Leader Discussion - Napoleon, Emperor

[disjointaccount]

Another double bill now, and one I suspect will be interesting: Napoleon, Emperor.
His leader ability is Empereur des Français, which is a three-parter:

• Gain a unique Sanction, Continental System, which reduces the Trade Route Limit of the targeted Leader to all other Leaders by 1, causes a massive Relationship penalty, and costs more to reject
• +8 Gold per Age for every Leader you are Unfriendly or Hostile with
• Can reject Endeavors for free

His attributes are Economic and Diplomatic, giving him access to the Open Markets and Local Festival endeavors, along with events for attribute points upon researching Discipline and Authority (per this post).
He has no starting bias.
Playing as Napoleon unlocks Normans (otherwise unlocked by improving 3 Iron or having 5 ancient walls) and Spain (otherwise unlocked by recapturing a lost settlement) in the Exploration Age, and France (otherwise unlocked by improving 3 Wine) and Prussia (otherwise unlocked by improving 3 Niter or having 3 Army Commanders) in the Modern Age.
As an AI leader, his agenda is Napoleonic Code - Increase Relationship by a Medium Amount with the player that has the smallest standing army. Decrease Relationship by a Medium Amount for the player that has the largest standing navy.

So what are everyone's thoughts? Likes/dislikes? Strengths and weaknesses? Fun strategies? Good civs to pair him with?

 

[uppi]

I am going to say it: worst leader in the game right now.

The gold per turn per enemy? You can make much more by befriending then.

Rejecting endeavors for free? Napoleon might be the only one even thinking about rejecting endeavors and even with him you would do this at most once per game per leader (afterwards, they are not going to send you any)

The unique sanction? It actually sounds like it would hurt an enemy. But it does not give you anything and I would rather employ more...direct means to hurt them.

In principle, it sounds like an interesting idea to be the pariah and get bonuses from that, but they are just to weak.

Ironically, the best civ to pair him with, is Prussia. Actually, if there was a civ which had Prussia's CS bonus in Antiquity, Napoleon could be much stronger. As it stands, making everyone hate you will eventually result in a multi front war in which Napoleon has no bonuses

 

[kotpeter]

Ah, the infamous "f*ck you" leader. I haven't played as him yet, but if his ability allows rejecting denouncements for 0 influence, in all relationships he's the one who decides whom to like and whom to dislike. It isn't really strong, but if we combine it with his unique sanction, the roleplay potential is definitely there.

His civ unlocks include a lot of warring civs, so in subsequent ages he has flexibility with offensive options. I think he may somewhat shine in multiplayer teamers' games as a gold provider, but I haven't figured out his single player potential yet.

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, he's just not especially interesting. I think every other leader I've had something I can say about them. This is just an uninintersting design.

 

[pjotroos]

You actually cannot reject denouncements for free with him, from what I recall. I thought this was the one good part of his kit, but no, it doesn't count as an endevour in the game nomenclature. You can only say no to the useful stuff for free, you still need to pay to reject the harmful stuff.

I agree with @uppi, this is flat out worst leader in the game, and it's not close. +8 gold per age is laughably low amount. The only age where it would even register is antiquity, so I've tried it there, and in exchange for that extra eight gold you give up a chance of culture or science endeavour, slowing your own potential growth, and you're effectively guaranteed to be going to war soon. There is precious few ways of getting unfriendly and staying unfriendly in the first age; if someone already dislikes you, conflict is soon to follow. And if courting war is what he's meant for, he really needs some bonuses to combat, because I could easily name ten better leaders for a military game. Doesn't matter that you can weaken your opponents a little bit, if you're this weak yourself.

I played him once for completion. I will not play him again. He is the ultimate troll leader, but the person you're trolling hardest is yourself.

 

[Siptah]

My thoughts are very similar to @uppi‘s. Yet, I haven‘t actually played him - and he is the only launch leader I haven‘t played yet.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My thoughts are very similar to @uppi‘s. Yet, I haven‘t actually played him - and he is the only launch leader I haven‘t played yet.

Agree completely. He is the only near/original leader I haven't played, and have no plans to. Aside from being a lousy design from a gaming perspective, it is also one of the worst caricatures of a historic leader the game has ever produced.

For the love of Dog, the man was one of the top five tactical/operational leaders in history, and all they can focus on is his mediocre Diplomacy? His campaigns influenced military studies for the next century and a half (to be honest, far longer than they should have given the massive changes in military technology, but that isn't his fault). He invented the Army Corps, perfected the use of massed artillery, made combined arms the centerpiece of every battle (I can make a good case that only John Churchill did it as well in the 18th - 19th centuries), and Berthier, his chief of staff, virtually invented modern military staff procedures.

And he has no combat bonuses at all??!!

Pathetic.

 

[Krikkit1]

Agree completely. He is the only near/original leader I haven't played, and have no plans to. Aside from being a lousy design from a gaming perspective, it is also one of the worst caricatures of a historic leader the game has ever produced.

