What should the French Player try and accomplish during Operation Sealion. Taking London is easy and destroy's British Morale. Should you make piece with them, or continue the war until you can annex some territory? What is worth asking for? I'm curious because I could probably conquer the entire island right now, and I likely won't be able to do a land invasion of England on my own. Demoblizing their fleet seems worthwhile as well. But, holding London gets me an insane amount of victory points and I don't want to give it up. The Austro-Russians are coming, but Ney, Devoult, and Messena should hold them off.
Also, does the Grand campaign have the potential to end with the 100 days?
My inclination would be to role-play the situation. I can't imagine the British allowing any part of their homeland to be annexed historically, so I would play it that way in the game. Come to some peace agreement, perhaps having the UK cede some overseas territory, if that's possible in the game.
I hope that the British AI would be able to make life miserable for any French occupation force long-term, if you choose to conquer and hold the UK.
I'm really interested to hear about what happens in your game. I'm going to start the Sea Lion campaign and play the UK, to see what the French AI is capable of doing long-term. For instance, will the AI be able to shift Napoleon and most of the Grand Army back to the continent when needed there?
I hope that the British AI would be able to make life miserable for any French occupation force long-term, if you choose to conquer and hold the UK.
I'm really interested to hear about what happens in your game. I'm going to start the Sea Lion campaign and play the UK, to see what the French AI is capable of doing long-term. For instance, will the AI be able to shift Napoleon and most of the Grand Army back to the continent when needed there?
I conquered Barbados so likely that's coming with me. While England would not want to lose any homeland, they may not have a choice. The Home Army is not well led. London fell and with it surrendered much of the main British Army (I used the Surrender decision and it worked.) While Annexing seems unrealistic, the VP gain of holding London is insanely large, and further I really think doing something drastic to England is necessary. I doubt I could slip an army into England again. What I may do is force them to demobilize their military and pay as much money as possible, then when they inevitably go back to war with me, I'll have naval superiority.
Are we even allowed to make peace with England? Or will they continue to oppose France forever? Is there a decision that simulates doing to England what France did to Austria and Prussia? I'm curious about that too.
Are we even allowed to make peace with England? Or will they continue to oppose France forever? Is there a decision that simulates doing to England what France did to Austria and Prussia? I'm curious about that too.
I have not yet decided what to do in case of (likely) conquest of England by France... I am open to suggestions here.
One option would be to try to create a forced eace treaty (like Tilsitt / Pressburg) with what Napoleon would have probably "asked", but then we should decide where the game goes after that...a victory in England means a French domination of Europe, so the game's "interest" is almost gone...
Your ideas ?
One option would be to try to create a forced eace treaty (like Tilsitt / Pressburg) with what Napoleon would have probably "asked", but then we should decide where the game goes after that...a victory in England means a French domination of Europe, so the game's "interest" is almost gone...
Your ideas ?
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
Revolutionary France would probably mean guillotines in Westminster and flames of war through Britain.
L'Empereur, however, would have to treat a fellow monarch in a respectful and honorable way, seeking to first and foremost seek concessions that have the British officially legitimize the Bonaparte dynasty and abolish Bourbon claims, so further wars would mean he is just one of the club of powers IF other powers accepted the same idea, which they need not do. A royal marriage seems unthinkable but possible.
Harsh treatment would undermine this critical goal and unify Europe against Napoleon. Obtaining large reparations from Britain would also be important, but impeded if the specie in the treasury and banks were shipped off to Canada or nearer friendly powers for safety.
HM Government would if needful join the Bourbons as a government in exile. Depending on UK weakness in Ireland, there might be a rising for independence (as a French satellite?). Maybe the Scots as well.
Gets complicated. I don't know how flexible events/decisions could be, but there should be a range of options.
L'Empereur, however, would have to treat a fellow monarch in a respectful and honorable way, seeking to first and foremost seek concessions that have the British officially legitimize the Bonaparte dynasty and abolish Bourbon claims, so further wars would mean he is just one of the club of powers IF other powers accepted the same idea, which they need not do. A royal marriage seems unthinkable but possible.
Harsh treatment would undermine this critical goal and unify Europe against Napoleon. Obtaining large reparations from Britain would also be important, but impeded if the specie in the treasury and banks were shipped off to Canada or nearer friendly powers for safety.
HM Government would if needful join the Bourbons as a government in exile. Depending on UK weakness in Ireland, there might be a rising for independence (as a French satellite?). Maybe the Scots as well.
Gets complicated. I don't know how flexible events/decisions could be, but there should be a range of options.
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
By the way, PhilThib, what are the rules about what may be asked and given in a peace treaty, and how can claims to land arise or be created so it could be taken in WON? Someone mentioned something about holding a capital and some cities or objectives, depending on the size of the defeated power, but I'm not clear whether than was descriptive or a suggestion, and there ought to be limits. Favorable trade concessions by Britain would themselves have considerable value.
France just sitting on London seems like a cancer for the dynasty and French long-term prospects in Europe and outside reasonable diplomatic bounds. It isn't the Dark Ages or the early 20th Century sandbox, after all.
