[Consim-l] reposting: Superpowers at War (but with some additions too)

[John Best]

Dear readers of consim-l,
Going back almost two months probably, Dave Bieksza had written about his 
playing of Superpowers at War.  I had intended to respond for some time, and 
finally did so on Feb. 11.  But I don't think the post ever got through to 
everybody; my experience has been if I don't see the post in my own mailbox, 
it means it didn't go out to everybody on the list.  If it actually did, I 
apologize.  I do have some additional comments to make at the bottom of the 
original exchange, so this isn't completely redundant.  Here's the post from 
Dave and my response:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Best" <jlbest at advancenet.net>
To: <bieksza at erols.com>; <consim-l at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Consim-l] Superpowers at War


> Dave Bieksza wrote about Superpowers at War:
>
>> During the 2009 restrospectives last month I mentioned I'd defer
>> comments on _Superpowers at War_ (S&T #100) until I finished the
>> second scenario.  I've just done so, hence this follow-up message.
>>
>> First, some background.  _SaW_ is a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact game
>> which had been so common during the Cold War years.  Game
>> scale is 4 km per hex, 1 day per turn, and battalion/regiment level
>> counters.  The two scenarios, "Drive on Munich" and "Across the
>> Rhine," are played using half maps on a standard-size sheet.  To fit
>> within the limitations of a magazine game the counters for the two
>> scenarios are printed on the opposite sides of the countersheet.
>>
>> Digression 1:  Unfortunately no care was taken with front-to-back
>> alignment to facilitate sorting.  Not even the two scenarios' game-
>> turn markers were aligned with each other!
>>
>> Digression 2:  This is the only game I ever acquired in which the
>> counters were prone to splitting front from back.  That might seem
>> advantageous given the comment in digression 1.  However, the
>> intact counters are on the thin side, so the split counters were too
>> thin for convenient handling.
>>
>> My (solo) playing of the "Drive on Munich" scenario seemed typical
>> of this game topic:  NATO was pummeled unmercifully from one
>> end of the mapsheet to the other.  At the end NATO had been
>> squeezed into a pocket inside the city that was at most eight hexes
>> long and at most five hexes wide.  And then, after totaling the victory
>> points, I was astonished to find that NATO had won by a mere 6
>> points (68 to 62)!  That tiny pocket contained enough Munich city
>> hexes to offset Warsaw Pact advantages in attrition and territorial
>> gains.
>>
>> Digression 3:  At that point I had a vivid image of a stone-faced
>> committee entering the Commie HQ and saying, "Comrade
>> General, we gave you ten turns to capture Munich.  The Praesidium
>> would like to speak with you."
>>
>> Much the same was true for the "Across the Rhine" scenario.
>> Warsaw Pact forces were beyond the Maas River as early as turn 4,
>> yet at the end NATO achieved the middle level of victory, in part
>> because of points gained by attrition from limited counterattacks and
>> in part because the West German defenders of Koln held out to the
>> end of the game.
>>
>> When _SaW_ first came out some 25 years ago, it was mostly
>> forgettable.  But now it was a major nostalgia trip for me.  I had
>> played games that included units from the former Soviet Union,
>> most recently in _Central Command_.  But I couldn't remember the
>> last time I played a game that included West Germans.  I checked
>> my solitaire notebooks and found that the last such time had been in
>> 1994!
>>
> Thanks for the great look back at this game; I've been meaning to chip in 
> a few points, but I haven't found the time.  Tonight though I made up mind 
> to go up in the attic (a major pain in the middle of a cold Illinois 
> winter) and retrieve my copy to see what I had to say about it.  I played 
> only the Drive on Munich scenario (concluding it on April 17, 1985 
> according to my notes) and my outcome was similar to Dave's.  My notes 
> aren't entirely clear but it looks like the Soviets beat the snot out of 
> NATO, destroying 41 NATO units.  NATO succeeded in destroying only 12 
> Soviet units (for 24 victory points apparently).  But after adding in the 
> geographical victory points, NATO still wound up "winning" a marginal 
> victory 79 to 66.  I agree that Superpowers at War is mostly a forgettable 
> game, and the printing-two-counter-sets on opposite sides of the counter 
> thing has to be one of the most inelegant solutions of all time, but still 
> there are some interesting aspects to the game.  There are large numbers 
> of Czech units, including the Czech 8th Guards Tank Army (and these guys 
> are shown as pretty in pink in the countermix).  The turn sequence has a 
> roll for initiative (to which each side can add initiative points to try 
> to steal the initiative away from the other player).  Each unit is also 
> rated for morale (A, B, or C).  In combat, you roll a D6 and look on the 
> defender's morale line to get the results on the CRT.  There's nothing 
> here that we haven't seen in other games, but overall it was an 
> interesting mix of mechanics that kept things lively.  Plus it's not a bad 
> looking game (David LaForce did the map, but it's very R. Simonsen-ish). 
> Is it worth playing now, 25 years later when we have so many other games? 
> Well, maybe not, but I'll keep the game out for a little while, you never 
> know.  Dave, thanks for posting, and to everyone, thanks for reading.
> John Best
> jlbest at advancenet.net
> currently playing: Blitzkrieg in the South

Ok, well here are some additional comments.  After I thought I completed the 
above post, I was thinking about this game, and just browsing around on 
Grognards, when I decided that I would look at whatever information there is 
about it.  I saw that Dave's review was listed last, and there was another 
review listed first.  I looked at that review, and was dumbfounded to find 
that it was a brief review that I had written about Superpowers at War, I 
don't know how many years ago!  Mid-90s would be my guess.  In any case, I 
made references to exactly the same playing, the appearance of the game, and 
some other things that I did above.  But, prior to that, if anybody had 
wanted to bet me money that I had ever made any public comment about 
Superpowers, I would have said "You're on", in a heartbeat, and lost the 
bet.  So, two points for me to consider: 1) I wonder how many other reviews 
there are on Grognards that I have no recollection of writing, and 2) I 'll 
try to check in advance next time to not be so duplicative.  In the 
meantime, thanks (again) for reading.
Redundantly yours,
John Best
Currently playing: Blitzkrieg in the South (I'll be at it for some time I 
predict).