Our group has developed a problem relative to the power of Napoleon as a leader...

One player is guaranteed to get Napoleon (because we all understand the value of military). So it comes down to the question of whether or not that player can manage to draw a good tactics card. If he does, game over. When that happens the others CANNOT compete militarily, and it is not much of a problem drawing wars/aggressions for the Napoleon player because they comprise 26% of the military deck (ie a pretty good bet with 3 card draws). We are noticing a disturbing trend of games being decided purely by Napoleon.

People are now not willing to play anymore because it seems like a random draw of the cards determines the winner: Does the Napoleon player get a good tactics card or not?

It is ruining the game for us, and it is likely to not hit the table anymore because it seems like a waste to play for 4 hours for the game to hinge on a card draw.

I am curious if others have reached this conclusion after playing long enough to discover the power of military.

As a member of a group with a high military approach, I have never felt that Napoleon is a "broken" card. I have frequently beaten the player with Napoleon, although he is very scary because he usually gives someone the strength to disrupt your plans. If Napoleon does not come early in Age II, it's often better to take another strong Age II leader and use their bonuses. And if Napoleon does come early but you have no good tactics, it's a gamble. This is not to deny his power when the situation is right for him, but you can't go into a game thinking "I must get Napoleon or I will lose." Check my session report: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/393764 for an example of a 4p military-centric game where Napoleon was practically irrelevant.

Game over? I don't think that's reasonable.

The chance of drawing a war or aggression with three card draws is not 78%. (If you drew four cards, would the chance be 104%?) Furthermore, many aggressions just aren't game-changing. If the Napoleon player doesn't get one of the few key War cards, then it's not a big deal at all. Even if he does, he's not taking out all of his opponents with a single war.

I'm not sure what counts as a "good tactics card". If Napoleon is giving you say +8 strength (Napoleonic Army), that by itself is certainly not game-changing. It's +16 when you sacrifice an army, but you can't do that every turn (even if you had enough wars). It's more with Air Force, but sometimes you don't get an Air Force, or not until very late.

Napoleon is, of course, vulnerable to Iconoclasm.

If you want to say it makes the game too luck-dependent, for a long game, that's reasonable. But if the Napoleon player literally always wins, you're doing something wrong.

A 26% event occurring at least once in 3 tries is 1 - (0.74)^3 = 59.5%

And Assassin!

Well, that's only if you believe in math. For me it seems to be about 10%.

That's exactly what I'm saying and exactly why people are refusing to play.

Last night the guy who got a Napoleon/Classic Army combo going for +18 (from those 2 cards) and getting enough strength nobody could defend themselves from him, had an infrastructure of zero labs (science from University and 1 Journalism only), 3 age A mines and 3 age A farms. Got Napoleon and Classic Army back to back, jumped way out in military lead, and began merrily aggressing away. There was nothing else anyone could do about it, so all 3 other players immediately exercised the "Leave Game Honorably" rule and we just quit. This was after 4 hours of playing, and we all started wondering why we wasted those 4 hours, the Napoleon player included...

Now nobody wants to play a game this long that can fall to pieces this quickly. We are even in the middle of a PBEM cyber board game and are considering dropping it.



And the chances of someone pointing that out in an internet forum was 100%. Thanks.



Any Napoleon that CAN be assassinated is probably not WORTH assassinating (assassinate is still an aggression, assassination in TtA is done with armies not lone gunmen). That Napoleon is not a threat. And Iconoclasm may not be drawn till late, may be in Napoleon's hands, may have already been discarded, and won't affect Napoleon unless it is triggered in Age III (possibly way too late for an early Napoleon). Neither Iconoclasm nor assassinate is a reliable answer to Napoleon. Only bad military draws by the Napoleon player can slow him down. Entirely luck dependent.

OK. What you actually wrote was, "If he does, game over." If you didn't really mean that, we don't have anything to argue about.

Odd I have yet to see Napolean win a single game despite peopel grabbing him quickly.

This may be part of the perceived problem. People may be playing him wrong.

