I really want to highlight this quote. Whoever the original poster was really got it. I’ve heard similar arguments against giving dromon to other civs, about the dromon being “too Mediterranean”.
I’m not sure why but it never occurs to these people that by that same logic, arbalests are too French to be given to meso civs, and hussars are too Eastern European to be given to mongols.
The devs want to fill a unit niche, then the peruse through history to find the name of the most ubiquitous/recognizable example of such a unit. Look at the aforementioned arbalester and hussar. They had no qualms about giving civs those units because the NAME wasn’t the important part. The name only served to communicate to the player what role the unit plays in the game.
Beyond that, even when there really isn’t a historical reason a unit should have a unit, if it is sufficiently important for balance it’s given anyways. Look at the treb. There is a interview with Sandy Peterson around 2000 when AOC was released. Basically he said meso civs could have created something of similar utility had the need arisen and beyond that take a chill pill. Any given unit isn’t meant to be the most literal representation possible. We don’t have an issue with incas having halberdiers. We understand that they had some capable stabby sticky guys and use the halberdier to represent that ability.
If you take issue with the idea of the dromon being added to meso civs because against other ships it’s better than the cannon galleon and you think those civs aren’t naval civs so shouldn’t be that good on water I can appreciate that argument. If you don’t even think a civ needs the ability to deal with coastal fortifications to be a competitive civ, I can see where you’re coming from. If you think it goes against the identity of any of those civs to have a water mangonel type unit, I have no issue with that opinion.
But the “but it’s called a dromon” argument has literally no validity.