Question to those who “build both sides”

[BeneathALeadMountain]

Much like Major_Gilbear for my 15mm WW2 I built a base of one or two platoons with supports (mortars, hmgs and guns - my gun crews are individually based so as long as there’s no specific ammo being handled you can just swap the gun out) for each side (so standard Grenadiers that can double as Panzer grenadiers, until I get them, and British infantry with the option to make them armoured) add transports (trucks and half tracks for both) and some standard, none flashy workhorse armour like PZ IVs and Shermans. This allows me to get the basic game to the table as soon as possible.

When I’ve finished the basics I try and fill out as many of the other support or alternative options I can so I have a toolkit of models for both forces. But admittedly from this point I tend to just buy what I’m interested in, what models appeal to me or I get cheap (sacrilege!) always trying to keep an eye on what would be appropriate or present in the theatre I’m aiming to recreate. Then I buy a box of vehicles, use two for my current project and think “ooh I could build these as x which were present in y which is a very different type of warfare to my current setting. That would be interesting”. Then all of a sudden I’ve made two more basic forces and I’m ploughing through the terrain for fighting in Tunisia…..or VBCW……or my new idea for using Chain of Command as is to play in a fictional Banana republic/Junta with heavy influence from the first A-Team episode of all things!

As I also make/collect all the terrain I try and tie projects into terrain sets (except my lockdown Tunisia splurge which was just so different to anything I’ve done before and I don’t know what else I’ll use it for - maybe Italy…hmmm…). So my WW2 Normandy, Into the Reich and Eastern front use the same mat and set of terrain with area specific pieces (like Bocage, Normandy/Russian buildings) to help set the theme. My VBCW also uses most of the Normandy terrain as the U.K. is similar enough to look right to me. So does my new AWI (although again with period/theme specific add ins like buildings). My next WW2 project will be the Pacific and Far East. It may need a jungle mat and obviously lots of jungle/palms. This will then also be used in my other future projects for Pirates and fictional Banana Republic.

Balm

[fred]

Lion Rampant (and the derivative rulesets) have sample armies listed at the back, some of which need les than 50 figures.
These are very goo to get the flavour of an army without having to buy and paint a lot of figures.

This is very good advice

The mini army lists in these books always make me want to field them - and they give a good historical flavour which is probably all you can expect for such a small force any way.

[vodkafan]

Your options in the original post were well thought out. Sometimes for me it is a bit of all of them. But I do like to anchor myself to a specific rules set to give myself some idea, because that will affect troop choice and composition.
Forces don't have to be exactly balanced for me. For instance if one opponent was historically strong in say, cavalry then they would get more cavalry.

[mmcv]

I'll usually put together two sample army lists based on a particular scenario and/or for a particular ruleset. While I may not stick with that ruleset for them, it can help give you a roughly evenly matched pair of armies using whatever system they have of rating units and if it's a reasonably well put together list then there's a chance you'll get a nicely balanced army for the period. Though if I don't have a ruleset I fancy for it I'll tend to just go with a historical OOB or as close to as I can find and work it out from there. Then I'll usually tweak and refine them as I go or expand on them after the core are done. I do tend to pick a particular battle or campaign though and try and mould them around that somewhat initially.

I do try and have some form of balance but shy away from being exactly the same, even if it is similar forces fighting each other. For instance, having one side that is larger with a lot of raw troops vs a smaller but better-trained opponent. Or one side is more melee-focused and the other more shooty. Some recent examples, I did a melee focused Aztec army and chose the Tarascans who are much more archery focused as their opponents. I did a pair of early imperial Chinese armies, one was all well trained infantry and crossbowmen with cavalry support while the other had larger contingents of conscript spearmen and tribal troops. I'm currently working on two sets of Japanese armies - one early fuedal which could be very similar so giving one side a division of mercenaries and the other a division of warrior monks to add a bit of variety. The other sengoku period adding variety with mixes of guns and bows and one side will be more cohesive and well commanded than the other and is based on a particular battle. My English Civil War armies are based on the OOB from a particular battle and again have a bit of that "larger but rawer" vs "smaller but veteran" vibe.

Though these are all starting points. I'll likely end up adding and expanding them over the years as I want to do new scenarios and battles!

