An accurate representation of national military in the ancient age

[Biggus Splenus]

Howdy Gunny

I was going to post this in your main thread announcing the big changes for the exciting 3.0 update, but I thought that I might lighten up your forum with a new thread

I'd just like to start with Makedonia and the Antigonidai, because that's what I'm currently doing a lot of research into:

Macedon:
-Some losses, some gains.
-Thorax Swordsmen are removed (I have no references to them, welcome correction), in exchange they get Thracian Peltasts and Rhompania (light) in Thracia.
-Three ranks of Thureophoroi
-Three ranks of Hoplites
-Four ranks of pikemen (Levy, regular, mail-clad, elite)
-Royal Peltasts
-Thracian Spearmen, Thracian Rhompania infantry, Thracian Peltasts
-Light and Heavy Peltasts
-Possibly native access to Cretan Archers given their intensive use. Otherwise national mercenary access.
-Javelin cavalry, Tarantine Cavalry, Prdoromoi, Citizenry Cavalry, Thessalians, Aspis-Companions, Lance-Companions, Thracian Light Cavalry and Thracian Prodromoi

You're right to remove the Thorax Swordsmen. When the classical hoplite adopted the thureos, they retained their spears, and their new shield allowed them to carry a small clutch of javelins, while keeping their sword by their side as a secondary weapon (as it always has been for Greek hoplite). So, any "Sword" unit that CA has given the Greeks, should be removed, including cavalry (Greek cavalry always used a spear or lance as their primary melee weapon).

Adding in Thracian units to their roster (not just mercenaries, but also recruited from barracks) is also a neat idea, because native Thracians lived inside Makedonia for some time, and served their king. The native melee weapon was the rhomphaia, and the heavy infantry would also carry a shield (depending on the period, either pelte or thureos) and a few javelins. The light infantry would be equipped similarly, but without the rhomphaia, much lighter armour (probably none most the time), and their shield (again, depending on the period). Spear infantry definitely existed, but they weren't that common.

Something to note about the Makedonian army; in the period we're focusing on, and long before (up to the time of Alexander), Makedonian citizens that served in the foot, would only be in the phalanx. Thureophoroi and classical Hoplite would be recruited either from allied Hellenic cities in their kingdom, allied states fighting with them in the war, or mercenaries. Furthermore, I don't believe there should be 3 ranks of them; almost all warriors in this period were "levy" troops, and their equipment would chiefly be based off what the general practice was in that region. Greek city states would also usually have a "Picked" (Epilektoi) force of professional, full-time soldiers (both horse and foot usually), but they were very limited. So I'd suggest having 2 of these units; "Allied Thureophoroi", and "Picked Allied Thureophoroi" (a later Thorakitai variant of both too, if you'd like); "Allied Hoplitai", and "Picked Allied Hoplitai" (or Epilektoi), because that was probably the only difference, having so many different ranks of different troops seems a little pointless to me, but that's my view

About the classical Hoplite and the thureos Hoplite; the change came in during the Celtic invasion of Hellas, and it was a very rapid change. Almost all the Greek world had adopted this shield in a decade or 2, beginning in the 270's. So, you could make Thureophoroi unavailable at the beginning of the campaign, then make a very early tech to unlock them; or just make them unlocked from the start, either is a valid choice, but the former might add a bit more flavor to the game When the thureos came into use in a certain state though, it would completely replace the hoplon; they never co-existed in the same state.

Ok, moving onto the phalanx; the native Makedonians. Like I said, all troops in this period were levies, so I don't think it'd be proper to have a "Levy Phalangites" and "Regular Phalangites" unit. Also, there's no actual evidence of Makedonians using mail armour, but it is likely I suppose for the front rank men (hegemons; file leaders and officers). Finally, there was no "elite" unit in the Makedonian armies of our era that served chiefly as phalangites. I'll discuss the elite troops below Anyway, if it'd be represented properly, there'd only be 1 unit of the core phalanx, because that's how Hellenistic armies done it, with homogeneity. These men that formed the core phalanx were known as "Chalkaspides" by Polybius, as well as "Hoplitai".

