's overpowering strength, but it actually can be quite powerful under the right circumstances. If you beeline to gunpowder, you can keep musketeers in the field for quite a while, and they are reasonably good attackers against longbows. Moreover, as gunpowder units they are able to disregard defenses provided by walls/castle. If you get them early enough, their extra movement point can help you launch an unexpected lightening strike against key enemy cities!

One great advantage to France is it's starting techs. Starting with the wheel and agriculture, it is one of the only civs who can research pottery right off the bat. Ultra-early cottages can be extremely powerful, and put you in a strong tech-lead.

So when it comes to the leaders, it is a tough choice for me. Both leaders have the industrious trait. Louis XIV is one of the best leaders to achieve a cultural victory with, and if it comes down to purely creative vs aggressive (Napoleon's other trait), I would take creative every time. But the major downside to Louis is that his two traits are the two absolute weakest in the late game. So while his early game is extremely strong, he may be weakened by the time the industrial age comes along.

Napoleon (Boney) has been called the weakest leader in the game by some expert players. Their arguements are that industrious and aggresive have virtually no synergy, and the musketeer is an underpowered unit. On the other hand, Dominae has argued that Napoleon has a brief period in the late classical-early medevial where he is untouchable as a warmonger thanks to his cheap forges. This combined with his aggressive trait would allow him to build an army that is unstoppable for the era. I would add that that aggressive greatly benefits the musketeer, which is much better than most people give it credit for if gotten early enough, and combined with theocracy/vassalage, and cheap forges, Napoleon can produce huge waves of combat III musketeers to quickly overwhelm his enemies. So is Napoleon bottom tier? Possibly. But I wouldn't say he is the absolute worst. Plus, it's posible that he may get a new trait like imperialistic or charismatic in the expansion that might strengthen him a bit.

So, the choice between these two leaders was probably the toughest choice to date for me. In the end, I gave my vote to Louis XIV, but only by the most narrow of margins.

[uberfish]

Louis is a terrible leader. Creative and industrious go together poorly since Industrious can just build stonehenge quickly to get its border pops, and are the two weakest late game traits. In fact, any random Fin or Phi leader wins by culture faster.

Also, besides the cheap forges going well with a medieval attack, Napoleon's musketeers are MUCH better than Louis because they can promote to formation out of the barracks and beat knights. So you have a 2 move unit that defeats all Medieval units in the field and complements mace/cat stacks perfectly.

So it's no contest for me. Napoleon every time.

[Blake]

Napoleon, definitely. He actually has good strategies.

He's also one of the most fearsome AI's at monarch+.

[spammurabi]

I personally don't like either of them very much. If I *had* to pick, I might end up with Napoleon, because Aggressive is a trait which doesn't suck, but I'd really rather avoid them both.

[Nugog]

Who brings Liberte to France?

The Western Alliance?

[PaganPaulwhisky]

Both of them stink. Creative is a decent trait, but when matched with industrious gives a very weak combination for me as I tend to build very few wonders and rarely go for culture. I have had more success with Louis than Napolean, but have been conquest victories on noble level a long time ago (I now just restart if I get either one of these leaders). I think Louis has an advantage on larger maps since he can grab alot of territory and resources (lower difficulty only).

Napolean is probably slightly better overall since the aggresive trait works pretty well with his UU and I like this trait a little better than creative, but that is because of my play style. I have only used Napolean on monarch and emperor and have not won with him yet. I can never get off to good starts with Napolean and have given up before I finish the game every time ( I have only used him a few times and should probably give him another try).

I don't have a problem with the muskateer. There are far worse UU. The problem is getting to the muskateer and being in a good position to use it effectively. Both leaders are bottom tier, but I think Napolean is the better choice.

[axisworks]

I don't like either of them. I've only been allied with Napoleon once, and that was because I bribed him to declare war on my enemy. Otherwise, every game I've played France ends up making dozens of arrogant demands and eventually declares war on me (unless I do, first). Anytime I see Louis or Napoleon on the list of AIs in a game, I just automatically assume they're my enemy, now.

