>>2061278
>Fundamentally the bronze age has problems for a total war set piece
It really doesn't, unless you're saying artillery is the ultimate deal breaker here. But, if the Bronze Age by itself is that much of an issue, it can be mixed with the early Iron Age in a grand campaign that spans a few centuries, not unlike the Rome games. It's really not a problem.
>There's a reason CA had to use ~500 years later material for Assyria and Babylonia
The reason is incompetence and a lack of caring. They added cavalry to Assyria when they should have added them to the Hittites, who had actual records directly mentioning cavalry. Greeks, too, though the evidence is scarcer. Mixed spear/archer units were possible to implement, too, possibly even pikemen (though not sarissa pikemen) but for whatever reason those were not ever considered.
>nothing precludes equal or greater focus on a non-Roman
Marketeability does. Rome is what sells the classical antiquity games (complete with Romans speaking in the Queen's English and all because the Brits can't help projecting themselves onto the ancient Italians) and that unfortunately for CA means every other faction has to get the NPC treatment. I suppose it's not an inherent problem with the setting, but much like the Bronze Age, it is a problem with what CA's willing to do with it.
>Why would you want the greeks unified
I worded that poorly. I meant to say that I don't like unified Greeks in Rome 1.