Pimping Magna Graecia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I don't think Magna Graecia was ever a united entity (in fact, I'm quite certain of that fact), more a hodge podge of independent city-states with different mother cities from the Greek mainland.

Of all of those city states, only Syrakousai or Taras is really worthy of it's own faction, and Taras was so heavily influenced by Epirus at this point in history, giving Taras to them is justified IMO.

---

You are quite right, and I agree absolutely. I was thinking more of a strong military alliance, like the one that forms the basis for the Koinion Hellenion. I admit, though, that if I didn't enjoy playing the KH so much, I would be arguing for their removal. A military alliance, especially a short-lived one, is a weak basis for a faction in my opinion :hide: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

that Syracuse didn't have the level of control over any polis worth mentioning in the way that Epirus had influence in Taras, and if that benchmark is to going define control, then I would guess Syracuse would be a single-state faction, like Pontus.

And no, Syracuse did not define 'Magna Graecia', but I think they clearly had designs on Messana, Rhegium, Croton and Paestum. Unfortunately, Rome happened to have those same desgns also.

---

It's pretty much sure it's going to be a single-province faction. "Having designs on" would influence victory conditions, but not control. I am not sure what benchmark the EB team employs for control, but I am guessing it's either a strong alliance with or the presence of troops in the important cities of a region.

For the record, the faction is being debated. There are some good arguements for it and against it.

HistoryProf and Ludens, feel free to post new ones.

Now, so far as Epeiros is concerned, it was held by Epeiros' troops albeit lightly. That constitutes control for as long as they stayed there. They were residing in the city, were thought of as garisson. Had Pyrrhos been victorious, and created the "Italian Kingdom" for one son and "Sikelian kingdom" for the other, he would have used Taras for the capital of the Italian kingdom. That seems like "Epeiros homeland" material to me.

Now, for the beginning situation, best case scenario, a type 4 "allied" gov. But the Epeirote player should be able to build a "homeland" in there if he chooses.

I love the idea of a Syrakousai faction, but fail to see how it won't be KH2.

This got me wondering....was there any troops which were "unique" to Syrakousai.

It would be interesting if they had a Punic/Hellenic mix, but I'm not really sure what sort of troops they employed during this timeframe...

I agree with the depiction of the various seemingly gray-areas regarding faction territories as the best one can do within the framework of the game mechanism. Perfectly acceptable, and like I have said a zillion times: bravo! A Type 4 sounds right given the political situation, as long as Tarantine cavalry are able to be recruited.

That has always somewhat bothered me: to think that some additional infrastructure was needed to produce regional troops, even quality ones. These types of warriors are often just an expression of the indigenous way of fighting.

Yes, training does count, but it's the particular paradigm that produces the particular, corresponding type of fighter.

Cretan archers were Cretan archers because they were on Crete, and in fact, Cretans (with the bows that Cretans used). Know what I mean? So for me to have to build some infrastructure to enlist them seems redundant.

I would think that the opening roster for a unit of horsemen in Taras would be Tarantine Cavalry. After all, what else would they produce?

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Tarantines.html

To be sure, Spartan Hoplites required training, and some were more trained than others, but the Agoge to produce the BEST hoplites in the Hellenistic world had probably been there for 300 years by the time Alexander died. Apparently, the paradigm died at some point in history, that's for someone else to say.

Now, if could get the men of a particular people to fight for you... well that's another story, but (typically) it doesn't have f-all to do with building a new barracks.

Improved Barracks should be for chevrons, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

Now, for the beginning situation, best case scenario, a type 4 "allied" gov. But the Epeirote player should be able to build a "homeland" in there if he chooses.

---

This could give a problem with the recruitment of Tarentine cavalry, unles you make them available in both factional and regional MICs (something I would like to see for most factional units, but that aside).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

This got me wondering....was there any troops which were "unique" to Syrakousai.