France just sitting on London seems like a cancer for the dynasty and French long-term prospects in Europe and outside reasonable diplomatic bounds. It isn't the Dark Ages or the early 20th Century sandbox, after all.
I am a bit unfamiliar about the give and take of diplomacy...because the conquest of England would be such an unfamiliar and unusual situation, my suggestion is to form a custom peace treaty by scripted event.
I suppose that Napoleon would probably show some reason if he manages to conquer England... he would probably ask for some of the 'bones of contention" that led to the resuming of war in 1803 to be lifted: more open commerce with France, return of Malta to France, possibly transfer of Gibraltar to Spain (or France?), probably some West Indies isles (Barbados) and trading posts here and there (may be Africa)...depending on the size of the victory, even Madras (renamed Pondichery) could be taken by France and Ceylon transferred to the Batavian republic (Netherland)...
Financial war indemnity would certainly be a must.
The real issues would also be on the size of the RN.. Napy might ask some reduction, but Britain would most likely not swallow this...may be some ship transfers between RN and France (common practice in that age to use captured SOL)..and some restrictions on the RN could be translated by removal of some British (naval) national modifiers.
Depending who is at war could also have some impact: if USA is allied with France, then Canada would be transferred to US (if at least Lower Canada is invaded I would say)...Gib would go to Spain if Spain is allied...
I suppose that Napoleon would probably show some reason if he manages to conquer England... he would probably ask for some of the 'bones of contention" that led to the resuming of war in 1803 to be lifted: more open commerce with France, return of Malta to France, possibly transfer of Gibraltar to Spain (or France?), probably some West Indies isles (Barbados) and trading posts here and there (may be Africa)...depending on the size of the victory, even Madras (renamed Pondichery) could be taken by France and Ceylon transferred to the Batavian republic (Netherland)...
Financial war indemnity would certainly be a must.
The real issues would also be on the size of the RN.. Napy might ask some reduction, but Britain would most likely not swallow this...may be some ship transfers between RN and France (common practice in that age to use captured SOL)..and some restrictions on the RN could be translated by removal of some British (naval) national modifiers.
Depending who is at war could also have some impact: if USA is allied with France, then Canada would be transferred to US (if at least Lower Canada is invaded I would say)...Gib would go to Spain if Spain is allied...
PhilThib wrote:I have not yet decided what to do in case of (likely) conquest of England by France... I am open to suggestions here.
One option would be to try to create a forced eace treaty (like Tilsitt / Pressburg) with what Napoleon would have probably "asked", but then we should decide where the game goes after that...a victory in England means a French domination of Europe, so the game's "interest" is almost gone...
Your ideas ?
After a French victory in England and ensuing harsh peace terms (with focus on a large monetary payment, some naval reduction, perhaps some overseas territory) England should retain all its homeland. It would be able to rebuild its forces, give subsidies to enemies of France, and within a couple of years declare war again.
I think this would keep the interest level alive and kicking.
If Napoleon conquers England, there should be some significant bonuses to doing so. I think Ireland should be made independent, and the colonies + Royal Navy must be reduced, dramatically. I think one idea, to keep the game interesting, is to set it up like Austria and Prussia, so that you expect at least two wars, but if Napoleon re-conquers them, then he get's some massive treaty which is way harsher. That said, if things start to go wrong for Napoleon, they can always turn on him.
-
Adam the VIth
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:30 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Indian Country
Remember folks -- Napoleon HATED England. The terms would have to be harsh. If we think about what he did to Austria and Prussia following their defeats.....he did leave the Monarch in place, but took as much territory as possible. He severely limited the size of the Prussian Army. He was softer on Austria for a variety of reasons, eventually even including his relations with the royal family.
I would think strip Britain of its colonies, Ireland independent, maybe even Scotland. HUGE indemnity. I will think about RN.....I can't see them surrendering ships.
I will ponder this on the drive to work. Interesting scenario.
I would think strip Britain of its colonies, Ireland independent, maybe even Scotland. HUGE indemnity. I will think about RN.....I can't see them surrendering ships.
I will ponder this on the drive to work. Interesting scenario.
As the English player, after enduring a defeat in Sea Lion, I have to have some hope of eventually rebuilding and influencing things diplomatically, so the game can go forward. Whatever the conditions of a peace after Sea Lion, for game-play purposes they can't be completely crushing.
Why does there have to be a canned peace settlement? Can't the normal diplomatic peace process be used?
Why does there have to be a canned peace settlement? Can't the normal diplomatic peace process be used?
Adam the VIth wrote:Remember folks -- Napoleon HATED England. The terms would have to be harsh.
Not so much....in fact he even admired it. But as a typical Mediterranean temper, he was extremely upset by what he saw as a betrayal (which it was) when the British broke the Peace of Amiens in 1803 only a few months after having signed it. When he offered it, he was genuinely looking for peace...the change of policy (typical of perfidious Albion) was something that made him angry and he realized the only way to have "peace" with the British was to crush them decisively.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests