ARMY POPULARITY AND SUCCESS IN DBM 3.1
John Graham-Leigh
This is based on analysis of nearly 9,000 games using DBM 3.1 between 2005 and 2009. The great majority were played in 2006-7, about 1,000 dating from 2008-9. Thanks to David Young for providing most of the source material. The tables and totals exclude armies which were used only a few times.
Almost all the armies were based on the DBM 2nd Edition army lists; a few used in 2008-9 were based on the now-standard DBMM army list books.
For comparison, readers may like to look at the similar articles by Gavin Pearson in Slingshot issues 194, 201, 214 and 219, and by me in Slingshot 243, dealing with earlier versions of DBM. This piece is in the same format as the latter article, to allow direct comparison.
15% of the armies used were from Book 1, 38% from Book 2, 21% from Book 3 and 26% from Book 4 – this relative popularity of the different periods has been fairly constant throughout DBM’s history.
Table 1: Most Popular Armies
Army | Games | Success % | |
1 | Late Imperial Roman | 537 | 50 |
2 | Seleucid | 489 | 49 |
3 | Medieval Portuguese | 429 | 54 |
4 | New Kingdom Egyptian | 372 | 49 |
5 | Alexandrian Macedonian | 369 | 56 |
6 | Medieval German | 350 | 55 |
7 | Patrician Roman | 343 | 45 |
8 | Ugaritic* | 337 | 56 |
9 | Later Carthaginian | 336 | 47 |
10 | Alexandrian Imperial | 291 | 54 |
11 | Later Hungarian | 272 | 54 |
12 | Classical Indian | 256 | 48 |
13 | Skythian** | 242 | 58 |
14 | Early Imperial Roman | 227 | 36 |
15 | Later Swiss | 222 | 54 |
16 | Abbasid Arab | 219 | 57 |
17 | Arab Conquest | 212 | 47 |
18= | Norse Viking & Leidang | 207 | 48 |
18= | Medieval French | 207 | 48 |
20= | Early Samurai | 199 | 42 |
20= | Ottoman | 199 | 52 |
* Includes one non-Ugaritic Syro-Canaanite army (4 games)
** Includes two Early Hu armies (10 games)
The most startling change from DBM 3.0 is that the Patrician Romans, who were by far the most popular, have fallen to 7th – and their success percentage has dropped significantly. Long-standing runners-up Late Imperial Romans now top the table, closely followed by the Seleucids who have risen from 11th to 2nd. Armies which have disappeared from the list are Chinese Northern and Southern Dynasties, Lydian, Kushan, Beja, Anglo-Norman and Ch’in Chinese; they are replaced by Alexandrian Imperial, Classical Indian, Early Imperial Roman, Later Swiss, Abbasid Arab, Arab Conquest and Medieval French. All the popular armies are within the 45%-55% “average” success range except Early Samurai and Early Imperial Romans; the Romans have always been below average, but the Samurai used to be a top army.
Table 2: Roman Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Tullian Roman | 4 | 40 |
Camillan Roman | 15 | 53 |
Polybian Roman | 61 | 42 |
Marian Roman | 160 | 45 |
Republican armies | 240 | 44 |
Early Imperial Roman | 227 | 36 |
Middle Imperial Roman | 101 | 45 |
Late Imperial Roman | 537 | 50 |
Imperial armies | 865 | 46 |
Patrician Roman | 343 | 45 |
Sub-Roman British | 56 | 48 |
All the legionary-heavy armies have improved (and are more popular) compared with DBM 3.0, but several are still below average – seriously so for the Early Imperials. 3.1 helped them a bit, and the 3.2 changes should make them more competitive. The new army lists favour the Marian Romans and to a lesser extent the Middle Imperials, but I expect that the Late Imperials, with the best balance of troop types, will continue to be the most popular.