---

Syracuse will get their own unique hoplites, which may or may not be in the next build of EB1. It also had a reputation when it came to military engineering, even before Archimedes. Also, I recall that Magna Grecian cities in general, and Tarentum in particular, had rather better cavalry than mainland Greece during the Pelloponesian war; but this may not have been the case in 272 B.C. anymore since the city had wrecked in between. I am not 100% sure about this anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Cretan archers were Cretan archers because they were on Crete, and in fact, Cretans (with the bows that Cretans used). Know what I mean? So for me to have to build some infrastructure to enlist them seems redundant.

---

You don't think they would have needed infrastructure for production of said bows, not to mention the rest of their equipment? Now, if you are arguing that the infrastructure should be present from the beginning, I agree, but that would require a major overhaul of the recruitment system. This is also getting rather off-topic.

Semi-historical, do you think Syracuse also should get gastraphetes?
As they were invented over there you'd expect them to keep the tradition...

Luden's, I'd think they'd already have it (infrastructure).

I've never understood that idea that if one faction takes over another faction, that suddenly the defeated people's can't produce the types of warriors and equipment that they've been producing for decades, maybe centuries.

Do all the fletchers move away? Not likely.

Speaking to keravnos' post: I always start off with a Type IV government in a newly conquered territory anyway, but I agree with him, for sure. And sticking to my main point, of course Tarantine Cavalry should always be recruitable in Taras.

I like to think about the local MIC as a way of winning over the locals.
At first you get the poorest levies, who will fill in for food, after that you need more and more effort to get to the upper classes...

Magna Graecia:
a) A ROMAN name. So? Well, it already emphasises the fact that the Greeks themselves did not view it as an entity. At least the Chermonidean League is attested: there is this bill of Chremonides...
b) Consisted of a bunch of poleis which weren't even formally allied to each other like the KH were...

Do you know what region of the world and what time period I am thinking of when I say Magna Graecia?

Obviously you do. So, do I really have to refer to every area in the ancient world in it's native tongue? No.

I don't remember reading that they were even nominally allied. Hadn't Rhegium and Croton just resolved a war? Messana's just a bunch of pirates at that time. Paestum's already under the heel of Rome, IIRC.

But all that aside, you're missing the point:

I don't care what you call it, or where you put the capitol, my point was, that in my opinion, a faction needs to be between Rome and Lilybaeum: Oenortii, Croto, Syracuse, whatever...

ps: Since you're getting all indignant over semantics: it's the Decree of Chremonides, not Bill and that doesn't happen for at least another 7 years.

Well, you know us - Megale Hellas would have been better.

EB: Yes, we split hairs.

abou, I'm glad you guys split hairs. Seriously, your collective finished product is always a step beyond the expected.

But actually, 'Greater Greece', would be the correct way to say it in English.

In that case (you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction) you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?

So I don't get this thread. :inquisitive:

The point of this thread is the same as the billions of other threads in the millions of forums on the Internet: discussion.

I'll say it one MORE time: I (me, the writer of this post, and starter of this thread) do (verb, present, singular, 1st person) NOT (adverb) care (verb) how (conjunction) you (informal, plural, pronoun) manifest (verb - to show) it (objective, pronoun re: faction in S. Italy, and/or Sicily).

It'd just be nice to see. This is not written with an audience in mind, per se.

But since this still is a discussion, that's NOT all there is to it.

If you or someone else continues the merits or lack thereof regarding a possible presence of a faction in said area, so be it. I might care to comment again.

You don't get it? I don't get why you want to poop on this thread. It's lead to some interesting discussion.

Post #1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Has anyone seriously considered a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily?

Before you decide, please let me make an introductory case (I have more evidence to cite and game-play issues to defend).

It would no doubt be very weak militarily, but that might be a good challenge, and coupled with the smarter MTW2 Diplomatic AI, it might take the game to new heights with a creative player. I imagine a Syracusan Envoy landing in Cyprus begging for Ptolemaic intervention and coming back with the promise of an allied army on his heels. I don't think the development team should discount it due to an unexpected survival rate. The strengths of the new AI are worlds different than what we're all used to in EB1.

