Earlier this month, over on the Fanaticus forum, a question came up about whether there were any DBA armies that had never been built. I was sufficiently curious to put together a survey and post it in a few places around the internet - the Fanaticus and Lead Adventure forums, the r/wargaming subreddit, and a couple of DBA-focused Facebook groups. The survey ran from August 3-August 26, and there were 257 responses (of which 37 were entirely blank - most likely from people clicking through to check the results). No personal data was collected, only a list of which DBA armies the respondents had available for gaming. For those curious, the survey itself can be viewed here, and a spreadsheet with the responses can be viewed here.
- I/4c Hurrian or Early Kassite or Nairi
- I/39a Urartian 880-765 BC
- I/49a Van-lang or Au Lac Vietnamese 700-207 BC
- I/49c Early Vietnamese 110 BC-247 AD
- II/29 Tien and K'un-ming Chinese
- III/42a Sha-t'o Turkish 808-880 AD
- III/42b Sha-t'o Turkish 881-951 AD
- III/60 Medieval Vietnamese
- IV/25 Later Bulgar
- IV/37d Other Indonesian and Malay
- The historical period. Famous wars and well-known generals are likely to draw more interest.
- Game rules and balance. Within the DBA rules, some armies may have an advantage in the quality or types of troops they have available, and some gamers might choose to build armies with that in mind, especially for tournament play.
- Availability of suitable miniatures. Even if you find an army interesting and think it would be enjoyable to play, if you can't find figures it might not get built.