Table 3: Pike Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Seleucid | 489 | 49 |
Alexandrian Macedonian | 369 | 56 |
Alexandrian Imperial | 291 | 54 |
Ptolemaic | 87 | 50 |
Graeco-Bactrian/Indian | 141 | 48 |
Pyrrhic | 86 | 47 |
Asiatic Early Successor | 69 | 54 |
Lysimachid | 34 | 58 |
Later Macedonian | 17 | 49 |
Commagene | 13 | 58 |
Macedon Early Successor | 12 | 43 |
Hellenistic pike armies | 1608 | 52 |
Later Swiss | 222 | 54 |
Scots Common Army | 180 | 52 |
Low Countries | 82 | 42 |
Akkadian | 71 | 59 |
Minoan/Early Mycenean | 54 | 46 |
Early Sumerian | 16 | 68 |
Sumerian Successor States | 8 | 31 |
Other pike armies | 633 | 50 |
Pike armies became much more popular with DBM 3.1, notably Seleucids, Alexandrians, Scots and Swiss. However, although the rules changes were expected to favour pikes they have not been notably more successful. The Hellenistic types have improved from 49% to 52% success; the others remain exactly average. The apparent exceptions, the highly successful Early Sumerians and dismally unsuccessful Sumerian Successor States, had too few games for their statistics to be meaningful – anything below about 40 games probably involves only a few players so “player quality” may be more important than army type.
Table 4: Impetuous Armies – Knights
Army | Games | Success % |
Medieval French | 207 | 48 |
Feudal Spanish | 128 | 48 |
Serbian Empire | 122 | 44 |
Romanian Frank | 18 | 49 |
Kn(S) Armies | 475 | 47 |
Anglo-Norman | 167 | 45 |
Sicilian | 153 | 55 |
Feudal Spanish | 128 | 48 |
Carolingian Frankish | 100 | 52 |
Early Crusader | 91 | 43 |
West Frankish/Norman | 82 | 35 |
Later Crusader | 44 | 41 |
Early Ostrogothic | 37 | 39 |
East Frankish | 22 | 49 |
Early Lombard | 16 | 48 |
Feudal English | 16 | 36 |
Later Polish | 15 | 65 |
Italian Ostrogothic | 14 | 41 |
Kn(F/O) Armies | 885 | 48 |
Conventional wisdom was that with Pikes and Blades being improved by the 3.1 amendments knight-based armies would become less popular and successful. Popularity is slightly down, but effectiveness has marginally improved – these armies generally are still on the low side of average. As in 3.0, there’s not much difference between the success of Kn(S) and other knight armies.
Table 5: Impetuous Armies – Warband
Army | Games | Success % |
Arab Conquest | 212 | 47 |
Gallic | 193 | 52 |
Welsh | 115 | 54 |
Middle Frankish | 93 | 45 |
Galatian | 88 | 47 |
Ancient British | 81 | 49 |
Indonesian & Malay | 79 | 48 |
Early Visigothic | 66 | 57 |
Villanovan Italian | 62 | 49 |
Abyssinian | 56 | 55 |
Early German | 56 | 50 |
Old Saxon etc | 55 | 61 |
Early Vietnamese | 47 | 53 |
Early Northern Barbarian | 45 | 56 |
Later Visigothic | 39 | 45 |
Early Frankish etc | 36 | 39 |
Siamese | 27 | 48 |
Warband Armies | 1350 | 50 |
The expectation was that warband armies would become more popular and successful, as 3.1 gave them a boost against mounted troops. They were certainly more popular with 3.1, but only marginally more successful. There were some remarkable swings in popularity: Arab Conquest (which will no longer be a warband army with the new army list books) and Gallic were much more common, while Abyssinians and Early Frankish were much less so. The success story was Old Saxon, which became enormously more victorious; this army can have a front rank mainly of Wb(S) with Wb(O) filling in behind. With the new lists other armies (Early Frankish, Suevi, Alamanni) are able to use this advantageous deployment and I expect those to become more common.