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along:

On page 193 and 194 of

The Cambridge Ancient History
By I. E. S. Edwards, John Boardman, John B. Bury, S. A. Cook

Who wants to rumble? :book:

---

Correct me if I am wrong. But it does read:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily

---

Okaaay... so you want either Magna Graecia as a faction; or you want one faction which has the property/properties (p(x) in logic) of the Magna Graecia type/class. Or you don't quite know what you want -given your incoherent reasoning later on that's altogether the most likely option.

But we're not yet there, are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along

---

City-states... hmm plural is it not? And apparently you foresee the case that someone is going to argue about inclusion of more than one city-state in the faction. Hence property p(x) must refer to the faction as desired by the author of the thread being something plural. So apparently this faction must contain multiple objects which either each on their own; or all together have the property p(x) as noted earlier.

But lo and behold; the author of forementioned quotes (unless of course there are multiple authors writing under the pseudonym of HistoryProf that is - checking: there aren't any are there?) isn't quite consequent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

But all that aside, you're missing the point:

---

Ah we are missing the point... That, my dear, coupled to the colon you so recklessly use, implies (and if you knew about logic, you'd know that to imply is to yield; and that conclusions are entirely valid if based on implications!) the point will be revealed right at this very moment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

I don't care what you call it, or where you put the capitol, my point was, that in my opinion, a faction needs to be between Rome and Lilybaeum: Oenortii, Croto, Syracuse, whatever...

---

And suddenly it becomes all so clear. Property p(x) is implicitly defined to be "between Rome and Lilybaeum and consisting of one single entity".
(For your information: entity is taken to mean an instance of similar properties as formentioned examples: Syracuse, Croto, Oenortii". Syracuse was a city-state, and more importantly it is ONE city state. Same goes for Croto.)

But this contradicts the idea of the plural (mutiple object/entities if you don't get it) which is implied in:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along

---

Fail to see it, do you? Well "city-states" is still a plural. And your sentence implies that someone is going to argue what you want over that property u(x).

p(x) is a property of the faction as you propose it; as is u(x). But the two are mutually exclusive!

This implies that the same reasoning yields an impossible result. It also implies that the reasoning somehow has misapplied logic - which implies that the author is not consequent when it comes to applying logic in one and the same case. (This thread, if you didn't realise.) In fact he is contradicting himself (in terminis - no less).

The fact that he replies this way:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

The point of this thread is the same as the billions of other threads in the millions of forums on the Internet: discussion.

I'll say it one MORE time: I (me, the writer of this post, and starter of this thread) do (verb, present, singular, 1st person) NOT (adverb) care (verb) how (conjunction) you (informal, plural, pronoun) manifest (verb - to show) it (objective, pronoun re: faction in S. Italy, and/or Sicily).

It'd just be nice to see. This is not written with an audience in mind, per se.

But since this still is a discussion, that's NOT all there is to it.

If you or someone else continues the merits or lack thereof regarding a possible presence of a faction in said area, so be it. I might care to comment again.

You don't get it? I don't get why you want to poop on this thread. It's lead to some interesting discussion.

---

when confronted with the fact that somebody does not see the point of the derailed reasoning:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

In that case (you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction) you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?

So I don't get this thread.

---

Strengthens the impression that forementioned author is not familiar with the art of reasoning.

Why?

Well, somebody replies to the discussion at hand --about the inclusion of the faction which the thread creator so desires-- and tells him that a faction with property p(x) is being considered. Property p(x) has been defined by the author himself as being characteristic of the faction he wants.

Look at the following sentence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

I'll say it one MORE time: I (me, the writer of this post, and starter of this thread) do (verb, present, singular, 1st person) NOT (adverb) care (verb) how (conjunction) you (informal, plural, pronoun) manifest (verb - to show) it (objective, pronoun re: faction in S. Italy, and/or Sicily).

---

This particular sentence is very interesting because if we get rid of all the redundant bits we end up with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

I'll say it one MORE time: I do NOT care how you manifest it.