The elite foot troops were the "Royal Peltasts" (basilikoi peltastai). They fought in the phalanx with a shortened sarisa, and outside of a pitched battled, they'd be equipped with javelins and spear (or their shortened sarisa, not sure). They were made for versatility, and that's what they done very well. It's unlikely that they wore any body armour at all, because an eye-witness of their elite regiment (the agema, probably the only professional soldiers of our period's Makedonian armies) remarks on their "newly died crimson tunics", which might be a little hard to see if they were wearing full body armour of any type. Also, whenever they are mentioned, no one mentions body armour, or even greaves. So perhaps they just used a helmet and shield for protection.

Like I said before, there was an elite regiment of the royal peltast, called the "Agema" (Peltastai Basilikoi Agematos; Royal Peltasts of the Agema); they were likely the only professional Makedonian citizens in the army, and probably were very uniformed in appearance (for the period). There was 2,000 of these, and 3,000 of the Royal Peltast, making 5,000 total. You can remove the "Foot Companion" unit in vanilla, because these guys replaced their role.

Your "Light and Heavy Peltasts" would also have to be either allied or mercenary, because like I said, all foot soldiers in the Makedonian army served in the phalanx. But another note to this; once the thureophoroi emerged, they combined both the classical hoplite and the peltasts into 1 unit (peltast also adopting this shield). So perhaps you could have Pre-Celtic infantry (Classical Hoplite, and Classical Peltasts), and Post-Celtic infantry (Thureos Hoplite) which would be unlock with a tech (replacing the former). Again though, with equipment; it was a regional thing, so in 1 place there'd likely only be heavy or light peltasts.

Cretans certainly are mentioned a lot in Makedonian armies (actually, all Hellenic armies). It's likely that "Cretan" denoted a certain type of unit, rather than their nationality, eventually (just like "Peltast" became a term for mercenary, and "Hoplite" for heavy trooper). It's been suggested that the Makedonians had a contract with allied Cretan cities that supplied a fix number of soldiers into their forces, which seems probable. It's also likely that there was a military settlement of them in their kingdom too. So you could make them Allied or Mercenary troops, or both

Cavalry time. There wasn't much cavalry in Antigonid armies of our period until later years, so having multiple different units may not be practical, but I'll tell you about their evolution. 1st we'd have the classic Alexander-style cavalry which used xyston (lance) and a shock charge. 2nd there was the shielded, skirmisher cavalry; this development took place sometime between Pyrrhus' (taking shielded cavalry back with him from Italy) or the Celt's invasion of Greece, and their wars with Rome (the development was valid only because of the reduced importance of cavalry in Makedonian armies during the period, not relying on shock cavalry any more). Their shield was of Tarantine style (Tarantines also denoting a certain class of troop at this period, like Cretans). But anyway, there was the regular cavalry (basilikoi hippeis; royal cavalry), and the elite, bodyguard unit (hiera ilai; sacred squadron); both Livy and Polybius confirm this. Makedonians wouldn't have served in the scouts (Prodromoi) at this time (which would fight with xyston, or javelins, depending on the situation, in Alexander's day anyway). Makedonian cavalry likely never used Aspis/Hoplon, but I can tell you Epirus and Ptolemy did, and maybe Boiotians too.

You could have the "Citizenry Cavalry" as allied units too, recruited from coastal polis' in the Makedonian kingdom. They'd likely fight in the native, classical Greek style; equipped with a long spear (not as long as a xyston) and several javelins; un-shielded, acting as a heavy skirmish/pursuit unit. You could also have a "Picked" unit of these allied cavalry units too. I'll get back to you on the Thracian and Thessalian cavalry soon, and artillery if you'd like? You might also like to add some Agrianes and Paeonians to the roster too? Both lived inside the Kingdom (now officially part of Makedonia, not just a client state).

