total war 4

[diotavelli]

1) I never said the history of Asia, or anywhere else, was uninteresting.

2) Nor did I say it wasn't worth knowing.

I realise that and I didn't accuse of either of those things. I said that "if it's anyone's opinion" - not your opinion. I was making a point about Asian history, not about you - apologies if this was not clear.

However, I'm talking about making a videogame - which is primarily designed to entertain - not reading a book on history, which one might do if one is interested in history in general.

You write later of the history of the Indies in this period that you "you don't know much about it". That being the case, how can you know whether it could make an entertaining videogame? Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I really just don't understand how you can admit to ignorance about it but also suggest that it's unsuitable for the TW treatment. The two don't seem to add up.

As for the rest of your argument (sorry, I don't want to do 20 quotes again, but you'll know what I'm talking about), the bottom line is:

If you were head of CA/Sega and had to decide on the next TW title, putting your money into the project, would you go for Indies: Total War? Bearing in mind that it wouldn't just be for yourself because you find that region and period in history interesting - but you'd have to actually shift units and sell more than CIV 5, Fifa 2008 or whatever other stuff would be on the shelves.

Yes, I would. For the reasons I've given in several previous posts. The history of the period is fascinating - don't take my word for it: check for yourself.

The diversity of cultures, ethnic groups, religions, naval strengths, military strengths and economic strengths in the area was far greater than in Europe in either the Roman, medieval or Napoleonic periods. The Asian market is the biggest in the world and Western understanding and appreciation of the history and cultures of Asia is growing rapidly (Asian films, books and music are selling in greater and greater numbers, tourism in the area is growing, more Asian products are being bought, more people work for Asian companies, etc., etc.).

As head of CA/Sega, I could look at the market and think: "Hmm, a me-too product like a CIV or Fifa2008 rip-off, that will merely share an existing, defined market or a brand new product that will appeal to an enlarged market and have first mover advantage but work from the base of a successful brand?" Not a difficult decision, really.

Next, what exactly is this region famous for? I'll have to admit that I don't know much about its history in the Middle Ages, so you'll have to enlighten me. What factions would you have? What were the interesting troops? If the region was mainly noted for economic/social development, how would this translate into game features?

A few people (i.e., not just me) have written extensively about what the region is famous for. Try the development of gunpowder. Try the discovery and colonisation of Australia and the Americas years before Europeans. Try scientific and medical sophistication on a level the Europeans wouldn't match for centuries. Try a diversity of culture and religion that Europe has only known in the past century (following immigration from these very regions).

As for factions, here's Psiloi's list (which I don't believe is necessarily complete):

Burmans
Chinese (Southern Song wich follow the chinese dinasties, then Ming technology)
Dheli Sultanate (wich later change to Mughal empire)
Dravidians (wich include first Chola and then Vijayanagar)
Khemer
Koreans
Japanese
Mongols
Srivijaya
Thais
Viets

Non playables: Indigenous barbarians (Philippines, Taiwan, inner Borneo...), Jin China, Laosians, Rajputs, Tibetans, Timurids

There is a lot of options.

Would this game just be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)? If not, what would be the major differences? What specific features (other than better graphics, "Get Off My Land" Diplomacy option etc.) would sell this specific area and this specific period in time - not only to Asia, but to the US and Europe? Or would the game, in fact, be aimed only at the Asian market? If so, would it really be able to compete with CIV, RON, AOE etc.?

This game would "be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)" in the same way M2 is different from RTW and NTW would be different from M2.

NTW mods already exist, yet that doesn't mean CA couldn't create a brand new TW title set in the Napoleonic era. In the same way, just because an Indies mod could be created, that doesn't mean CA couldn't create a TW title dedicated to them.

Given that much of the map would be archipelagoes and that maritime trade was of greater significance, naval warfare and trade would benefit from improvement. Gunpowder and artillery developed far earlier in this part of the world, so they'd need to be better represented. Religion was more diverse and the propensity of different religions to co-exist and/or kick-seven-shades-of-sh*t out of each other would need to be reflected better. The list of new features that could be developed is enormous - just as big as for NTW, I would guess.

[In reality, the number of new features in either Indies:TW or NTW would be more to do with what CA could afford/manage to develop in time.]

Of course the game would not "be aimed only at the Asian market" - any more so than Shogun was only aimed at the Japanese market or Rome at the European market. That's quite a parochial suggestion, if you don't mind me saying so. Would you suggest that only Americans would want to play an American Civil War game? If not, why would you suggest only Asians would want to play an Indies:TW game? I don't see the logic.

