Friday, March 19, 2021

Does Figure Size Drive Collection Size?

One of the comments brought up in the previous analysis on collection size (see: Collection Size or Mine's Bigger) more than once was a question of relationship between collection size and figure size.  Do wargamers preferring the smaller sized figures tend to collect more figures than those gaming in the larger scales?  That question was not addressed in the earlier analysis because the answer cannot be derived precisely given the current questionnaire.  But since the question has been raised, let us see if can reach a conclusion or at least move in the direction of answering the question.  Laying out a few assumptions upfront and attacking the question using an indirect approach may be useful in providing some insight.

First, collection size cannot be directly mapped to composition of a collection's figure size.  While some respondents may focus on one figure size only, many (myself included) maintain collections with various figures sizes.  Survey respondents were asked to rank their figure size preference.  In this exercise, one collection size maps to one top figure size preference.

Second, does the top choice of figure size equate to the largest number of figures in the collection?  For some, that may be true.  For others, perhaps, not so much.  

Third, how many wargamers actually maintain the records on hand to assess which figure size dominates the collection?  For very large collections and those wargamers with diverse interests, this assessment may be at best an educated guess.

For this exercise, we assume that a respondent's first choice of figure size denotes the dominant figure size in the collection whether this represents the sole figure size present or shared.  The first two graphics (Figures 1, 1b, 2,2b) illustrate these results.

The second pair of graphics (Figures 3 and 4), look at the aggregation of respondents' top three choices of figure sizes.  Will differences surface between top choice and top three choices?

Collection Size by Top Choice of Figure Size (Scale)
Figure 1 illustrates that 25-28mm and Heroics dominate representation in the smaller collection sizes.  As collection size increases, the tendency to include Heroics decreases more rapidly while 25-28mm sees slight gains.  The smaller figure sizes see an increase in numbers as collection size grows.  In all collections except for the 0-100 group, 25-28mm figures are the preferred figure size.  Figure 1b shows these data as a percentage of total rather than by counts.
Figure 1
Figure 1b
Transposing the data in Figure 1 to show Figure Size by Collection Size (Figure 2), still nearly 25% of the respondents preferring 25-28mm have collections exceeding 2,500 figures.  As in Figure 1, we can see that 25-28mm and Heroics dominate the 101-500 figure collection size.  Wargamers favoring the smaller figure sizes tend to hold larger collections than their 25-28mm and Heroic compatriots.  For the 06mm, 10-12mm, and 15-18mm wargamers (or collector) their largest bin with respect to collection size is in the 2,500+ category.  
Figure 2b shows these data as a percentage of total rather than by counts.
Figure 2
Figure 2b

Collection Size by Top Three Choices of Figure Size (Scale)
What if all survey respondents' top three preferred figure sizes are aggregated by collection size?  As in Figure 1, tendencies remain similar.  The noticeable exception is that in the aggregation of top three figure sizes, 15-18mm figures moves into a more prominent role as collection size increases. 
Figure 3
The prominence of 15-18mm figures within large collections is better illustrated in Figure 4.  Here, collections with 15-18mm figures within the top three preferences tend to be very large, indeed.  Notice that 06mm and 10-12mm figure sizes fit into this pattern too.
Figure 4
Given the limitations on the data, can any inferences be made?  I suggest that, generally, as figure size increases, collection size decreases.  As collection size increases, the presence of 28mm Heroics decays at a faster rate while 25-28mm figure show slight gains with collection size increases.  25-28mm figures remain a popular choice regardless of collection size.  Do these results hold for me, personally?  Having diverse interests across the spectrum of figure size and wargaming periods, my collection size seems to increase regardless of figure size.  For me, figure size does not matter.  Now, storage space, that is becoming a constraint.

Is your collection size dependent upon figure size?

