|
|
Post by sonic on Sept 8, 2017 6:12:23 GMT
Over the past few years I've been reading posts about painted armies, people painting armies for specific campaigns, or painting just because of interest. I'm stunned by the different periods and regions which people are interested in, from Western Europe to the Far East. I've even played against people with armies from the Pacific region - Hawaiian anyone?
Is there any way we can find out if there is an army which not one person is interested in fielding?
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 9:45:38 GMT
Is there any way we can find out if there is an army which not one person is interested in fielding? If there is such an army, then I am interested in fielding that army. Does that solve the problem?  But there clearly exists an obvious pattern of what armies are popular. I would think: 1) Rome and the usual suspects. (The not-so-ususal suspects do not get much coverage). I would lump the Hellenistic world in here - but that could also be a separate entry. 2) Late Medieval, mostly centering around the 100YW and the Wars of the Roses. (Also the crusades and the Teutonic order - even though no one does the Prussians) 3) Vikings - and little else for Dark Ages. 4) Mongols 5) Spartans 6) Japan, for some reason. 7) Egyptians 8) Armies that featured in a movie or that have got a shiny new line of miniatures. 9) Armies that did/do well in competition due to their balanced composition (The Sassanid Persians etc.) In short, everything that one gets exposed to in school and TV. Very unpopular seem to be: 1) The Americas 2) Non-Mongol Central Asia 3) Oceania (except, maybe, for Hawaii) 4) Northern and Eastern Europe 5) Non-Japanese East Asian armies (except for Qin) |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 8, 2017 12:07:32 GMT
Asian armies seem to be fairly popular in our group in Florida - half of my armies of from that region (and I'm currently working on another one.)
Of course one of the reasons I like them is because they are out of the ordinary (and have a neat look and a good balance of troops.)
I would agree that both the Americas and Oceania are not popular, however.
Another area I would add that is not popular is many of the minor nations in Book 1.
They either don't make exclusive figures for them or are bland in how they would be painted (no banners or cool shields to go with them.)
For instance, I have 17 armies painted and not one of them is a Book 1 army. I just find it hard to get excited to paint them.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 8, 2017 13:03:44 GMT
Tony,
I have 15 Book 1 armies - for the most part they make up a campaign set expanded from having Mycenaeans/Trojans and New Kingdom Egyptians. I built up additional opponents to make up the campaign. When DBA3 gave us a camel heavy Midianite army I added that to the mix and also had two painted up for me by a friend. This campaign works well - with several interesting armies - but they don't play well outside period. I do keep giving I/6b Early Libyan with Sea People Allies a good try but can usually only manage a 50% victory rate.
Books 1 and 2 make up the minor populations from my stable (approx 100 armies) and they usually only come out when the tournament is a split (day 1 early / day 2 late ) event. I am currently trying to work out what to take to MOAB in October.
The Americas and Oceania do not show up that often in my tournaments but that is a bit like the single digit numbers not turning up in lotto draws as often. There are fewer armies in this category than say Medieval Europe or Asia.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 13:51:26 GMT
The Americas and Oceania do not show up that often in my tournaments but that is a bit like the single digit numbers not turning up in lotto draws as often. There are fewer armies in this category than say Medieval Europe or Asia. Obviously. This has a lot to do with historical records, research and designers and players' biases. The granularity of European lists is a cruel joke compared to other areas of the world. Again, easy to see, why this is so. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Sept 8, 2017 14:01:20 GMT
We're a bunch of stat-geeks here in the NAGS Empire (Pacific Northwest). We've logged the results of every DBA game we've played since our genesis back in 2002. Andy Hooper publishes these quarterly in the COMPENDIVM, which now runs a frightening 79 pages.
(Soft copies available on request, if you really want one. Note: FW = "Foreign Wars", e.g. battles between two EIR armies are excluded, so as to give a better idea how the army has fared against other opponents.)
An appendix lists the armies with the most total results. I know, that's the opposite of what the OP was asking, but note the inclusion here of armies which others suggested were generally unpopular. For example, Incas, Georgians, Khazars, and the 6 Book-I armies that make this top-25 list. -- But, hey, it's all just fun with numbers...