[MasterDave]

The Napoleon AI can be a real pain on Monarch and Emperor level because he WILL build a ton of units early and he WILL declare war on the human player several times unless you knock him out the first time. The AI also does make good use of the musketeers as pillagers, and they effectively are knights that gain defensive bonuses from terrain.

As playable leaders, I prefer Louis, who is a reasonable choice for games where I am going for a culture victory. There are better leaders to choose for a culture victory (Saladin and Ghandi are probably my favorites), but Louis is almost as good as those two.

I won one domination game with Napoleon, but I have lost lost many; aggressive really does not match up with Industrious well. If there were more wonders that create troops (such as King Richard's Crusade in Civ3) or buff troops (Sun Tzu's War academy), perhaps the two traits would work better together.

[Solver]

Napoleon is, by far, the best French leader. For Louis, the Musketeer is nothing special, and Creative/Industrial isn't a great combination. At least Louis can go for the Parthenon and pursue a GP-heavy game.

For Napoleon, the Musketeer becomes a very good UU that can replace the Knight, in some ways. Base strength is 9.9. The Musketeer, with Barracks only, is immediately eligible for Cover, and Combat I/Cover is better than Combat II for when the AI is using Longbowmen. A Combat II Knight is 12, a Combat I/Cover Musketeer is 12.15 vs. Longbowmen, which is slightly better. Of course, you're more likely to have 5 XP upon production, which means that your Musketeer becomes Combat II/Cover, for 13.05 in this situation.

Also, the Musketeer can receive defensive bonuses, which makes it a better pillager than the Knight. And, the Musket has no direct counter, like the Knight is directly countered by the Pikeman. I'm not saying that Napoleon's Musketeer is better than a Knight, but it's certainly a very nice complement, and can even be used alone if you lack Horses.

[Smellycowsquid]

Originally posted by Solver
Napoleon is, by far, the best French leader. For Louis, the Musketeer is nothing special, and Creative/Industrial isn't a great combination. At least Louis can go for the Parthenon and pursue a GP-heavy game.

For Napoleon, the Musketeer becomes a very good UU that can replace the Knight, in some ways. Base strength is 9.9. The Musketeer, with Barracks only, is immediately eligible for Cover, and Combat I/Cover is better than Combat II for when the AI is using Longbowmen. A Combat II Knight is 12, a Combat I/Cover Musketeer is 12.15 vs. Longbowmen, which is slightly better. Of course, you're more likely to have 5 XP upon production, which means that your Musketeer becomes Combat II/Cover, for 13.05 in this situation.

Also, the Musketeer can receive defensive bonuses, which makes it a better pillager than the Knight. And, the Musket has no direct counter, like the Knight is directly countered by the Pikeman. I'm not saying that Napoleon's Musketeer is better than a Knight, but it's certainly a very nice complement, and can even be used alone if you lack Horses.

[Solver]

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that the favorite diplomatic option of them both is capitulation .

[Smellycowsquid]

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Solver
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that the favorite diplomatic option of them both is capitulation .

[Generaldoktor]

Sorry to the cynics, I'm sold on Napoleon after a memorable game where I did build the cheap forges and a massive military with them, intimidated everybody else, while I built beaucoup Wonders too and won an impressive domination victory. This was on Noble, but gee whiz people, to hear some of you talk, this guy couldn't win on settler against barbs alone?

I don't much care how this guy performs as an AI. If he comes up in the mix, I'll deal with him, just like with Montezuma, Tokugawa or Isabella when she's on a rant about my religion, (which I am rather disinclined to change, if I founded it.) There's nothing more fun than fighting a psychotic, fanatic AI.

[Eomer]

My choice would have to be Louis, though I like both. Afterall, both time I used the French leaders, I had an amazing game.
With Louis I chose a random leader and it gave me him. With the scout, I got two extra settlers out of the tribal villages. So, I had three cities before I could even defend them all. Then, I took out Japan and China, and built about half of the Wonders (if not more). It is the highest score I've ever had- over 9000 at the final score. I had a Space Race victory, so who knows how much higher it would have been if I went for a Time victory. Unfortunately, the movie space froze and I never saw who it compared me with (leadership skill equivalent). But the second highest was Lech Walesa- so I know it was a few above that.

So stop dissing France!!