---

With "it" being an object of property p(x). Look at the previous statments. It is utterly and completely unconnected to what the author has been arguing; given that he strongly disagrees with a remark that has been made right before his statement (as implied by "I'll say it one MORE time"). Note that in meaningful language the statement "I'll say it one MORE time:" implies that the succeeding part of the sentence must contain the whole point of the authors previous remark/remarks.

Sadly however the author seems completely oblivious to the logic which makes language either meaningful or nonsense:

"I do NOT care how you manifest it"

So what does the author argue then? Well this particular statement would've implied that the previous remark must have disagreed by arguing the point of "how to manifest it". But alas, that's not the case:
"In that case (you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction) you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?"

Note the words "In that case". If you knew about logic you would have immediately recognised it's particular exclusive properties: it means the same as "if and only if". Note the parentheses: they suggest that any language between them is not strictly neccessary for the purpose of the sentences; and that it is merely added to clarify some preceeding piece of language. This then implies that the piece between parentheses is connected to the preceeding piece of language "In that case". Hence the sentence would logically yield:

"If and only if you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?"

Note the tag question which reads "no?". This implies a certain degree of uncertainty about the previous statement!

Now consider this:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statement; statement with certain degree of uncertainty."

(I switched the conditionals for the sake of clarity; it's easier to read that way. Also, note the semi-colon: it implies that the piece before and the piece after it are distinctly stand-alone content and do not depend on each other.)

Then consider the next sentence:

"So I don't get this thread"

It means that based on the previous sentence there must have occured a discrepancy between the thread and the previous sentence (the implication of the word "So" is that the succeeding words must be connected to preceeding words) which is part of said thread.

Okay, let's look at the previous sentence again when it is reduced to it's logic:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statement must be true; next statement may be true."

Consider the following possibility -the word "So" refers to:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statment must be true"

And now use or memory: the author of the thread defined his faction to be both p(x) AND u(x); the comment however is about p(x) and NOT u(x).

Then that won't be the issue after all.

Next consider the following possibility -the issue which is adressed by the sentence (that the author does not understand what/why the thread is) is implicated in the statement that must be true:

"you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race"

That is one faction with property p(x) as defined by the author of the thread - but which lacks the property u(x) which is also defined by the author. And the faction which suffices must have (again by the definitions made by the author) have both property p(x) and u(x). However, p(x) and u(x) are mutually exclusive as pointed out earlier.

Hence the faction desired by the author is plain impossible --or there must have been an oversight.

And this is what yields the logical result: "So I don't get this thread."

----------------

PS: You should learn to be less trollish when you want a discussion. And if you don't want a discussion you should at least put a disclaimer next to your trollish remarks. That is, if you are not serious about it. Because if you do not want a serious discussion (even though you claimed that this thread was written with spawning a discussion in mind:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

The point of this thread is the same as the billions of other threads in the millions of forums on the Internet: discussion

---

)

you genuinely qualify as a full 100% utter and complete troll. In my personal opinion of course- because we have to remain civil with each other.

Note that I find your writing style and your name strikingly similar to one pseudonym over at TWC. And that one shows the exactly same lack of being able to understand the idea of a discussion either. All he seems to be after is proving himself right, even if his reasoning is flawed.

Aw, he busted the logic on your arse. Didn't have time to follow it, though.

Foot

@TA...

:dizzy2:

Oh....my....goodness.

Is that a post or a formula for nuclear fission?

Was there math in there?

Nevertheless, it was entertaining. :2thumbsup:

(I did catch the sarcasm there BTW, thanks for the shits and giggles) :beam:

That being said, I don't see this thread as a bad thing per se, as it has raised some interesting discussion....so I don't quite understand why you guys are arguing.

Like I said though, the exploits of others are entertaining at the least, so keep it up. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

@TA...

:dizzy2:

Oh....my....goodness.

Is that a post or a formula for nuclear fission?

Was there math in there?

