Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. White on May 30, 2022, 02:44:58 PM
-
If you’re someone who ends up painting multiple factions of a project so friends can play, do you tend to prefer to have:
1) many different factions to choose from, four or more, but not much more than the minimum required models/units
2) two sides, but go deep and have all the options available
-
I tend to go for two, well sorted factions. Some bells and whistles make for some variation in consecutive plays, without having to learn the intricacies of an entire new army.
However; there are certain games where I do like to overboard and collect a great many factions (I'm looking at you there, Infinity!), but the binary approach above is my usual MO...
-
Though I am more of a historicals gamer when I do these sorts of games I'd normally go with 2 factions with a bit of depth rather than try and do too many.
-
Definitely option 1, with several different factions. I find it is a lot easier to add individual units onto small existing forces one at a time to bring in depth, than to start a third from scratch when you already have cases filled with your first and second factions.
Best of all for depth though, are systems that allow allies or non-aligned models you can use for multiple forces.
-
I generally start with four or five stripped down factions. This allows me to experiment with each faction's abilities and style, and how the factions play against each other. This helps me determine which two are the most interesting, or make the best matched pair, and I'll move on to collecting all the bells and whistles for my two favorites.
-
Option 2 for me, I tend to do both sides and plenty of unit in each. Well that's the theory but my glacial painting speed tends to cloud the whole thing! :)
-
Best option = Two forces that can fight each other &/or be allied.
Where that is not possible (ACW for example) I start small, say
2 to 4 Inf. 'regiments' , a Cav. unit & an artillery battery each.
That way we can at least play a game. If my opponent gets the
bug we can both continue to add forces. If not I will add what
takes my fancy on an 'as & when' basis.
-
I have had ambitions to do several armies to give guests a range to choose from. And I have never been able to pull it off for any game bigger than small skirmishes with 5-10 figures per side. It was too easy to do a unit here and a unit there scattered across the armies and never get enough of anything done to be a viable force.
Conversely, I have successfully done paired opposing forces for bigger armies several times… The advice to do forces that could be combined as allies or fight each other is worth considering. Similarly, if one army includes an allied or mercenary contingent that could eventually be expanded into an army on its own you can get extra mileage (I’m hoping to build out the Galatian contingent in my successor army that way someday).
-
All of the above!
My projects tend to quickly escalate into what would be handy for running an 8-player convention game, and then generally expand into further options.
-
Another "all of the above" here. Usually 4 or more factions, armies etc. if appropriate to start off. Each with sufficient strength to give an evening's gaming. Then gradually add allies, specialists, auxiliaries, civilians, brigands, bandits etc. etc. etc.
the exception - when the children and grandchildren were small there were only two sides "Goodies" (the kids) and the "Baddies" (dad/grandad).
-
I'd say it depends entirely on the game and the scale.
I play predominantly skirmish games, so it's easy to acquire many factions or just models that can be used by various factions, etc. However for something like 15mm Battlegroup WW2...I have a 'main squeeze', my primary army - and then one fairly extensive loaner army. I don't see myself excpanding to a heap of random armies. My 15mm Soviets, for instances, take up some 5-6 boxes, my Germans 2-3.
However, I also don't have one game that I love above all else. I know some gamers are 100% dedicated to one or two games, and go far heavier with the project than I do. If I was dedicated to one game or one kind of game, I can see going deep on numerous armies.
-
Option 2 for me, from way back in Epic 40K (Marines and Eldar), SoTR (Americans & Germans) to most recently Hordes (Legion & Circle.) Chosen by what I like the looks of most. Now for games with a smaller limited group like Bloodgood I did numerous teams. With Necromunda I had a dedicated opponent so only did Orlocks as that's what I started with and just kept making new models as the gang changed but always planned on doing the Escher (till I lost my dedicated opponent.)
-
I've always had a strong preference for at least one opponent for every force I do, and usually several more. In 10mm, this is usually feasible, and you can still have pretty big armies.
-
Skirmish games: many different forces
Bigger games: two filled out forces (at least in theory. I have trouble getting there!)
-
Option 1 and 2 for skirmish. If we're playing sing of Blades and Heroes, Necromunda, or some Post Apoc or Sci Fi skirmish, I've got lots of forces and lots of options.
For larger battle games, it's probably neither. I've likely got the required amount of minis for me large battle and not allot of excess options.
-
For Blood Bowl I have many different factions. For fantasy and Sci-Fi I have both due to 30+ years of collecting.
For historical gaming I pick a campaign then build up the forces starting with the smaller scenarios and expand the forces to accommodate the larger battles as time goes on.
