PBEM

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Sweden had planned NOTHING but defensive actions and staged defensive games to determine her viability in the face of a Russian onslaught.  Games which had gone well, demonstrated our ability to survive well.  We had again and again talked of the necessity of defensive actions and preparations.  After being SURROUNDED by a major power with a mobilization limit FOUR times her own, Sweden moved to a strategy which would gain it 2-3 minor German states and would have been happy to settle with this equilibrium.  As a result of our peaceful and defensive actions, Sweden is now at war with FOUR central European nations--all of them fellow Christian monarchies.

Again, Sweden DEMANDS immediate talks with Britain for FULL reparations for the TOTALLY illegal damage to her naval forces in the Sound, located between Sweden and Denmark during operations to support our annexation of Mecklenburg which no one had any legal claim to at that point.

Given the fact that the Swedish Crown no longer posesses anything that could be defined as a fleet, nor even a ship, I don't feel they are in a position to demand anything from Britain. Sweden's claims in central Europe are not recognised by Britain or any of the other central European powers. Of course, should Sweden wish to open negotiations with Britain in the light of her disrupting the anti-French effort at a crucial juncture, I'm sure my government would be willing to listen to any pleas for terms of surrender....

In terms of other treaties, of course it was not Britain that broke the original alliance. Neither was it France that broke the alliance between Sweden and France either....

[timurlain]

Hello, I did send the turn yesterday, but bit later than expected.

[Matto]

Turn on the way ...

[barbarossa2]

Posted:

To: George III, King of Britain
From: Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden
Date: September 1804
RE: Your debts in Sweden

Sweden worked actively and supported all of the nations around us.  It was Russia who completely severed ties, isolated us, and even threatened us. No trade with Sweden was ever approved or reciprocated by Britain or Russia.  The fact that Russia is more valuable to your war effort than we are does not give you a Casus Belli against us.  I clearly stated that Russia had no business in Denmark, but my requests went unheeded. We made it clear that we needed nothing more than Denmark to satisfy our claims in the Baltic.  Sweden also made its policy clear in its posting about its absolute armed neutrality.  It is most unfortunate that the ineptitude of your own alliance in recognizing the right to a secure and included Sweden with territorial objectives forced us to behave purely defensively.

Additionally, after the illegal declaration of war by Britain and Russia without a Casus Belli, efforts were made by the Swedish crown to settle matters diplomatically, and no response was received.

We did not declare war, we did not deny trade, we did not deny anyone access to minors, we did not fire the first shot.

The moral cause of Britain is lost and your actions have made clear who the aggressors in the Baltic are.

Indeed, until the month before your attack, I was still sending gifts to the British and Russian monarchs in an effort to prevent any conflict...and once again received no response. None.

Payment is expected for 746 money, 280 labour, 18 men, 456 iron, 300 timber and 100 textiles.  And until the remainder of our fleet is repatriated, under the terms of the Malmo Act, an additional 631 money, 250 labour, 10 men, 360 iron, 279 timber and 460 textiles are expected.

Additionally, and at this time, Sweden would like to make it clear that we have absolutely no fight with the people of Prussia and their good natured king.

Gustav IV
King of Sweden

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

B2 I have no figuers showing for Swedish losses in their Non-aggresive assault on Copenhagen, Russia lost 419, how many did you lose?

All the Best
Peter

[lenin]

I still remember the non-aggressive attack and seizure of Prussian owned cities...

[IronWarrior]

I'm starting to think that the liberation of Mecklenburg was a better move than I originally thought.

Can't put a price tag on the chaos it seems to have caused. [:)]

I'm enjoying the Swedish Assembly Acts... 460 textiles! [X(]

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

I'm starting to think that the liberation of Mecklenburg was a better move than I originally thought.

Can't put a price tag on the chaos it seems to have caused. [:)]

Hahaha

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Can't fault you on that Bill [&o] , your "Non- aggresive" sleeper is certainly earning his keep [:)]

All the Best
Peter

[IronWarrior]

lol I wish I could take credit for that as part of my strategy. [:D]

[Mus]

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.

[barbarossa2]

Mus,
 
I am having fun.  It is just a game.   Its a hell of a lot of fun. 
 