---

It's a post alright. And yes, it did include math. But the math is nothing compared to the proof of the statement 1 + 1 = 2. (Which incidentally was delivered for the first time that we know of in the mid 19th century by a famous Mathematician & Historian called Bertrand Russell -- yes the one after whom the Russell square in London was named)

And who says historians are too nerdy to be complete dicks? That rhetorical question is not intended for any sole entity as multiple people were cry babies and should be scolded as such :)

Let's look at your first post to see what you were contributing to the conversation.

Let's see how reasonable you were at first.

Because usually I only become a dick after someone has been rude.

Let's see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Magna Graecia:
a) A ROMAN name. So? Well, it already emphasises the fact that the Greeks themselves did not view it as an entity. At least the Chermonidean League is attested: there is this bill of Chremonides...
b) Consisted of a bunch of poleis which weren't even formally allied to each other like the KH were...

---

This was your first contribution? This is you being reasonable?

Oh, wait!

YES!

I get it now! Yes... that MUST be it.

You came charging in like a bull, all full of yourself cause you're a big-time developer, and some old man caught you with your jaw open... some doddering, grey-haired, little old man caught you with a right hook to the flapping ego...

The Bill of Chremonides! :oops:

I got you, kid! And that reaaaaaaaly pissed you off! Didn't it?

Oh, goodness: and in front of all your friends! :wall:

All that p(x) mumbo-jumbo = Showing off to all your friends that you weren't stupid.

What a vulgar display that was.

And all you had to say was, "Oh, right... Decree of Chremonides..."

But, nooooo... you're too vain for that!

You bet on your intellect instead... with a 'scathing post'..

But you lost your freeking marbles instead!

You are transparent, T.A.

I'm going to sleep like a baby tonight!

Hell, I might even go bone my old lady! Thanks, chump!

Ha! Bill of Chremonides! Indeed!

HA!

:book:

Oh yes HistoryProf, cos you are are the height of politeness and civilised discourse. I mean, its like the pot calling the kettle black.

Foot

Sorry guys, but this thread is becoming ridiculous.

There is "New factions?" thread for discussion and "EB TAVERN" for pointless rows. Feel free to choose one of them.

@HistoryProf:

Quote:

---

Magna Graecia:
a) A ROMAN name. So? Well, it already emphasises the fact that the Greeks themselves did not view it as an entity. At least the Chermonidean League is attested: there is this bill of Chremonides...
b) Consisted of a bunch of poleis which weren't even formally allied to each other like the KH were...

---

This was said when property p(x) was a quite unknown quality at the momenet. In fact all indications were that you wanted a faction in a similar style as the KH. That post objects against such a faction with the reasonable argument: "If the faction must have a similar set up as the KH the n there must be a faction in the region which historically did operate very similarly. And that is not the case: you had this bunch of poleis which weren't even formally allied to each other; and no such faction is even formally attested like the KH was in the bill of Chremonides."

That I get the nomenclature wrong in one instance -and you seem to perfectly understand what I was meaning; as did everyone else who continued the argument- and I get corrected is all OK. In fact that somebody tells me I should've called it the Decree of Chremonides is nothing but praiseworthy. However, did I continue an argument over nomenclature? Did I in fact argue one single time that I was right and you were wrong? No, very simply because to me the entire point of this thread is not to argue about who's right and who's wrong.

And the fact that you take it the way you do strengthens my opinion that
"Note that I find your writing style and your name strikingly similar to one pseudonym over at TWC. And that one shows the exactly same lack of being able to understand the idea of a discussion either. All he seems to be after is proving himself right, even if his reasoning is flawed."

Please -just to make sure you understand it- a discussion is something completely different from a debate. A debate is about proving one right and the other wrong; or at least proving yourself to have the better arguments.

A discussion on the other hand is about reaching a common ground. Either by convincing the other; or by realising the worth of each other's arguments.

If you found me rude at that time -which you apparently did not; because you never mentioned it back then-- you coul've said so. Such is the nature of a discussion.

Now as for the rest of your post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

got you, kid! And that reaaaaaaaly pissed you off! Didn't it?

