How many figures in a collection? Is there a 'right' number? Avoiding too many?

[v_lazy_dragon]

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

[HerbertTarkel]

'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!
 

 

[carlos marighela]

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. 

[Jemima Fawr]

To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.

[HerbertTarkel]

To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.

👍🤣

[carlos marighela]

To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.

 

We have a winner!

[fusilierdan]

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.

[v_lazy_dragon]

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!

[AKULA]

To fill the table with troops.
To hear the table-legs break beneath them.
And hear the lamentations of our women.
That is best.

 

I might be getting close....






...to be fair, I've added a few to my 28mm Game of Thrones project since I took those photos.

[carlos marighela]

 

But in a good way.

[Jemima Fawr]

I might be getting close....






...to be fair, I've added a few to my 28mm Game of Thrones project since I took those photos.

That is best.

[FifteensAway]

" 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.

[Fred Mills]

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!!

[SteveBurt]

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

[mikedemana]

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