-
I'm a 'deep and have all the options' hobbyist now.
I went in boots first when I started painting, collecting and gaming Second World War in 1/72. I just went nuts with Germans, Russians, Brits, Italians...but soon began to narrow my focus to two major opponents with more options for vehicles (Germans/Soviets).
Painting many opposing armies was a bit unfocused for me. It soaked up the time I could have been used to paint up more vehicles & terrain. So for me, multiple options = multiple scenarios, and greater replay-ability for games like Crossfire/Bolt Action.
For the past year I have been painting more & more English & French 100YW/Medieval armies in 1/72, with a view to playing bigger battles, with larger units on the table. I'm doing this to be able to scale up from Lion Rampant to games like To the Strongest! and Kings of War.
I like having the option of using my armies for differing rule-sets, for the different opponents I've gamed with. If I have all the stuff, I can easily convince my mates to come and throw some dice & cards around. Until recently, I've lived remotely in Australia, so having all the stuff to actually get a game going was the most important thing.
-
When I start a project I research the period (one hobby), collect together most of what I think I’ll need for both sides (another hobby), then I start painting it (a different hobby), and if I’m still enjoying it I might game with it (an even different hobby) else at any stage I either sell or bin it.
-
or bin it.
NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
I quote rule One of the wargamers' handbook,
'...on no account throw stuff away!'
Give it away, yes.
Repurpose it, yes.
Convert it, yes.
Or the more usual, put it in a box & file it away for some
unspecified distant time when you may look at it again.
:D
-
If you’re someone who ends up painting multiple factions of a project so friends can play, do you tend to prefer to have:
1) many different factions to choose from, four or more, but not much more than the minimum required models/units
2) two sides, but go deep and have all the options available
This depends on budget and effort to get stuff done. I rather buy all factions if these are pre-painted/ready to play. Being the slow painter that I am, I tend to limit factions if I have to paint them myself. Often enough I find myself having only one faction finished when my fellow gamers have already moved on to the next shiny thing. Over the decades of painting and tabletop gaming, I decided to have at least two factions for every game at least. I bolster them thoroughly for variation and if time and budget allows (and I really PLAY the game), sometimes I step further and start additional factions. However I consolidate games I already own, rather than buying new ones. Does this all make any sense?
-
I game with 2 very different groups.
With the local group it is very much if you are interested in a period then one has to paint both sides with enough for 6 players.
As I am off to Historicon in July and have access to the OG Army card 40% discount, I suggested they take a look and see what they need.
Blank faces……
The other group are a 2 hour drive away, but they all get together and build compatible forces for a period whilst also building both sides for other periods that they are personally interested in.
-
Enough for 6 players! That seems.... unreasonable to say the least.
I tend to create two opposing forces that I would want to play. I am not sure if that means I go deep, or wide but there you go. Since I am setting it all up and doing all the work, I will paint the things I want to paint; thank you very much!
-
I'm 1 and 2!
Several choices with lots of add ons. But, then, I've been gaming decades. The only exception? ECW.
-
I tend to think of any painting project as just adding to the stack of miniatures that can be used for many different games. I really just do fantasy and sci-fi gaming, which makes it easier to use anything and everything together (and the fantasy figures are a good source of primitives for sci-fi games).
I do, though, pay attention to unit sizes for games like Saga and Dragon Rampant. So a group of goblins (say) might be primarily painted up for an RPG encounter, but I'll probably make sure there are 12 of them for use as levies in Saga or light foot in Dragon Rampant.
One thing that's handy, I find, is to paint up some 'officer' figures that can be added to quite different units to show which side they're on. Standard bearers, leaders and 'discipline masters' (common in old Citadel sets) can be very handy for this.
As an example, we recently played a game of Saga in which I was fielding a bunch of pallid orcs as the Irish. I wanted to use warhounds, but didn't have enough dogs to do so. What I did have, though, was a group of feral-looking Frostgrave gnolls. Most were very lightly armed (daggers and clubs). By adding an orc discipline master to the rear of the group, I got a convincing look for a group of fast, bestial monsters lashed into action - which fits the warhound profile nicely.
I'm currently painting up various human types to make use of the Norman and Carolingian battleboards and dice in Saga. The main thing is to get some heavy cavalry. But I'm also painting up some spare foot knights with the same sort of gear. The idea is that these can be dropped in as leaders for units of orcs or beastmen or whatever, to show that they're part of the same force as the knights.
That approach, I think, would work well for many per-gunpowder historical forces - to allow generic troops to look the part through their leader and increase the versatility of the available figures.