"Some thoughts on number of “units” controlled." Topic

And, whether you painted what you command?

I'm basing this on a The Sword and the Flame perspective. Naturally, any discussion will include others.
I've played TSATF ever since it came out. It's telling that the included scenario shows ONE unit of British vs Pathans. Admittedly, this was more of a rules demo than actual scenario.

As Minifigs and Ral Partha came available in packages of 6 and 8, and in a large variety of types, large amounts of figures in a game were ordinary. We would consider having 300 British vs twice that number of Natives a "small game".
Depending on who showed up, commanding 8 to 10 units per player became common.

When I started adapting TSATF for AWI, I didn't have all that many skirmish based figures available. So, players commanded 3-5 units.
I noticed an interesting difference. When they had a large number of units, the commanders were prone to sacrifice units, or "soak off" a lot more often than when they had only 3.
They seemed to care more for the "men" when they didn't have that many.

And when I played Empire, I usually ended with the Polish contingent. I sacrificed infantry shamelessly, and got some "brilliant" (read: good die rolls) breakthroughs.

Note that until later, I painted most of the TSATF and AWI figures. I never painted any Napoleonic figures at that point. I had sold mine years before that.

So I'm asking.
Do you care more about your units when you don't have all that many?
Do you care more about units you have painted yourself?

I had not thought about either question before.

Unless driven by the scenario, I am either more careful with my figures or units the fewer I have or I am more aggressive the more that i have.

When gaming with figures I own, I do notice that there are certain units or figures I care more about. Maybe its due to some extra effort made in painting or basing them or a memory of the time when I did paint them.

I folow the rule of 12 'things'

each thing is a unit/battery/specail stand. Basically anything that can funtion seperately.

For Fire and Fury or Ageof Eagles this works out to be about a Corps per player.

For Command Decision it is about a battalion or two.

Yes, the number of "units" does matter, including in the ways you have discerned.

The extreme of this is skirmish games in which every figure is named and distinguished.

I have done gunfighter games with kids, and (even if they know they get a new character if theirs goes down) the personality of the gamer comes out, particularly as regards risk-taking versus risk-adverse play.

Off topic, maybe, but I did an 15mm ironclad game with a dozen summer campers, boys and girls. Ages 8 up to about 12 or 13. Memphis, roughly, but the Rebels had an ironclad. Which was commanded by a cutie, blonde, 13 or so, and she put it at the end of the Rebel battle line. So as the Confederate wooden rams exploded one after another under Union fire, she sailed along obliviously. Or so I thought. Then a Union ram, commanded by the oldest boy -- who was visibly NOT oblivious to her charms -- maneuvered so as to line up a perfect T ram. He rolled his dice and had plenty of distance to cut her ship in half. And the steel magnolia looked at him and growled, "Don't you DARE hurt my ship!." And he gulped "Yes Mam" and missed her. At which point I declared the game over.

Do you care more about your units when you don't have all that many?

For the definition of "care" derived from the original post, yes. That's basic economics.

Do you care more about units you have painted yourself?

This makes no difference to me.

If I have fewer unit I don't know if care is the best word but I certainly try harder not to get them routed!

And I have no preference for units I have painted, as the way the group runs either I have painted i) all the units on the table or ii) none

Playing ( except at conventions) solo so all my figures are created by me think I really try to fight not sacrificing troops needlessly.

Doc. I had a similar experience at a convention.
The GM must have really liked the Milton Bradley Broadside game.
I had my son with me.
There were 12 ships, 6 on a side.
Jack and I were cooperating. Naturally.
A tall beautiful Polish girl on my port side (Jack was on my starboard…) put her hand and chin on my shoulder and told me what I should do to help HER. She was with her obvious boyfriend and I was with my son.
I found her ploy rather annoying, to say the least, and stuck with Plan A.

To answer the obvious question of how I knew she was Polish. Besides being gorgeous, she had a rather sexy accent that I guessed was Polish. She sounded like Big Nose Kate in Tombstone.

Most often, I own/painted the figures in play on both sides. That question is moot for me.

I played C&D running a Russian unit, years ago. My orders were to stop the German Engineers' advance on the flank. I threw my relatively weak troops at the Germans, who were experienced, outnumbered my troops, and were better equipped. I lost the majority of my troops, but I held the Germans in their woods, bottled up.

The other Russian players rolled reinforcements onto the table, en masse… None were for me, to replenish my losses. In the post mortem, a German player gave me props for pulling off what I did (good die rolls, but I kept pushing, in spite of the cost). My Russian fellow players grudgingly admitted I kept the Germans in check.

I will do what is best for the sake of the game, without regard for my troops. I put the mission first, but I husband my troops as best I can, under the mission orders and objectives. Cheers!

I always paint matched army pairs, so question #2 doesn't apply.

Question 1 is really interesting. With fewer command groups, I'm more likely to commit to the plan that I had at initial deployment.

