It seems the game has a focus on dark age much more than before, in the dark age trailer we see spearmen, swordsmen, and cavalry, whereas aoe2 only has 1 age 1 unit
As for winning in the dark age or feudal ages however, likely more possible than aoe2, but still not as efficient as winning in castle, dark age winning probably won’t be possible, feudal age winning might be possible for certain civs, for example the French getting the royal knight in age 2 should let them have a good chance of ending the game early.
If you consider that now the age progress has been decoupled from the TC and is now done by building the landmarks…
My speculation is that the first landmark will not cost any food but only wood and gold,
this would be a huge scope to build other units then only villagers in the dark age.
It can make attacking in every age viable without winning in every age viable, for example if attacking in the dark age let’s say, can get you a nice advantage for a good amount of time then it’s viable.
Can’t agree with your statement about attacking only in third age, of course it’s much less likeable that you would win in dark and feudal ages, but flush is veeery common, I think even more than FC. Mainly to weakening your enemy, but some srtategies like dush, towerrush or cumam rush could win you (or lose) a geme before anybody hits CA.
If something annoys me in AoE 2, it’s the boring dark age. The same build order is almost always used.
I hope for more variation in the AoE 4 dark age.