From a quick glance, Edourius, the one thing that stuck out to me was the Romans. I like Warry's conclusions on the use of the Triplex Acies with the formation of solid lines. Another problem, and it isn't inherently your fault, is that has anyone decided on what constitutes a legion? I haven't done the math yet and so I don't know, but theoretically a consul would have at his command 4 legions - two of Roman origin and two of allies. Also, how were these units equipped? Someone on the team stated, and I can't remember who, that allies used gear very similar to the Romans; hence Roman units able to be recruited in all of central Italy.

For the Ptolemaic army, just remember that that was cobbled together very quickly by Ptolemy to fight off Antiochus. In ideal conditions I don't know if they would deploy what they did, but the Ptolemaic kingdom seems to have subsisted on sheer, dumb luck and money. If it weren't for the Romans interfering, Antiochus IV probably would have put an end to the whole stinking dynasty.

For Koinon Hellenon, look into whatever has been written about the Macedonian Wars where the various leagues of Hellas were fighting against each other.

Pontus and Armenia are powers I have no idea about. Pontus just seems to come across as that black sheep of the East that nobody likes. I know they used chariots and phalanxes, but that is it.

Baktria is interesting. They seem to have had a huge resource in manpower and funds and were to the far east what Macedon was in Greece - they just needed someone to organize them. My guess is that they would closely resemble the Seleucids in their military, but would use analogs where possible. You might just have to wait until their roster is completed (very curious about the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi) to see what they have.

The region of Baktria did have a reputation for very fine horses and so I imagine their tactics would be the hammer-and-anvil via phalanx and cavalry.