I’m thinking which age(s) I would prefer, and I really can’t say it for sure. The limited previews show a very nice game that the developers seem to have worked hard on.
Soon in April we’ll know more about the game. I do hope there will be a demo or something. The early-access/preorder times are over for me.
Doesn’t look like “just a money grab” would be worth the effort of a new game engine and all the new gameplay. I think they just wanted to hold the game in medieval times because that’s the most accessible but probably most fun and diverse. Just look at Rise of Nations, as soon as you can make soldiers with AK’s and tanks etc, the game gets boring.
AoE in medieval era with more diverse gameplay is the right choice imo. I would like to play a world war RTS as a seperate game not AoE and also not Company of Heroes because I don’t like it eighter.
Microsoft might take this a step further and remake AOE1: DE and AOE2: DE all in one game, with new campaigns and with modern pc technology. The time in history would be perfect, and game play would be perfect. 
Would you call Burgundians an empire? Sicilians? Britons? Celts? Portuguese? Goths? Vikings? ect ect
The USSR and the USA you say were not empires? These are empires …
What is what, but the base civs listed are like the most great empires.
The DLC Civs are proposed additional civilizations that were relevant at the time.
USA is not an Empire, lol.
Considering they colonized lots of places, yes you definitely could.
Portugal had definitely an Empire, Vikings colonized Groenland and for a very short time North America etc.
The definition of an empire is rather vague anyway:
I never knew it was that vague, but realistically, you wouldn’t call the Vikings an “empire” persay(at least I wouldn’t think you would)due to them not being as organized as other more wellknown empires
We have amalgams of city states as civs (Italians, Maya,…), Hordes (Huns, Cumans, Mongols,…), literal Duchies (at least for a certain part of the time frame) (Burgundians), ethnocultural descriptions (Saracens, Slavs,…).
It’s really a mess anyway.
Lol, no argument there
Rome, Great Britain and Germany–three empires that stood out among the rest. Then there were many little empires. 
Persian Empire, Alexander’s Empire, Ottoman Empire…little Empires?
To me, yes. The three mentioned flourished in such a way as to change the world through the generations.
The “little” Mongolian Empire among those XD
No offense , but here’s a list of empires. Those aren’t an exclusively European thing:
Even Tibet had an Empire for a while.
How did Germany’s empire change the world more the Ottoman Empire???
Germany gave us the technologies of rockets to the Moon and jet power. They showed us how a civilization can operate with total efficiency.
The Third Reich hardly “changed the world” their scientists did. And they absolutely did not show us how to operate a civilization with total efficiency, unless you support what Hitler did
It has nothing to do with what Hitler did. Germany itself is the empire.
The disjointed provinces and Duchies it has been for a long time can hardly be called an Empire until the German unification