Napoleonic France would likely, in the long-run, hold onto much more of NW and Central Europe. Without the guerilla bleeding their forces they would have been much more successful in the italian and germanic states.
Guerilla war would still develop somewhere, though obviously under a different name. Somewhere where a populace has a strong national identity, a unfying and directing religious leadership, and the dispersal of mass-manufactured weapons of war. Perhaps in Turkey.
A cold war of sorts may have developed on the Portugese/Spanish border, with masses of British and French troops eyeing each other, but both too far from home to make the first move, at least for the short-term.
The Brits would likely be unable to blockade all French-allied ports, so they wouldn't have control of the seas. In fact, they'd likely be ejected from the Med and blocked out at Gibraltar. This would make the French campaign in Egypt easier to support, and more successful.
Nap might still make the same error in the Moscow winter, but may be able to come back with another force and eventually defeat the Russians with forces freed up from the western front.
After that, he may turn south to take on the Turks and Holy land to link up with his Egyptian possessions.
At some point, there will probably be an attempt to invade England. This would probably be unsuccessful, at least in a first or second attempt. But with all of Europe at his back, Nap can try, try again. Evenutally the isolated Britain would fall. Canada would revert to Quebec. India would become French, as would Australia, Sud Afrique, and the other British possessions.
Long-long-term you'd have a devolution from French Empire to an Union d'Etates some 150 years earlier than OTL. Probably with a super-French super state, Dutch/German state, Austrian, Italian, Polish, Greek, Russian states - much larger than OTL countries, and probably constitutional monarchies within the larger union (led by Paris of course).