In addition, a certain cosmetic element would be that the Prussians civ in Exploration Age would have the flag of the Teutonic Order, from Commerce Age they would have the flag of Prussia, and in Imperial Age they would have the flag of the German Empire - additionally they could be renamed Germans civ (while playing).
Germans civ even in the vanilla version could be called Austrians civ. War Wagons is Czech (Bohemia was a kingdom in the Austrian Empire), Uhlan is both Polish (Galicia was the Polish part of the Austrian Empire) and Austrian, Doppelsoldner is Austrian and Settler Wagon is Alpine - so also Austrian.
On top of that you can give Austrians civ more non-german content. For example, permanent access to Pandour, Hajduk and Crabat and maybe even Magyar Hussar. Grenzer should necessarily be a unique Militiaman variant for the Austrian civ - he could be trained multiple times. They would also be trainable in Outposts and Forts.
Exactly. But remember that even though Bavaria is South German, it also MUST BE included in the unification of Germany by the Prussians in their unique Age Up mechanic.
I have an idea for the Prussians civ to have a unique Mine building that would generate Coins faster and also increase their resource - Grube. The German Empire had two huge coal basins - the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. I think that from this fact the Prussians civ deserve such a building.
The choice of Silesia could provide the opportunity to train in Grube, Miners who would speak the Silesian language. They would increase the efficiency of this building and also extract Coins from the mine more efficiently than other settlement units. Besides, this choice could give access to Silesian Schuetzen (Skirmisher unit).
Choosing Westphalia (where the Ruhr was located) could provide some additional technologies for Grube as well as additional unit:
The Victoria 3 of Age of Empires games. It would be really rad.
I’d like to see Pandurs replace Needle Gunners to be the Austrian skirmisher. The counter-skirmisher unit type is just kind of an unintuitive mess. Grenzers would be best as a Habsburg royal house unit (instead of the awful made up units they have now).
For sure, overlapping regions like Bavaria and Silesia could be represented by both.
I think it would be cool if they’d lean into the “army with a state” trope with a Prussian design by giving them slower than average Settler training. But this could be offset by Settlers gained by age ups. So for example, a Bavarian age up could give them a bunch of Settler Wagons.
This is my dream. For many years I deluded myself that Age of Empires 4 would be that - but it is what it is. Therefore, my new dream is a brand new Age of Empires sub-series (similarly to Age of Mythology) about modern conflicts:
I was thinking to:
What do you mean???
Alternatively, give them a Settler training limit. They would be relieved later in the game by Bavarian Settler Wagons and Silesian Miners.
while devs have made abundantly clear that no, we wont get a German split, i kinda see where they are coming from, this is the same as adding post colonial nations, its splitting up a culture group and adding separate nations/countries within that culture group.
but i mean, we know we wont get german split, its the only thing the devs have stated.
So, in order to have a Prussian civ you’d have to either split the personal union between Prussia and Brandenburg, before the formal union or, take aout Brandenburg fron the German Empire, after the union
I just don’t get what is this fixation with separating the Indians and, especially, the Germans. Like, we’ve received a bunch of Cards that reference a multitude of the other German States like Bavaria, Hanover and Prussia and people are still pushing for a Prussia and an Austria. Same thing with Indians: we have a Card called Mysorean Rockets but people still want a Marathas and Mughals instead of more Cards that could spice up the Indian’s gameplay or reference other Indian Sultanates. It’s kinda frustrating since it ends up being 90% of the discussion for new civs in threads like this. We could be coming up with ideas for the Poles, Siamese, Persians, Brazilians, Shona or Hawaii but noooo, you end up having a long thread about Austrians and Prussians. Urgh…
Yes, it is valid…
Argentina is missing…
Controversial to say the least…
Yes, the next dlcs can bring many interesting civs and revolutions…
Yes, maybe for a Balkan dlc (after they release one for AoE 2)…
Yes, they are all valid, although I would launch the Vietnamese with the Koreans to encourage the competitive public of those countries…And with the Kongoleses could go the Zulus…
In AoE 2 DE after the African dlc (The African Kingdoms) came the Southeast Asian dlc (Rise of the Rajas)… now in AoE 3 DE would have to receive its dlc of Southeast Asia (Rajas of South Asia?) …
Of course, we are missing something related to North Africa…
Of course, a Guarani civ that in the late ages is Paraguay…
Es una civ asiatica por lo que tendrá el mismo avance de edad que las demás civs asiaticas,o sea con maravillas creadas durante el imperio safavida y qajar…
It is a complex period to adapt to the saga, but we do want that after AoE 4, AoE 5 is at the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century…
I don’t think they will get the Prussians, but they will get the Poles…
It would be like the Indian dlc of AoE 2, but it would require a lot of rework… Also if they put the Prussian Landwehr for the Germans, I do not think they separate the Germans…
True…
And in my case that AoE 4 was going to be a game that covered the entire twentieth century from the belle epoque to the present day as the final ages of EE or RoN…
Of course, I wouldn’t have said it better… Remember that it is a German and Indian civilizations, not the German and Indian nations per se…
I was thinking just delete these units from the game because they’re made up nonsense. Like I said I a previous post, “Mounted Infantry” are a made up unit wearing Austrian dragoon uniforms.
