by Jim Owczarski, 11 September 2024
I must begin with a disclaimer, viz.: General d’Armee 2 is my preferred rule set for small- and mid-sized Napoleonic battles. I am terribly, terribly fond of Valour and Fortitude and am given to playing it at the drop of a hat, but GdA2, as it will be known going forward, has just a bit more of what I, and the broad majority of the Armchair Dragoons with whom I associate on-line, love on the tabletop.
Why such a disclaimer? I suspect it will be obvious as we go on.
This, then, is Project: Quatre Bras, part the tenth.
The Ruleset: General d’Armee 2 from the Too Fat Lardies’ sister-company, Reisswitz Press.
Can I Still Buy a Copy?: The Lardies had a horrid website crash a few weeks ago, but matters seem to have righted themselves. GdA2 is here as both a bound copy and a PDF: General d’Armee Archives
How Long Did It Take?: We did it twice. The first, using Michael Hopper’s scenario from the rule book for Shako 2, ran 12 hours over four sessions. The second, using D.C. Brown’s 1815: The Hundred Days campaign guide was brisker, requiring a bit more than eight hours over three sessions.
The first video for the Hopper scenario is here:
The first video for the Brown scenario is here:
How’d It Play?:
My relationship with GdA as a rule set is well documented, at least if one is willing to make his or her way through the videos in which we play it and other sets. I had been called on to try it for some time; long, in fact, before I began Project: Quatre Bras. (Author’s Note: May I say, in passing, how very strange it is to have folks ask you during livestreams to try their favorite Napoleonic rule set, even as you are playing an entirely different one?) Even though I had purchased GdA1, however, every time I thought to play it, I became intensely aggravated. I knew how well thought of it was. I knew a lot of people I respect spoke highly of it. I started to wonder if I was not addled in a way that prohibited me from understanding it. I found the chatty writing frustrating, the organization poor, and the occasional typographical errors all the more maddening. All this is to leave to the side some of the game’s mechanics that I and others found nearly opaque. Taking only one example, though we did wind up playing a fair amount of GdA1, I still doubt we ever consistently managed the chrome-laden, obtuse charge and subsequent melee phases correctly.
I then began to wonder how many folks had come to love these rules not because they learned them from the book, but because they were taught by someone who had mastered them. Creating a rule set that requires a teacher is, to me, nearly the definition of poor writing. I must, of course, confess, that I do not know that this is so. I will always, however, wonder.
Still, almost on reputation alone, we finally gave it a go, began to enjoy it more and more, and were excited when GdA2 was released. It, in its execution and content, is a tacit confession to the sins of its predecessor. Its prose is cleaner, its organization is tightened up, and the most grievous sequences in the rules are dramatically stripped down. A true highlight for me is the way skirmishers are managed in structure, maneuver, and firing. I have found it sleek and best-in-class. The rules still have rubbishy bits of chrome that I ignore, but, it is now a group favorite, even for the minority who still prefer Valour and Fortitude.
As to the scenario, we were able to evaluate two of them nearly side-by-side. The oft-used Hopper scenario, despite its creator’s frustrations with its deficiencies, is to be much preferred over that in the Hundred Days book. The latter is fiercely bath-tubbed and its terrain is far too abstract. It played more quickly for that reason, but the result, by general agreement, was less satisfying. The Hopper game evolved slowly, one might even say balletically, with attacks stalling at critical moments, entire flanks holding on for dear life, and one of the best fights we have seen through the entire project occurring within the western woods.
And it ended in what we could only decide was a bloody draw. If you watch the videos, you will hear us talking at some length about the rules, the scenario, and the outcome, with neither side pounding the table and insisting they had won. I as the umpire certainly was not sure. I have one more of these write-ups in me, but I will peek ahead and say it was, for me, easily the most satisfying outcome we have had.
The score: Allies 5.5, French 2.5, and two draws
Some images from the first game in progress:
Thank you for visiting The Armchair Dragoons and mounting up with the Regiment of Strategy Gaming.
You also can find our regiment’s social media on Mastodon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and even Threads. (We have an Instagram page and it’s really just a placeholder & redirect to our articles.)
You can support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, also, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.
