HOLF Players' Guild Forum

(Registrar's note: Saxony was the victor of the Great Northern War, and the always entertaining Steven Mathena provides the commentary for the champs. Jerry Gouge (Conrad Redd), Steven Mathena, and George Meyer, who adds a few thoughts as well, made up the Saxon team).

Conrad Redd was the supreme commander over all Saxon forces...and Saxony was--more often than not--in command of all Allied forces (Saxon and Danish) in the Western front, which extended from Bremen to Stralsund and all lands from the tip of Denmark to Saxony proper.
Gen. Meyer was tagged as the Saxon strategic commander in the W for the first campaign and I was given the honor in the second. Tactical command rotated, as is custom, between all allied commanders, Saxon or Danish.

Saxony began the scenario with one arm tied behind its back...because, according to the rules, the "Saxon Guard" was in a state of "suspended animation" around Warsaw until a Swedish provocation across the Polish frontier should "wake them up". Since such a move would only add moremen that the Swedes would potentially face in the east and there were plenty of other Russian cities to choose from, we deemed it highly-unlikely that the "Saxon Guard" would ever see battle. That proved to be exactly what happened, since a last-minute incursion by the Tartars made any counter-march to meet them too late for the "Saxon Guard" to do any good, especially since the game ended one turn prematurely. So, with 21,500 of our number on guard for a threat that would never come, Saxony was left with 12,000 men in the west, along with her Danish allies (around 30,000), to combat an estimated 43,000 Swedes organized into two groups. Saxony built two more INs and an MA to bolster our meager force in western Saxony and marched them to the front (as luck would have it, they arrived in a very good spot in the last half of the first campaign, as the Swedes re-grouped, S of Hamburg...but, I'm getting ahead of myself)

Imagine our surprise after T1 at discovering that the Swedes had abandoned both Bremen and Wismar (save, curiously, a single HC--as a
"rearguard"?--in the latter place), virtually handing over their only supply sources within range of all their forces. It was so bizarre a move, that I actually put forth the notion that the enemy had decided to disband all of their units in the West, which would (and this was
my real fear) then render we Saxons totally impotent on BOTH fronts--that is, if they didn't invade Poland...and they wouldn't. In addition, except for their navy, the Danes would also have "nothing to do". That didn't seem like such a bad, move, really. The Russians
could have used T1 of the 2nd campaign to "re-build" those abandoned units, especially from all the money they would save from having to
maintain them in the West, and dump the whole lot in the East...for the ultimate concentration of force for the last half of the 2nd campaign. I'm also on record with my team as saying that there was "no way" the Swedes would try to take Hamburg with no supply--I was sure that they had decided not to fight a two-front war and were going to leave us all "high and dry" in the West. But, if abandoning their
sole supply sources wasn't enough of a surprise, what happened next was even more shocking...

Lo, and behold, there was the enemy force in Hamburg...but on the wrong side of the river. The city is on the N side, while they
arrived from the S. They would now have to fight their way across one of two fords to get to the city tac square--and a new source of
supply, albeit meager. Since we had an abundance of "fast units", we could cover the longer route with them and still have sufficient force
to make the shorter one equally unpleasant. We knew they were desperate...so, again, I was absolutely sure that they would attempt
to go "the short way" and cross at the ford directly adjacent to the city tac square. The longer route might take several turns to fight
their way across the far ford and, then, into the city. The closer ford was their only hope...I was sure of it. Again, I was wrong...The Swedes (perhaps, in order to come from the least-expected route) moved into the far ford...and, after being held there and repulsed...on the following turn, they stubbornly came yet again. Alas, I had been sure that they would abandon this second attempt...and, yes, again, I was wrong. Coincidentally, it was at this point that I stopped predicting what the Swedes would do and decided to just report the intel...)

