Unfortunately, without any details or sources to back up your argument, it's just a collection of your opinions, which are of no greater intrinsic worth than anyone else's.
Moreover, you have made some assertions that could be reasonably challenged, but claim that you have no access to your "sources", therefore you should be excused from defending your arguments. If that is truly the case, why did you post now? Could you not have waited until you felt ready to respond adequately to the inevitable criticisms of your assertions? This all seems to me like a massive waste of everybody's time.

You state flatly that the EB team is ignorant about the warfare of the period. This is offensive and was perhaps meant to be, but leaving that aside for the moment, in order for this to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate that you are an unimpeachable expert on every aspect of warfare in the 3rd century. Your bare assertion that
I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment.
doesn't quite cut the mustard; for one thing, there is no reason to believe you. People quoting themselves are inevitably experts, yet strangely their claims to expertise can never be substantiated.

You made some poorly constructed, knee-jerk complaints about the lethality of slings and javelins: you were disappointed that the slingers only achieved 2% casualties in one volley and that javelins only achieve 4% casualties again in only one volley. Have you done any beta-testing for any mods? 'Cos that kind of report would be useless rubbish to anyone trying to balance units: can you do any better at tabulating some battle results, with clear and objective standards and comparisons? It's time consuming, but if you can't be bothered why should anyone listen to your rants? Saying something like
my evidence was based on my own experience, and so not testable
again begs the question of why did you open this thread at all?

Then there is the funny stuff:
I am not a sloppy historian
is endearingly humble, but statements like
it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.
just make you hard to take seriously.
But, truly, sloppiness is the only word for posts like
Slingers were often used enmass in the ancient world,
(en masse means 'in large numbers', actually)
but if you look at the musters in the Bible, the size of the specific units of slingers compared to infantry that were raised from the Tribes of Israel were quite small.
.
So which is it? Were slingers used 'en masse', or were they small units drawn from tribes? And what precisely is the point of talking about the military organisation of the late bronze age when you are criticising a model of the late Hellenistic period?

Let's see some contemporary battle narratives with a bit of structured analysis relating to units and their stats: a lot of this material is online, so being in Hungary is no excuse for laziness.