[Fadly]

why don't they make WTW (World: Total War) covering the entire globe and spanning further into the future (End somewhere in 18th or 19th century). also, i suggest that naval battle should be given RTS status too instead of auto, maybe in a manner of Age Of Sail.

[Didz]

why don't they make WTW (World: Total War) covering the entire globe and spanning further into the future (End somewhere in 18th or 19th century).

Basically, its been done to death by Sid Meier. That sort of run the world god game is great for a few passes but by its nature is so abstract it soon loses its replay appeal, and why would CA want to surrender its unique market niche to go head to head with someone like Sid.

I'm interested, and a little concerned, by some of the comments on the idea of Napoleon:Totalwar. If CA were to go for any 18th Century period game they would in my opinion have to make significant enhancements to their game engine for it to work. That was why I considered such a decision to be more risky than the idea of a Medieval:Indies Title, but with higher potential rewards.

However, contrary to one poster I don't think there is much problem with the current blackpowder weapons model used by the engine. In fact, if you compare the way musketry and artillery fire is handled in TW games with the way it is handled in existing Napoleonic simulations like Cossacks 2 you will discover that TW is already far superior to anything being done elsewhere. Some minor tweaks are needed to accuracy and ammunition options but beyond that its pretty much there. Napoleonic musketry was not that accurate, historical battlefield analysis suggests about 6% at 100 paces dropping to 1% at 300 paces. What did the damage was volume of fire. Certainly, with STW it was possible to set-up quite passable simulations of Napoleonic musketry with massed musketeers, and what was nice about STW was that the smoke effects were much denser than in the later titles so you actually got the classic gunpodwer induced fog of war after a few volleys.

Where the main effort would be needed would be in changing the battle engines obssession with hand to hand combat. The fact is that victory on a black powder battlefield was all about morale, and troops rarely (if ever) cross bayonets. The number of times this actually occured can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and one of those was a mistake. To acheive that would require a pretty major rethink of how the morale system works as troops simply should not stand their ground if they are successfully charged by the enemy, nor should troops be able to charge if the enemy holds their ground. This battle of wills at close quarters was the essence of war on the blackpowder battlefield and needs to be modelled very carefully of a simulation is to work.

The other vital and as yet unexplored area of battlefield activity is that of command and control. The existing CA engine really doesn't model this beyond the formations button, but if it is to develop beyond the medieval period then this factor has to be taken into account. Command and control was differenciator which allowed one army to be manourved to gain the morale ascendency over the other and win the battle. Again Cossacks 2 doesn't even attempt to model it, but still calls itself a Napoleonic simulation, however other games do have quite sophisticated simulations of the Corps structure and control interface. Peter Turcan's games for example were more or less sold just on the way this part of his games operationed.

My concern, and the real risk is that CA will go for this period and get it wrong which would be a disaster for everyone. Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

[Matt_Lane]

Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

I wonder how they would expand on their current crop of Elephant artillery, heat seeking Elephants perhaps?

[diotavelli]

However, contrary to one poster I don't think there is much problem with the current blackpowder weapons model used by the engine. In fact, if you compare the way musketry and artillery fire is handled in TW games with the way it is handled in existing Napoleonic simulations like Cossacks 2 you will discover that TW is already far superior to anything being done elsewhere. Some minor tweaks are needed to accuracy and ammunition options but beyond that its pretty much there.

.....Where the main effort would be needed would be in changing the battle engines obssession with hand to hand combat......

....The other vital and as yet unexplored area of battlefield activity is that of command and control. The existing CA engine really doesn't model this beyond the formations button, but if it is to develop beyond the medieval period then this factor has to be taken into account.....

....My concern, and the real risk is that CA will go for this period and get it wrong which would be a disaster for everyone. Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

Some very interesting points there, Didz. I agree with your contention that command and control could be handled better by the TW engine. It becomes especially important in the Napoleonic era and thereafter. Boney was such an excellent practitioner that he not only changed the shape of Europe but rewrote the rulebook for everyone who followed him.

Essentially, as I see it, before Napoleon most generals were content to draw up in conventional battle lines and duke it out. The side with the best starting position, best equipment, bravest fighters and/or best luck would win. After Boney, generals (to a greater or lesser extent) try to learn from the lessons he taught his opponents. However, he wasn't the first to show expertise in this area - generals from earlier periods had done so, even if they were few in number.

Having improved command and control would certainly help for factions strong in HA and cavalry, as the current situation is that the player has to micromanage such units and the AI tends to let them mill around with questionable effectiveness. Thus, an improvement of the current engine would work well for all eras, as it could be re-used in the Roman, medieval (European or Asian) or other times.

