Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: FifteensAway on January 21, 2025, 12:33:36 PM
-
I posted the below in the Why So Many Figures thread and am reposting here in a new thread based on a response in that thread and the opening of the post, some edits here and some additional text:
Not sure if this should be in this thread or if a new one should be started - and I fully realize there is no specific 'right' answer, but a carefully considered and thoughtful answer might be of great value to some.
And the question is what is the ideal number of figures to have in a collection? And it does matter.
Case in point, yesterday I ran an AWI game using Rank and File for five players and we had just shy of 500 15mm figures on a 5' x 6' table. That didn't quite crowd the table but it did provide some traffic jam issues but as intended, I wanted to force the players to have to do some maneuvering before engaging in combat and it seemed to work.
I would say the number of figures in that game was an upper limit of what can be put on that much table space for that size figure, for smaller figures, perhaps higher numbers, for larger figures, smaller numbers. And, of course, the number may vary for someone with regular access to larger tables - or smaller tables if that is all that is available. So I guess the number is relative to table size. So maybe keep the 5' x 6' table for the purposes of discussion.
And the way it relates here is this: if people have a good idea of the upper reaches of a particular sub-collection for a specific historical period (may still apply to fantasy and sci-fi but I am focusing on historical) maybe that will provide a broad guide of how many figures is too many figures to collect for a given period - keeping in mind available table size for regular play. Obviously, for conventions and other special events, there may be much larger tables available. But how many of us would have adjusted what we own if there was such a 'magic number'? And, again, it matters and can be discussed despite the slippery element of pinning down such a number. Think of it as more of a broad guide versus a hard and fast rule.
-----
Part of why I have so many figures is in times past I could count on 8-16 players in a game on 16' tables. No where near as many players available on a regular basis anymore and table size is more in the range mentioned above but can sometimes double the table size. I suspect if I had a more well-defined 'ideal number of figures' to shoot for when I got started I'd probably have somewhat less than half of what I do now, maybe only a third; still be a lot of figures but somewhat more reasonable. And, of course, my enthusiasm far outstripped the realities of getting that many figures painted - and this from someone who has painted 1,000+ figures for four years running.
-----
So, understanding there is no perfect number or answer, there can still be a reasonable range that works most of the time for most people. The 500 number above was for a battle level game, 26 battalions in five bridges in an attack on a fortified position scenario. Had it been a meeting engagement with more open terrain, perhaps 600 figures would still have been workable by adding a sixth brigade for a more balanced scenario.
I just believe knowing a number, or a limited range, will help people to stay in bounds rather than going too far overboard - something I've done too many times. Maybe this discussion will save some of us some money and some wasted effort on the painting front - at least in the sense of we will never get even half the painted figures into a game; imagine having 2,000 figures for that above game that only needed 500-600 given consistently available table size. Sure, a little extra for variety, but quadruple what fits on available space goes beyond variety and deep into excessive.
My collection, far, far into the excessive, can be a very stark cautionary tale.
Your well considered, thoughtful responses on this side of the equation of 'so many figures' appreciated.
-
Sorry, you lost me at ‘thoughtful and well considered’ :-)
I plan in advance, usually, and end up with the number I need for the purpose - two ‘typical’ field armies for the Austria-Turkish war of the 1730’s; three DBA armies to cover those of the 1066 campaign. Figure size is commensurate to the size of the planned battlefield, on a 6x4 or 8x4 table (although I have now eschewed ‘braille scales).
Occasionally I’ll add to the plan for specific scenarios, for example 18th century boat men for river crossings.
-
First of all to answer is the question what do you consider "a collection".
A buyer of antiques told me he isn't a collector, because the range and variety of pieces of interest for him is indefinite. Therefore he would't dare to talk of a "collection".
Following this results in your own definition of possible collectible scope.
"28mm WW2 British" is rather indefinite, due to a vast number of theatres, manufacturers, etc.
