Byzantines and Persians first, two great civilizations in history. Ottomans not because they are more something for an Early Modern Period game like AoE III. A generic “Turkic” civ would be a stretch.
Also I’d like a Tibetan civilization or other South East Asian. There were many interesting empires there that had a lasting impact on the region and offer less well-known histories.
I think first dlc must be Turks and Byzantines. Turks have more than 3 theree empires but important of them are Great Seljuk Empire (1037-1194), Anatolia Seljuk Empire (1075-1308), Ottoman Empire ( 1299- 1922). So I dont agree who says Ottoman Empire wasnt in medieval age.
Exactly. The superpower Ottoman Empire was a natural continuation of the powerhouse Seljuk Empire; not only does the Ottoman Empire belong in AoE4, it EXTREMELY belongs in it, it was the biggest power on Planet Earth during 1350-1650, the last 300 years (!) of AoE 4.
Age of Empires without the Empire, is just like having a FIFA 2021 football game without Brazilian players… 
First DLC: Byzantines and Turks/Ottoman (Campaign: the fall of Constantinople)
I would really like to see Persians and Byzantines. both really influential and important civs in history and them not being in the game even from the start makes me feel sth big is missing!! any thoughts?
Byzantines and nords/vikings are an absolute must. I also want japanese, but if they are making DLCs thematic with related civs, we will probably see little bundles with a couple of them each time, like byzantines + turks, japanese + koreans and so. Nords/vikings could already be paired with literally half of the actual vanilla civs, tho, so I don’t know how will they approach the DLCs thing.
First Byzantines, in term of generic design they should get a mercantile bonus (the crossroads of all trading routes), stylish walls in Age 1, bonus on siege units (not the gunpowder ones) and infantry.
They shouldn’t have a focus on cavalry, cataphract having a gimmick / tactical ability instead. Byzantines always avoided direct confrontation with western european heavy cavalry for exemple. Similarly to muslim and turkic empires, they used more tactics or harassment.
Byzantines shouldn’t have too much naval focus. Most of their Empire logistic in the covered period was about defending their lands. Ship fires were great, and shined in some battles, but when the Byzantine-Venetians alliance was ruined in a naval battle by Normans, they were never able to recover a strong navy, because not their priority. So again → fire ship, a good gimmick unit, but it don’t make them a water civ. Maybe some religious focus.
Byzantines / Eastern Roman Empire, from 6th century in term of representation (they built the first wonder of medieval age, hagia sofia) for Age I, when Byzantines were more Romans than Greeks. Time of Justinian, their clashes with early islamic empires, the visigoth, andalusian… The famous Theodosian walls which were already built in 5th century, but continued to be elaborated. The huge chain which blocked and protected the harbour … An amazing defensive system for the period. So a strong defensive focus for Age 1, being about the Romans technical heritage. Hagia Sofia as Landmark to fit with accurate timing. As wonder it would appear really too late…
To 8th-9th century in term of representation for Age II. Time of Constantine VI & Irene, the clashes of byzantines with great muslim empires, with the norse, the franks. They could get their cataphract units here.
To 10th-12th century in term of vibes for Age III. Byzantines were the trigger of the first crusade (the call for help ), clashes with seljuks turks (battle of manzikert), Basil II and the Macedon Dynasty and all the related violent clashes against Rus and Bulgarians, and their conversion to orthodoxy.
Byzantines being more and more hellenized because most of their population being greeks.
Wars with Normans. Age 3, being more about byzantine crusades and conversion and their numerous wars, they should get their fire throwers on ships.
13-14th for Age 4. Paleologos period. The decline of a symbol of the period. Fourth crusade, Venetians are no more their allies and betrayed them, crusaders make Constantinople falls in fourth crusade. Most of byzantine moved from constantinople into other places, like in greece mainland. Their numerous clashes with severals turkic and muslim poeple. Byzantine are always invested in a lot of events of the period, even if weakend, they have an important political role, rely a lot on mercenaries and their vassals , and rely a lot on their mercantile importance. → so weak focus on gunpowder (they missed this devellopment because bankrupted a bit before their fall to Ottomans)So good money-mercantile focus in term of gameplay. They could get their varangian guards here, in reference of their last shot of glory with last emperor.
Until 15th when they are totally conquered by Ottomans
Second civ would be the Turks, from early turks which were nomads, with cavalry and mounted archers. To the persianized turks, their ghulams (slave-soldiers), and the devellopment of important islamic and scientific infrastructures, to the Seljuks Empires, eventually already unlock Sipahi unit with them. And finally in Age 4, Ottomans, with a focus on gunpowder : janissaries and bombards
Thanks for using the appropriate term ‘Gaels’ to describe the native Irish and/or Picts. Celt is such a wide term that it’s nigh impossible to narrow it down that far.
I still think they should have added the name “Celts” in brackets or something like Scots+Irish because a lot of people won’t understand what they are.
Scots are a germanic poeple (as Angles or Saxons ) which colonized celtic scotish (like picts). Scotish assihimilated Norse poeple too. The mix of cultures is rather similar to England. So it’s a bit short to put Scotish civ into a celtic blob.
Irish remained more celtic in comparison.
Thank you for your attention to the game! All comments that you leave on the forum do not remain without our attention. Please share your ideas with us about how to make the game better. Have a nice day everyone 
Berbers are basically the same as Moors (Moors is to Berbers as Saracens is to Arabs).
Where is the Kingdom of Hungary? It was more important and stronger than any of these, except Byzantines and Cholas.
Norse did nothing after the Viking Age, Gaels were very insignificant all the time, Persians fit Antiquity and Modern Era more than Medieval etc.
Yeah add Hungary!!
First DLC ERE Turks
Second Hungary and Spain.
Byzantines, Turks, Japanese, Spanish.
Yes, add Hungary please!
I think the mod’s suggestion is great actually. Based on the constraints he proposed, I’d say
First DLC: Byzantines and Ottoman Empire/Turks
(Clash of Superpowers and End of Middle Ages DLC)
Second DLC: Indians and Persians
(The Timeless Civilizations DLC)
Third DLC: Japanese and Ethiopia/Mali
(Civilization at the Edge of Known World DLC)
Fourth DLC: Inca and Aztecs
(Clash of the Worlds DLC)
Honorable mention: I really hope the game can also accomodate Spain, Vietnam, Italians (why not, HRE wasn’t a single state either), maybe Hungary / Poland after that if possible
Unfortunately, I am not able to edit the poll after 180 minutes since its posting have passed.
The Devs were supposed to make another Civ or Dynasty specific Chinese civ instead of a whole Chinese (which never existed in the medieval era)…
I’ve read that Tibetans don’t get represented in modern games often out of fear of upsetting Chinese consumers, but frankly, I find the idea of not representing certain groups of people in order to appease xenophobes repugnant. So I cosign you on Tibet being something cool they could add to any Age game.