And that's essentially what it comes down to. Any improvement to the engine is likely to be reusable in multiple eras. Just as CA were able to visit and revisit medieval Europe with two different engines, so they could do the same with any other era.

Basically, M2TW is RTW with fewer elephants and more sandals; Indies:TW would be M2TW with more elephants and more curry powder; Napoleon:TW would be M2TW with even fewer elephants and more muskets. The next game from CA could reuse the current engine with a few tweaks but both the most popular suggestions would benefit from more significant improvements. And the two aren't mutually exclusive as improvements made for one could be reused for the other.

[Didz]

Yep! Like I say NTW would require a major rework of both the Battle and Campaign engines if it was to work. The battle engine I've already discussed, the campaign engine would need to provide a much more enhanced diplomatic function to cope with the concepts of coalitions and multi-state factions such as the Confederation of the Rhine. It would also need a much more sophisticated ecomonic system to cope with the impact of trade on the various factions and their role in the conflicts. (Something like Crown of Glory, but hopefully with a much better interface)

[Fadly]

i think they should test it first as an expansion for M2TW. see how it work out in a current engine (with few improvements). from the players response, CA can make a guideline of creating NTW.

personally, i see no fault in the M2TW gunpowder units. in a late period, half of my armies are gunpowders (i play turks and i build a lot of janissari musketeers and cannons).

[Didz]

i think they should test it first as an expansion for M2TW. see how it work out in a current engine (with few improvements). from the players response, CA can make a guideline of creating NTW.

I think thats already been done, check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wkmR5tjfCc
I think this mod is based on MTW but basically its the same battle engine.

There are other video's featuring this mod here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYVf...elated&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bxz...elated&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ7u...elated&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp8d...elated&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuY...elated&search=

As you can see the visuals are more or less there, accurate uniforms appropriate formations. the modders have done everything possible within the limitations of the game engine itself. The dedication is quite amazing and a testiment to just how much these people want this game, but they can only go so far without changes to the engine itself. As you can see the command and control is not quite right and the morale system is far too tuned to medieval warfare allowing a lot of a-historic melee combat.

[Csargo]

STW2

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would love to see a TW based on Old Testament Israel during the time of David up to the Persian and Greek Conquests.

Hey, I've never heard this idea before. I think it's brilliant!

I wouldn't mind TW 5 going back in time. Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians; chariots, stone slingers...it could really work.

[Flavius Merobaudes]

I could imagine something like Colonialism:TW.

European powers in a competition to conquer the world against Chinese, Indian, Africa... Leading to a clash of interest spheres and finally to war between the superpowers in Europe itself.

Napoleon would make a good add-on to that, in Alexander style.

This would include a much larger strategy map and very different goals and scenarios depending on the faction you play. English against French in America, Ottomans against Germany/Austria/Russia, British against Portuguese in Asia and lots more.

A 20th century or fantasy game wouldn't be TW anymore.

[rvg]

STW2

word.

[diotavelli]

STW2

I don't see it, personally. STW was a great game but, by very nature of its setting, can't offer the level of diversity that we're now used to from RTW and M2TW. CA rely on that diversity to give the game extra depth and colour: playing as the Polish you tend toward HA, the English to longbowmen, the Milanese and Venetians to militia and so on. The fact that the factions can seem quite different means the game has a longer play-life than it might otherwise do.

I could be wrong (and feel free to tell me if I am!) but I think CA would struggle to get that level of diversity in S2TW. For that reason, I don't think they'd ever release it. The TW brand relies upon releasing game after game that are smarter, richer in depth and detail, prettier to look at and more engrossing each time (whether they deliver on all of these is a different matter!). Releasing a game that might be smarter and prettier to look at but that could be accused of having less depth and detail would be too risky.

For that reason, I think we can expect all future TW titles (as opposed to expansions) to operate on a map at least close to continental in scope (Europe, SE Asia or eastern Americas, for example). This will give them the scope for diversity that they're looking for.

To support my case, I present exhibit A, m'lud: the first expansion for M2TW, namely "Kingdoms". As you will know, m'lud, the expansion includes a number of campaigns dealing with territories of a size and a number of factions comparable with those in the original STW. It would seem that CA do not feel a campaign of such a size any longer merits a full title dedicated to it.

This is my opinion. I am prepared to change it in return for cash bribes (even quite small ones).