Napoleon's strength bonus does NOT get applied to sacrificed units. His bonus adds the tactics value of the best army to the civilization's strength. It does NOT double the tactics card itself, which could then be sacrificed. So if a player has a Napoleonic Army tactics with 1 each Age II Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery, his strength would be 3 (inf) + 3 (cav) + 3 (arty) + 8 (tactics) + 8 (Napoleon) = 25. His sacrificial potential is only 17, for a total of 42.

Napoleon really needs Air Forces to be effective. Air Forces doubles the tactics card of the best army, and that DOES count when sacrificed. If the same Napoleon player as above also had Air Forces, he had have 3 (inf) + 3 (cav) + 3 (arty) + 5 (AF) + 16 (2x tactics) + 16 (Napoleon) = 46. His sacrificial potential is only 30, for a total of 76. So one AF unit is worth 34 points in a war!

So anyone playing against Napoleon should be sure to 1) draft Air Forces at all costs, hoping he doesn't get one until it's too late, and 2) draft any cards that might upgrade his tactics card (e.g., Modern Infantry, if he still has Swordsman or Warrior). On the flip side, an astute Napoleon player should ensure he's got 11 science + 7 stones at the beginning of all his Age III turns so he can immediately take advantage of Air Forces when it does come out.

Hello Jeff,
I can't agree with your vision of TtA. Napoleon is strong, but not broken. You said that with Napoleon, the game is just like throwing a dice: if this player gets a good tactic card or not. But other player can have good tactic card too.

Let's imagine the mentioned Napoleon/Classic Army Combo that gives you strength +18 with 4 units (to fulfill the tactic card). Let's imagine that the opponent has Newton as a leader and instead of Classic Army, he has Napoleonic Army (+8). He can be even stronger than Napoleon, if he build two armies (+16 from tactic card + the strength of the units), but he needs 6 units for that. It is the price that he needs to pay, but instead of that, he has a bonus to civil actions and the science production. It can easily helps to invent more unit technologies (Riflemen, Calvary, Cannon) or increase number of people (Selective Breading).

A player with 2 science production (from your example) won't be competitive in Age III (even with Nappy), when you need 8-11 bulbs to invent Mech. Infantry, Tanks, Rockets and Air Force.

Napoleon is really dangerous with Air Force. But if you'd like to take Napoleon AND the first Air Force (to be before others) AND good tactic card, you need a lot of luck AND a good infrastructure (science, production) as well – to invent and build everything.

There is much wrong with your statement. There are a lot of ways to compete militarily without Napoleon.

Churchill is very powerful in Age III, his tech discount is not to be dismissed, and in the event of war, he can ramp up very quickly if a player has enough actions. On occasion, I've even used Churchill to declare war on Napoleon!

Gandhi makes it especially difficult to wage war as you effectively give up a turn of production to declare war, and that's assuming you have 6 military actions to begin with. So now Napoleon has to get 1) a good tactics card, 2) the right mix of military techs for his tactics, 3) Air Forces, 4) A war card, 5) 6+ military actions (a strong blue military tech and/or a military-tilted government).

Just getting Air Forces first is a huge plus. Air Forces is even better than Napoleon's bonus because you can double the bonus when you sacrifice. Napoleon can't. So until Napoleon gets his Air Forces up and running, there should be no problem keeping pace with him and even being ahead!

I'm not playing it wrong, although what I wrote was not phrased quite right.

Problem I keep having with Napoleon is that by the time I have Napoleon, a decent tactics card, *and* an air force, we're getting to the end of Age III. And that darned Napoleon dies on me. You really have a limited time to get this all together if you're trying to rely on the huge military bonus one gets from Napoleon with an Air Force.

Agree 100%. I think part of the problem is that the OP's group does not understand how to build infrastructure to efficiently build good military. Napoleon gives at most 9 strength in Age II, and most of the time my groups's civs are in the strength range of 10-30 in Age II. In Age III, Napoleon can get Air Forces, but so can other players (+ Churchill and Gandhi). Sure, if you are not entering Age II in the 8-10 strength range, then an early Napoleon + good tactics card could be seen as overpowering, but that doesn't mean he's broken.