[warlord frod]

I generally start out by designing small base armies with the widest range of basic units as I can afford. This way I can do smaller engagements with historical flavor. as Time goes on I can add specific or specialized units as I expand my collection. I especially like to play rule sets that have basic army suggestions and will follow them when ever possible. I know this sacrifices some historical accuracy but I think that approach gets me up and playing faster.

I guess that means I use the Make all the available units for player choice idea.

[Mindenbrush]

I usually start collecting enough units to run a good sized game for 4 to 6 players as that is the size of my local group and my usual convention games. Then increase the size of the forces to suit different games/battles.

[Elbows]

Most of the time, I'll build "my" army for a game, and then a smaller opfor (or "loanfor"?).  However, I insist on having more units than would be playable for both sides, simply because I have zero interest in playing the same forces, time and again.

I don't intentionally make the forces different, but that tends to happen normally.

For all armies/warbands/etc. though I generally just build far more than is necessary to play.  Options and variety are hugely important to repeated gaming.

[Easy E]

This is a good question. 

I try to make sure each forces has the flavor that makes it unique.  For example, in Men of Bronze (which is Hoplite vs Hoplite) the Spartan forces needs to focus on and elite right, while the Thebans need to focus on the Oblige approach and the deep phalanx.  These are the hooks that give each force its flavor.

Therefore, any armies I build for both sides need to have the "hook" flavor of each force.   

[dadlamassu]

For my new army building I tend to start with a representative force on each side that will let me play a game on my 6x4 wargames table with 3-4 players (usually me and 2 or 3 grandkids).  In the past it was the same but then I had an 8x6 table so the armies were larger. 

So each side now gets 2 or 3 "player commands".  Once I have these, depending upon player (or my) interest units or commands are added.  The emphasis is on what will give the players an interesting and enjoyable game.  Taking my most recent "Romans in Caledonia" armies - started out with
Tribune Command 1 - Tribune, escort (Cavalry), 3 Legionary Cohorts, 1 Auxiliary cohort, some slingers
Tribune Command 2 - Tribune, escort, 3 Auxiliary Cohorts, 1 Cohort Aux Archers, 1 Ala Cavalry
Tribe 1 - Chief's chariot, Champion's chariot, Noble cavalry, 6 units of mixed infantry, skirmishing slingers
Tribe 2 - Chief's chariot, Champion's chariot, 1 unit Noble infantry, 4 units of mixed infantry, skirmish slingers, skirmish javelins.
Also in case granddaughter decides to play - Princess in Chariot

Later the Romans expanded gradually to become a full Legion with supports (because I have always wanted one since my brother made off with my Airfix Legion and Ancient Britons)  The Britons also expanded with additional tribal units and a couple of "interesting" units - fanatics, Germans, Dacians, Harii and a purely fictitious Followers of Cu Sith.

In our fantasy world of Morval Earth the armies are generally small based on a description of their homeland, cult, background fluff (scenario based usually).  Often the units are themed and based on what comes in the packet/box, is lying in the lead plastic mountain, random purchase. gift etc.

So to answer the questions
Make them both the same for balance? ... Seldom
Make them similar but with a slight difference on each side for a little unique flavor? ...Definitely
Make them based on a specific scenario?  Often
Make what is interesting from a hobby standpoint? - Make it interesting from a PLAYER standpoint.
Make all the available units for player choice? A selection only.

Make use (repurpose) figures in many periods? Yes e.g. Dark Age, Ancients, medieval historical figures in fantasy, WW2/modern in Post Apocalypse, fantasy figures in scifi, pulp, post apoc etc.

[Hummster]

For my Second World War platoon based forces I used historical organisations for infantry and added a mixture of support weapons and AFVs - so I often have only 1-2 tanks or spg of a particular type, so a couple of Stug III, Panzer IV, kubelwagens, jeeps, halftracks, etc

My mass battle type armies are based on doing a historical battle then expanding to cover other battles, which is what I have done with my ACW armies.

In Ancients I tend to play more DBA so I just pick two historical opponents and build out the set of units for each army list.

With a set of rules like the Lardie's Sharp Practice or Dan Mersey's Lion Rampant and its related sets I'll collect the core set for each of two of the matched lists and add some support or alternative options to each.

[Khusru2]

Based on the army lists generally though not all options taken up.