1) Just to invert ordering?, 2) Well, better to educate on how things actually were, the armor evolution feeds a common misconception. And all this of course not for all techs, but when they represent something that can be seen, as armor. Unit evolution could be represented with other things that make more sense, like helmet crests or more complete (but coherent) equipment (if there are models around already, otherwise not visually evolving at all would be even more accurate). I've thought that even better would be that some techs, for example linothorax, could unlock new units, after all it coexisted with the previous types of armor, although of course balancing stats to have maybe still some use cases for the older types would take more work, and the new types should be preferable. But this would add some complexity to the game, and maybe just the later trend should be considered.   Same issue as before.

All our art allows commercial use, so we'd be breaking that license

We could probably update it for R28

Hey, these are all great images, but one little thing: maybe it would be nice to use the same type of bow represented on the Gupta coins. A big difference is the use of large static tips or “siyahs” (the straight endings). A common example is the Manchu bows (little video testing models of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHDkUECiwU8). Given the Gupta representations, and assuming they are indeed not being drawn, it would seem they don’t present “string contact”, so the bow wouldn’t need to have string bridges. I think they would look like what https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUmZU51K0-o calls a "Reflex Straight with static tips", traditionally just called recurved, with the culture also mentioned to better specify which one, which that video understandably criticises (but they would be Hungarian, Magyar, Sasanian, Han, Tang, etc). For comparison, here another Gupta representation:   A Sasanian representation:   And a Sasanian reenactor:

Gupta Cavalry Archer