*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2021, 02:16:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
  • Total Members: 9360
  • Latest: Nalwood
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1540051
  • Total Topics: 107655
  • Online Today: 300
  • Online Ever: 1675
  • (December 28, 2020, 04:48:59 PM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Question to those who “build both sides”  (Read 566 times)

Offline Jack Hooligan

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 877
    • Wyrd Stones and Tackle Zones
Question to those who “build both sides”
« on: November 25, 2021, 02:07:32 AM »
I know there are several of us here who build up both/all of the forces for their projects so they can game the rules/setting they like. For those that do, what method do you use to decide how to build the two sides?

Make them both the same for balance?
Make them similar but with a slight difference on each side for a little unique flavor?
Make them based on a specific scenario?
Make what is interesting from a hobby standpoint?
Make all the available units for player choice?
Etc
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 02:20:15 AM by Jack Hooligan »
Blog: Wyrd Stones and Tackle Zones
Gaslands and Zona Alfa Log: Roswell ‘98
Blood Bowl Log: Blitzmania

Offline Cat

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 678
    • Goblinhall
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2021, 02:48:16 AM »
My primary aims are for differences and interesting games.

Offline Moriarty

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 177
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2021, 06:14:41 AM »
Build from an historical battle, but not tied to it slavishly. If there is a ‘quirky’ unit, it might get added on top :-)

So, 18th century Astro-Turkish wars is based on Banjaluka, but with the Ottomans buffed up to give a field game. The Dark Ages Saxon-Viking-Norman armies were based on how DBA could fill the requirements for the 1066 campaigns.

Offline FifteensAway

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3134
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2021, 06:50:24 AM »
Generally, I strive towards your second option but sometimes hew closer to the first.  Depends on the period to a degree.  ACW more the latter with a touch of the former.  Indian Mutiny each side is very different.  There is not a wrong way to do it if, in the end, you are happy with your choices.

Offline Grumpy Gnome

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2931
    • The Grumpy Gnome
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2021, 07:28:19 AM »
I try to make what is interesting  from a hobby standpoint… taking into account my hopes that Mrs. GG will be willing to play one side as the OPFOR.
Home of the Grumpy Gnome

https://thegrumpygnome.home.blog/

Offline fred

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3181
    • Miniature Gaming
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2021, 07:34:01 AM »
Ooh Shiny! Would sum up a lot of my buying choices!

Offline Mick_in_Switzerland

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • *
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2021, 07:42:21 AM »
I usually start from a specific historical battle or plausible skirmish, then expand so that I can do other battles from the same period.

For 1415-1430 England versus France, I built forces for Agincourt, first with about 100 Perry 28mm metal figures.
A few years later, I expanded it. Now I have about 250 figures, about 1/4 are plastic and can recreate the battle on a larger scale.
I also made casualties, tents and supply wagons to add theatre to the battle.
Later, I added war wagons and Scottish MAAs so that I can do the battle of the Herrings.
I have also added characters for the Orleans campaign.


Offline ChrisBBB

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 144
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2021, 11:03:11 AM »
These days I always build with a clear purpose. I choose a historical war or campaign, identify all the main historical battles I want to refight from that campaign, and create a spreadsheet of all the troops I'll need to do so. That tells me exactly what to build for the armies involved.

'Balance' comes from the scenario design.
'Unique flavour' gets provided by the historical OBs.
'Specific scenario' - absolutely.
'What's interesting' - well, that influences the choice of campaign to start with.
'Player choice' - not a factor.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331

Offline Jemima Fawr

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1231
    • Jemima Fawr's Miniature Wargames Blog
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2021, 12:35:03 PM »
Yes.
Suffering from insomnia?  Too much excitement in your life?  Jemima Fawr's Miniature Wargames Blog might be just the solution you've been looking for: www.jemimafawr.co.uk

Offline robh

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3019
  • Spanish offworld colonies
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2021, 12:37:32 PM »
Generally I build armies to specific scenarios but will frequently keep adding extras.  It is one of the reasons I invariably use "1 base 1 unit" format rules as it makes putting together force lists much easier than worrying about whether a unit should be 28, 30 or 32 figures.