25 Most Prolific Army Lists (6/15/2017):
1.) II/56 Early Imperial Roman, 25 BC – 197 AD
Record: 254-215 (.541) (236-197 FW (.545), 18 CW), 469 total games
2.) II/5 Later Hoplite Greek, 450 – 275 BC to 235 BC if Italiot or Siciliot)
Combined Record: 186-223 (.454) (107-144 FW (.426), 79 CW), 409 total games
3.) I/22 New Kingdom Egyptian, 1543 – 1069 BC
Record: 241-140 (.632) (235-134 FW (.636), 6 CW), 381 total games
4.) II/49 Marian Roman, 105 – 25 BC
Record: 195-181 (.518) (184-170 FW (.519), 11 CW), 376 total games
6.) II/69 Sassanid Persian, 220 – 651 AD
Record: 186-177 (.512) (184-175 FW (.512), 2 CW), 363 total games
5.) III/40 Norse Viking and Leidang, 790 – 1280 AD
Record: 229-131 (.636) (220-122 FW (.643), 9 CW), 360 total games
7.) II/33 Polybian Roman, 275 – 105 BC
Record: 193-141 (.577) (192-140 FW (.578), 1 CW), 334 total games
8.) II/32 Later Carthaginian, 275 – 146 BC
Record: 117-172 (.404) (116-171 (.404) 1 CW), 289 total games
9.) II/19 Seleucid 320 – 83 BC
Record: 136-141 (.490) (0 CW), 277 total games
10.) III/78 Early Russian, 1054 – 1246 AD
Record: 125-112 (.527) (124-111 FW (.527), 1 CW), 237 total games
11.) IV/30 Teutonic Order, 1201 – 1522 AD
Record: 112-120 (.482) (0 CW), 232 total games
12.) IV/55 Ottoman, 1281 – 1512 AD
Record: 91-133 (.406) (90-132 FW (.405), 1 CW), 224 total games
13.) IV/13 Medieval German, 1106 – 1519 AD
Record: 120-97 (.552) (118-95 FW (.553), 2 CW), 217 total games
14.) II/78 Late Imperial Roman, 307 – 425 AD
Combined Record: 114-100 (.532) (109-95 FW (.534), 5 CW), 214 total games
15.) II/3 Classical Indian 500 BC – 545 AD
Record: 128-84 (.603) (123-79 FW (.608), 5 CW), 212 total games
16.) I/24 Hittite Empire, 1380 – 1180 BC
Record: 100-110 (.476) (99-109 FW (.475), 1 CW) , 210 total games
17.) II/11 Gallic 400 – 50 BC
Record: 89-120 (.425) (84-115 FW(.422), 5 CW), 209 total games
18.) I/7 Early Libyan 3000 BC – 70 AD
Record: 82-117 (.417) (72-107 FW (.402), 10 CW), 199 total games
19.) IV/61 Italian Condotta, 1320 – 1495 AD
Combined Record: 104-90 (.536) (99 -85 FW (.538), 5 CW), 194 total games
20.) II/37 Parthian, 250 BC – 225 AD
Record: 90-97 (.481) (0 CW),187 total games
21.) II/7 Later Achaemenid Persian, 420 – 329 BC
Record: 92-94 (.494) (89-92 FW (.494), 3 CW), 186 total games
22.) II/64 Middle Imperial Roman, 193 – 324 AD
Combined Record: 88-85 (.505) (85-82 FW (.506), 3 CW), 174 total games
23.) II/74 Palmyran, 260 – 273 AD
Record: 100-72 (.581) (98-70 FW (.583), 1 CW), 172 total games
24.) II/47 Early German, 115 BC – 250 AD
Combined Record: 62-105 (.371) (55-88 FW (.384), 7 CW), 167 total games
25.) III/54 Early Samurai, 900 – 1300 AD
Record: 80-88 (.476) (64-72 FW (.470), 16 CW), 168 total games
Other Armies with more than 100 results:
II/53 Ancient British, 55 BC – 73 AD
Record: 69-91 (.431) (68-90 FW (.430), 1 CW), 160 total games
III/51 West Frankish or Norman, 888 – 1077 AD
Record: 90-68 (.569) (87-66 FW (564), 2 CW), 158 total games
III/61 Sung Chinese, 960 – 1279 AD
Record: 86-70 (.551) (84-68 FW (.552), 2 CW), 156 total games
II/20 Ptolemaic 320 – 30 BC
Record: 74-81 (.477) (73-80 FW (.477), 1 CW), 155 total games
IV/35 Mongol Conquest, 1206 – 1266 AD
Record: 69-86 (.445) (0 CW), 155 total games
I/60 Early Achaemenid Persian, 550 – 420 BC
Record: 80-73 (.522) (78-71 FW (.523), 2 CW), 153 total games
I/52 Early Hoplite Greek, 680 – 450 BC
Combined Record: 76-75 (.503) (56-55 FW (.504), 20 CW), 151 total games
I/20 Syro-Canaanite or Ugaritic, 1595 – 1100 BC
Combined Record: 62-86 (.418) (60-84 FW (.416), 2 CW) , 148 total games
