Good post Smetla.

Most of us who have complained about some of the units are also not calling for 100% historical accuracy, or nitpicking with things like "that spear should be a little longer." That is a myth perpetuated by the fanboys so that they can dismiss our arguments, without having to address the fact that we have a point.

I'm perfectly fine for example with the native Egyptian units. Historically the Ptolemies didn't use natives until after Raphia, but no such constraint should be put on the player. After all, if he's playing the role of one of the Egytpian kings shouldn't he have the option of using native troops? My only complaint was the complete lack of Macedonian/Greek units as well.

There is also no need to completely make up units. History is interesting enough, and provided us with plenty of interesting units. I just don't know what CA was thinking sometimes. Take the Gauls or Germans for example. Compare the totally made up forester archers or Chosen axemen to the units suggested by Psycho, which unlike the foresters or chosen axemen...really existed! Can anyone honestly say that the foresters are more interesting than ANY of the units Psycho suggested?