"An entire battalion of French voltigeurs for Waterloo in 15mm" is very clearly defined.
If we are talking about the complete number of miniatures in one's possession, there won't be a consent answer, though. Why do you ask?
-
When you ask yourself "Why did I buy so many figures?", then you've hit the number.
I've got too many wild west, medieval, and pulp figures, I'll never get around to painting them.
-
The number of figures in any given collection = “yes”. lol
-
I suppose if in two years I'm not tempted to get a force out of the cupboard, it might be said not to be earning its pay.
-
I think you more or less identified your own answer in your post.
When you have too many figures (or duplicates of units) that they'll never be fielded on a table in a single game...everything else is actual wasted time (a rather precious commodity for most of us I'm sure). Sometimes we get swept away with..."wouldn't it be cool to see X"...and the answer is yes, but not at the cost of wasting time/money.
Now some people let trivial minutia push them past this. While considering starting some of the Warlord 'Epic' civil war stuff, I told my buddy...we're not playing historical games where units with a certain flag will be excluded because "technically the 32nd Louisiana Rifles wasn't here...", etc. While that attention to detail is nice/fun, I'm not going to paint new regiments everytime we fight a certain battle because a single flag on a 12mm figure doesn't match!
I mentioned in the other thread, you often see comically large Warhammer armies, where guys have 20-30 of the same tank...in a game where you never field more than 3-4 of that specific tank. To me that's a collossal waste of time/money/energy...just for some cool internet picture points.
-
While there is breath in my body, money in my bank account and space in my house I reserve the right to collect as many figures as I wish without regard to whether they will be painted or played with.
I am a planner of and collector for projects that may or may not come to fruition. That's my hobby.
Gaming is a whole other thing.
How many is too many? I tell you, if I ever get there.
-
By collection, I mean for a specific period, not the whole of one's collection of miniatures. So, say for the AWI as in the example.
-
By collection, I mean for a specific period, not the whole of one's collection of miniatures. So, say for the AWI as in the example.
If you limit AWI to a certain scale, say 15mm, and have an army size in mind, then I'd say that the maximum number of miniatures/units for the scenarios/campaigns you want to play plus reserves/alternatives, which means to me easily double the maximum number you would need.
In my terms: If I want to play a squad in 28mm, I'd rather collect a platoon equivalent of miniatures. Does that make sense?
-
By collection, I mean for a specific period, not the whole of one's collection of miniatures. So, say for the AWI as in the example.
Using AWI as an example, the Battle of Brandywine in 28mm (both armies) is on my todo list at a troop scale of c1:20
Might need a bigger table than 6' x 5' though ;)
-
Keep it manageable with Guildford Courthouse in 28mm at 1:10?
-
The answer is probably 'never enough' as you wil always find more permutations you wish to cover.
The typical wargaming number is what ever you have arrived at before, inevitably, your interest moves to another project/ theme/ 'collection'.
-
As with bikes, and guitars, the answer is inevitably “n+1, where ‘n’ is the current number of things owned” lol
Although there is another formula, which is n+1(not to exceed level of wife’s tolerance)
-
'Traffic jams' sorting them out and getting everyone to where you need e'm...
it's wot sorted out the Greats from the also rans!
:D
-
By collection, I mean for a specific period, not the whole of one's collection of miniatures. So, say for the AWI as in the example.
I'd also say that this is a function of rules set and scope. If you're playing a squad level skirmish set; you'll probably not need whole battalions...
For what it's worth, I usually provide both sides and like variety in the forces being played. So If I am aiming for a platoon + some support assets a side ("GW army size"); I'll probably have a companies worth of figures with half a dozen different support options... for each side.
Possibly also options for a '3rd side' if history permits (e.g. English vs French vs First nations) or for fantasy settings, just to add more flavor.
If I am playing 'squad level' handful of figures a side kinda deal I will probably end up with ~~50 individual figures
-
'Traffic jams' sorting them out and getting everyone to where you need e'm...
it's wot sorted out the Greats from the also rans!
