Sigh. As we've said half a million times, there will be no african faction. Even the Nubians, the most advanced sub-saharan civilization of the time, was barely out of the bronze age in our period, and relied entirely on the Ptolemies for decent manufactured goods.

I know the modern world has an obsession with multi-culturalism, but the ancients didn't give a damn. To the Ptolemies, and to the native egyptians, Black Africans were a source of mercenaries, a sparse source (not even slaves, since slaves from the mediterranean were cheaper... no racism in the ancient world, just opportunism).

We're going to put a primitive unit or two down there. Don't expect African Supermen, because the first african people south of the sahara above the military horizen (those who do not fight in archaic and ritualistic forms) were the Zulu, and only after the brilliant Shaka. This excludes the Ethiopians of course, who were largely dominated by the Arabs until the collapse of the Sabaean stranglehold on the horn of Africa.

This is not Europa Political Correctum. I have seen not a single shred of evidence for the inclusion of a native black kingdom that would be meaningful in period. Ethiopia, about 600 years after the period, would be worthy of inclusion.

I'm not meaning to sound harsh to anyone in particular, but I'm just not entirely sure why this keeps coming up... The reputable historians and classicists all just ignored Black Athena as racially motivated tripe (as any Eurocentric crap is as well)

Personally, I like truth. It's pretty cool. The only thing I may be guilty of is overestimating the impact of the early semitic peoples, so no racism accusations, please, unless you want to accuse me of philo-semitism ;) In that case, I'd probably agree with you.