HOLF Players' Guild Forum

(Registrar's note: The Swedish team finished a close third in the final standings after winning the Summer campaign with a strong finishing kick. The Swedish perspective is supplied by Swedish Naval Minister Matt Majewski on behalf of Marcelo Junquiera [Monarch], Dave Angst, Charlie Barrett, and Ken Felts. Marcelo supplies some additional thoughts afterwards

Let us begin by congratulating the victorious Saxon team, who played a nearly flawless game (from this perspective) and deserved the win in every sense of the word. The Swedish team, in finishing third, and while mindful of our opponents performance, are left to wonder what might have been had a few things played out just a bit differently or a little earlier in the scenario (generally because of our own doing). The Swedish military had distinct quality and experience advantages over our opponents in this conflict. But our armies were very spread out (indeed, on seemingly opposite sides of Europe) and therefore had to virtually operate as their own separate entities. The biggest obstacles facing the Swedes were financial ones. We had limited financial resources (indeed, the GA informed us before the game started that we should expect to run out during the second campaign), and operated with a negative balance from T16 on.

Swedish Initial OOB

Swedish at-start troop displacements were as follows:
There were 45,000 troops in Germany (split between Bremen and Wismar) with a Danish/Saxon army in between the two at Hamburg (Alex K. and then Matt commanding the Army of Germany).
There were 30,000 troops concentrated at Riga and Dvinsk along the Polish/Lithuanian border (Army of Livonia under Charlie Barrett).
There were 30,000 troops concentrated at Nyen and Narva along the “Finnish” border with Russia (Marcelo commanding Army of Ingria).
Additionally, there were some 60,000 regulars stationed in Sweden who required sea transport to the fronts. This meant that early naval success was fairly vital to our getting reserves to their intended destinations quickly. We felt good with 27 ships (2 FLs/25 SLs) and eight frigates (all commanded by Matt/Dave). The Danes ended up having 13 ships (3 FLs/10SLs) and five frigates to counter us.
Since we knew we would had a lot of opponents to beat, we hoped to do as much damage as possible in the early stages with our naval forces and our troops in Germany while our Russian forces waited for reinforcements to arrive before advancing. After all, our German army was practically on top of the Danes, whereas our Russian forces were more spread out and we had no idea about their troop concentrations or locations or the status of Poland/Lithuania.

Some problems arose from the get-go. When our army moved out from Bremen & Wismar to engage the Danes/Saxons at Hamburg, inexplicably no garrison was left in either city, and both Swedish supply hubs were occupied on T2. Supply issues and corresponding manpower losses haunted the Army of Germany almost non-stop (in 14-of-20 game turns) from that point forward. After subsequent bloody battles at Hamburg (T4/5) and Wismar (T6/7), the decision was made to divert reinforcements planned for Russia to Germany instead. A fresh corps from Sweden was dropped into the AoG, which gave us the momentary upper hand (T9/T10).
Meanwhile, Swedish frigates spotted almost all of the Danish fleet in Kobenhavn harbor on T2, and most of the Swedish fleet and the first of our loaded transports headed to the coastal waters outside Kobenhavn harbor immediately. The city was occupied by Swedish troops in T4, and the port guns opened fire on the trapped Danish fleet in T5. When the Swedish fleet moved in to engage the damaged Danish ships in T6, we were dealt a stunning loss by the inferior Danish fleet. Fortunately, the battered Danish fleet limped back to Aarhuus (and later inactivated), allowing mass sea transportation by our ships to commence despite our loss in Kobenhavn harbor.

Initially, our performance in Russia was equally suspect as our armies struggled to find and successfully engage the more spread out Russians. The Army of Livonia chased troops towards Dvinsk, into Poland, and then back towards Riga. The Army of Ingria moved towards Novgorod before slowly retreating back to Nyen in the face of superior enemy numbers. Meanwhile, as in Germany, we lost ungarrisoned cities in the rear to stray enemy units. Needless to say, up to T8, Swedish game performance was lacking. But from this point forward, Sweden's fortunes changed considerably (and predominantly in Russia).