The worst I have seen Napoleon do in my games is one aggression and one war. He does get picked almost every time, but he just doesn't have the time to get a game-winning lead on strength and get the war(s) to take advantage of it. Hell, I am more afraid of a turn 1 Caesar than Napoleon.

Hmmm, though I disagree with this statement, I will be helpful and mention a variant I've worked out. I call it the 'somewhat peaceful' variant. Tactics cards can't use troops that are 2 or more Ages older. And the value of the tactics card is halved (rounded up), if any troop is one Age older.

This will limit an early Napoleon to +5 strength (instead of +9). It will also make quick shifts in strength harder to do. Once you understand the game better, you might want to go back to the normal rules.

Really? My infrastructure at the end of Age II: 6 rock, 6 science, 1 food w/ Ocean Liner Service ready to be built (it came out late), 17 strength, 7 CA, 3 MA. My infrastructure looked pretty good to me and looking at your vaunted 4p session report it was pretty well in line with that too.

On the first turn of Age III I had improved that to: 12 rock (Tesla), 9 science.

To compare, the opponent in question was at: 3 rock, 4 science, 1 food, 11 strength (2 medieval armies plus one bonus), 5 CA, 4MA IIRC. Within 2 turns he had acquired and dropped Rifleman, Napoleon, Classic Army to take him to 29 strength (he could have done it in one turn). Then on his second turn of Age III comes the Age III raid (3 buildings) targeting the 3 Age II labs I had just upgraded (for Tesla).

A guy with that infrastructure (not very good) was able to go from 11 strength to 29 strength with the expenditure of 6 total CA (3 draw Napoleon, 1 draw Rifle, 2 to play them), 3 MA (drop tactics upgrade 2 warriors to riflemen), 5 science (rifleman), 6 rock (2 rifleman).

The point is someone having 2 medieval armies or 1 phalanx + 1 extra cav who has Napoleon come out on his turn AND draws Classic Army can jump 14-15 strength points in one turn, add in a couple military unit upgrades to go along with it and you are looking at 18-19 strength increase! If that's not random and luck of the draw, I don't know what is.

Without Napoleon he was looking at 11->20 change in strength with that lucky tactics card draw (Medieval Army -> Classic Army). It's the fact that an expenditure of 6 CA, 3MA, 5 science, and 6 rock can nearly triple your strength is my beef (2.63636363636363636363636363... multiplier in this case for the math anals out there). Other players can respond to a 9 strength increase, +18 is usually out of reach.

Eugene, I have 3 questions for you:

1) Do you agree that +14 military strength (difference between 2 medieval armies and Napoleon/Classic Army combo) in Age II is "good"?

2) Do you consider an expenditure of 4CA and 1MA in Age II to not require require a good infrastructure and be "efficient"?

3) Assuming your answers to the above are "Yes" how can you support an argument that you must "build infrastructure to efficiently build good military"?

My position is that your statement is NOT true. You can also get a "good military" by:

1) Draw medieval army or phalanx tactics in Age I.
2) Build 2 medieval armies, or 1 phalanx + 1 cavalry, of Age I or higher.
3) Get Napoleon.
4) Draw Classic Army tactics.

To add insult to injury:

5) Draw a good aggression or war card (like an Age III raid on your first Age III draw).

That is pure luck, and bothers me in a game that takes 4-6 hours to play. I guess it's more the combo of Napoleon and Classic Army that is the problem, not just Napoleon himself. But there is definitely a problem if you think that your goal in this game should be to "build infrastructure to efficiently build good military" (which I agree with BTW). Instead this "strategy" can be trumped with "get lucky".

First of all. Napoleon is only worth +9 points in this situation. So Napoleon is not really the problem.