IV/17 Later Crusader, 1128 – 1303 AD
Record: 87-61 (.587) (0 CW), 148 total games
I/6 Early Bedouin, 3000 – 312 BC
Record: 61-85 (.417) (57-81 FW (.413), 4 CW), 146 total games
II/8 Campanian, Apulian, Bruttian or Lucanian, 420 – 203 BC
Combined Record: 72-73 (.496) (58-59 FW (.495), 14 CW), 145 total games
III/70 Georgian, 1008 – 1683 AD
Record: 78-66 (.541) (75-63 FW(.543), 3 CW), 144 total games
III/73 Seljuk Turk, 1037 – 1276 AD
Record: 57-78 (.422) (55–77 FW (.419), 2 CW), 135 total games
II/80 Hunnic, 356 – 570 AD
Combined Record: 48-84 (.358) (0 CW), 132 total games
IV/43 Later Hungarian, 1245 – 1526 AD
Record: 60-68 (.468) (0 CW), 128 total games
II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian, 355 – 320 BC
Record: 62-65 (.488) (61-64 FW (.488), 1 CW), 127 total games
II/39 Ancient Spanish, 240 – 20 BC
Combined Record: 65-59 (.524) (60-54 FW (.526), 5 CW), 124 total games
IV/79 Later Swiss, 1400 – 1522 AD
Record: 62-61 (.504) (61-60 FW ( .504), 1 CW), 123 total games
II/52 Dacian, 60 BC – 106 AD & Carpi, 106 – 360 AD
Record: 51-67 (.432) (50-66 FW (.431), 1 CW), 118 total games
II/4 Chinese Warring States 480 -202 BC
Combined Record: 65-53 (.550) (24-12 FW(.666), 42 CW). 118 total games
III/16 Khazar, 568 – 1063 AD
Record: 46-71 (.393) (0 CW), 117 total games
IV/12 Polynesian or Melanesian, 1100 – 1785 AD
Combined Record: 66-53 (.554) (32-20 FW (.615), 33 CW), 119 total games
II/73 Old Saxon (250 – 504 AD), Frisian (250 – 690 AD), Bavarian (250-768 AD), Thuringian ( 250 – 531 AD) or Early Anglo-Saxon (428 – 617 AD)
Record: 47-69 (.405) (0 CW), 116 total games
III/28 Carolingian Frankish 639 – 888 AD
Record: 45-68 (.398) (43-66 FW (.394), 2 CW), 113 total games
IV/81 Inca, 1438 – 1534 AD
Record: 59-53 (.526) (55-49 FW (.528), 4 CW), 112 total games
III/35 Feudal Spanish, 718 – 1340 AD
Record: 65-43 (.602) (63-41 FW (.605), 2 CW), 108 total games
IV/59 Post-Mongol Samurai, 1300 – 1542 AD
Record: 61-46 (.570) (47-32 FW (.594), 14 CW), 107 total games
IV/66 Later Polish, 1335 – 1510 AD
Record: 49-55 (.471) (48-54 FW (.470), 1 CW), 104 total games
III/71 Anglo-Danish 1014 – 1075 AD
Record: 38-64 (.372) (33-59 FW (.358), 5 CW), 102 total games
II/40 Numidian & Early Moorish, 215 BC – 25 AD
Record: 58-43 (.574) (55-40 FW (.578), 3 CW), 101 total games
II/15 Alexandrian Imperial, 329 – 320 BC
Record: 50-50 (.500) (0 CW), 100 total games
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 8, 2017 14:46:45 GMT
I have a few none-mongol central Asian armies....Early Hu,Hsuing nu,Southern Hsuing nu and Juan-Juan.Also Jurchen and A Timurid (Mongol successer) armies.
...I like light horse.😁
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 8, 2017 15:11:58 GMT
We're a bunch of stat-geeks here in the NAGS Empire (Pacific Northwest). We've logged the results of every DBA game we've played since our genesis back in 2002. Andy Hooper publishes these quarterly in the COMPENDIVM, which now runs a frightening 79 pages. (Soft copies available on request, if you really want one. Note: FW = "Foreign Wars", e.g. battles between two EIR armies are excluded, so as to give a better idea how the army has fared against other opponents.) An appendix lists the armies with the most total results. I know, that's the opposite of what the OP was asking, but note the inclusion here of armies which others suggested were generally unpopular. For example, Incas, Georgians, Khazars, and the 6 Book-I armies that make this top-25 list. -- But, hey, it's all just fun with numbers...