Hope you enjoy this read, sorry about the wall of text, I got carried away Here's something I wrote for my mod, perhaps it'll be useful for you too (it's got every reference to the Makedonian armies under the Antigonidai that I could possibly find)?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Cavalry and Officers

- somatophylakes ("meaning bodyguards") were men that assisted the king maintain and run the army. There was 7 (later 8) during Alexander's time, but the Antigonid Kingdom may have employed 10 (this is strictly speculation, but Livy 34.52.5 mentions 10 clipea of silver at Flamininus’ triumph in Rome, perhaps a symbol of their high rank, or perhaps captured shields of Antigonid hypaspistai equipped with similar shields to Alexander's argyraspides, earlier titled hypaspistai). Their signature weapon was the xyston (Curtius 7.1.18) (in Alexander's era, but it's unclear if this still existed in the Antigonid period) and perhaps a silver gilded shield (as stated before, just speculation).

- the basilikoi hypaspistai (meaning "royal shield-bearers") role is unclear in the Antigonid forces, but the title seems to be a lower rank of staff officers, perhaps acting as assistants to the higher ranking somatophylakes. They did accompany the basileus occasionally (Polybius 5.27.3) and seemed to be close to him, often acting as messengers (Polybius 18.33.2), so there must have been a considerable amount of them, maybe not enough for a field unit, furthermore there never was clear accounts of them on the field as a unit. They may have been equipped with a silver gilded shield (as stated in my previous point) as a badge of their rank.

- the cavalry were given crown lands by the basileus, and they would offer military service and supply their own horse (Arrian Anabasis Alexandri 3.19.5), furnishing and equipment for their selves and the groom who accompanied him, from the resources of his estate. It seems to have been the responsibility of the state (at least in Alexander's time) to provide a remount for the cavalry (Curtius 7.1.15). It is possible that Philip V had reformed the recruitment of the cavalry (see conscription diagramma of Philip V), admitting individuals into the arm through horse inspections (horses previously rejected being branded on the mouth with a kerkeion). "a thousand drachmas for each horse" is mentioned; perhaps it's compensation from the state to the individual if their horse passed inspection for service (therefore, the stated owned the horse), or perhaps it's the individual paying compensation to the state to allow him to serve in the cavalry. This reform by Philip V does sound likely; the former system of service in return for land inevitably breaks down over time (eg. division of land from multiple son's inheritance), and it would explain how Philip V was able to increase the number of serving cavalry over threefold (see Sekunda 2010 & 2012).

- The cavalry was split into 2 distinct unit types, both Livy (42.58.6-9, 42.66.5, 44.42.2-3) and Polybius (4.37.7, 4.67.6) confirms this. Livy specifies the difference between "royal cavalry" (basilikoi hippeis) and the "sacred squadron" (hiera ilai) (42.58.6-9), while Polybius states that half the cavalry (400) were "about the Court" (4.67.6), but not further specifying what the other half was titled. Polybius describes the elite Ptolemaic cavalry in the same way (5.65.5), so it may be safe to conclude that the cavalry "about the Court" are the "sacred squadron" described by Livy, or perhaps the cavalry "about the Court" is a specific title given to an elite entity, and the "sacred squadron" being merely a component of it. Furthermore, Alexander's "royal squadron" (basilikoi ilai) of hetairoi also numbered 400 horses at the start of his reign (although later in his campaign, Alexander'shetairoi were reduced to 300 horses).

- There doesn't seem to be evidence that an organised military unit of hetairoi continued to be in use during Antigonid Makedonia, like Alexander's elite cavalry. Although it is very likely that one of the units (mentioned in my previous point) was called hetairoi by the Makedonians (although Polybius was Greek, and he probably would had stated if they were). Hetairoi/philoi may have only continued as an honorific title, and the courtiers and close friends of the king in the Antigonid Kingdom. As stated before, Polybius' cavalry "about the Court" could be the same entity as Livy's "sacred squadrons", as Livy described these units accompanying the king in and out of the battle (44.42.4-3), and the basileus taking position between the agema peltastai and the "sacred squadron" in battle (Livy 42.58.9). There was a letter sent to King Demetrios II in 234/3 by a local citizen, Philoxenos, "from the hetairoi of the chiliarchia of Philippos"; but the chiliarchia was an infantry formation in Makedonian military history (inherited during Achaemenid rule), and their cavalry forces were never recorder to be near 1,000 men (a chiliarchia) at the time of this letter (the highest being 800 (Polybius 4.37.7)). I'm afraid I cannot make sense of this.

