Today, I examine the results from a question prompted by the analysis in the last installment (see Small Figures and Large Collections).
The question asked was,
"Do people with very large collections enjoy painting? Or is that something they have someone else do? It strikes me that MCA for collection size, type of game and preferred hobby aspects could be interesting. I would assume (but I might be wrong) that big battles are the goal of those big collections."
An interesting question. Several actually!
First off, congratulations for suggesting that Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) might be a useful tool for exploring these questions. MCA offers a handy and useful tool for many studies of categorical data.
Who actually handles the figure painting task is not asked in the 2024 survey but may have been asked in an earlier year's survey. Given the questions in the 2024 survey, that question cannot be addressed. Similarly, while big battles and big collections may go hand-in-hand (this analysis will take a look at any relative relationship there), inferring a directional cause and effect is not possible without asking more specific questions.
Given those caveats, we can examine relative relationships between large collections, the number of models present in a game, and the joy of painting.
To begin, let's look at the counts of the key variables under study. Those variables are Collection Size, Game Size, and Top Hobby Facets (preferred hobby aspects in original question). These frequency charts will be useful to reference throughout the analysis.
Collection Size
Game Size
Top Facet of Wargaming
Out of curiosity, the Top 3 facets for each respondent were aggregated and then graphed. While the ordering is similar for Top 3 and Top 1, Playing surpasses Painting in the top position.
MCA
To begin, all of the values for each of the three variables are included in the initial MCA. Plotting the results, Game Size of 1,000+ models and Collection Size greater than 25,000 are classified as outliers and will be removed from the next iteration.
 |
| Iteration 1 |
 |
| Iteration 2 |
 |
| MCA 1 |
 |
| MCA 2 |
If focusing only on Collection Size, does this clustering look familiar? Yes. MCA 2 looks very similar to the graphic from the recent Small Figures and Large Collections analysis referenced in the first sentence above. Of course, each has a differing collection of variables present.
 |
| Small Figures and Large Collections |
Notice that in MCA 2, collections of 100 or fewer figures load in the blue quadrant along with using only 2-10 models per side. Collections greater than 5,000 figures cluster into the yellow quadrant and this group tends to gravitate toward larger battles having 201-1000 models per side. The green quadrant tends to have larger collections and larger games than the blue quadrant while the orange quadrant tends toward large collections and larger games than the green quadrant.
 |
| MCA 3 |
Interesting result. Given that the analysis tends to pair ordered collection size with an equivalent ordered game size, two questions emerge. That is, does a gamer's collection size drive the preferred size of a game or does preferred size of a game lead to a particular collection size? Which comes first? Looking at the Small quadrant, for example, does having a collection size of one hundred or fewer figures necessitate games being played with from two to ten models per side or does favoring games with between two and ten figures per side drive the tendency to have collections of one hundred or fewer models? Interesting point to ponder.
Now to address the reader's first question on collection size and painting enjoyment. What does this analysis suggest? Do gamers with very large collections enjoy painting as much as gamers having collections of a different size?
 |
| MCA 4 |
Interesting stuff! Thanks for the follow-up questions!
Now, where do you fit into this scheme or do you fit at all? Do the relative relationship tendencies brought up here between collect size and game size hold true?
Remember that today is the last day to submit your 2025 survey.
I definitely fit into the large figure collection who enjoys painting my own figures. Though I do prefer gaming to painting, I developed a style to allow me to paint figures quickly so that I can game.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, Neil! Your painting style definitely allows to produce large numbers of figures quickly!
DeleteI get a lot of enjoyment out of painting but the satisfaction definitely comes from being able to field a painted army in a game. As an example, we always play 400 points in our Ancient games which is a comfortable number and forces the players to make decisions about force composition but, depending on the list, I can sometimes find myself painting two to three times that points value. The army sizes are therefore dictated by the rules and ensuring I do enough to cover most, if not all, possible variants within each list.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Lawrence, that rules dictate army size and by necessity, the variety of armies available. Where do you drop into the graph? Super Sized or Large?
DeleteSuper-sized for me Jonathan, although I can happily say I have never done that to a takeaway meal.
DeleteThanks, Lawrence! I was not sure if my fast food meal reference would fit globally but I guess it does. We only export our finest culture.
DeleteMy painting has come from 'get the units done' to ' have fun with each unit. ' Watching the pieces, lead or plastic, take on an identity through the application of colors can still be an enjoyable process. I know that my collection is over three but under six thousand pieces in all the scales and periods. A player can effectively use 350 castings or less in a game set for three to four hours of play. If I only have 1 figure on the table I would guess the game is over in under three minutes.
ReplyDeleteJoe, thank you for your response to the question and analysis. Good point about production. When beginning a new project, i want to see more immediate gratification too. Once established, adding another unit can be more enjoyable. I have played many a gladiator game with single figure forces that took much longer than three minutes to conclude.
DeleteAnother interesting post, I like painting my own figures although I have purchased a fair few painted by others. doing them myself offers a little bit of escapism I guess, nothing but the task ahead takes my attention. I would come under the medium as games would have between 200 to 300 figures on the table, restricted a bit by table size I would say, but works for me.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Donnie! Glad you found this analysis interesting. Is that 200-300 figures on table per army or in total?
DeletePer army Jon.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteI think, based upon my experience at clubs and my games, that the rules dictate the game size and therefore the 'army'. Looking at magazines etc and the predominance of GW and Warlord Games, it doesn't surprise me that most games would appear to fit into the Section-Platoon sized actions, so 10-50 figures give or take. Certainly in years gone by when playing Mordheim, I only ever needed about 20 models for a Warband, giving me options as the campaign progressed or for the scenario being played.
ReplyDeleteThese days, with Battalion plus games for WWII, I'm probably fielding maybe 20-30 units per side, so maybe around 100-150 figures per side. This might go up when playing say the SYW or the ACW to maybe 300 figures per side in 3 Brigades, give or take.
So for Mordheim with few figures, the enjoyment would be very much driven by the converting and painting relatively few figures, compared now to 10mm where it is very much the overall look of the regiment etc that is more important. The enjoyment is probably the say, but the focus has switched to a more zoomed out, arms length approach.
Excellent assessment of what you see and practice, Steve. Thank you!
DeleteI enjoy painting but it is also a means to an end as I don’t like unpainted figures on my gaming table. The number of figures on the table is a function of the game rules being used in many cases for example DBA where the fixed 12 base army and fixed number of figures determine the army size. Other rule sets are expandable but limited by game table size and the players preference for troop density in a game.
ReplyDeleteExcellent! Another vote for rules driving figure density.
DeleteI did write down my responses this year, if I don't lose them in the interim - Collection size 15,000 to 25,000, Games 250+ figures a side on the table, Painting wasn't in my top 3 reasons (Playing, Friends, Collecting), but then I commented that I like it all! Number of Periods played also influences collection size, but the survey only captures top 3 [I listed Napoleonic, Pike and Shot, and Ancients this year].
ReplyDeleteThanks, Peter! Having many interests and many collections, like you, my top choices move around a bit from year to year. Save your answers for when I address similar questions when this year’s data roll out.
Delete