59 comments:

  1. Most certainly Jonathan. I simply could not store more than say 2 - 4 Armies of 28mm figures, given my current (and foreseeable) storage restrictions. In the same space I currently have around 10 Armies, excluding the leadpile in the attic. This is one reason I went down the 10mm route. Then of course there is the issue of the attendant terrain to be stored, which I learnt very early on, is pretty hard to do in our house, which again was another reason for downsizing scale wise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Storage becomes a limiting factor for many, I suspect. I still have plenty of storage space to commandeer if needed. Terrain can be another big issue as you mention. Since my terrain is very basic and often overlooked, I have yet to face this problem. Thanks for your comments.

      Delete
  2. Storage space is becoming an increasing factor for me. 28's just take up so much space, whereas entire 6mm armies fit into a biscuit tin (and can be magnetised). But I do love the 28's and will keep adding to them. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another vote for storage space as a limiting factor! We all need more storage space, smaller armies, or both!

      Delete
  3. I got rid of my 1\72 scale miniatures and 25-28mm left. So the size of collection became smaller and figure scale is larger. So the tendency is correct :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to see that these results hold for you, Dmitry!

      Delete
  4. My largest collection, ACW, is 15mm and I have thousands of them, everything else is 28mm and the armies average around 4-500 figures, my old 25mm's have gone. Storage is a big problem and I am lucky to have a large, mostly unused, shop to put my stuff which is slowly taking over for the big closure in a year or so when it will all be mine. Nice job again Jonathan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another vote for storage as a big constraint. How much larger would your armies grow if storage was no longer a limiting factor?

      Glad you enjoyed the analysis, George. Thank you!

      Delete
  5. Interesting question but it does feel like the simplest to answer. The very fact that smaller scales are in the vast majority of cases used to create larger games/ battles will tend them towards larger numerical collections. I hold with my conviction that given space, time and painting capacity the vast majority would game in and around 28 mm where the smaller scales come into their own is for attempts to recreate complete battles or tank based conflicts. Sadly most of us are constrained by other factors money, time, and storage space !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me, nothing is simple...

      It is comforting to see that the survey results reflect our perceptions and common sense. Well, that is, if wargamers with HUGE collections have common sense!

      Each figure scale has its place. As you say the smaller figures are good for recreating large battles while the larger figures are better suited to smaller sized actions. Of course, there are exceptions. We all face some constraints, for sure. Some face more constraints than others.

      Delete
  6. I wonder if the quick drop off in Heroic scale indicates this scale is predominantly used in the smaller scale skirmish level games or sci fi 40k type armies, which generally contain smaller numbers of figures? I do not believe I have any Heroic scale figures in my collection...perhaps I am mistaken? I do have one large collection of WWII 15mm - Brits, Germans, Russians and Japanese. I think any attempt and anything other than very low level skirmishing in WWII or later, needs to be in a smaller scale.This would be one if my larger collections in terms of the number of boxes required for storage but also one of the most under utilised ...some of the tanks I painted twenty years ago have never seen tabletop action! I think there are two drivers that would tend to link collection size with smaller scale ...the ability to fit more troops (and thus fight larger battles ) into the same space...and the financial capacity to buy more figures for the same cash outlay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, I agree with you on the drop off in Heroics since we have seen in earlier analyses that Heroics are the realm of the young and fantasy/sci-fi wargamers. I don't even know how to define an Heroic figure!

      I think many of do exactly as you. That is, smaller figures/larger collections to fight larger battles and larger figures/smaller collections to fight smaller battles. Of course, some of us do all combinations of the above.

      Delete
  7. There is a correlation between size and price, so the larger the figure the more expensive it is to build a large collection....except for the 1/72nd soft plastic figure, which is both a large size and a cheap price. You are running into similar issues as with other cuts of the data - the data contribution is self selecting, and WSS as a magazine (like most of them) favours the 28mm eye-candy. I can't deny, based on what I see at shows etc when I could go, that 25/8mm seems to be the dominant scale, but whether it is as dominant as the data in this survey suggests I couldn't say.