- Apparently Makedonian cavalry (Hellenistic cavalry in general, actually) only started to use shields after the Celtic incursions (beginning 279 BCE).

- The cavalry reached a maximum strength of 800 horses (Polybius 4.37.7), but was raised to 3,000 during the 3rd Makedonian War (Livy 42.51.9).

The Infantry

- The regular soldiers of the army are referred to as chalkaspides (Polybius 2.66.5), hoplitai (Polybius 4.67.6, 4.69.4, Asclepiodotus Tacticus 1.2), phalangites, pezhetairoi (in Alexander's time at least, Arrian Alexander's Anabasis), and sarissaphoroi. Whatever their name, they were equipped with a sarissa, a "small dagger" (Plutarch Aemilius 20.10) (Military Decree of Amphipolis mentions a makhaira), a shield, knemides (greaves), and a helmet. Body armour in the form of a kotthybos was issued to all regulars of the phalanx except the hegemons (officers and men of the front rank, perhaps the lochagoi), which instead wore a thorax and hemithorakion (cuirass and semi-cuirass respectively) (see Military Decree of Amphipolis for these regulations). During the early Antigonid Kingdom they could be mustered to a strength of 10,000, by the end of the 3rd C they could consist of 16,000 men (done also by lowering the age requirement to 15 for the crisis), and by the end of Antigonid Makedonia they reached a strength of 21,000 men. The age requirement for these men may have been 22 (men up to the age of 22 seemed to have only trained with bow and javelin at the city's gymnasiarchos).

- The elite infantry were the peltastai (also called caetrati by Livy 42.51). They were equipped with a sarissa (Plutarch Aemilius 19.1, also mentions them fighting in a phalanx) (shorter than that of the phalanx measuring only 12ft (Aelian 12), or they may have been equipped with a long spear (Asclepiodotus 1.2)), a sword (described as a "small encheiridia" (Plutarch Aemilius 20.5)), a shield, and a helmet. No reference to greaves or cuirass, but it remains plausible, perhaps not a heavy thorax, because their role was obviously intended for light support. They could be mustered to a full size of 3,000 men, and this figure was sustained throughout Antigonid Makedonia (Livy 42.51.4-5, Polybius 4.29.1). The max age limit was 35 years old (see conscription diagramma of Philip V). The "best" recruits (most likely the wealthier and better educated citizens, ie. euporoteroi) were recruited into the peltastai, the rest into the regular phalanx.

- The agema (perhaps also called basilika syntagma, and nicknamed them the "Conquerors" by Livy 43.19.11) were an elite contingent in the peltastai (the basileus taking position between the agema peltastai and the "sacred squadron" in battle (Livy 42.58.9)). A difference in their equipment is not specified except that they had gilded weapons and wore crimson-dyed tunics (Plutarch Aemilius 18.3). The unit consisted of 2,000 troops throughout the time of the Antigonid Kingdom (Livy 42.51.4-5). This unit was comprised of the veterans of the peltastai (Livy 42.51.4-5, Plutarch Aemilius18.3), with a max age limit of 45 (originally, but rose to 50 during the late Kingdom (see conscription diagramma of Philip V)).

- total strength of the peltastai regiment (including the elite contingent of agema) was always 5,000, and it's clear that when fewer men are mentioned in the texts (Polybius 2.65, 4.67.4, Livy 33.4.4-5, 44.32.6, Plutarch Aemilius 16.1) that the agema served as the only peltastai in the campaign, or that the agema was excluded from the campaign, and "the otherpeltastai" were the only ones included (numbers of 2,000 and 3,000 peltastai given on these occasions, respectively).

