Building Multiple Sides - Your Approach?

[Mr. White]

So, I have some local opponents that I enjoy gaming with, but they aren't as loco as I and are smart enough to just stick to one or two games. Me, on the other hand, don't mind going with 4-5 different titles. For these others, I end up buying and painting all the sides and they just show up and game with my stuff. No biggie. I get to kinda 'control' how the game looks and they get to play tabletop games with no effort.

The one thing I struggle with though is...making interesting sides. In games like Dragon Rampant or Gaslands or Ronin, I feel like I need to make both sides basically the same list wise so that we have a fair game. Otherwise, it feels odd being the one how does the "meta worlk" behind the lists and then hands them out. I mean, I certainly don't have time to playtest all my lists solo before we play, so I figure if we both have the same builds it's as fair as can be...well besides me already being the one who probably knows the rules better.

So...if you're someone who provides the sides for you and your opponent...how do you go about it for fun games? Do you even worry about balance? do you preview the lists and let them choose? what's your secret?

[Hobgoblin]

I often make two (or more) lists and let the other player(s) choose. I very much try to make the sides dissimilar, especially with a new game, so that we can find out how things work.

[jon_1066]

I make them from historical battles.

For LR you can use the mercenaries rule, so you alternate spending points to recruit from a common pool of units.

For LR as well the scenarios change what sort of retinue is good.  So perhaps select two asymmetric sides then randomly select the terrain and scenario. 

Another alternative is asymmetric sides then let you opponent choose which they want

[eilif]

I often make two (or more) lists and let the other player(s) choose. I very much try to make the sides dissimilar, especially with a new game, so that we can find out how things work.

My approach as well.   I'd rather have the forces be different.  It's more fun for the participants, generally more fun for me, and gives more opportunity to explore the possibilities of the ruleset. 

Often times I'll try and buy a second-hand army of some sort to have an OpFor and not have to paint a second.   In that situation, I'll not be too picky as long as it's cheap, big enough, and already painted.

[Easy E]

I usually look at historical battles as a starting point.  However, many games are not historical! 

Then, I try to add a few elements that make a faction unique in that game.  I do not lean into it 100% to make a "gimmick" list, but enough to make it have the right flavor.

Typically, my opponents do not complain.  They are happy to play without the hassle!

[eilif]

One other thing about having notably different forces (espeically in sci-fi and Fantasy gaming) is that it gives the newbie a chance to pick an army that appeals to them which I think makes it more likely to draw them into the game.

When I run multiplayer convention games of Mech Attack or Grimdark Future I try to have a variety of forces available.  Almost never exactly evenly matched but no one seem to care.  When folks go to the table to pick out their forces I rarely see them consulting the provided army lists.  Usually they're just picking up whatever toys appeal to them visually.

[fred]

For games with army lists I find this fairly straightforward. But when using more open systems and / or ones that are trait based it can be harder, due to the volume of choice. As mentioned above having a theme or historical template / inspiration really helps.

Differences between forces are good - but don’t make it too extreme. Eg all horse archers vs heavy infantry.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Oathmark is fairly easy as you can build mini-armies and then combine them as you wish ( Wraith-Pixie alliance anyone?).

For others, choose different trait forces: mob armies and small elite armies allow prospective players the opportunity to try the force type that appeals.

Also you can try and get the players to try both sides.

[v_lazy_dragon]

I build the armies I want, picked for theme/flavor, and then let my opponent choose which they want to play.

[Keeper Nilbog]

I can be quite choosy about the models I use, and just recently instead of going into the "dark pile of non use", I've started building "OpFor's" with them.

So that's how things go with me at present.

[Elbows]

I definitely build units for two opposing forces, and ensure they're different, but work against each other.  Then, ideally, I have mayeb 150% of what's needed for a game, so each side has some options and you don't get the same armies facing off constantly.

In my skirmish games, for example; a gang might only be 4-11 models...so I'll do 20 per gang, with plenty of options/differences.

[FierceKitty]

Always have at least one plausible opponent for every army. This is particularly important if like me you live far from the main oceans of wargaming and rely on a small stream.

[tikitang]

I aim to build at least two forces for every project I attempt, as I am usually planning to run them solo, so it's just necessary.

But it means I also have the option to run an opposed game should an opponent ever become available.

One of my personal idiosyncrasies is that I generally insist all miniatures in a project will be from the same sculptor (or same manufacturer at least) in order to create a universal aesthetic on the tabletop, and this preference often means options for opposing forces are limited to what is available according to those criteria. I usually won't purchase miniatures unless I know there are enough to make two suitably-sized opposing forces from the same range/sculptor/manufacturer.

I don't care too much about whether or not the opposing force is radically different in force composition (if it works out that way, fine, but I certainty won't go to any effort to ensure this is the case), all I do care about is that I can get the points balanced and that there are enough available models on the market (according to the criteria above) to enable this.

[ithoriel]

I think my approach is best exemplified by my Sumerian era forces.

Since I play solo and since Sumerian city states fought each other fairly regularly what I NEEDED was a couple of Sumerian armies and a couple of extras who could add in as allies to either side when needed.

What I HAVE will eventually make two complete Sumerian armies and part of a third, an Elamite army, an army that can be either Gutian or Lullubi,  an Amorite army, an Old Kingdom Egyptian army and a Melukhan army.

I mean, for goodness sake, we can't even be sure there was a Melukhan army let alone that it was involved in Sumeria!! 
I am sent as a warning to you all! 

[Mindenbrush]

Unless it is something like SAGA, Bolt Action or WH, I find that most of the Canadian gamers build both sides so that others can game and then build additional forces to supplement the original force.