Question to those who paint multiple sides for a project

[Mr. White]

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

[Daeothar]

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...

[Hummster]

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.

[Kelly_]

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.

[Warren Abox]

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.

[jambo1]

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!

[has.been]

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.

[Pattus Magnus]

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).

[Cat]

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.

[dadlamassu]

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).

[Elbows]

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.

[diehard]

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.)

[FierceKitty]

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.

[blacksoilbill]

Skirmish games: many different forces
Bigger games: two filled out forces (at least in theory. I have trouble getting there!)

[eilif]

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.