An interesting set of statistics Paul.
I would have thought the Carolingian with their composition similar to the Knight armies on top of the list would have performed better.
Surprising still, was to find the Early Numidian ranked near the top.
If FW = Foreign Wars, what is CW?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Sept 8, 2017 15:50:44 GMT
CW = Civil Wars. (Sorry for not explaining that one.) As an aside, the number-changes in V-3 are really driving Andy batty. I think the Carolingians' sub-par performance, I think you can blame Spain! They are 6-16 versus III/35 Feudal Spanish. (Or, blame me, I've played the Carolingians in many of those losses.) Steering this back to the OP's initial question about unpopular armies. One obvious reason some armies see little if any action is that suitable figures for them don't yet exist. For example, locally, these armies... - IV/14 Jurchen-Chin, 0-2
- III/60 Medieval Vietnamese, 1-3
- III/27 Rstuni Armenian, no results.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 8, 2017 15:58:11 GMT
CW = Civil Wars. (Sorry for not explaining that one.) As an aside, the number-changes in V-3 are really driving Andy batty. I think the Carolingians' sub-par performance, I think you can blame Spain! They are 6-16 versus III/35 Feudal Spanish. (Or, blame me, I've played the Carolingians in many of those losses.) Steering this back to the OP's initial question about unpopular armies. One obvious reason some armies see little if any action is that suitable figures for them don't yet exist. For example, locally, these armies... - IV/14 Jurchen-Chin, 0-2
- III/60 Medieval Vietnamese, 1-3
- III/27 Rstuni Armenian, no results.
I agree with your comment about suitable figures, but I think with a bit of effort you can cobble an army together.
The Bagratid Armenian, successors to the Rstuni, are on my to do list as an enemy for the Abbasid.
These most likely will come from Essex Byzantine and Khitan-Liao lists.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 8, 2017 19:44:35 GMT
Timurilank, Essex has a Bagratid army pack their list of pre-mades, in case you haven't checked lately.
Of course Essex these days is treating their figure lines a little more generically these days moving away from the WRG Armies and Enemies inspired nationality specific figures of the past.
Personally haven't looked a putting together any of the armies from the Americas or Pacific Islanders although I do have some Incas and Aztecs.
Currently on the table being finished up are Vedic, Mountain, and Republican Indians - spinoffs of the Classicals.
Having made the mistake of picking up some Minifigs Tu Chueh (Greer based figures), Central Asian Turks are also on the to do list.
As well as, inspired by Timurilank's campaigns the Hatrans, Nabateans, etc - I picked up a number of camel mounted caravan guards over the years and they will be a place to put them to use as well as being armies not usually seen.
As well as the Ch'in, there are the Han, Three Kingdoms, Northern and Southern Dynasties, T'ang, and Ming that are in various stages.
If Falcon ever comes back on line, I also want to increase my stable of early Koreans.
Of course I also have Romans, Armenians, Parthians, Sassanid, Scyth, Early Bedouin, East Frank/Ottonian, and enough Normans to do to of the three - Norman, Anglo-Norman, and Early Crusade.
P.S. Nice list of stats paul. Be interesting to see how some of those change with more games of 3.0.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 8, 2017 20:51:09 GMT
Goragrad,
I did see the ready made army.
I found the Essex Khitan-Liao cavalry closer to the drawings given in 'Armies and Enemies of the Dark Ages'. However, the general, spearmen, archers and javelinmen will come from the Byzantine list. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Sept 9, 2017 7:18:50 GMT
It is time I got my Maori out of their box for some DBA action...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 9:17:40 GMT
It is time I got my Maori out of their box for some DBA action... Who to fight against? However, Maori should be more interesting now, since fast Bd would make for a more interesting game. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Sept 9, 2017 9:48:21 GMT
Who to fight against? Ideally another Maori iwi (tribe) as I prefer historical opponents. I have around 60+ Maori stands for a DBR army complete with waka so putting down two DBA armies is really easy. Despite them being all 3Bd they are really interesting to use in these inter-iwi wars. That said sometimes they are forced to fight Europeans, as below during a DBR game, where some are moving through a swamp.  |
|