    And another plea for you to re-cut the graphs to show the values as percentages of the total numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right that the survey and data are self-selecting and results should be used with care. I have made that point more than once. Still, I consider this the best snapshot available on the state of the hobby. While bias may exist, all figure sizes are represented. Is the group of 1/72 soft plastics under-sampled? Perhaps it is.

      Your plea has been heard on percentage graphs. This post has been revised to include a couple of graphs for "Top Choice of Figure Size."
      Thanks for your feedback!

      Delete
    2. That percentage graph tells the story. With the exception of 2mm/6mm - where I don't know how you count the "figures" - as the figure size declines, the number of figures increase. That's the one piece of solid correlation you have, that ignores the self-selecting nature of the survey. If I was marketing in the hobby, I'd find that useful.

      Delete
    3. Hi Graham. Note that while 28mm Heroics decrease as collection size increases, 25-28mm actually sees small gains. Wargamers keep adding to their 25-28mm projects no matter what size of their overall collection.

      Delete
  8. Considering myself more of a painter/collector than a gamer, I'm more into the aesthetics of the hobby, so most of my figures are 28mm (easier to see and paint). I probably have a few thousand of them, in various historical armies, mostly. I have a small handful of WHFB Empire and 40K Space Marines. I only have one DBA 15mm "army" of "Pre-Samurai." I also have a few non-gaming large scale display figures - 54mm - 1/8th scale. Oh, and I do have some 1/1200th Ancient naval fleets. Otherwise, I suppose I could say I'm 28mm exclusively for wargaming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dean, thank you for adding in your personal situation. When you fill out the survey, Collection Size and Preferred Figure Size are a one-to-one match. That is great! I wish everyone fell into your situation then inferences would be easier to draw. You forgot to mention that you are exceptional painter too!

      Delete
  9. I started with Airfix in 1:72 scale and gradually moved to 28mm :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How large is your figure collection, Michal?

      Delete
    2. I started with 1/72, and moved on to 25mm. Put them in a box for a few years and discovered they had miraculously grown 3mm. Amazing!

      Delete
    3. Graham, you are funny. If the 25s you put in a box were "true" 25s, they probably still are 25mm. The 15mm vs 18mm and 25mm vs 28mm debates are confusing affairs.

      Delete
    4. 1:72? I already have single pieces left (unfortunately!)
      28mm is a few hundred pieces! Half of them are waiting to be painted :))

      Delete
    5. I can honestly say I have figures that were described as 25mm when I bought them, and the catalogues now described them as 28mm.

      Delete
  10. My collection used to be almost an even split between 25-28/heroic and 15mm/1:100 scales, but I realised that for both storage purposes, getting the most out of my limited hobby budget and for gaming convenience reasons I dropped/sold off my 15mm collections and concentrated instead on the larger scale throughout.
    Now I don't have to find space for umpteen tanks and infantry stands, both WW2 and ACW, nor the in-scale terrain. I also am able to concentrate my hobby funds on fewer projects which allows me to feel like I am that much closer to completion, in lieu of always feeling like I am merely "adding one more piece" to a far larger puzzle. Lastly, aside from Stew who provides all of the necessary armies and terrain for a game, the larger scale tends to offer more gaming opportunities in general as there are fewer gamers in my (albeit limited) circle who game in any other scale other than 25-28/heroic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dai, thank you for your thoughts and expanding upon your situation. You seem to have this all figured out with a grand scheme firmly in place. I am likely not the only one envious of your clear focus. It is very convenient that Stew's collections are able to complement your own.

      Delete
    2. I can't recall - did the survey ask how often people wargamed, and how many regular opponents they have?

      Delete
    3. Yes. Gaming frequency was a question I asked to be added into the 2020 survey. I will get around to exploring that question eventually. No question regarding number of regular opponents.

