Moros

Sassanids would conquer most of Arabia as far as Eastern Oman, ancient Maka/Mazun/Magan with the centres of Mleiha and the important port of Ed-Dur. Palmyra was also known for the use of camels. Indeed the experiment of camel cathapracts was a failure, camels really don't work so well in melee either way. What I suggested was a camel archer unit, which was widely used by 'Arabic' peoples and armies, which as they're subjects both the Parthians and Sassanids did have acces too. The Diadoichi have attested use of camels as have the imperial Romans who's main source was Arabia Petraea (Nabataeans). If camels are included it should really be as an archer force not melee. This is the most important thing to keep in mind.

Ah okay now I know what you are talking about. The Rhomphaia was a deadly and fearsome weapon indeed.

Berbers isn't a correct designation for the people in Egypt if you ask me. There was heavy contact with the Ethiopians of Aksum though. Who even invaded South Arabia at some point, but there was even earlier contact due to trade and the likes. Which might also make an interesting faction. Possibly Meroe as well. Also not a very good map though. Seems based on the ancient ptolemy's map instead of Archaeology. Some settlements are difficult to identify with attested settlements, those that are easier to connect seem placed wrongly. The channel from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean went by the nile, not through the narrowest part between the delta area and the Sinai like today,...

Not the best quality of pictorial sources out there on them though.The Desert's Frontier by Ospreys didn't really do a good job depicting them imo, adding a lot of very foreign objects (byzantine helmet for one) to the soldier. But there are quite a lot of usefull inscriptions on their armies. Warfare in Ancient South Arabia: 2nd - 3rd c. AD, A.F.L., Beeston has a large collection of them, but is a bit outdated and some theories have been changed.

the machimoi would replace the pezhetairoi how? Klereuchoi would be better to replace them as medium phalangitai, while a machimoi version would be a lighter and less reliable version of the same unit. A heavy thyreophoroi unit would be a good elite unit here as well. Note the machimoi shouldn't be an elite unit at all and can also be represented in a more traditional light spear unit as well. Both options work. A unique elite could be Galatian (celts from central Turkey) mercenaries, who were given their own seperate communities to live in and were highly prized on the battlefield for heavy infantry. A levy phalangitai, a medium land owner phalangitai and agyraspidai (yeah silver instead of bronze shields) would be ideal for the Seleukids. Though they don't need to come in a phalangitai version only. Makedonians obviously could have some Thracians (phalxes) as uniques, the agrianians are perfect for light skirmishers as they are (just noticed them), but a heavy skirmisher could possibly be added as well. Other agema and royal units would be the obvious hetairoi and hypaspistai. Though the latter should perhaps not be avaible to the Ptolemaics. Edit: Cleopatra VII on a chariot? Isn't that a very heavy anachronistic? Also weird pick for hero, but okay.

I think that is realistic in a way as well. Elephants need a lot of care, massive amounts of food and are a big time investment due to their constant needs and need of attention,..

Makes me interested to reading into them. While I have knowledge on the dacians and the spartans (obviously), I haven't heard about these black coated Dacians. Makes me think of the balck east germanics in Tacitus, who used black charcoal or something to make succesfull night raids and cause fear. Is there anywhere where I can find some info those guys?

Talking about part 2 then? Though I suppose you could make your point using the Xiongnu-> Yuézhi->Eastern Scythians/Sakae, Indo-Greeks,... The Himyar are an interesting faction indeed. A rather unique civilization building upon the old Sabaean legacy, with possibly some Ethiopians in it, and especially at later dates some Jewish influence. They had a sort of professional army (khamis) very early. Light army but archer and spear heavy. Generally camels aren't said to have been part of their armies though, unless as beasts of burden and a way of transport to and off the battlefield, no use for them on the battlefield though. Very cavalry poor though, especially during the early period.

Why limit it to specific factions anyone who had control or an alliance in the area could have recruited them. But if limited by faction, Parthians/sassanids should have them. As should the Makedonian succesor states. Edit: of course a possible faction like Palmyra for part 2 or Nabataea for part 1 would make them sure candidates for a unit.

Yeah but not as regular units though. Rather in the way described by wrod above, but not restricted to just the Persians. If they would make it, I have quite a bit historical material on them lying around somewhere. Both textual and pictoral.

And that makes the game interesting indeed.

Do they need so many new models? Some units are already there in existing factions right? The Dacians could borrow quite a lot of the celts when it comes to buildings, I'd suppose. But perhaps you're right. Though if modders are already modding Chinese factions and all, there is less reason to add them in the official game as they'll be there anyway. Note I was referring to the change from the hoplite 'Servian' armies to the manipular armies around the end of the fourth century and third century BC. Not the much later Marian reforms, which are relevant to only a 'fraction' of the timeframe. Though I'm not sure what you meant exactly. But that doesn't even matter it was just used to illustrate a point on the relative strengths of the armies, as how I'd ideally see them. Can't say I don't like what has been made so far. Loving what we have so far!

