>>535189265
There's a few reasons for that. Wall of text as I am procrastinating from other shit right now.
>1) Unit Variety: There's no cavalry beyond tacked on for Assyria and Cimmeria (Who exist ~500 years before they ever appeared).
Cavalry are always a popular asset and I sympathize with this absence. S'why I really want(ed) to do a 8th century conversion but I feel like that's going to be too much work before I lose heart. I think there's a bit of wiggle room to possibly justify cavalry because of evidence I've come across. But it goes against what +150 years of popular comprehension that "No cavalry in the bronze age". Think about similar historical inertia cases that took so long to overcome. Like shit man I like Pharaoh and the bronze age but this one really sandbags me sometimes.
>2) European preference of players. Both regionally and factionally.
This is both legionary and knight preference and just the area itself.
>3) Aformentioned release snafus anon touched on
>4) The Bronze Age is popular for people more in an abstraction than in actual application.
People love Egypt - for catgirls, for jackal girls, for music, aesthetics, city builders hey hey people, pyramids, catgirls, did I say catgirls? I've never heard anyone really fawn over their military history. Even among grognards. Mesopotamia is similar - at best people understand it being Neo-Assyria. When you say Gilgamesh they imagine some cool orientalist (I don't mean that pejoratively, I like orientalism) fantasy. Not a guy wearing wool with a studded leather cloak and that's the heaveist dude you have. Put simply the mythology is liked more than the practical reality.

Continuing