Table 6: Medieval European Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Medieval Portuguese | 429 | 54 |
Medieval German | 350 | 55 |
Later Hungarian | 272 | 54 |
Navarrese | 106 | 50 |
Teutonic Orders | 99 | 39 |
Wars of the Roses English | 89 | 39 |
Italian Condotta | 86 | 49 |
Free Company | 84 | 51 |
Early Burgundian | 70 | 41 |
Anglo-Irish | 62 | 47 |
French Ordonnance | 48 | 45 |
Burgundian Ordonnance | 47 | 42 |
100 Years War English | 39 | 42 |
Medieval Scandinavian | 36 | 48 |
Order of St John | 36 | 48 |
Hussite | 25 | 44 |
Medieval Armies | 1878 | 50 |
A very mixed bag of armies, generally relying on a combination of (usually Regular) knights, heavy infantry and bows. The three most popular were also the most successful, while English armies woefully under-performed and the Teutonic Orders continued to be poor. The Teutons may improve with the addition of super-wedges (Kn(S) double-based with Kn(I)) in the new list.
Table 7: Cavalry Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Ugaritic | 337 | 56 |
Abbasid Arab | 219 | 57 |
Ottoman | 199 | 52 |
Nikephorian Byzantine | 178 | 47 |
Khurasanian | 134 | 60 |
Sassanid Persian | 101 | 45 |
Sui/Early T’ang Chinese | 90 | 49 |
Early Byzantine | 79 | 46 |
Timurid | 78 | 46 |
Later Muslim Indian | 75 | 52 |
Later Achaemenid Persian | 59 | 48 |
Avar | 49 | 51 |
Buyid/Dailami | 48 | 53 |
Khazar | 46 | 55 |
Early Russian | 32 | 65 |
Ghaznavid | 31 | 36 |
Khitan-Liao | 29 | 41 |
Seljuk Turk | 17 | 58 |
Thematic Byzantine | 16 | 57 |
Cavalry Armies | 1817 | 52 |
The success stories here are Khurasanian and Abbasid Arab, which rocketed in both popularity and success. The Ottomans were much less common than hitherto, while the Ugaritics were toned down (62% success in 3.0, 56% in 3.1) – presumably because of the reduced usefulness of their Ax(I) filler. Overall, cavalry armies were slightly above average.
Table 8: Spear and other HI Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Norse Viking & Leidang | 207 | 48 |
Later Hoplite Greek | 181 | 51 |
Fanatic Berber | 163 | 55 |
Chinese N & S Dynasties | 122 | 45 |
Scots Isles & Highlands | 105 | 52 |
Lydian | 93 | 44 |
Rus | 86 | 55 |
Makkan, Saba etc | 85 | 61 |
Early Carthaginian | 71 | 44 |
Kyrenean Greek | 52 | 50 |
Anglo-Danish | 48 | 47 |
Communal Italian | 39 | 52 |
Aztec | 38 | 32 |
Philistine | 24 | 53 |
Sea Peoples | 19 | 51 |
HI Armies | 1333 | 50 |
These heavy infantry armies had overall average success. It is probably no surprise that the Aztecs were the least successful, and the Makkan/Saba/Dilmun phenomenon was less dominant than in 3.0 but still well above average. Generally these armies were solid performers with many draws.
Table 9: Light Horse Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Skythian | 242 | 58 |
Dynastic Bedouin | 131 | 51 |
Lithuanian | 118 | 51 |
Komnenan Byzantine | 102 | 48 |
Early Armenian | 99 | 55 |
Kushan | 98 | 52 |
Yuan Chinese | 66 | 54 |
Hunnic | 61 | 41 |
Parthian | 57 | 49 |
Hsiung-Nu | 50 | 52 |
Mongol Conquest | 45 | 49 |
Pecheneg | 32 | 56 |
Central Asian Turkish | 29 | 41 |
Early Hungarian | 27 | 59 |
Hsien-Pi etc | 24 | 69 |
Numidian | 22 | 53 |
Light Horse Armies | 1203 | 53 |
All these armies rely mainly on large numbers of light horse but have assorted supporting troops – knights, cavalry or heavy infantry. Generally they are a bit above average, with the usual wide variations in effectiveness. The Skythians remain the most popular, while the Kushans have plummeted in popularity.
