Thanks Mausolos, I forgot to ask to ask you about those units. Well, I'd leave the 'Perso' out of the name, since AFAIK there's no 'Graeco-Cappadocians' or similar as to need particular distinction, at least not in this period. Also 'Anatolian Infantry' wouldn't be the same to 'Pontic Spearmen', it'd be both an AoR unit there and a core Pontic unit fighting in the Anatolian fashion, maybe skirmishers with good melee skills. Likewise the 'Iranian Infantry' would be strong, lightweight infantry, probably also armed with javelins. However, they'll fight as Takabara. In fact, despite every single mod adding Sparabara in, I have reasons to believe that kind of tactic went all but extinct after the phalanxes became commonplace. By the way are you sure the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should be a core unit for Pontus, if an avaliable unit at all?
Also, as Bercor said I agree on using a 'd', it does match with all but one Hellenistic kingdom name (And it's the way I found it). However, I prefer MithrAdates to MithrIdates. The Greeks may have used the latter more, but the former is closer to the original Iranian Mithradāta.
Lastly, your approach to using English-only names makes it all easier to sort out. I'd say dynastic names fit when the political entity is defined by the ruling dynasty itself, as is the case with the diadochi. When it's the opposite, like a state ruled by a particular people, as Mausolos said, where the dynasty may change and the polity doesn't, then it should be the country's name, which is the case for both the Kingdom of Armenia and the Parthian Empire/Confederacy.
EDIT: On a second thought, It doesn't apply to the Parthians. There was constant conflict among the clans and in the end it was them who chose the ruler, so the possibility of a dynasty change could well happen in-game. In reality, however, no one displaced the Arsacids as the ruling family. So 'Arsacid Confederacy' may be better. It does also link their Aparna origins in the beginning with their later status as an Empire.
