Versailles 1919

I have never been automatically persuaded by Mark Herman. His wargames can feel rather dry, and Churchill did not entirely win me over either. Still, his attempt to make political games outside the usual COIN/CDG vocabulary is worth following, and Versailles 1919 is the most convincing result of it I have encountered. It has Churchill’s broad outline, but replaces its somewhat notional war with a far more coherent abstraction of diplomacy.

Players represent the United States, Britain, France, or Italy at the Versailles conference. The central resource is political influence: it builds over time, then gets committed to the issues arriving on the conference table. The interesting decision is where that influence matters now, and what one is prepared to concede, because no nation can own every question.

Historical personalities also disturb particular geopolitical spheres — Venizelos in the Balkans is the obvious example — forcing everyone to reassess their priorities. Negotiation therefore is not a polite exchange of promises. There is spite, there are betrayals, and there is real tension, because alliances are temporary and their price is visible on the board.

The complexity rating of 6 on the box seems generous to whoever put it there; this is among GMT’s breezier designs without being slight. Theme and mechanisms fit unusually well, although the old contest between historical fidelity and balance is generally won by the former — Italy, alas, knows this rather better than the others. In a negotiation game, though, an asymmetry known from the outset becomes part of diplomacy’s cost.

The end-game scoring is the clear misstep: it feels arbitrary and weakens an otherwise carefully constructed design. It is also notably less compelling with fewer than four players. At a full table, though, Versailles 1919 is that rare political negotiation game whose abstraction feels truer than simulation.