Table 10: Light Infantry Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Pictish | 155 | 65 |
Early Libyan | 79 | 56 |
Pre-Feudal Scots | 65 | 45 |
Hellenistic Greek | 57 | 49 |
Attalid Pergamene | 40 | 57 |
Thracian | 36 | 54 |
Medieval Irish | 29 | 61 |
Late Judaean | 23 | 50 |
Maccabean Jewish | 22 | 59 |
Ancient Spanish | 17 | 55 |
Light Infantry Armies | 523 | 56 |
The low usage but above-average success of these light-weight armies suggests that either they are intrinsically very effective or that only skilled players use them. The combination of numbers and (usually) low aggression with plenty of terrain can make them a daunting prospect for many opponents. They do, however, include the army with the worst record of all – Catalan Company, used in one competition, finished bottom after four 0-10 defeats.
Table 11: Elephant Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Classical Indian | 256 | 48 |
Tamil Indian & Sinhalese | 176 | 56 |
Hindu Indian | 135 | 53 |
Khmer & Cham | 44 | 48 |
Burmese | 26 | 46 |
Elephant Armies | 637 | 51 |
Many armies can include elephants, of course, but these generally rely on numerous elephants as their main attacking force. All are within the “average” bracket except for the unusually effective Tamils/Sinhalese.
Table 12: Camel Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Nobades, Blemmye, Beja | 135 | 57 |
Christian Nubian | 135 | 59 |
Later Pre-Islamic Arab | 97 | 68 |
Tuareg | 43 | 37 |
Early Bedouin | 16 | 37 |
Camel Armies | 426 | 57 |
A strange mixture of three armies with above-average success and two with dismal performances – but overall it looks as though camelry are powerful troops.
Table 13: Bow Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
Early Samurai | 199 | 42 |
Early Achaemenid Persian | 141 | 48 |
Tupi | 67 | 56 |
Neo-Babylonian | 59 | 46 |
Wallachian/Moldavian | 36 | 42 |
Arabo-Aramaean | 36 | 52 |
West Sudanese | 29 | 50 |
Fatimid Egyptian | 16 | 46 |
Bow Armies | 583 | 47 |
The striking fact here is the decline of the Samurai – from killer army in 2.1 to just above average in 3.0, then losers in 3.1. Apart from that, armies relying on massed archery are pretty much average.
Table 14: Balanced Armies
Army | Games | Success % |
New Kingdom Egyptian | 372 | 49 |
Later Carthaginian | 336 | 47 |
Ch’in Chinese | 151 | 51 |
Later Sargonid Assyrian | 130 | 54 |
Mithridatic | 115 | 51 |
Han Chinese | 73 | 52 |
Hittite Empire | 73 | 47 |
Libyan Egyptian | 70 | 41 |
Middle Assyrian | 58 | 55 |
Palmyran | 54 | 54 |
Kushite Egyptian | 52 | 52 |
Three Kingdoms Chinese | 46 | 58 |
Later Hebrew | 36 | 41 |
Balanced Armies | 1566 | 49 |
A popular collection of armies with balanced forces of heavy and light infantry and cavalry, generally Regular and manoeuvrable. No real changes compared with 3.0, and no stand-out killer or dud armies.
Overall, DBM 3.1 appears to have achieved a pretty good balance, with no major category of armies being markedly better or worse than average – except the Romans, who should be helped by the 3.2 changes. Camel and light infantry armies did better than average, but these are always minority groups and I don’t think their success is significant.
I shall keep records of 3.2 games (many fewer than previous versions, unfortunately) and see how the trends go.
JGL 6.7.2011