Oh, goodness: and in front of all your friends!

All that p(x) mumbo-jumbo = Showing off to all your friends that you weren't stupid.

What a vulgar display that was.

And all you had to say was, "Oh, right... Decree of Chremonides..."

But, nooooo... you're too vain for that!

You bet on your intellect instead... with a 'scathing post'..

But you lost your freeking marbles instead!

You are transparent, T.A.

I'm going to sleep like a baby tonight!

Hell, I might even go bone my old lady! Thanks, chump!

Ha! Bill of Chremonides! Indeed!

HA!

---

seems to indicate that you never ever actually read my post but simply started shouting. To me, especially given the actual content (even though I was being sarcastic, but you can hardly blame me after the post you just made previously- can you?) of my forementioned post gives the impression of dealing with a 6 year old. I am sorry, but that really is how you make yourself look like. Be a little more mature please.

Now as for the content of my post: it was an explanation of why I reacted with "So I don't get this thread" -which you seemed so indignant about. It has nothing to do with vanity; nor has it anything to do with the "decree of Chremonides". That's all you make out of it. And as you know you can get know someone by...

Finally:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistoryProf

Hell, I might even go bone my old lady! Thanks, chump!

---

to each his own. Though you might have had the decency to think twice and come up with something better. But I guess that's the problem with you: you don't think twice and you keep reacting on the spur of the moment. Had I done so I would not have been merely sarcastic with you... So I guess I will just leave this thread to you, then you won't need to feel offended by my posts and you won't need to make such a silly show of yourself.

Have a nice day,

Slowly guys, there's no need to get worked up about it :turtle:

The logic remarks made me laugh though (and the reaction even more so) :laugh4:

Besides, I thought the "So I don't get this thread" part in your post referred to your uncertain statement which is directly preceding it (paraphrased "and that's all there is to it, or is there more?") when I first read it by the way, which I in fact interpreted as a request for clarification. Maybe HistoryProf made the same mistake and believed that he had already explained himself.

Suggestion: somebody delete all the posts from where the flaming started so we can salvage the topic.

That said, IMHO here we should discuss on what supports the existence of a megale hellas based faction instead of a pissing match.

Hey Foot, I'm not the one going psycho.

Afterall, I did start the thread, it has a topic that people were building ideas on, and we were having a decent conversation by all accounts until T.A. started pushing me around.

I'm usually polite until someone writes something obtuse.

But what you don't get from me are 1000-word ravings.

In any case, I am right about why he's pissed.

My advice: don't go drinking w/ him at your favorite bar.

Alpaca, you're probably right, I should've asked him if I could clarify anything. But he seemed bent on disruption in his first post.

HP, to be brutally honest I'm not interested about who's doing what.
What is in my interest is to try and have as many chances as possible to support Syracuse as EB2 faction and I'm trying to fix the possible bumps on the road.
If I was a moderator here I would have deleted more than a few posts already but as I'm not all I can do is to try and cool down the flames.

So, do we want to try and recover the topic or do we want to continue and get this thread locked?

Quite right Z, I was actually just about to address Luden's point on infrastructure. Wouldn't it just be a matter of starting certain (not all) cities off with more improved barracks? Or am I missing something else? 'Cause even I could do that.

And Zarax, what's a gastraphetes?

Also, no one has addressed the Croton issue. IIRC, isn't it in Roman hands in 272 B.C.? That level of advancement down the peninsula should IMO, merit some representation - perhaps a small field army?

I don't think that anyone should worry about Syracuse getting whacked early. The political AI in M2TW is something worlds different from what EB's AI has been limited to.

I played GrandViz' Ultimate AI last night and it was stunning, but it helps make single-state factions viable.

Gastraphetes ("belly bowmen") are the ancient equivalent of crossbowmen, basically using a big composite bow that was reloaded in quite an original way.
Wikipedia should have a pretty explanatory article on that, my only doubt is if those units were still in use in the game timeframe...

EDIT: not much of an article but still something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes