Some reasons could be marketing. You launch a game, offer some features. Later follow ups are not set in stone.

It's clear they had limitations of play testing (or failed to respond to findings) so, making more factions playable, would have been expensive, as they'd require to be tested.

I think, marketing reasons made for much of the game decisions.

Roman factions - obviously; split them means more opponent variety

What a coincidence, that the Major Western European markets are represented by a barb faction, even Spain has something.


The appallingly stoopid Strategic AI, weak Battlefield AI, broken Diplomacy system, and ridiculous anti-historical stuff and "funny" units with special powers ought to tell you, that technical and historical reasoning, took 2nd place to having a game which appealed to the market and broadbase of casual interest.

After all in a review, the complexity is overwhelming and the strategy appears deep. It is only with time, that you realise how weak the AI play is and get disappointed by the lack of challenge.

Call me cynical if you like, but when gamers are willing to buy buggy games, and they even get great ratings, it seems a bit moot asking why some factions were made "unplayable" rather than "unlockable".