You know what I like about it?  When I am bored or exercising and I need something to concentrate on besides the pain you get from running up a hill in zig zags, it takes my mind off of everything.
 
Great game.
 
-B2

[Mus]

Im just commenting on the strategic aspects of it, not necessarily the "fairness" after all its just a game.
 
But it doesnt make good strategic sense for the allies to clobber you like that.  I suppose GB clobbering your fleet makes a small amount of sense, but the rest of it not so much.
 
France is halfway to winning on Glory and their Austrian ally was on the ropes while the 3 major powers most capable of helping were busy ganging up one of the countries least deserving of major power status (imo) in the game.
 
Just an observation.

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: Mus

Im just commenting on the strategic aspects of it, not necessarily the "fairness" after all its just a game.

But it doesnt make good strategic sense for the allies to clobber you like that.  I suppose GB clobbering your fleet makes a small amount of sense, but the rest of it not so much.

France is halfway to winning on Glory and their Austrian ally was on the ropes while the 3 major powers most capable of helping were busy ganging up one of the countries least deserving of major power status (imo) in the game.

Just an observation.

It did indeed make some sense getting rid of that fleet. It also made a degree of sense that at a crucial juncture of time, another power just "happened" to wander all overcentral Europe, trying to grab territory, and that same power seemed perfectly happy to allow French forces to pass freely through its "sovereign" territory. It was those actions that left Austria isolated, not the actions of Russia and Britain who could not leave a hostile force alone along their line of supply.

[barbarossa2]

Posted:

To: George III, King of Britain and Alexander I (aka Peter the Terrible), Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias
From: Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden
Date: September, 1804
RE: Diplomatic Situation

I was very strongly pro-British until I was attacked.  I was merely preparing for the possibility of a Russian attack on me and had never once considered stepping foot on Russian soil. Every scenario I gamed was defensive in nature and limited to the defense of Swedish soil.

Sweden wonders if we weren't allowed to take Mecklenburg, why Austria was allowed to take Naples without an attack on her--that certainly didn't make Austria an enemy of Britain or Russia.  Only large nations get to expand their borders at the expense of neutral minors?

Anyway, the facts speak for themselves, I was not the first to declare war.  I was not the first to fire shots.  And I was not the one to shut down communications channels.  You might have been able to express your concerns verbally and Russia, Britain, and Sweden could have achieved agreements on what needed to be done to secure my security in the face of a cancellation of an alliance by Russia, followed by a threat, political, and ecomomic isolation.  When one is the only nation bordering a collosus like Russia which doesn't have an alliance with it, and you have 1/4 of the mobilization limit, who would send all of his troops into central Europe to fight for the Russo-British alliance?  That's where you lost me.

The terms of Sweden's armed neutrality were made clear three months ago. Any attacks on her forces in the field would result in my taking permanent sides against the attacker. The only chance the British-Russo alliance have of reversing this policy is to immediately begin compensation for the damage inflicted on Sweden. In lieu of the several thousand money and resources which are owed to us for the sinking of a large portion of our fleet, this can be accomplished by the repatriation of the remainder of the Swedish fleet, the granting of occupation rights of Denmark as well as Mecklenburg, as well as the immediate cessation of all hostile activities and moves against Sweden.

Sweden would have never attacked anyone.  Indeed, until the point of the attacks on our forces in the Danish Sound had made clear the policy to take land only through the purchase of rights from the current holder.  Sweden worked hard merely to stay out of conflict to keep our forces in tact in case of a Russian invasion.  Indeed, I picked up warnings from the international community that something like this might be possible.  But I will not reveal my sources as I will keep communications confidential when necessary and when asked.

Only the attacks on Swedish units made us "hostile" territory.  We were on extremely good terms with Britain until all communications were cut off. 

Gustav IV Adolf
King of Sweden

[IronWarrior]

B2, I love the way you've played Sweden and King Gustav IV. [:)] Makes a great game even more fun with some creative and fun diplomacy... bravo!
 
I was mulling over the whole Glory Points thing, and at first i didn't like it... felt like a way to metagame your nation's attitude just to stop the major power in the lead from winning. But then I thought about a small power like Sweden... in this case it's a way for them to have some clout where they would not have any without the Glory Points. Anyone else seeing it this way?