For the love of Dog, the man was one of the top five tactical/operational leaders in history, and all they can focus on is his mediocre Diplomacy? His campaigns influenced military studies for the next century and a half (to be honest, far longer than they should have given the massive changes in military technology, but that isn't his fault). He invented the Army Corps, perfected the use of massed artillery, made combined arms the centerpiece of every battle (I can make a good case that only John Churchill did it as well in the 18th - 19th centuries), and Berthier, his chief of staff, virtually invented modern military staff procedures.

And he has no combat bonuses at all??!!

Pathetic.

His system really should provide some bonuses to becoming a big power that can shut others down. He has things that are good if you’re already strong and want to weaken your next target.

Perhaps a bonus for/from allies/CS that have bad relationships with those you have bad relationships with them.
Don’t be hated by everyone…be hated by the other Team while leading yours.

Maybe he can conquer CSs and make them his. and get extra benefits from them.

Maybe he can make conquered settlements into “puppets” that give him lesser benefits but don’t count against Settlement Limit.

 

[pjotroos]

His system really should provide some bonuses to becoming a big power that can shut others down. He has things that are good if you’re already strong and want to weaken your next target.

Perhaps a bonus for/from allies/CS that have bad relationships with those you have bad relationships with them.
Don’t be hated by everyone…be hated by the other Team while leading yours.

Maybe he can conquer CSs and make them his. and get extra benefits from them.

Or generating gold AND influence for being disliked. Keep the current flavour if that's what they settled on, but actually make it useful.

 

[A_Most_Foolish_Fool]

Posted about him elsewhere, but Emperor Napoleon does put the devs in a difficult situation from a balance perspective. When playing him on a standard map he is quite bad (though I would argue that Hatshepsut is unfortunately in a worse spot than even him). However, playing him on pangaea/larger maps gives him a chance to shine as you have so many more opportunities for extra gold. Any buffs to his gold generation likely will need to take into account how he plays on different map types, which means that I feel like it would be better for the devs to focus on adding more to how he utilizes sanctions, rather than focusing on the gold generation. When we start to get working TSL location maps again, I would be very curious to experiment with Emperor Napoleon since when he can get a number of safe opportunities to get his gold bonus, that gold can give you quite a bit of tempo (especially early, which you can use to snowball).

I think one other thing that holds Emperor Napoleon back is that the most defensive Antiquity Civ (Egypt) is also quite bad. Napoleon really wants to make use of Medjays to wear down opponents that decide to declare war, but the rest of the kit doesn't provide enough on its own, which does hurt his gameplan quite a bit. Obviously you could just use the overpowered antiquity civs, but since you don't have great synergies with them you aren't really getting as much value as other leaders would from them. That said, there are definitely some combos that I am curious to try once we get TSL Earth maps or Napoleon buffs (I am picturing all of the additional gold generation you get as Napoleon with something like Carthage as being a potential unexplored combo that seems rough at the moment, but which could very easily become a lot stronger with a tiny bit of help).

 

[Krikkit1]

Or generating gold AND influence for being disliked. Keep the current flavour if that's what they settled on, but actually make it useful.

or perhaps X gold per age per settlement that dislikes him.

But bonuses for conquests should work well.

Say
Current Kit+
-Reject Sanctions for 1/2 cost
-Conquered Settlements can become “Puppets” which you don’t control (grow and build on their own like a CS) but you get their resources and 1/2 of their yields as if they were your towns…..maybe they have to be occupied with troops to keep control.

 

[disjointaccount]

Agree with everything being said. He just feels so underwhelming. Machiavelli executes the isolationist/unfriendly concept much better imo.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Never played him, nor am I inclined to. Outclassed by Mach and the other Napoleon persona, for starters.

 

[Leucarum]

As a gameplay aside. Denying your opponent something isn't as fun as getting yourself something.

 

[Chefofrats]

For months now I've been looking at this Napoleon persona and wondering if I'm missing something. Is he really *that* bad? This thread seems to prove he's as weak as I thought he was. I don't think I'll ever pick him as my leader unless he gets some changes.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Looks like this guy will be getting changes with the next patch.

Thread 'Update 1.2.5 is loading...'

Sep 22, 2025

Hey hey Civfanatics! A quick heads-up that the next Civ VII update - 1.2.5 - is on the way, targeting next week. Some things to look forward to:

• New maps and improved map generation
• A rebalance for Napoleon
• Diplomatic and Expansionist-themed City States
• Part 2 of Right to Rule, featuring Lakshmibai, Silla, and Qajar

+ much more, that will be in the full update notes when they go live. I'll be back to share more soon!

• FXS_Sar

• 

 

[uppi]

As if they read the thread and said: This cannot stand.

That is the story, we are going to tell, at least.

 

[disjointaccount]

Here are his buffs coming tomorrow

 

[pjotroos]

That's not so much a buff as a complete redesign, and well deserved, too. May the old Emperor enjoy the eternity in the bin, where he belongs. This one looks fun - using sanctions as a global war support, instead of spending influence on individual opponents, meaning that the bigger the war, the harder you fight. Quite thematic.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Finally, Emperor Napoleon has war bonuses