When I was putting together my 15mm Napoleonic armies for Volley and Bayonet (1st ed) I looked at the largest army fielded by a nation in V&B terms (excluding Battle of Leipzig as a single scenario) and built that for each nation and contingent.


Offline Major_Gilbear

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2658
  • God-Emperor of Dune
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2021, 12:41:14 PM »
Whilst I don't exactly do a "both sides" approach on purpose, I usually end up with more than one army for any given game - often several in fact - which I suppose probably counts?

In each case, I try and make each army a "typical" force of its type, which would include plenty of common options as well as anything that would be closely associated with what one would expect from that army. For example, say you collected an early Imperial Roman army, and didn't have any Legionaries in it, that would feel to me like missing the point. Whereas if that same army consisted of Legionaries plus some auxiliary archers but not auxiliary slingers, it wouldn't really be a big deal, and you could always add some slingers for a specific scenario later if you wanted to (or just use archers instead if not).

If I wanted to recreate a particular scenario or historical campaign, I would try and fit what I have as best as possible, and would even consider adding extra units if I felt it was worthwhile. Otherwise, I try not to get too hung up on exact forces for a scenario (unless it involves few figures) as they may never get used, and I may not always play that scenario each time.

Were I to do demo games (which I don't), I would probably pick the forces to emphasise what I wanted the demo to do.

I know there are several of us here who build up both/all of the forces for their projects so they can game the rules/setting they like. For those that do, what method do you use to decide how to build the two sides?
If I may ask, are you looking to collect and build multiple forces for a game? If so, is there anything in particular that you have in mind when asking this question?

Offline FierceKitty

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2021, 01:03:19 PM »
Build the second army on the same principles as the first, but often tinker a bit after a few engagements, especially with armies that can fight many opponents.
The laws of probability do not apply to my dice in wargames or to my finesses in bridge.

Offline has.been

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4576
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2021, 01:32:29 PM »
I go for differences, so:-
DBA = EIR v Britons  & Republican Roman v Carthaginian
           But NOT Hoplite v Hoplite
AK47 = each 'Army' is based on a different political (Dictator, Religious
            extremist, Ex-Colonials etc) and different troops. e.g. The 'Air
            force is based around a lot of jeeps with Recoilless Rifles, while
            the 'Navy' has ex'1960s British Armoured cars.
For like v like I can always play Chess. :)

Offline Jack Hooligan

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 877
    • Wyrd Stones and Tackle Zones
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2021, 04:36:08 PM »
If I may ask, are you looking to collect and build multiple forces for a game? If so, is there anything in particular that you have in mind when asking this question?

I’m going to be doing a few different pseudo-historical periods in 2022. Hundreds years war with Lion Rampant, samurai battles with Pikeman’s Lament, some fantasy Dragon Rampant, maybe some American Civil War with Rebels and Patriots. These rulesets are a little less historically restrictive and more free wheeling, so trying to determine the best way to do two sides for each.

Offline Mick_in_Switzerland

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • *
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Question to those who “build both sides”
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2021, 04:45:14 PM »
Lion Rampant (and the derivative rulesets) have sample armies listed at the back, some of which need les than 50 figures.
These are very good to get the flavour of an army without having to buy and paint a lot of figures.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 06:37:43 PM by Mick_in_Switzerland »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5723 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 12:38:36 PM
by Silent Invader
2 Replies
1328 Views
Last post October 30, 2014, 09:53:42 AM
by joroas
2 Replies
1199 Views
Last post December 27, 2015, 12:33:38 PM
by Modhail
20 Replies
3434 Views
Last post March 02, 2016, 12:16:41 PM
by Timeshadow
58 Replies
4472 Views
Last post March 16, 2021, 06:19:23 PM
by Jack Hooligan