With more command units, I'm more likely to change my plan mid-stream, believing that I can overcome a faulty deployment.

In most cases, I'd have been better off following the initial plan.

When I was in the Army, the general rule was the "span of command" for any particular level was 3 to 5 subordinate major units.

While I have many more painted units than that per "side" in my various armies, I still try to follow that general rule so that any player only has 3 to 5 major subordinate units to control.

Jim

Do you care more about your units when you don't have all that many?

Another way of looking at this is – do I have too many units to control – should I get rid of some so I can concentrate properly on the remainder?

Do you care more about units you have painted yourself?

Obviously you cuddle and cajole the ones you love/painted. However, when push comes to shove – the useful ones get the attention – the useless get put in front of the cannon-fire.

Painted, unpainted or painted by who? Immaterial to me. Larger numbers can sometimes allow more risk taking than a small group where the loss of a single unit is a more significant percentage of the whole.

Fewer units per player will tend to make them more careful with them, although it depends how morale, losses and ammo depletion are tracked and whether you allow some sort of unit recovery.

For face to face games I tend adhere to the span of control guidelines outlined by Colin Campbell, coupled with modern management stuff about "two pizza teams" etc. For remote games, which we still play a lot as a hangover from covid, I really need crank the unit count per player down, often just one or two each. Zoom games are hard enough to run as it is, as there is plenty going and I often have eight or no new players to juggle without manipulating scores of units as well. My own personal span of control.

I couldn't care less who painted them, just don't drop my stuff on the floor and step on it, or put drinks on the table.

If both sides have large numbers of units then you will need to accept a degree of attrition to your own side – just make it worse for your opponent. With a small unit count each unit matters more so you need to be more careful – and might have more opportunities to be clever with them.

Many rules have a limit of one third of the army. Lose it and you have lost the battle. Lose 4 stands in DBAs 12 stand armies, you have lost the battle. Other rules have an inherent one third level. If you lose that many troops, the game will still go on, but you will usually not recover.

So obviously, if you have fewer units one third is achieved more quickly. So you will be more careful.

Like others, the more I control, the more likely I am to "spend" units to achieve victory (if I believe victory may be achieved that way, of course). I will even go full Pyrrhic if I think by doing so I will win (or, alternatively, "go out in a blaze of glory").

As for painting condition or provenance, "It's got nothin' to do with it." (In my best, steely eyed drawl.)

Although I do confess that my latest efforts will likely be charging into glory just because now that they're (finally) done, I want to play with them!
(I can therefore confirm that paint ≠ armor.)

When setting up my Rescue Demi Moore Last of the Mohicans scenario, I did give Hawkeye, Uncas and Chingachgook "plot armor". That is 5 hit points rather than 3.
In my defense, the other GLOIRE groups had 8 figures…
I had also painted every man jack one of those figures, so I felt I had the right and privilege to do so.

Before everyone and his brother started coming out with LOTM figures, I picked an Old Glory FIW settler as Hawkeye, and likely Indian figures as Uncas and Chingachgook.
I didn't give Magua plot armor. After all, he WAS the Bad Guy.

Normally, I don't care about playing "the bad guys", in any game. However, for Magua, I will make a singular exception…

My animus towards him is too severe. Fortunately, I have never met the actor who portrayed him in the movie. My hatred of the character was so strong from reading the book, I had a difficult time watching his portrayal in the movie.

I will play Nazis in a battle game, so long as I don't have to portray them as anything but soldiers fighting. Encountered a bunch of Nazi SS re-enactors, many years ago. Made my blood run cold to see men in black uniforms. Figures on the tabletop, no issue, but in the flesh… Hard pass.

I think that it is a natural inclination to try and protect limited resources (units) in a lot of cases. If I have 10 units, I am more likely to sacrifice 2 or 3 to gain an objective. You can't do that when you only have 2 or 3 units to begin with. Who painted them is never a consideration.

For me it has always been, "near the end of play? engage forefully. I am generally careful with my units and follow original plan.

Pondered this question and want to change my answer
I have commanders that don't seem to care about losses

My experience is that the more maneuver elements
the less concern for careful tactics. So, to encourage gamers to husband resources I try to keep the maneuver elements in 6 to 8 units range per player. Also, I may use individual figures, but I try to organize them on sabots to expedite game speed. Too many units seem to overwhelm players impacting the length of time the game and tactics players use.

Can't speak to self-painted vs other-painted. The other-painted figures in my armies are too few to make up units. Some armies required more effort--research and tracking down castings--and that makes a difference, as well as just the number of years and games.

Scale makes a difference. 27 30mm Hanoverian infantry on five stands are the Bremen Fieldbattalion. Another 36 are the Osnabruck Landwehr. An equal number of 6mm castings on a 2" or 60mm base are just a type, not a specific unit.

I don't really think of sacrificing units, just "doctrinal" deployment, if you will.