      Delete
    4. Now I that I read my comment again, I sound like I am a right braggart. LOL

      Delete
    5. Dai - I never thought you were bragging. Admitting you are having to work on fewer projects seems to be the inverse of bragging. In respect of completing projects, did you ever read this blog post from 2013? https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-to-finish-wargames-project.html

      Delete
    6. Didn’t sound like bragging to me. I am envious of your self-control.

      Delete
    7. Trebian - I did not, but just took 8-10 mins to do just that. Good advice and some of the ideas it lists out I already (try) to apply to my own methods to finish my projects. Once I am in a more settled living situation, I am looking forward to re-organising my hobby so I can approach what i have in a far more measured and logical fashion.

      Thanks for the link!

      Delete
  11. It certainly seems obvious that figure size and number of figures would tend to be inversely correlated. On the other hand, presumably collection size tends to correlate with years in the hobby. with a collection well over 12,000 figures, 99+ % 25/28 mm, and 50+ years in the hobby, I defy the first prediction but fit well into the second!

    If there were better data on collection sizes by scale, correcting them by using the analogue hobbies painting points (or just using the factors for infantry for simplicity) might be an interesting way of correcting for scale.

    By the way, I am putting together 2 new storage shelves...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This relationship may seem obvious if dollars were fixed but everyone has different budgetary and housing constraints. You and I can count ourselves among the fortunate ones able to muster large collections. While you have much more focus than I with respect to figure size, we both have amassed impressive collections. Time in grade certainly adds to The Lead Pile.

      If everyone tracked their collections at the figure/scale level, hobby data would be much improved. Until that time, must be content on generalizations.

      More storage shelves? It would be fun to compare collections one day!

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Peter!

      Delete
    2. Well, I am quite sure your collection woukld exceed mine, even adjusted by scale, although my 25/28's likely would exceed yours in that scale... maybe! :-)

      I finished the second shelf unit a short while ago; now I will have to shift all the shelves and their contents - Eek!

      Delete
    3. It would be fun to browse through each other's collections, wouldn't it? Come West Young Man!

      Delete
  12. no table has ever creaked under the weight of 2500 6mm miniatures.

    tables have creaked with the heavy metal of 2500 28mm troops.

    there is no replacement for displacement.

    counting a 6mm 'mini' as 1 is silly - even a pike block or infantry square is less metal than a regimental dog in 28mm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true but can you imagine the non-compliance issues when asking respondents to tally the size of collection by figure size?

      Delete
    2. Have you seen the detail on a Baccus 6mm figures. They're individuals as much as a 28mm figure. What has weight of metal got to do with it?

      Delete
  13. As others have noted, my 15mm armies are larger than their 28mm equivalents for the simple reason that we put more on a table for 15mm games. However, I have far more 28mm armies than 15mm which does eat more into storage space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your feedback, Lawrence! Useful as always. Storage space has been mentioned more than once as a constraint on collection size. I figured money or painting time/effort might make more of an impact on collection size but maybe it is finding a suitable place to store all of our stuff that is the big driver? I guess everyone has plenty of money for toy soldiers.

      Delete
  14. I wonder whether gaming space is also part of the correlation of scale / numbers?

    If say, you have 6 x 4 space Then that could likely be the determining factor, yet in 15's, you would likely end up having more bases and each base would have more figures (except for fixtures like DBA), so for the same space going smaller ends up growing the army.

    A system like Neil Thomas that limits armies to 6 or 8 units, would likely see the same number of figures, certainly the same number of bases, regardless of scale.

    Old school collectors may have been driven by the relationship between 6 x 4 (the old sized family table) playing space and 1/72 scale (the old dominant soft plastics from our wargaming roots). So army sizes would always be broadly similar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Available gaming space might be a very good proxy or predictor of collection size. Since you brought this up, do you find that gaming space is a constraint on your collection size? I know you prefer gaming in small spaces but would your collection grow with the addition of more gaming space?

