Quote Originally Posted by caesar44
ok but my questions were for the sake of realism and game play
realism - there was a numidian kingdom that fought against carthage for centuries and the romans used it to limit the punic empire in north africa
you should remember the jugorthine war . the most important war of rome between the years 134 to 89 (between the numantine war and the marsic war) so how can one say that numidia was nothing ??

game play - in strategy game you should have minor factions like numidia to use them as buffer states . to use them as a base of operations against major factions etc' it's make the game more interesting

about baktria . i really don't know ... what they did ? they fought the parthians and seleusids with no success so ...

btw . good work !
The decision there has been made. There is no going back on it. I'd like to have numidia too, but baktria is more deserving. But you're totally wrong about the relative success between baktria and numidia. Baktria had a dynastic kingdom that covered a large area in central asia and then was forced into their southern possessions by nomadic incursions. They still controlled a large section of northwestern India even then before we lose track of them and they are somewhat absorbed into the larger Indian culture. At its height, it encompassed an area comprising all of Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, up to the Indus River. Quite possibly controlled large areas south of there too, but it's hard to say about some of the areas with limited excavations.