John the OFM | 17 Jun 2010 9:13 a.m. PST |
Science fiction, fantasy, historicals, whatever. I would think that "pure" historicals would require the most. Tournament games would seem to be self limiting, since you would quickly find the "best" army for 2000 points, and not go much over. So, probably a period where you feel a need to keep buying more units would win. It would also depend on regiment or battalion size. For me personally, I think it would be American Revolution. As soon as I find a new flag or uniform, preferably both, I always need to paint up a new Continental regiment. In fact, Lee's Legion Perry figures are on my Historicon shopping list. There are also SO many Hessian and British (and Loyalist!) units I have not done. But, I think that Napoleonics players with 48 figure battalions would probably win the cup. They also need to keep adding new regiments, but theirs are bigger. I would also think that ACW troop types are so generic, that new units would not be needed. I am, of course WRONG in thinkng that. So, what genre requires the most figures in a collection, and not necessarily to play a game? |
Tom Reed | 17 Jun 2010 9:15 a.m. PST |
I think you are right with saying Napoleonic would win the cup for most figures needed. |
ArchiducCharles | 17 Jun 2010 9:29 a.m. PST |
Napoleonics. No doubt. Just in term of size of armies involved in most battles it's staggering. And contrary to ACW or AWI, you don't just have two sides; every European nation has a huge army involved. There's a reason why so many Napoleonic gamers only paint and game that era; it's neverending. It's not called the 'black hole of Wargaming' for nothing! Iannick clashofempires.ca |
quidveritas | 17 Jun 2010 9:38 a.m. PST |
Napoleonics -- without a doubt. The armies are large and compact -- you get a lot of figs on the table relatively speaking. mjc |
20thmaine | 17 Jun 2010 9:42 a.m. PST |
Depends on the ratio figures to real men. If you do napoleonics at 1:20 then you'll five times the figures of the chap doing them at 1:100. I guess the question is really – which battles had the largest number of men present. Also depends on scale of figures of course. With 2mm figs you can do Waterloo at a 1:1 ratio, and you'll need a lot of figures. |
richarDISNEY | 17 Jun 2010 9:46 a.m. PST |
naps. Then the Feudal Japan wars
|
Florida Tory | 17 Jun 2010 9:49 a.m. PST |
Napoleonics. Archduke Charles is right: you need large forces with lots of armies to do it in style. Rick |
CmdrKiley | 17 Jun 2010 9:55 a.m. PST |
Any genre that GW makes games for. |
Saber6 | 17 Jun 2010 9:59 a.m. PST |
Another vote for Napoleonics. Even at relativley high figure to man ratios (I use 1:100) Napoleonic units are big. My Austrians average 60 figures per regiment, 4 regiments per division. I have multiple Korps Russians, Prussians and French are @ 48 figures a unit |
DeanMoto | 17 Jun 2010 10:55 a.m. PST |
Whichever catergory the battle at Kurukshetra falls into; supposedly over a million per side; multiple types of formations, etc. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 17 Jun 2010 11:21 a.m. PST |
If you assume the average wargamer keeps buying figures for his favourite ad infinitum, then does it matter? You're never going to finish an army anyway. |
walkabout | 17 Jun 2010 11:26 a.m. PST |
The Austrians had 6,000 man regiments. |
Farstar | 17 Jun 2010 11:42 a.m. PST |
Rule of thumb: The more vehicles there are, the fewer infantry are needed to make a game in progress look impressive. Any genre can be reduced to DBX basing standards and need only 24 miniatures, but to become eye candy that will be talked about for months you gotta put more feet on the ground. |
raylev3 | 17 Jun 2010 12:02 p.m. PST |
I'd hate to say "requires" since you can play some Napoleonic Rules with battalions of 30+ figures, or other rules that only require 12. I would agree that one tends to see more figures in the average Napoleonic game than many other eras. |
Martin Rapier | 17 Jun 2010 12:06 p.m. PST |
As mentioned above, it just depends on your figure & ground scale. Koeniggratz had 500,000 men engaged, but I did it with 24 figure Corps, which made it quite manageable. OTOH, I have bazillions of figures for WW2, in four different scales, I've even got the same units in different scales. Why? because I've been wargaming for decades and I choose to have bazillions for figures for WW2. I don't 'need' any of them. Napoloenics languish with a few boxfiles of 6mm figures, half of which date from the 1970s. That is plenty for me, but not enough for other people. |
Allen57 | 17 Jun 2010 12:16 p.m. PST |
Based on rules using a ratio of figures to real units I would agree that Napoleonics take the prize with Ancients being not far behind. Following Napoleonics I feel that the more modern the era the less figures are needed. |
Ditto Tango 2 1 | 17 Jun 2010 12:30 p.m. PST |
A bit of a off tangent post, but requiring few figures was why I embraced Battle Tech when my son was younger. I knew very little about GW products other than the negatives I was hearing on internet forum (this was the 90s) about how many figures one was forced to buy and how expensive they were – I had not yet met my friends who are very much into GW at that time so had zero direct experience with it. I was quite relieved when he settled on BT because youcan have a great game with even just one mini on the table and it gets to stretch you brain when you have more than 5 mechs. -- Tim |
rddfxx | 17 Jun 2010 3:29 p.m. PST |
I would expect, given my own experience, that ancients players collect as much lead as anyone, usually enough for multiple armies in multiple eras. I have thousands of figures and I can table complete armies (regardless the ruleset) for many Bronze Age, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Dark Ages, Feudal, late Medieval and Renaissance periods. I have many friends and acquaintances who have comparable collections. |
rddfxx | 17 Jun 2010 3:30 p.m. PST |
Now I realize the premise is "requires the most", but I think the bug that grabs ancients players satisfies "requires". |
AGamer | 17 Jun 2010 3:38 p.m. PST |
I'd say World War II, the equipment upgrades and the various theaters combine to create a lot of – shall we say, needs? |
Steve Hazuka | 17 Jun 2010 6:33 p.m. PST |
Napoleonics then WWII. Microarmor players can fill storage sheds with their collections. Early war North Africa then the different campaigns. Microarmor WWII has to be in the top three. |
vojvoda | 17 Jun 2010 9:53 p.m. PST |
Napoleonics, Be it Early, 1809 or 1815. And how many minor armies are out there that one needs! VR James Mattes |
Marshal Mark | 18 Jun 2010 2:23 a.m. PST |
I'd say Napoleonics for the number of figures gamers tend to put on the table but ancients (or ancients and medieval together if we can count that as a genre) for the total number of figures in a typical gamers collection. |
John the OFM | 18 Jun 2010 6:46 p.m. PST |
Unless someone nominates a lot more armies, this Poll is going to be not all that interesting. |
nickinsomerset | 19 Jun 2010 10:39 p.m. PST |
FPW, the battles were seldom less than multi Corps affairs with a few hundred thousands per side, Tally Ho! |
Scorpio | 20 Jun 2010 7:47 p.m. PST |
I'm amused that people are saying GW, I can only presume out of a knee-jerk reaction. Because, really, no. Historicals put even your Ork and IG horde armies to shame. |
Farstar | 21 Jun 2010 5:45 p.m. PST |
Is GW a "genre"? I would agree, though. 40k players who complain about the figure count don't compare to WFB players, who in turn come nowhere close to even a moderately dedicated 15mm Ancients gamer or any scale of Napoleonics gamer below 28mm. |
christot | 22 Jun 2010 3:06 p.m. PST |
There are a lot of Napoleonic figures out there, and I'm pretty sure that if you could add up every figure ever sold then Napoleonics would top the numbers game
but are there as many (in terms of raw sales) as GW stuff? |