Quote Originally Posted by Morte66
I think it would make more sense to reduce the timeframe. Let it run from 272bc to the Marians (or whatever), then do a second campaign starting roughly when the first ends.

That way you could have factions that are "questionable" in 272BC (Parthia, Bactria) in the later campaign without bending the truth.

You'd get around one of RTW's Achille's heels, the way the the "barbarian" factions don't learn (e.g. to build paved roads) as they become more urbanised.

You'd get around the game starting to become boring after you hit 30-50 provinces and the opposition turn into speed bumps, and the distance to capital penalties cause more difficulty than the enemy.

You'd mitigate the disconnect between the actual history that the EB team privilege and the alternate history that players create in the game by reducing the scope for factions to expand non-historically.

I think this could be an excellent idea to add a bit to what is already a quite complete game.
It wouldnt require any new units since EB already covers this period, and I dont think that anyone will complain that there is less scope for development (many of the advanced buildings will have been already made). It would just be a different experience; maybe a little less "complete" than the original, but with the novelty of playing out a different historical situation. It could be done by simply (er, not so simply, I know...) making a new map, and giving the appropriate reforms and buildings to factions.
As a side note, my own specialty is late Hellenistic history (religion in particular) so if anyone is planning on following up on this, I would be very happy to help with the historical reseach/advice.