:D
lol
-
I'd also say that this is a function of rules set and scope. If you're playing a squad level skirmish set; you'll probably not need whole battalions...
For what it's worth, I usually provide both sides and like variety in the forces being played. So If I am aiming for a platoon + some support assets a side ("GW army size"); I'll probably have a companies worth of figures with half a dozen different support options... for each side.
Possibly also options for a '3rd side' if history permits (e.g. English vs French vs First nations) or for fantasy settings, just to add more flavor.
If I am playing 'squad level' handful of figures a side kinda deal I will probably end up with ~~50 individual figures
We think or at least purchase and paint in a disturbingly similar manner.
Mine is slightly worse. I'll buy Force A and Force B and then want the options of Force A also being able to fight its other historical opponents: Forces C,D & E. Meanwhile, Force B will have its own set of alternative options. All of that is before I start adding chrome. 'Oh, wouldn't a group of MPs be good for that scenario' or 'Maybe I should add a section of engineers. The eternal struggle of the completist versus the pragamatist. The pragmatist usually loses, alas. :)
-
To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.
-
To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.
👍🤣
-
To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.
lol lol lol
We have a winner!
-
Years ago I would have picked a scenario from a book and built the collection for that, think Johnny Reb2 starting with the smallest scenario and working up. When The Perry's came out with the AWI line I started building a force for Saratoga, I already had a fair number of AWI figures but now I needed the ones in the Saratoga head gear.
I've come to the conclusion that 8-12 units per player is about the right number for a 2-2.5 hour game. This is what I use for deciding what I'll buy and paint. I build both sides and enough for a two player game. Depending on the period it's about 100 to 300 figures per collection. 28mm ACW, Warring States Chinese, WWII and 20mm SCW all have followed this idea. There are some collections that got away from this concept but I'm confident I could rationalize that if needed.
As for AWI I've close to 600 figures in about 32 units plus 6 or so artillery units. So a good sized 4 player game.
So to answer the questions.
How many figures in a collection? 50-300.
Is there a 'right' number? No, it depends on the period, how many players you want to have, what size game and some other criteria the owner decides will make them happy.
Avoiding too many? Set a limit and stick to it. Plan out what you'll need.
Great question and plenty of solid comments.
-
We think or at least purchase and paint in a disturbingly similar manner.
Mine is slightly worse. I'll buy Force A and Force B and then want the options of Force A also being able to fight its other historical opponents: Forces C,D & E. Meanwhile, Force B will have its own set of alternative options. All of that is before I start adding chrome. 'Oh, wouldn't a group of MPs be good for that scenario' or 'Maybe I should add a section of engineers. The eternal struggle of the completist versus the pragamatist. The pragmatist usually loses, alas. :)
I think we do! I definitely do that to an extent, perhaps not quite as great an extent... Retract that - thinking about my 1600's colonial America stuff, I am definitely that bad!
-
To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.
lol
I might be getting close....
(https://i.imgur.com/ZX9CsXq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KJkeYbh.jpeg)
...to be fair, I've added a few to my 28mm Game of Thrones project since I took those photos.
-
:o :o :o :o :o :o
But in a good way.
-
lol
I might be getting close....
(https://i.imgur.com/ZX9CsXq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KJkeYbh.jpeg)
...to be fair, I've added a few to my 28mm Game of Thrones project since I took those photos.
That is best.
-
" I've come to the conclusion that 8-12 units per player is about the right number for a 2-2.5 hour game. This is what I use for deciding what I'll buy and paint. I build both sides and enough for a two player game." <= for me, the best answer so far.
That is useful and understandable information that just about anyone can interpret - no matter the scale of the figures, the size of the table, or the rules in use. Though, most of the time, I'd say that number of units is fairly high - though a simple enough set of rules would work, something like my personal favorite battle scale Rank and File. A lot of other rules would work but take double the 2 - 2.5 hours and I base that on personal experience and/or observation.
-
I'm really enjoying this thread. Comments on my own oddities follow.
I mostly don't game with others with my little armies, but prefer solo, and even then gaming is far rarer than just building an army - researching, buying, painting, basing, and enjoying. And, very occasionally, moving them around some terrain with purpose, though the terrain itself has followed a similar laborious trajectory: planning, buying, etc.
The solitary, quiet nature of the hobby suits very well my personality, research interests, and deep introversion, and balances the very public-facing, extroverted career I lead. Toss in a large and loving family, home maintenance, etc., and time in the basement with brushes and army lists, maybe some music or a podcast, becomes just the business. It is never about sufficiency or a numerical threshold, though of course I build towards certain broad objectives, as I suspect most of us do.
My figure collecting is therefore a logical outgrowth of and important complement to a balanced and happy life or, more precisely, a work-life balance. That said, I regularly overbuy or buy on impulse, and unpainted stuff vastly overwhelms painted in my bulging cabinets.
I tend very strongly to collect in accordance with actual orders of battle, tied closely to specific periods.
As my gaming scale is 15mm for Napoleonics, ACW, and large-scale ancients, plus skirmish for WWII and modern, I gravitate towards a real OB (Gettysburg or Wagram, e.g.) and build towards it, with 'Fire and Fury' or 'Age of Eagles' as a guide, supplemented by other research. I like 'Field of Glory' as an army guide for ancients and medievals, but because we often don't know specifics about army composition in these periods the guideposts are wider and the options more numerous.
I'm hardly religious about any of it, but usually move side to side, unit by unit, to build in crude balance, though because I dislike painting cavalry all my pre-mechanized forces are decidedly foot heavy! I consider it "enough" in several stages, when there's a corps or wing for each side that can glare at one another in their trays or boxes, or across the table (10 x 4.5 feet), but then I keep building up and out from there. For example, what about units that were not there but could have been on the day? What about interesting units that never could have been present, but which add colour or just look good anyway? (I enjoy the FoG options for this.)
But what is a satisfactory collection point?
A corps of three divisions with two or three brigades, each of six to ten stands, plus commanders and maybe some markers or attached guns, would give a good average of where my first balance point would lie, and then double that as I build up each side.
This gives a total of 75-100 bases per side, in 6-9 maneuver formations each. When the table breaks or the coroner comes (echoing Olicana's funny comment above!), I might have to revisit this, but for now I enjoy the mix of structure and flexibility in this approach, which never becomes a target or requirement. My wife and family are very supportive of my life-long nerdiness too, which is a critical factor in any hobby, and one I am very conscious of never underappreciating or taking for granted. I recently dropped back to a four-day week, so there has been more hobby time, but also more time for domestic pursuits, and I keep a weather eye on those too.
In WWII and moderns, I do microarmour for large-scale combat (and 15mm and 20mm for puttering about, mostly with old plastics or model kits), and here follow a similar approach. I use divisional OBs from either side and build by battalion, regiment, or brigade, as occasion demands.
Normandy and Kursk are the guideposts for WWII; and the NATO-Pact balance in CENTAG c.1985, with a strong Fulda bias, for "Cold War gone hot." The objectives are grandiose - a scaled down American armoured division, a Soviet motorized rifle division, West German and Canadian brigades, a second-echelon Pact tank brigade, and so forth) - but there's no timetable; putting paint on three or four teeny M1A1's in an evening is every bit as satisfying as seeing a whole unit of Waterloo-era British hussars flocked and ready for action.
This maps onto my workflow too, which usually has one unit on the paint table at any time (say, a microarmour battalion or a 15mm Union infantry brigade of a dozen stands), and usually five or six them orbiting the table, as the spirit moves me. I'm a list keeper, so there is always a chart in a nearby drawer tracking progress and suggesting what's next, and Powerpoint files to illustrate visually how each army is doing. But there are no rules or timelines; the tracking scratches one slightly compulsive itch, while the constant change suits another slightly rebellious one.