The Line Infantry have a bit more of a historical basis, but are terribly named. “Whitecoat” or “Landwehr” would be a much better name. Even then, I’m not convinced Austria should get them. Landwehr could be a good name for a Prussian musketeer unit. And Grenzers could take the function of the current Landwehr unit.
These are way too wordy in my opinion.
I mean just make them a normal rifle infantry unit in Austria’s standard roster instead of a mercenary.
Prussia can have a Bavarian and Silesian age up. Austria can have references like Wittlesbach units and Uhlans.
I get it with the Indians. It’s massive and more diverse than Europe.
However, while I am not against splitting them (or the Germans) and those new splitted civs can perfectly be very interesting additions, I am more interested in very influential missing civs like the Poles or Persians and others that could also bring more variety to the game, like some new civs from Central and South East Asia, for example, since they could be much more different from what we already have, like the African and post-colonial civs have already done.
And while I think civs like the Maori, Hawaiian and Zulus would work better as minor civs, at least I think they could bring more variety to the game than regional Indian or Germans civs.
I make idea of Wild Fields DLC with Poles, Ukrainians and Tatars civs 
Would any of those civs actually bring any variety bearing in mind literally the last DLC was already set in Europe?
Optimistic?
Considering that the supposed big patch had little real content and seeing that small nod to the Persians (Profile Image), there is a possibility that they add the Persians and perhaps some other civilization.
Pessimistic?
There’s also the possibility that lack of manpower and time caused the big patch to split into two parts and we’re not actually going to get any civilization.
I love this selection of civilizations, although I would add the Mapuches or the Tehuelches. 
Let’s cross our fingers. 
Yes
(20 characters)
Or the last patch are not a Big Spring Update 
Maybe last patch is Prima aprilis
Poland being a cav civ probably would bring a lot to a game where most factions are infantry civs. we only have a couple of civs that are cav heavy, mostly russia and lakota and perhaps india or france if we extend the meaning a bit.
beyond an art civ (idk, korea?) im not sure you can bring that much more variety than that. maybe a naval civ could do something but most people dont care about naval, and its always felt weird.
it also obviously would bring 1+ new languages in to the game, which is always nice. im not sold on the idea of cossacks, prussians etc.
I believe pretty much any Central Asian civilization you consider bringing into the game would be cavalry focused just due to the nature of the territory. They’d probably bring a lot more variety too just from not being, you know, from Europe.
Hell, every other Latin American civ you may consider could very well be Cavalry focused too, even African civs like Morocco or Songhai.
latin america largely is just an extension of spain/europe. i know you can do fun things, but i feel like if you argue vs poland for being samey then i cant see how latin america wouldn’t be the same. just my opinion. when it comes down to it, its how the devs make the factions, and at times (mexico) they have been very liberal in their depictions of factions.
due to the nature of poland existing for about 300 years of the game you can find a lot of cool ideas, though i’ll admit i dont know enough about polish history to make a comprehensive faction design.
something like oirat or uzbek could be useful for central asia, but this is the period where the frontiers/steps got conquered, they arent what the mongols had been earlier as an example.