Ultimately, only about 20,000 reinforcements reached their originally intended destinations in Russia (and almost all of these went to Nyen). The lack of direct assistance made the subsequent Swedish successes in Russia all the more impressive. The Army of Livonia (near Riga) scored massive victories over the Russians in the area (T10/11) that continued for most of the Summer campaign. Charlie reoccupied all lost cities, and even snagged Nevel from Poland/Lithuania in T19 despite receiving virtually no reinforcements.
Marcelo's Army of Ingria received a fresh corps of reinforcements into Nyen just as the city was about to be attacked by the Russians late in the Spring. Following the unload, the Russians avoided the huge fight which allowed the AoI to retake Narva, occupy Novgorod and Kholm, and inflict some significant casualties prior to end-game.

These Summer successes in Russia were needed, because the Army of Germany had a tough go of it despite a second Corps being dropped off at Bremen to relieve them. Fatigue, lack of supply, and constant fighting around the Wismar area (T11-T14) caught up with the AoG, which suffered a series of crippling losses (T15/T16) around Wismar. This put the remnants of AoG into full retreat but (fortunately for us) time expired on the advancing Danes/Saxons. The one bright spot for the AoG came from the Bremen relief corps: a successful raid on the Danish city of Aarhuus that allowed us to destroy the entire inactive Danish fleet (9 ships, 2 frigates). This evened out some of the losses sustained by our main army in Germany.

The Saxon victory can be attributed to their tremendous success in their fight against the Swedish Army of Germany. It should also be noted that they alone did not have to deal with the issues of city protection (I believe Saxony was off-limits on the map), and that they started with a smaller at-start VP base than any other nation (1/3 the size of Sweden). The Danes had slightly less success on the ground against Sweden, they had to deal with the realities of losing home cities (Kobenhavn, Aarhuus), and their score was hurt late in the game by the capture of their fleet. The Swedish team took some comfort in knowing that while Saxony finished ahead of Sweden, the Northern Alliance as a whole finished well-behind us in the game.

I believe this Spring Game scenario to have been a great success for a variety of reasons. First, it was a lot of fun. Secondly, it allowed us to try out a somewhat new type of (historically-based) scenario with a number of different teams, each with their own sets of special rules. Map changes and a variety of game changes were implemented. And not only was the game a great success, but the system handled all of these modifications (as well as two other scenarios going on at the same time) incredibly well. Also, some game bugs were identified. That being said, there were some areas where the transition between NWOL and the scenario was not seamless (real “ownership” of cities comes to mind). But I think it was a big success, and the perfect game fit inbetween bigger NWOL games. All of the Spring Games credit goes to John Sanders, who worked really hard to make them happen. We tip our caps to you, John.

A couple dislikes:
1. The rules were a little stacked against Sweden (although this is probably historically accurate).
2. A player could only be a “resident” of one country (even if playing in two separate Games), so position reports for that second game showed up with all sides appearing neutral on them.

Marcelo supplied the following additional thoughts:
- Our overall strategy was to score a significant victory against the Danes and Saxons between T1-6, therefore the first wave of reinforcements went there (20,000). If it worked, the plan was to inactivate the fleet and most troops in Germany, send 40,000 more men to Russia and continue the fight there. The idea of shipping the AoG later to Russia crossed our minds. The armies in Russia were kept inactive for the first 3 turns based on that strategy.
- Interesting to note, the enemy seem to have thought of a similar strategy (or was limited to a similar strategy based on their set-up). They were extremelly aggressive in Germany in the first third of the game, while in Russia they sent loads of cavalry to disrupt our supply but no battle was offered. Only in late Spring the Russians made decisive moves against Riga and in Ingria.
- By the way, whoever was commanding their cavalry during the Spring deserves a medal. They were really, but really annoying.
- We did not ship the 2nd reinforcement wave to Russia right away because we wanted to confirm that things were under control in Germany and Denmark, and did not want to burn all the money right away. Then we lost the naval battle in Kobenhavn and had to wait for the Baltic to be safe again. And then the winds decided to not blow East anymore. It was not until early Summer that we put these 40,000 men to work, in Germany and Russia.
- I believe the battle of Riga deserves an account of casualties. It was our biggest victory, I believe. Do you remember how many fought/were lost in each side, Charlie? (Registrar's note: Please see the casualty results for a general analysis, but the army around Riga is believed to have caused as many as 30,000 casualties while losing less than 15,000 during the Summer campaign).
- Another interesting remark is the fight for Pskov, a hub between the AoI and the AoL. It must have changed hands 5 times in the game.

Also, the Swedish Monarch's version of the war can be found at http://www.holf.org/guild/drupal1/node/293#comments