>>2061562
I think the total war community aged out of it. I look at >>2061504 and I'm just "what's the point of the entirely indigenous terminology". And I used to do that for mods I did. Now I'd just go with a mix of native and modern english or just modern english. But that's why I emphasize verisimilitude over realism. I mean having the armor we do on the amount of units we do is already off. So you just what that sense of immersion. Wherein is the rub that for many people there is cavalry did not exist in the bronze age collapse. When it's more likely it did, but the capacity is the debatable one. Anon here >>2061604 favors a more supportive view whereas for me the say, hittite or canaanite horses on Egyptian reliefs or even the Egyptian scout cavalry just hits a verisimilitude issue a little. Where I would question letting you just field nothing but cavalry and making chariots irrelevant but for shock action. That's more of an iron age thing which is a lot easier to work with as the calculus is just chariots are your cataphract archers (Charge, armor), and horsemen are your light horse archers. With Assyria and Urartu being able to field heavy horse archers too.

I wish I had more info on that greek rolling toy though. Because if that's legit then that's just a smoking gun for Mycenaean cavalry (not mounted infantry, but actually fighting from horseback cavalry)