I appreciate your question and the thoughts it prompted from others. Looking at my miniature legions, I should really get back at some French dragoons and Austrian cuirassiers!!
-
Anything more than is required for an evening game is too much for me. So about 12 units per side is ample IMO. I confess to having about twice that number for my Napoleonics and also rather more for ACW, and way too many for WW2 but the latter needs lots of tanks, halftracks, trucks, guns etc etc
-
A friend is running a six-player Lion Rampant game this Sunday. Each of us will control six units or so, roughly 60 figures. I'm thinking it is going to be slow going and crowded on my 8-foot wide table, but we shall see. After playing a similar game of Xenos Rampant last year, we agreed to limit commands to 18 points. My friend won't be persuaded to do the same for Lion Rampant, so here we go...
Interestingly, I have scheduled a Xenos Rampant game with the same crew on the same table the next weekend. The commands I've drawn up have only 3-4 units per player. We shall see... ;)
Mike Demana
-
Was thinking further on this and recalled a discussion from many years ago at a certain unnamed 'other' forum where it was stated with sound reasoning that the practical upper limit for one player was fifty 'units' in a game - whether the unit be a single figure or a stand of figures. That jibes reasonably well with the 8-12 units mentioned above as long as the aggregate total is in that 'fifty' range (8 units at 6 stands per unit = 48 being an example, add a couple generals and = 50 , or could be 12 units at 4 stands per unit).
So, I guess, for me, building an army with an upper limit of 300 'units' per side is a good target, maybe a few extra options for varied scenarios. That is for a maximum of six players with four players being the more common likely number. So, skirmish collection max 600, 3 figures per base collections (my norm for multi-based) max is 1800 figures, plus those 'few extra options'. That is, of course, for two sided collections (collection = specific period of history). Most games would be smaller, often times a good deal smaller - especially skirmish games.
As suggested, there is never going to be a 'hard and fast' rule but I think this is a good guideline to keep in mind when determining how many figures to acquire in building a collection. Had I adhered to that rule from the beginning I'd probably have at least 1/3 fewer figures than I do. But making serious efforts to 'down design' all of my excessive collections - and even most of my smaller ones as well.
And truly hope this helps some people avoid their own excess - time and resources that can be put towards other elements of life that are also enjoyed.
-
I would agree with that reasoning.
In the spirit of splitting hairs how do you count the non player characters in a game? Townsfolk in a western or gangster game for example. Are they figures or scenery? I would go for figures.
-
Good question, fusilierdan, and one I've been wrestling with. If the figures have a role in the game, however peripheral, figures. Otherwise, scenery. And the very same sculpt can be a NPC 'figure' in one game and just scenery in a different setup. I am of the mind that there can be 'active' NPC figures that aren't run by the players, either by some sort of mechanism or at the whim of the game master to spice up various scenarios - life doesn't occur in a 'shoot out' vacuum as a general rule.
And this is one period, Old West, I will very much have excess - even after greatly sorting down to a much smaller total number of figures to keep and paint. I do have a plan to paint in small batches of six figures at a time, sometimes multiple batches, until I reach the point where I am satisfied I don't need more. I am thoroughly enamored with the incredible variety of game set-up options the Old West provides. You can get a sense of how excessive here: https://whiskeyhills.blogspot.com (https://whiskeyhills.blogspot.com). But until I reach that 'satisfied I don't need more' point, that is what I am keeping at the ready. Yeah, I know, that is still a crazy lot of figures that remain but dwell upon the different sorts of games I can run with that lot. And it is A LOT less than previously.
You can also go here to check out postings here on LAF for my Old West: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=147545.0 (https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=147545.0) Oh, and I am breaking apart into Old West - individually based figures - and Pony Wars - multi-figure bases. The latter is multi-based to be able to run Little Big Horn and even more so the battle of Rosebud eight days earlier.