I have been thinking.

I tend to limit my armies to about 400 figures. When I look for new forces, I study Beautiful Orders Of Battle (BOOBs) and get a handle on how many different troop types they contain.  Divide that into 400, and you get a rough idea of how many figures each troop type would contain.

For example, a Republican Roman army has hastatii, principi, triarii and velites. So, you're looking at 100 figures per troop type. A Carthaginian force could have African spearmen, city spearmen, elephants, Gauls/Celts, Numidian cavalry, Celtic cavalry, Spanish swordsmen, etc, etc; say 10 types and that makes 40 figures per troop type.

Portuguese army of 1812 was infantry, cacadores, cavalry and artillery - 100 figures per type. The French had infantry, light infantry, chasseurs, lancers, hussars, dragoons, cuirassiers, carabiniers, foot artillery, horse artillery, plus the same again and more in the Garde. 20 types, 20 figures per type.

The point is, does one pick a simple army to maximise the numbers per troop type, or does one go for a heterogeneous army and end up with small numbers of each type? Or worse still ... miss something?!

Early war ACW is my favourite. Infantry, cavalry, artillery. 133 per troop type. Though ... i do get bored painting the same thing over and over again.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.   

Hi FSN

I think most people would look to build the army with the correct proportions to real life. you would not want or expect the same amount of elite troops as normal line infantry.  Likewise in your comment on ACW proportions would be way out.

133 Infantry
66 cavalry
19 guns and crew  (assuming a gun is 3 pieces and 4 crew)

I would suggest researcing the proportions of each troop taype and then tweaking it a little to fit in with your rules/unit size.

I think the principle holds for the Ancient period, when most armies comprised whoever turned up to fight. One might also get away with it through to the Renaissance period. However, as we approach the modern periods organisations become more rigid and, dare I say it, regimented. You would hardly apply the simplistic format to the highly organised German corps of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (although, oddly, it might do for the flexible and loosely organised battlegroups of WW2 and post-war armies). 

Dear Mr Orcs,

I think you miss my point. What I was groping for was the number of troop types in an army, and how it affects the choice you make as a wargamer. I love the idea of a Carthaginian army, but there are so many exotic troops that one either has a lot of little units, or runs the risk of missing some of the more exciting and interesting types. Also, there is an issue that an army may be unbalanced by devotion to these minor units. If, for example, one was dead set on having the French Guard Marines in your Waterloo army, the core of your force is 150 men out of 73,000.

My query was do we (the pineapple in the Pendraken fruit salad) like heterogeneous or homogenous armies? How do we cope with Carthaginians, French Napoleonics etc where we cannot field every troop type.

My ratio is simply a tool I use to guage the complexity of an army and how difficult it is to make a balanced, historically defensible force.

... and don't say army lists!

Yes I did miss the point.

I get influenced by things in the following order

1 Is it shiney
2 Are the models nice
3 Do I like the period
4 If yes is there any point in collecting them ( ie do  half the club already have these figures - if so there is little point)
5 Do I need to collect both sides
6 is its easy to paint

In answer to your question I like a variety of troops but not so many that the army is "bitty" with lots of odd units.

I'm not sure I get your point either, and I read your first post this morning, and read it again now.

It may be down to the periods I'm interested in, for WWII then I build up from battalions, and add extras as I see fit. Especially for German forces a few of each tanker vehicle works as their units were often rather ad hoc.

For Fantasty then you are really down to army lists - and I have found it interesting that a new rule set can lead to adding several interesting units to existing large armies.

I'm lost at the point where an army is too small to include everything - smaller figures or bigger tables, that's your answer

I'm not sure I understand the concept "cannot field every troop type"? Sure I start off intending to field a basic army, but for me one of the positive bonuses of 10mm is it's relatively cheap to field the odder units that you might not bother with in larger scales.
Plus I have found that 10mm suppliers have a nasty habit of waiting until you think you have finished putting an army together, then releasing a new model that you cannot really resist! 

So as I understand the original premise, you want to build armies of about 400 figures to represent all the different troop types. Meaning not just infantry, artillery and cavalry but the different troops within each. So for example, in a horse & musket army you may have grenadiers, jagers, line infantry, cuirassiers, dragoons, hussars, 3lbs., 6lbs and 12lbs. artillery. With that many classifications and the rough limit of 400 figures you either have small units or have to compromise.

I never thought about it but I guess I do let such things affect my decision making process when starting a new army. However, I don't have a set limit on the number of figures in an army. What I usually do, regardless of the time period, is figure out the least amount of troops I need to play a game. This is determined by the rules or game design I have in my head. Then I figure out what extras I want and build from there. For example, when I decided to get into FPW I knew I wanted to build at least 4 infantry divisions and 1 cavalry division per side. That was over 500 figures per side. That was phase 1 of my project. Phase 2 is where I added the "extra" troops such as a French and Prussian Guards and a Bavarian division.

For ACW, there's little differentiation among the troop types so my purchases were determined by the size of forces in the rules I'm using. I built minimum size armies and can build on them as I see fit.

Thank you Mr Shecky and Mr Sunjester

I think you have grasped my nub, and for that I'm grateful. 

From what you're saying, you just grow and grow. I must confess that I do the same, but freed from any commercial rule sets I have the advantage and disavantage that I can make my units smaller or larger to suit. There is an awful temptation of just buying at least one of everything. I've found 400 figures to be about the most I can reasonably handle, but am always tempted to have those extra exotics stashed away in the sidelines just to add a bit of colour.

My ACW armies are 250 figure "beginner" armies that I am using to lure the unsuspecting into the hobby.  Now however, I'm looking at the Zouaves and thinking "pretty"! 

Perhaps we are just on one long cycle of purchase and growth, until we have exhausted the planet's supply of suitable materials.