- the levy was mustered to a single location before individual units were formed from them, opposed to Alexander's method of recruiting region based regiments of the phalanx.

- men were registered to a city, where they were administered for liability of military service, trained, and levied.

- men younger than the age requirement of 20 for military service (the epheboi), could be mustered in defense of the nation (not for campaigns outside national borders). This was usually only men of ages 18 and 19, but in a crisis, it could be as low as 15.

[Biggus Splenus]

I've been informated that Ahiga is the unit leader in the mod What's your opinions on this, Ahiga?

[Ahiga]

To precede my thoughts, my mantra is always one of Historical inspiration, historical influence, but not necessarily historical imitation. It's a complicated approach to depict historically accurate rosters within the limitations of being a game and keeping it fun - pure reality would probably be so horribly un-entertaining (CA themselves noted as much in an interview, citing the idea that armies would rout with only 10% casualties or so). This is also done within the limitations of the game right now - I don't want to edit AORs or mercenaries beyond the absolute necessary minimum because I have to do it ever time the startpos is updated.

-As of right now Macedon and Epirus are carbon copies, which is unavoidable given Epirus -was- Macedon for a time (and Macedon's greatest son was a half-Epirot, albeit the Epirots didn't influence Philip or Alexander's military strategems). Including Thracians for Macedon and Illyrians (perhaps later Italic mercenaries) to Epirus is a sufficient way to give some differentiation.

-We could segregate thureophoroi and hoplites to the auxilia barracks. Because of having to work with, not replace, the existing AOR system in theory Macedon is already going to have thureophoroi and hoplites available as duplicates from the Auxilia tree. So that's a good idea. I am of the mind to keep the aspis and thureos, however - I am fairly sure I've seen evidence supporting their contemporary use at the same time and even if not I'd prefer having Thureos units and Hoplites, not one or the other.
-The terminology I used are english phrases that easily associate the quality and role of the unit. Levy Pikemen are the lowest class pikemen, and so on. Because we cannot designate a single front rank (or any rank) to have a certain model and for the rest to not have such armor, we can't do what was probably the historical case most armies of a deep formation did: Front rankers and such having armor, those in the rear without it. It'd also be pretty boring to have just one single phalanx unit. A similar problem emerges with how most barbarian armies would have the armored nobility being officers of a cavalry unit, not their own segregated unit. But it'd be boring and unfair if they could only field a generic single cavalry unit.

This allows to depict a sense of variations in experience and quality as well as the gameplay choice of equipment. In general I prefer diversity in a military formation to homogenity, which has been difficult for even modern centralized miltiaries (until the late 20th century, and even past that) to achieve. When you've got the Nazi War Machine having their men equipped with indigenous weaponry or the infamous "you fight with the army you have, not the army you want" debacle of not enough anti-IED humvees for the 21st century futuristically advanced US military, it casts doubt for me that all Macedonians could be equipped with standardized panoply beyond the basic "here's a shirt, here's a pike, here's a pelta, and maybe here's some kind of a helmet. Go nuts!"

-Because of gameplay limitations I cannot properly merge the peltast (multiple javelins, skirmish mode enabled by default) with the thureophoroi (only a few javelins, skirmish mode not enabled by default). My view is that light peltast / heavy peltast and three ranks of Thureophoroi depict the gradient of soldiers in training, quality, equipment.

It's also not really advisable to have a great deal of variation in the armor of a single unit because the unit has a single common stat for their armor. We'll certainly have some who mix up linothoraxes with no armor or other armor, but it's something I'd rather avoid in a general sense.

-Cavalry wise: That's another case of gameplay championing over accuracy. I know you're correct about the general loss of Xystophoroi from the Macedonians in lieu of shields with javelins. But if the player rolls Macedon and sees they don't get Companion cavalrymen then there's a real sense of "Where's the beef?". I'm okay smudging accuracy here, as if Macedon was the historical Macedon to a T...nobody would wanna play em when the Ptolemies or Seleucids have everything and more over them.

