After Action Report (08.10.2005): 'Thirty Years War Quad - Nordlingen 1634'

Seow Buay and I rolled a die for sides, giving me the Swedes and him the Imperialists. We quickly set up given the limited number of units. We were all set to go!

Nordlingen, as everyone knows (well..), is a pivotal battle in the Thirty Years War which broke the back of Swedish power and restored the advantage to the Imperialists. The Swedes did manage a revival late in the war.

On the armies, the Imperialist army was larger but more coherent while the Swedish army generally had higher unit strengths but were divided. Given the state of the fatigued Swedish forces, the demoralisation level for this battle is set at 100 and 75 for infantry and cavalry while that of the Imperial forces is set at 125 and 100 respectively.

A examination of the battlefield showed a central division by rough terrain and impassable woods into two parts. For both the Swedish army and Imperialist army, the majority of their armies would be deployed on side closer to Nordlingen. It would be difficult for the armies to support the minor elements on other side of the divide. It was much more difficult for the Swedes actually.

The initial deployment was a curious one. An advance Swedish detachment under Horn stood poised to attack an isolated imperialist hill with cannons while the two armies stood facing each other on a plain. The Imperialist cannons were mostly placed on high ground.

Given the tripling of factors given to Swedish infantry in turn 1, I attacked with most of Horn's forces, demolishing three out of four infantry units (5-3 or 5-4 units). Unfortunately, the two cannons units disrupted my powerful infantry units. Seow Buay swiftly moved substantial forces to counterattack. He did not waver and neither was he half-hearted. My tactical mistake from this point basically doomed the enterprise. I failed to position my 15-4 infantry units properly and thus did not rally them. I did a silly suicidal attack with a powerful unit. It was going to be a matter of time before the Horn detachment was lost. I had lost a wing there! It was obvious.

At turn 2, I moved my entire army forward, forsaking my artillery and attempting to threaten Seow Buay's army. However, Seow Buay was unconcerned. He simply denied his flank and deployed on high ground behind his artillery.

At that point at turn 3 to 4, I had to make a strategic decision. I could withdraw and await him, essentially waiting at my lines from a position of strength. This would also definitely end the game at this point as Seow Buay would not forsake his powerful position despite his superior numbers and the destruction of Horn's detachment (That would draw off about 30% of his forces up to turn 4-5). Seow Buay would end with a substantive victory at the minimum. I would have about 20VP and he would need 30 or more which he could more than easily have gotten from the destruction of the two 15-4, 13-4 infantry units, and not to mention the cavalry units.

Anyhow, I decided to throw caution to the winds. I would try to force a decision. Either, I claw out a draw or lose my army. Using my 12-4 infantry units, I proceeded to try to punch through his centre. I managed to disrupt a few units but in turn, more than six of my units were disrupted by a combination of cannon fire and die rolls. Risky attacks. I managed to eliminate a few units but lost substantially more.

By turn 7, my line was beginning to collapse. Seow Buay had managed to reduce the Horn detachment to two disrupted units.

I started withdrawing to my gun line while Seow Buay's maruadering cavalry came around my short flanks. Through carelessness, I lost an artillery piece. At turn 9, my army was on its last legs, and the infantry was just short of demoralisation. At that point, we ended the game. Seow Buay had won a complete victory.

In hindsight, there were two major approaches for the Swedes to consider.

1. The withdrawal of Horn's units and the re-joining of the detachment with the main body. If this was chosen, the Swedish army could actually wait in a secure position for the larger Imperialist army. This was never the obvious choice as almost everyone would have attacked with Horn.

2. Attacking with Horn and then holding the hill with the two cannons for a prolonged period while the main Swedish army attempt to attack left. (ie Imperialist right wing). This strategy appears viable. Again, the risk is not inconsiderable.

For the Imperialists, it would be mostly be the employment of a reactive strategy. Should option 1 be chosen, the Imperialists would have to decide whether it is worth advacing and abandoning a position of strength. The Imperialists have a preponderance of artillery on high ground. The Imperialists have numerical superiority despite lower strength units. And lastly, greater staying power through a higher demoralisation value.

Afterword

I think this is a worthwhile battle to play and I would love to play this again. We will likely be trying Rocroi next.


"Scientists have proof without certainty; Creationists have certainty without proof"
Ashley Montagu