Without Napoleon, he could still have drawn the Classic Army and also could have taken Riflemen for 1 MA. By themselves those 2 cards can result in an equivalent increase of +12 points (+6 tactics delta, +2 for extra cav, +4 for upgrading 2 riflemen).

However, there's only one Classic Army in the game, and there's only one Napoleon. (There's also only 1 Napoleonic Army card, the other good Age II tactics card, but that requires Cannon.) How often do you think that combination of cards both shows up early in the age AND go to the same player?

Another point for you to consider is that there is very rarely good reason to let Riflemen drift down to 1 CA. The Age II techs are very valuable for all players, as the powerful Age III tactics all require Age II or III military units and 3 of the 4 require infantry, and advanced infantry are rarer than the other techs (except in the 3 player game).

So, at best you can say one player was particularly lucky. I say a player was both lucky and smart in taking advantage of careless play by his opponents.

If not very often, that's an argument for the claim that Napoleon makes the game too luck-dependent.

If you're grabbing Napoleon for three actions whenever it comes up, whether or not you have a good tactics card, then you're putting yourself at the luck of the draw.

If you're not grabbing Napoleon for three actions whenever it comes up, then the chance that the player who has the other cards to work with it will get it goes way up.

Not necessarily. A military strategy is more dependent on luck than other strategies, so it's no surprise that Napoleon benefits from luck. It's a vastly different proposition to suggest that the entire game is decided by luck because of Napoleon.

Sure. But the OP has already backed away from that position.

OK, sounds like you guys do know how to build military. I don't see such an insurmountable problem, though. In the game you described, you're in Age III and there are plenty of opportunities for you to jump up 10 points in strength as well, via discovering an Age III military tech and upgrading, or getting an airforce. You don't need to match Napoleon's gains -- you just need to be within 1 defense card of Napoleon to prevent aggressions. Yes, Napoleon offers a lot of strength for a little investment in resources... but remember, many of the leaders offer similar benefit/cost ratios. Newton is far better than the Revolutionary Idea/Breakthrough for example, and Cook is usually far better than an Opera. Just make sure that you are getting a big bonus elsewhere (in this case, Tesla) and try to keep close to Napoleon so he'll pick on someone else.

As to your other issue, I agree that your outline of getting a good military without infrastructure via Steps 1-4 can help you kickstart a good military, but a player with good infrastructure can do similar steps _more frequently_ to get much higher military strength. Say the infrastructure-poor player gets 2 knights, 2 riflemen for 10 base strength and Classic Army, that's still only 19 strength. I expect to be in the 30-50 range of military in Age III, especially with Air Forces, so your outline may be fine at first, but it's going to have problems down the road against an infrastructure-heavy player who focuses on military. The 4p game I referred to had the military leaders with two Conquistadors + Air Forces vs. two Mechanized Armies -- and when Napoleon + Classic Army hit the table, we didn't care, because it merely turned a horrible military into an average one. In fact, the Mechanized Armies player declared war on Napoleon + Classic Army!

Also, I think you place too much emphasis on the process for step 5). Given the number of aggression/wars in the deck, if you draw 3 Age III cards, you are expected to gain 1 aggression or war. Just because the process (drawing cards) is random doesn't mean the overall experience is "lucky" -- if you set up a strong military infrastructure (3 cards/turn) you can practically count on getting the military cards you need.

That's definitely not true when I play. Drawing the military cards you need is always a huge issue. Maybe I need to shuffle better. But some of the aggressions just aren't that big a deal. Drawing no wars is also not that uncommon. Often having just one war doesn't work out all that well in a multi-player game, because if you do a big sacrifice then you become vulnerable to other players, and if you don't sacrifice and the opponent sacrifices then you haven't gained much (although you may have cost that opponent something).

The games I've played recently have gone the other way entirely. We're talking about how we think that the military player can't do enough. You have a strong army, you want to lord it over those cultured people but can't draw an agression that will do anything of consequence. It's frustrating. Plus, in the 3rd age ghandi offers good protection against agression. It seems that we can't punish people enough for not developing an equal military.