In summary:

-I'm amenable to segregating "Greeks" (Thureophoroi and Hoplites and Citizenry Cavalry) into the Auxilia tree for the Epirots and Macedonians. Going to keep the three ranks of Thureophoroi (maybe remove Thorakitai, but I'm happy keeping it for them), and the hoplites being separate from Thureophoroi.
-Cretans will either become national mercs for Macedon or high level auxilia.
-Inclined to keep the current Macedonian cavalry, with perhaps removing the Aspis companions from Macedon and maybe removing companion lancers from Epirus (A thematic choice so that Epirus' best are javelin and melee cavalry, Macedon's best are companions).

Appreciate your help, and I'll welcome your know-how of Greek nomenclature when it comes to naming the units. Most units will be following the Greek formula for naming.

[Biggus Splenus]

To precede my thoughts, my mantra is always one of Historical inspiration, historical influence, but not necessarily historical imitation. It's a complicated approach to depict historically accurate rosters within the limitations of being a game and keeping it fun - pure reality would probably be so horribly un-entertaining (CA themselves noted as much in an interview, citing the idea that armies would rout with only 10% casualties or so). This is also done within the limitations of the game right now - I don't want to edit AORs or mercenaries beyond the absolute necessary minimum because I have to do it ever time the startpos is updated.

Ah ok. I disagree that a realistically represented military would be boring, it just has to be done right, but that's my opinion

-As of right now Macedon and Epirus are carbon copies, which is unavoidable given Epirus -was- Macedon for a time (and Macedon's greatest son was a half-Epirot, albeit the Epirots didn't influence Philip or Alexander's military strategems). Including Thracians for Macedon and Illyrians (perhaps later Italic mercenaries) to Epirus is a sufficient way to give some differentiation.

I don't think Epirus was ruled by the Kings of Makedonia at any time; the state was a vassal of the Argead Dynasty for a while, but remained independent during Antigonid's ruling of Makedonia (and Cassander too, I think). Epirus was believed to have Illyrian-style military before the Hellenisation of their army, which was done either at the beginning of Pyrrhus' reign, or the King before him, whom was a very close friend of Alexander the Great. During Pyrrhus' campaigns, the Epeirote citizens all served in the phalanx or the heavy cavalry, which was typical for Makedonian-style armies. His Hetairoi arrived in Italy armed in the typical manner (xyston, no shield), but when they came back to Greece, they were using shields and javelins (even Pyrrhus himself). After Pyrrhus' campaigns, the citizens seemed to have been equipped like thureophoroi, and it's not certain if the phalanx was retained.

So I agree that Epirus' and Makedonia's military should be about the same, because they were, just like all Hellenistic armies. Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, Agrians and Thessalians regularly served the Antigonid kings. Epirus' military is usually based around Pyrrhus' own, only because that's the only Epeirote military we have decent evidence for; if you're doing this too, then you'd probably want Illyrian, Italian, Thessalian and Aitolian allied/mercenary units.

-We could segregate thureophoroi and hoplites to the auxilia barracks. Because of having to work with, not replace, the existing AOR system in theory Macedon is already going to have thureophoroi and hoplites available as duplicates from the Auxilia tree. So that's a good idea. I am of the mind to keep the aspis and thureos, however - I am fairly sure I've seen evidence supporting their contemporary use at the same time and even if not I'd prefer having Thureos units and Hoplites, not one or the other.

Only a select few regions retained the used of the argive shield for infantry; Sparta especially, and likely other Peloponnese states, but none others that I know of (no evidence anyway, but it's likely still). Boiotian cavalry have been seen on a relief equipped with argive shield, but that's all I know of. The thureos took dominance fairly quickly.

