Quote Originally Posted by jamee View Post
i am no historian, nor do i indeed no enough to really quibble, in truth its eb itself that is brushing up my history knowledge, so i take wot you say as correct... but it does seem strange that all units are balanced equally.. would it not make the game more diverse if units were actully set apart from each other, then tactics and army composition would then play a larger part?? also, did the roman army not have archers?? its seems bizarre that one of the worlds formidable war machines would not have used and trained its own archers?
Could you give examples of units being balanced equally? Yes, many factions share units or have similar unit types, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of diversity or tactics. The differences are just more subtle than they are in most mods, because the team feels this is more historical. Unit balancing was based on their equipment and training, in as far as can be reconstructed.

During the classical age there wasn't a tradition of archery in western Europe. The wet climate of western Europe doesn't lend itself for the composite bow, and the simple self bow used for hunting doesn't pack much punch. Good archers were therefore hard to find, so if a warlord wanted good ranged troops he would generally recruit slingers. The Romans did employ archers, but they mostly got them from places where there was a tradition of archery, like Crete, Syria or Scythia. In the mod, you can recruit Cretan archers in most parts of the Greek world, while Syrian archers become available in the East once you hit the Marian reforms.