Question regarding AoR system.

[Filosofilus]

Hello everyone, I have been messing around with the custom battles the past couple of days and at some point I noticed that the Thessalian cavalry is an AoR unit in the Macedonian roster, which seemed reasonable to me. But then I checked the roster of the Ptolemaic kingdom and discovered that they have units like Macedonian/Thracian/Thessalian cavalry none of which are AoR units. So my question is: What exactly determines the AoR status of a certain unit?
I apologize if this has been mentioned before somewhere, but I couldn't find it anywhere so I figured I would ask it here. Additionally I want to say that you guys have done some amazing work, im really impressed with what you managed to create and have been enjoying it alot.
Furthermore I say Carthage should be destroyed

[drillmaster]

Well many greeks fought as mercenaries for the successor kingdoms. Royal envoys were even sent to gather men for a campaign. However most were cretans. Dont know if the rest of the city states provided men

[KAM 2150]

Diadochi states did not onloy employ mercenaries, they prefered to actually give them land and settle them. I guess those units represent that. For example Bactria had large colonies of Cretans and Thracians.

[Visarion]

Yeah I read that Alexander settled 10,000 veteran Thracians in Alexandria on the Oxus or Indus... can't remember...

[KAM 2150]

To be specific, it was 10 000 settlers, which included all Thracians and other infantrymen, probably Macedonians unfit to fight more, due to age or injuries. Yes, it was Alexandria on the Oxus From what I remember, both Diodorus and Arrian wrote about it.

[Willhelm123]

It's purely that the Ptolemies are unique. Those units are military settlers, they've been invited from their countries by the Ptolemaic government to settle with some farmland, in return for military service, so they aren't AOR.

[ABH2]

I hope that once we do unit descriptions, people will have one avenue to learn more about our unit choices. In this instance, it's a bit of what Kam is referencing, but a bit different, as well. The Ptolemies as I understand it had 'ethnic' cavalry contingents up until the 2nd century BC when they seem to have been phased out. When I say ethnic, the term is used loosely. It's kind of confusing as to what the purpose of the designation was, but there were several - Macedonian, Thessalian, Mysian, Persian, and Thracian I believe. Going off the top of my head here. So the origin is likely military settlers in the earliest stages of the Ptolemaic state, or foreigners in Egypt upon conquest (Persians, maybe). But the men who made up these units by 202 BC likely weren't necessarily members of a particular ethnic group. So we interpreted this to mean that they were equipped a certain way and that was one (though not the only) reason for the continued use of the ethnic designation.