-The terminology I used are english phrases that easily associate the quality and role of the unit. Levy Pikemen are the lowest class pikemen, and so on. Because we cannot designate a single front rank (or any rank) to have a certain model and for the rest to not have such armor, we can't do what was probably the historical case most armies of a deep formation did: Front rankers and such having armor, those in the rear without it. It'd also be pretty boring to have just one single phalanx unit. A similar problem emerges with how most barbarian armies would have the armored nobility being officers of a cavalry unit, not their own segregated unit. But it'd be boring and unfair if they could only field a generic single cavalry unit.

I disagree with how having just 1 phalanx unit would be boring, because I believe emphasis should be based on regional difference, tradition and practice, not worrying too much about "unit balance" (same reason I wouldn't have a Numidian heavy cavalry unit) but that's my opinion again But I'd suggest searching for a more suitable term instead of "Levy" for the lower class troops.

This allows to depict a sense of variations in experience and quality as well as the gameplay choice of equipment. In general I prefer diversity in a military formation to homogenity, which has been difficult for even modern centralized miltiaries (until the late 20th century, and even past that) to achieve. When you've got the Nazi War Machine having their men equipped with indigenous weaponry or the infamous "you fight with the army you have, not the army you want" debacle of not enough anti-IED humvees for the 21st century futuristically advanced US military, it casts doubt for me that all Macedonians could be equipped with standardized panoply beyond the basic "here's a shirt, here's a pike, here's a pelta, and maybe here's some kind of a helmet. Go nuts!"

You're certainly right, homogeneity would have been fairly difficult to achieve, but there's a few things that make it easier: #1 warriors grab what they can, and what's available... what's a available? The work of the local blacksmith, who would craft weapons and armour of the local form-factors (a Makedonian smith wouldn't ever make a montefortino helmet). #2 when warriors just have what's available (which would often be of poor quality for the majority of the unit), then they'd be keen to go loot some enemies that have higher quality equipment... armies look very different after a campaign then before it. #3 an advanced, partly centralised society would be able to achieve homogeneous forces much easier that one that wasn't (mass-manufacturing, private blacksmiths would all make similar types of equipment).

There's a little evidence that Makedonian sarisa were state manufactured and owned, which makes sense from a homogeneous point of view (wouldn't want idiots carrying sarrisa too big, or too small, they need to be roughly equal size of them to fight effectively as a unit). I don't believe anything else would have been state-supplied (maybe the pelte... because archaeology does show very similar dimensions in numerous finds). Alexander constantly supplied his troops with new armour, shields, clothing and equipment, but I'm not sure if this is an exception or not (being so incredibly wealthy after marching through the entire Persian empire).

-Because of gameplay limitations I cannot properly merge the peltast (multiple javelins, skirmish mode enabled by default) with the thureophoroi (only a few javelins, skirmish mode not enabled by default). My view is that light peltast / heavy peltast and three ranks of Thureophoroi depict the gradient of soldiers in training, quality, equipment.

In our time period, that's 5 units all of the same troop type and very similar equipment. Thureophoroi had replaced Peltasts by our period, so they'd be equipped with about the same amount of javelins. I disagree with your decision, but it's not my mod, and only my opinion

It's also not really advisable to have a great deal of variation in the armor of a single unit because the unit has a single common stat for their armor. We'll certainly have some who mix up linothoraxes with no armor or other armor, but it's something I'd rather avoid in a general sense.

I usually base armour values off the average, or typical armour of the unit.

-Cavalry wise: That's another case of gameplay championing over accuracy. I know you're correct about the general loss of Xystophoroi from the Macedonians in lieu of shields with javelins. But if the player rolls Macedon and sees they don't get Companion cavalrymen then there's a real sense of "Where's the beef?". I'm okay smudging accuracy here, as if Macedon was the historical Macedon to a T...nobody would wanna play em when the Ptolemies or Seleucids have everything and more over them.

When they recieved the shields and javelins, they remained Companions/Hetairoi, but just, didn't have their xyston. Perhaps just give the option for evolution? Or maybe not evolution, maybe just a future tech that allows both types of Hetairoi (xystophoroi and tarrentinoi) to co-exist.