[Franck]

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.

I was a strong advocate of this. I must admit I'm quite disapointed by the way my allies have ''helped'' me! The coalition was happy to let me fight the battles while they just sat back and enjoyed the scene. In truth, had the French not been asking for so much, I might have been on there side now... As is, I'll just have to stay put for a while and heal my wounds... Espescially after the draconian terms imposed on us by France! But that's the problem of beieng in the middle of the map(I asked for it tough).


One of the most astomishing aspect for me is the fact that Britain didn't move on top Paris on the turn after it landed in Normandy. All of the french's armies where far away (at least 6 provinces). By moving on Paris he would have lowered french national moral close OR below -750. This would have given us a 1 on 4 chance of a French surrender. On top of that, I would have expected Napoleon to keep moving toward Paris (and thus give me a couple of turns to build back my NM) if the british did take Paris. Unfortunetely, the Brits stood back and justified there move because there was ''an army'' of around 90K in Paris. (of wich the huge majority I'm 90% sure were captured Austrian units). Since I had spotted about 400k troops in northern Italy the turn before and 150K were in Danemark.


The failure to move to Paris is the single greatest mistake of the allies in this game. (the second is that I should just have surrendered once France declared on me. He would have gotten about 1500 surrender point and I would have kept all my minors and the fleet that came with it.)

[Franck]

By the way, I'm loving the ''request'' made by the swedish parlimant...

[lenin]

ORIGINAL: Franck

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.

I was a strong advocate of this. I must admit I'm quite disapointed by the way my allies have ''helped'' me! The coalition was happy to let me fight the battles while they just sat back and enjoyed the scene. In truth, had the French not been asking for so much, I might have been on there side now... As is, I'll just have to stay put for a while and heal my wounds... Espescially after the draconian terms imposed on us by France! But that's the problem of beieng in the middle of the map(I asked for it tough).


One of the most astomishing aspect for me is the fact that Britain didn't move on top Paris on the turn after it landed in Normandy. All of the french's armies where far away (at least 6 provinces). By moving on Paris he would have lowered french national moral close OR below -750. This would have given us a 1 on 4 chance of a French surrender. On top of that, I would have expected Napoleon to keep moving toward Paris (and thus give me a couple of turns to build back my NM) if the british did take Paris. Unfortunetely, the Brits stood back and justified there move because there was ''an army'' of around 90K in Paris. (of wich the huge majority I'm 90% sure were captured Austrian units). Since I had spotted about 400k troops in northern Italy the turn before and 150K were in Danemark.


The failure to move to Paris is the single greatest mistake of the allies in this game. (the second is that I should just have surrendered once France declared on me. He would have gotten about 1500 surrender point and I would have kept all my minors and the fleet that came with it.)

As I explained to you Franck at the time, the reason I did not move on top of Paris was that not only was an army larger than mine just 3 or 4 zones away in one of the Batavian provinces (and you had already complained about how the French seemed to be able to just run several zones across the Alps and catch you up before you could move, but there was an equal sized formation around Paris itself. Now I could have moved the British away from the coast, where they could not be supplied as I did not own Normandy that turn, and I could have fought 2 consecutive battles against 2 equal sized armies who were better trained (though of equivalent morale) than mine. If I had not been forced to retreat, which would have meant the surrender of the entire British Army, as they had no friendly province to retreat to, I might then have finished movement in Paris. If this had occured, France would still have been several hundred morale away from a 25% chance of forced surrender. Personally, I did not think the added benefit of this at the cost of losing my entire army, and making Britain occupiable by anyone who wanted to visit there and allied to France - ? Sweden / ? Spain worth the risk, particularly as it also became evident that turn that neither Prussia would DOW France or the Russians would make any sort of move towards Paris to keep up the pressure if I failed.

Hope this clears things up.

[Franck]

Lenin, no hard feeling on my part. I have felt left donw by my allies in this war. That's all. I kept getting messages telling me that something would pop up to create some more pressure against the french but everytime something happened that just meant I'd get my ass kicked.

I do admit that I was Highly surprissed by the french 3 provinces moves accros the alp to catch and beat my 3 armies on the other side!

Just like the real napoleon did I guess Only in the other direction (ie from Italy)