[Note: this article was written for the v3.0 version, but the general argument remains current]

Some suggestions have been made by players and observers of Versailles that it might be worth fixing the major-minor power pairs for the 'basic standard' game of Versailles (in both the six- and seven-player versions). The main aim of doing this would be ensure playable, even balances and avoid the creation of what in effect become four or five SC contiguous nations (in v3, France and Belgium or Spain, Poland or Germany and Czechoslovakia, Italy and Yugoslavia, Turkey and Greece, USSR and Rumania, etc).

While I think there is a lot of fun and merit in allowing the preferential choice of minor powers (before you know your preferences in the Judge version, after in Manually Adjudicated - or 'MA' - games), I do actually also quite like the idea of picking set pairs. But only if it is done for purely game play purposes, as opposed to any historical relationships. This is in keeping with my 'alternative history starting in 1929' philosophical approach to the design and development of Versailles.

The idea of fixing pairs in the standard versions (v2 or v3) and keeping minor preferences as an optional extra is growing on me the more I think about it. It could be combined with the designated unit starting positions to define the 'default' Versailles game. Then, those interested in spicing things up could go for one or both of a free unit set up and the choosing of minors by preference. Or a GM could designate his own preferred match-ups in his initial game listing (on the Judge) or invitation to players (MA games).

A by-product of setting fixed major-minor pairs for the would be to make power allocation and player replacement much simpler. On the Judge, 'duplex' play mode (ie controlling two or more discrete powers in the same game) can be enabled, but it has many play and administrative restrictions. For instance, the 'liberation' rules which can apply between a players major and minor powers in an MA game cannot be applied to a Judge game using duplex rules. And because the summary command can be used to reveals pairings anyway, you can't even use the Judge to create genuine mystery around who controls which minor power even in a gunboat game. So, using duplex mode on the Judge, you still lose flexibility compared to manual play anyway, while the chances of needing additional GM and even Judge Keeper intervention (to fix up things like incorrect preference submissions and replacing two-power defaulters) are dramatically increased.

So, developing some suggestions from Bill Highfield and others, I've tried to come up with some major-minor pairings which provide separation (though not by too far), and where the location of the selected minor offers something extra strategically for the major, particularly later in the game (if they are still around, that is). Also, the location of the minors should not lead to virtually 'automatic' conflict or alliance between the owning majors (say like Germany-Spain, Poland-Belgium or France-Czechoslovakia might tend to do). Here is a provisional list of designated pairs for Versailles v3, with some brief reasons behind the choices:

1. Britain-Yugoslavia. This gives Britain a presence in Central Europe/Balkans region, but with a degree of separation from Egypt too.

2. France-Rumania. France gets an eastern base, plus a position as a possible power broker between the USSR, Turkey and Poland.

3. Germany-Greece. This pair would provide Germany with that Mediterranean presence it can never get in standard dip, plus some bargaining power in the Balkans.

4. Italy-Sweden. Adding Sweden would balance Italy's Mediterranean and Balkan focus with a northern position, providing increased diplomatic interaction with Britain, the USSR, Germany and Poland.

5. Poland-Spain. Matching Poland with Spain would give one of the weaker majors a strong minor, plus diplomatic leverage with France and thus (by inference) Germany, or even Italy and Britain.

6. Turkey-Czechoslovakia. This would provide Turkey with a central European base, and some direct diplomatic interests with Germany and Poland. It would ensure that Czechoslovakia is in the hands of a third and more distant power, whereby one or the other side may be favoured, or neutrality observed, from one turn to the next.

7. USSR-Belgium. Owning Belgium would provide a western fleet-capable base for the Soviets, together with diplomatic involvement at a crossroads of western interests between Britain, Germany and France. Again, as with Czechoslovakia, it ensures a fourth power other than an immediate neighbour controls this vital western nexus.

So lets look at the scope of direct initial diplomatic interests between players (measured by close proximity of the major or controlled minor to neighbouring powers in both locations):

The match-ups above should achieve the aim of giving powers at opposite ends of the board (like Britain and Turkey or USSR and France) direct reasons to interact from the start. Powers that are traditionally somewhat isolated from many of the others at the beginning of the game in standard dip (England and particularly Turkey) now have either a direct or fairly close indirect basis to interact with all the other powers, from the start.

Some interesting little juxtapositions thrown up by the proposed pairs:

* The traditional Britain/France/Germany triangle is complemented in the Balkans by their three minors: Yugoslavia, Rumania and Greece.

* If a Germany/USSR partition of Poland was sought, to be countered perhaps by a France/Poland arrangement, Poland could bring Spain to the table to influence France and ensure her a protected flank, while the USSR would similarly bring Belgium to the table with Germany.

* Should Turkey intervene to either take advantage of or try to prevent a Germany/USSR partition of Poland, it has Czechoslovakia as a bargaining chip, together with the capacity to either distract or lay off the USSR in the south. The German ownership of Greece would also come into play as a Turkish consideration, which might then drag Italy and Britain into the equation.

* The Italy/Turkey relationship is spiced up by the fact that all the intervening Balkan minors are owned by different majors (Britain, France and Germany) whose aid or enmity would inevitably be invited.

* Britain and Italy are both well situated to become participants in any continental manoeuvring, or to become a complementary alliance of their own. Alternatively, they could become engaged against each other in the Mediterranean, the Balkans and in Scandinavia: three different 'mini-campaigns'. This, between players whose major power home locations are not even in close proximity to each other at game start.

* A Britain/France conflict would be matched by a Yugoslav/Rumanian conflict in the Balkans, giving diplomatic options to Poland (via Spain), Germany (both in the west and via Greece) Turkey, Italy and the USSR. Vice versa for Britain/Germany or France/Germany conflicts (or combinations thereof).

Naturally, these are only some of the many themes which could be explored - fewer than with preferential minor selection, but a good deal nonetheless.

For the six player version (Versailles v2), the same types of argument apply. Match-ups could be:

On the Judge or as an MA game, the base Versailles game (either v2 or v3) would have pre-set major-minor match-ups and designated unit positions at the start. On the Judge, duplex mode would not be used: instead, the minor would be programmed as part of the major power, thus Belgium (for instance) in v3 would appear as a home SC of the USSR, and so on. This would allow re-conquest of minor SCs, or the equivalent of 'lend-lease' building in the remote minor SC from gains made by the major power elsewhere (much as is possible with Britain and Egypt, or with France and Syria in v2). Keeping the 'standard' format identical between Judge and MA games would allow a common map to be used for both (depicting minors in the same colours as the owning major). Meaningful comparisons between the two media could be made in terms of opening strategies, diplomatic theories and approaches, mid- and end-game analysis, assessment of play balance and so on. It would also assist players (like me) who use both systems to play their diplomacy, where consistency would be a great bonus.

The 'free' game on the Judge (which would be coded separately), would feature duplex play with discrete minor powers and preferential minor power selection (as is currently the case). It would start in Winter 1928, allowing free builds (if desired). Naturally, if the GM wanted only the minor preferences but wished to stick with designated set ups, or allow free major set up but armies only for minors at the start, that could be directed in the initial game instructions, or even enforced through using the 'become' command at the commencement of the game. For MA games of course, any number of different options can be incorporated, limited only by the imagination of the GM. Again, the same map, depicting the minor powers discretely, could be used for both the Judge and MA games.

Please mail me if you have any comments or suggestions on this idea either as a general proposition, or regarding the detail of the proposed pairings or implementation (particularly for the Judge, which by its nature the game format must be more closely defined and less flexible).