In retrospect, if I had wished to make a projection, I would have stated, publicly, that I did not anticipate the Swedes to keep throwing more and more men into the Hamburg(er) meat-grinder. Good thing I didn't...By T5, the Swedes had lost a CQ (which didn't really matter, since
they were all still out-of-supply), their AQ, and were down to 18,000. Then, a "relief force" of some 14,000 landed at Wismar and took it
behind our backs while we were chasing the remnants of their original army, but apparently did not also bring a substantial amount of
supplies. This group still attempted, however, to march SW, in an effort to relieve the "lost army" around Hamburg. The next few turns
saw a whirlwind of march/counter-march/strategic-withdrawal/pursue/march-to-battle movements in a frustrating "waltz" between our forces and the starving, desperate Swedes. Naturally, we sought to keep what little supplies they had from reaching the original, core units...which we now believed to also be out of ammo, in addition to being out-of-supply. By the time the final turn of the 1st campaign had been run, we had been reacting so strongly to the Swede's sole supply city of Wismar, forcing the battle there, taking it, and reducing the enemy numbers to some 27,000 (compared to our 41,000) that the Swedes barely had parity in the critical area between Wismar and Hamburg (24,400 Swedes to 28,000 Danes/Saxons).

Again, the enemy was without supply, some had to be without ammo, and none were within command range...there was to more "rat chasing" ahead, except that the rats were about to be fed, thanks to the new campaign and re-building rules. We bolstered our forces to the maximum...and, incredibly, still the Swedes came, having done likewise (I still don't care for the rule allowing OOS units to receive "top-offs" in T1 of a new campaign...I mean, if supplies can't get to the isolated units, how can men? I mean, what do they eat on the way? And, couldn't they bring a sandwich for the rest of the guys?) In any event, the first turn of the new campaign was very interesting, given the opportunity to bolster existing units. I had doubts that the enemy would expend so much manpower on starving units, but the Swedes didn't fail me and offered us plenty of new targets. Unfortunately, we couldn't "close the deal" at Wismar and let the "Slippery Swedes" escape, yet again. An opportunity on Turn 2 of the Second Campaign also yielded little fruit (except to further weaken the enemy, mostly through supply losses), but Turn 4 would be a turning-point in the campaign. We had the numbers to close with the Swedes...so we chose to use "March to Battle" for the majority of our combined, Danish/Saxon force and put ourselves into a position to deal with them, once and for all. Finally, on T5 of the Second Campaign, we had the surviving enemy forces in an inescapable position, with their backs to a lake. The
enemy had landed an additional force of around 14,000 at Bremen, which would continue to pester us until the end, but the main quarry was
finally brought to ground. Over 11,000 Swedes perished in the battle at G3-S5...and the original "core" (that had been reinforced, twice)...would never again trouble us.

In all, my figures show that some 60,000 Swedes were lost in the relatively-miniscule area of Hamburg/Wismar and in a span of only a campaign-and-a-half (15 turns), through a combination of battle losses and desertion, due to lack of supply. 60,000 losses...that's close to half of the total Swedish army (or, at least 40% of it) so, seeing as they also lost the major sea-battle at Kobenhavn, as well (which they probably shouldn't have, granted), I have some real problems with the play-balance for this scenario. The Swedes already start with enough advantages, as it is, in my opinion--even if they're fighting a "two-front war". If it hadn't been for some very bad moves by the initial Swedish Commander in the W (who, I understand, "resigned" soon after), followed by attempts to "chase bad money with good" and if not for a fluky loss to the Danes, at sea, this would have been a cake-walk...

George Meyer added the following:
I would like to say that when i was looking at the victory conditions it was pretty weighted in our favour from the beginning.
With a starting point of 2000 VP's and an unassailable base it was going to be pretty hard for the other powers to compete with us assuming we did anything at all. Note that one more turn would have seen Stralsund back in our hands which would have increased our lead by another 10% gain. I actually think it was pretty hard for anyone else to win the scenario.

(Registrar's note: There was some feeling amongst the team that the scenario was a little "flaky" (their term) in regards to finances and rules for Saxony. They had a lot of finances leftover that they could not "spend" by end-game because of rules/manpower. However, the players also felt the financial wherewithall of Saxony allowed all of their allies to stay afloat as well).