General d’Armee 2

A general’s view of the battlefield

General d’Armee 2 is Dave Brown’s 2024 second edition, published under Reisswitz Press and sold through TooFatLardies. Its stated scale is divisional and corps warfare. The battalion is the smallest manoeuvre element, while the brigade is the lowest tactical command. That distinction gives the design a clear purpose: the player sees individual formations but directs a larger battle.

On that basis, the attraction is coordination. A successful attack ought to mean more than picking the strongest battalion and sending it forward. The useful questions concern which brigade receives attention, whether the attack has support, and when a reserve can exploit an opening. Those are the decisions this design sets out to emphasize.

Command effort has a cost

The ADC system survives from the original edition. In Brown’s development account, taskings focus command effort on selected brigades rather than letting the general influence the whole front equally. The second edition adds limited C-in-C interventions, including rallying a faltering brigade or personally leading a charge. ADC options also expand to influence initiative.

Brown describes a particularly interesting tradeoff: the initiative winner can remove a hesitant marker from one brigade by surrendering initiative to the opponent. That creates a choice between a local improvement and the wider advantage of acting first. As a design proposition, it gives hesitation a consequence beyond a failed roll: deciding how much to spend to overcome it becomes part of command.

These mechanisms should be read as abstractions of attention and intervention. They do not, by themselves, establish how frequently historical commanders could remedy hesitation or how reliably an aide delivered an order. The historical argument needs evidence beyond the presence of ADC figures.

What the new edition promises

Brown’s February 2024 announcement presents the edition as a broader redevelopment, with expanded command decisions and quicker mechanisms. His development notes emphasize reserves and supported attacks, while reducing attention to peripheral detail. Ammunition resupply moves from an ADC tasking to model caissons. That is a useful distinction between directing troops and representing a physical supply function.

The direction sounds coherent: spend more of the game deciding what the army should attempt. Whether the revision achieves that while preserving enough tactical detail needs actual play. A designer’s intention is useful evidence about the design’s purpose, but it cannot settle how smoothly a crowded turn resolves.

Start with a manageable battle

The official description supports figures from 6mm to 28mm and includes army organization guidance and two introductory scenarios. It suggests several brigades per side for a club evening and larger corps actions for a day or weekend. Those are advertised expectations, rather than timings measured by Battleward.

For a first outing, the sensible choice is an introductory scenario with enough space and time to learn the command decisions. A large collection is a reason to expand later, not a reason to begin with every battalion. The key test is whether players can recognize why their plan stalled and make a meaningful response on the next turn.

Who should consider it

General d’Armee 2 deserves a place on the shortlist for players who want formed Napoleonic armies and a command problem above the individual regiment. Its stated priorities offer a strong basis for historical scenarios where support, reserves, and uneven control matter.

The recommendation remains conditional. This assessment cannot rate charge resolution, artillery effectiveness, or skirmishing balance from promotional material alone. Those questions need the complete rules and representative battles on the table. What the available sources do establish is a distinct design aim: keep the general occupied with the battle’s critical decisions.