France: too weak in the game? (given the current province lineup)

[TB666]

...maybe that's the way it's meant to be?

I would be very disappointed if it the results were the same.
Having different results makes the game more fun.

[Slaists]

I would be very disappointed if it the results were the same.
Having different results makes the game more fun.

I have no qualms about the game producing different results each time. I like that feature. But I'd prefer it to happen along the lines of one of the historical major powers (France, Spain, Prussia, Austria, Ottomans, Russians, even Poland) 'ruling' the theater rather than the small city-states taking over Europe.

Don't get me wrong: I am fine with the small city states presenting a challenge for the player. However, I feel, they should not present a consistent challenge to such major AI factions such as France. After all, ihistorically it was French power-balance design: to keep Germany fragmented so that the individual Prince-states would present no threat to France.

And remember what was the first thing united Germany did in the XIXth century... They marched (successfully) to Paris, no hesitation, no questions asked...

+, this thing should not be hard to fix. France just needs to be broken up into several European provinces.

[Beskar]

Same for Spain. That needs to be broken up a bit more as well.

[AussieGiant]

As long as there are different results then who is to say things should be dominated by any one faction on a consitent basis.

I would recommend they keep things as they are.

[TB666]

I have no problem with small factions having a shot. Westphalia, Saxony, Hannover etc should all get a chance.
I remember Aragon once conquered half of Europe in M1TW.
So yes France should have their teeth kicked out by a smaller nation if that's how it turned out.
This is afterall not a historical game but a what-if type of game. Powerhouse in one game and a weak pathetic nation getting pushed around by minors in another.
That's how Total war should be like and so far that's how it is in ETW.
Now if only we can get the UK to join the fray we will see some really interesting and hopefully hilarious results.

[Servius]

Why didn't France just invade and wipe out all those pidly little German states to the east. When you play as France, that seems the obvious move, right? So why did major nations like France, Spain, and GB basically maintain their Euro borders and focus primarily on expanding their overseas holdings? My guess is it has less to do with standing armries, more to do with the ability to quickly raise troops, and most especially the power of culture to make such invasions prohibitively expensive (the cost of garrisoning entire nations that will constantly be in rebellion for year after year). Except for France I guess, since they seem to roll over for whoever invades them.

[Slaists]

I have no problem with small factions having a shot. Westphalia, Saxony, Hannover etc should all get a chance.
I remember Aragon once conquered half of Europe in M1TW.
So yes France should have their teeth kicked out by a smaller nation if that's how it turned out.
This is afterall not a historical game but a what-if type of game. Powerhouse in one game and a weak pathetic nation getting pushed around by minors in another.
That's how Total war should be like and so far that's how it is in ETW.
Now if only we can get the UK to join the fray we will see some really interesting and hopefully hilarious results.

Well, EU3 is a what-if-type of a game too. But the power balance is much more realistic there (France is known as the 'big, blue blob' there).

I have no problem with small factions having their chance (especially if they team up: that was exactly what historic France was afraid of), it just feels wrong if the small nations out-gun a major nation on one-on-one basis almost outright.

Why didn't France just invade and wipe out all those pidly little German states to the east. When you play as France, that seems the obvious move, right? So why did major nations like France, Spain, and GB basically maintain their Euro borders and focus primarily on expanding their overseas holdings? My guess is it has less to do with standing armries, more to do with the ability to quickly raise troops, and most especially the power of culture to make such invasions prohibitively expensive (the cost of garrisoning entire nations that will constantly be in rebellion for year after year). Except for France I guess, since they seem to roll over for whoever invades them.

By the XVIII century most royal families in Europe were blood relatives (including the princes of German states). Direct conquest/landgrab was not that common in Europe in the era and was carried out mostly by 'political outcasts' (such as Napoleon) who decided to go against the 'rules of the club'. Land control transferred frequently through dynasty inheritance though.

[TB666]

Well, EU3 is a what-if-type of a game too. But the power balance is much more realistic there (France is known as the 'big, blue blob' there).

And I for one don't like that. The more random it is the better.
The less you can predict who is gonna be the major player the better.
Having France as a powerhouse in every game would just make the game predictable.

it just feels wrong if the small nations out-gun a major nation on one-on-one basis almost outright.

This is Total war so it's not wrong in any way or form.
The smaller the nation, the more memorable it is.
I hardly remember any games from M1TW but I do remember the one where Aragon conquered half of Europe and I had to fight them of single-handed.
I remember that particular game because it was fun and unpredictable.
In RTW CA failed with this since you always saw the same factions getting powerful.
CA made this better in M2TW but still certain factions never stood a chance.
In ETW they seem to have gotten it right again.