Would that be Persian specific? Other factions were known to recruit them regional auxiliaries or mercenaries. Not unlike most units. The Romans formed Dromedarii units from Arabia Petraea (Nabataea) for one, I also seem to remember camels in Makedonian succesor armies. Raphia for one IIRC?

Without doubt. I'm merely stating that while it's not a big deal. I'm hoping certain factions aren't going to be a paper-siccor-rock kinda thing. That wouldn't be all too fun in mp. Either way, it might be me being a so called noob, but I didn't even notice too much unbalance or something. Apparently just in a whining mood or something, that tossing around some ideas.

A shame, they have their place in part 1 as well. Oh well I guess when added to part 2, they'll be easy to mod into part 1. Also a shame for the Dacians and Numidians not to be really included. As they would give original and fun factions with a great possibilities for unique features. Especially considering tiny Greece will feature 3 factions, of which two mostly played a minor role, especially in the second part of the timeframe the game is set. Oh well still gonna enjoy this game without any doubt, I already do. It would have been crazy, even creepy, if every little detail would have been exactly to my liking. But I just don't have anything else to do but whine on the internet, when I should be finishing of my paper.

Why have they been made to be weak against Athens? Hoplite warfare proved not to be too effective against the mobile infantry of Northern and Western Europe. Think about the Galatians who wrecked havoc when they crossed Greece. Or think of the Sabelli armies the Romans fought, though granted those might have been more organised. The Romans dropped hoplite warfare and started to copy and adapt to the Sabelli/Samnites and the Celts. Without it the famous Legions of later times wouldn't have come to be. The Greeks even went from hoplite warfare to more mobile infantry warfare dropping the aspis for the thyreos. (in which to my opinion Rome's role has been more than exaggerated) If anything there shouldn't really be factions that are good against another, they might have some minor advantages but minor ones. Rather they should be good at a certain tactics or style of gaming. Celts were good attackers who relied on a great charge. Or they performed ambushes for which the Iberians and Celt-Iberians were especially famous. Greek hoplite warfare would be great for defensive playing and holding areas/chokepoints on the other hand.

Part 1 or a later expansion of part 1 could use Skythians and/or Sarmatians and Parthians as well if you ask me. Numidians, Germanics and Dacians would be nice and logical additions too. In my opinion they'd make more sense than a Chinese, Japanese faction or an American faction. Would fit in the theme more, just saying. I'm not complaining or nagging just tossing some ideas around.

For me it would: - give unrealism - The difficulty of balancing factions, units and technology that are hard to compare because they were so different and had barely (military) contact, even indirect. - Make it to vague - make the inclusion of other factions impossible, which did fight and had a lot of contact with out current factions and had a big impact in the area. I'd rather have the possibility to refight many other historical clashes. -The idea that for unique factions or exotic factions you need to include far away factions is silly. Note that these factions wouldn't even come into much contact whatever happened in history due to geography, climate and flora of central Asia.

Why the need of going so far east? I'd rather have them keep with the general theme. If one wants more factions, there is still enough material in the region, yes even when it's uniqueness you are looking at.

The desert frontier, one of the many Osprey books has some stuff on them I seem to remember.

You'll have to ask that to the developers. Personally I don't think there's a faction which should be able to recruit them for historical reasons, unless as a mercenary or local or something.

There are recent suggestions that the Maccabaean revolt never really was the military revolt it was later described to be in the Maccabaeans I and II. John Ma rather sees it as rather minor revolt that was dealt with by diplomacy rather than war, in a recent and very credible paper he has been presenting. Edit: for the Hellenistic factions thyreos carrying troops are a must in my opinion.

Horses are faster, easier to use in melee,.. Only in desert regions are they more usefull as a war mount because of them being more available, cheaper and obviously much accustomed to the lack of water, climate and terrain. Still Arabs preferred cavalry over camelry as well especially for tactical reasons, camels of course had their strategic benefits in their region though.

The Persians never used camels as a military force. Camels were used as pack animals in the army, only once did they play a role on the battlefield. It was more of an original and one time idea. The Romans did field some dromedary's recruited from their Arabian subjects, who were the only ones really using them in their military. The Nabataeans (living in modern day Jordan) for one were known for fielding them (cfr Josephos), as were the people fo Tayma/Tema (ancient trade settlement in north west Saudi Arabia) against the Assyrians.