      You make an interesting observation about Thomas rules or really any rules that limit the number of BMUs per side to between 6-12. With newer rules catering to smaller army lists (and fewer number of figures), over time, will collection size tend to shrink especially as the Old Guard retires from the gaming table? Demographics may favor this hypothesis. What do you think, Norm?

      Delete
  15. Its been a long I me since I tried to count the figures I still have. These days I only game in ... 4 sizes but if I had kept my 15's they would have outnumbered the rest even if they were boxed in storage.

    I'm actually hard pressed to pick a favourite. The ones I use most and am probably most emotionally attached to (if one could measure such a thing) are not the numerically strongest (but definitely outweigh the competition) but if picking just one collection to keep, it probably wouldn't be them.

    Thinking about it the single numerically largest collection is probably the 1/72 plastic ACW which lives in 4 small boxes in the cupboard, rarely gets added too and isn't usually at the top of the playlist.

    Hmm I still can't answer the question!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ross! You may not have answered the question but you provided us all with a lot of information. Your 1/72 ACW fellows made an appearance yesterday on your blog in a very fine cameo photo. you have a good eye for photo composition.

      Delete
  16. I only have 2 sizes in my collection. 15/18 and 28mm. When I count up the total number of miniatures I usually use the rule that 1 28mm figure counts as one and anything else is converted to that. My 18mm ACW is 3 to a base and that counts as 1. 28mm monsters like trolls count as 3. 18mm cav counts as 1 and 28mm cav counts as 2. You get the idea. 😀
    Though I’ve never sat down to do an actual count but have only guessed-a-mated the actual total. Of course, only painted figures count!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get the idea. You ought to make a collection head count some day and report back!

      Delete
  17. Hmmm that's a good question.... I spent the majority of my time painting 28mm for many years now so it's the largest no doubt, but I would say my 15mm with a more concentrated effort wouldn't take long to getting close to coming on terms and passing it up. Generally speaking 28mm tends to limit army sizes and so 15mm or less are used to collect larger armies so if 15mm or less are collected I can see how they may become the larger collections just because of that. I'm not sure if space is really a huge factor at 15mm because your collecting more therefore it will use up close or more space as the smaller 28mm armies.

    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christopher, you cover all of the bases! Thank you!

      Delete
  18. Well I buck the trend again, Jonathan. I have abandoned all but 28mm scale and the collection expands year on year. I am also sufficiently organised to maintain a full database of the collection. The storage issue rears its head occasionally, but always seems to resolves itself. In my youth I was foolish enough to collect several scales...but it was certain madness...I am glad I cured myself of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a model of organization, Mark. I still foolishly collect in several figure scales with no sign yet of reformation.

      Delete
    2. What is foolish about varying the figure size based upon period and level of resolution? Why would figures used for an Operational level WW1 game need to be the same size as a brigade level mid-19th Century Colonial game? After all, they're not going to be on the table at the same time, and in that example the scenery items would be different as well.

      Delete
    3. I should have placed “foolishly” within quotes, Graham. I vary figure size exactly for the reasons you cite. It would be easier if I had more focus, though but I have many interests. As I noted, I have no plans of reforming my ways...

      Delete
  19. As I have said before I only collect 25/28mm figures,I have a reasonably large collection and expanding, storage will be an issue (I've had to condense my books to get a bit more shelf rooms for figures) but at least all my terrain works pretty well for everything!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  20. I made the decision to drop anything below 20mm about 2 years ago as I realised I wasn't going to paint any more 15mm... Partly due to the amount of 54mm I am painting for work and the fact I was attracted to the larger scales. It also let me lose one set of scenery for 15mm and concentrate on a few scales.

    Most of my collection is 25/28mm and 54mm with 2 (ACW/WW2 soon to be 3 with the Sudan) collections in 20mm.

    I have some 5,000 painted figures which includes around 750 54mm...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, thank you for weighing in on the state of your figure collecting with respect to figure size and collection size. Having projects in fewer scales makes sense on a number of fronts. For me, consolidation, if it ever happens, seems a ways off.

      Delete