[doombringer]

i would like to see maybe a select a campaign- kingdom style, with different eras and maps - maybe a rome overhaul- more balanced to other factions, napoleonic would be good, and maybe a big scale americas, from clonisation to independance, then civil war

Doom

[OliverWKim]

I would love to see a LOTR:TW, but that's not going to happen, as EA is squatting on that license. the BFME games look OK but they are puny in comparison to the massive battles in the movies and books, which is exactly what TW does best. Plus, the CA is starting to lean towards the micromanagement side of things with the addition of the special hero units with abilities in Kingdoms, though the trick would be not to overdo it (i.e. Gandalf throwing fireballs and engaging in a magic duel with the Mouth of Sauron) like in the BFME games.

A Napoleonic era game wouldn't be bad... but haven't the Lordz already accomplished that?

[Didz]

A Napoleonic era game wouldn't be bad... but haven't the Lordz already accomplished that?

That depends upon your measure of what an NTW game ought to be. The Lordz have certainly done an excellent job and pushed the boundaries of what can be acheived far beyond what I considered possible. However, they are still limited by the RTW/MTW game engines and haven't been able to include every facet of Napoleonic Warfare. The morale, command and control, economic and diplomatic system all need to be changed to allow a full implementation to occur.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I enjoy the historical aspect of the TW games - Napoleonic would probably make the most sense sequentially, but maybe a World War TW would be cool too. Also, I was thinking about a fantasy TW... that'd be cool

[Gimli]

I must admit that I am hoping for a Napolean Age type of game from the TW series. I'm not sure how much farther they could carry it past that time period though because of the massive changes in fighting tactics... They could do an American Civil War as well, but it would be kinda small and lame in my opinion. Honestly, I am hoping they DON'T do a fantasy one... We all saw where Age of Mythology went... (appologies to any AOM fans out there! ) However, being Gimli, I would LOVE to lead a horde of TW Dwarves into a fierce melee with swarms of sniveling orcs!

[Crian]

I, for one, am hoping that they would, in one way or another, revisit feudal Japan.

They could make an oriental themed Total War game and have the Sengoku Jidai period as a smaller campaign like what they're doing with Kingdoms.

[woad&fangs]

Could someone make a thread with a poll about this so we could clearly see the major opinions. My personal vote would be for an asian setting whether it was persian, Indian, chinese, or maybe a russia total war starting at Ivan the terrible

[Taurus]

I would most like to see a Three Kingdoms: Total War in ancient china (e.g. much like the dynasty warriors series.)

[pockettank]

why does everyone say S2TW? or a china:TW when u can have Asia:TW that expands into russia, japan, philipenes, all the islands between asia and austalia (sorry sont know what there called lmao) maybe part of australia if not all of it possibly stretching into Asia minor and such.. i think thats better than JUST japan or china

[Crimison]

STW2

I'm just after seeing a really cool TV show about samurai weapons, and that just gave me the urge to play STW. So, basically, I WANT MY STW2!

Just as long as it has good AI....

[KukriKhan]

Neanderthal:TotalWar

When the idea of organised warfare began.

[ainamacil]

I would very much like to see a Napoleon: Total War be the next game from CA. Muskets, field guns, and bayonet charges exemplify my favorite era of history.

Yes, it would need a new engine. You would definitely need to do real-time naval battles. But they built a new engine for Rome. It would undoubtedly require quite a bit of work. But I would enjoy the hell out of it.

The prospects for Historical Battles and Campaigns are endless. And there could be an expansion based on the American Civil War or even westward expansion. Play as the superpower United States or one of the numerous native tribes!

I'd buy it!

[Robin From Da Hood]

I would very much like to see a Napoleon: Total War be the next game from CA. Muskets, field guns, and bayonet charges exemplify my favorite era of history.

Yes, it would need a new engine. You would definitely need to do real-time naval battles. But they built a new engine for Rome. It would undoubtedly require quite a bit of work. But I would enjoy the hell out of it.

The prospects for Historical Battles and Campaigns are endless. And there could be an expansion based on the American Civil War or even westward expansion. Play as the superpower United States or one of the numerous native tribes!

I'd buy it!

Good idea.But what i would like a world war one or second world war.For ww2 the engine i think would be harder to realise but for ww1 it is much easier cause the tanks are fewer and the aircraft aren't so many like in ww2.

[seign_thelas]

Mongol, Three Kingdom, or Shogun 2

[pockettank]

Neanderthal:TotalWar

When the idea of organised warfare began.

agreed

[Trajanus]

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them! Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

Apologies, but this is incorrect. I live in a country that is not Western. (China) and I can safely tell you that not everyone has heard of the Roman Empire. 'The Roman Times' you speak of are only called thus in Europe for context. They could easily be called Chinese Times as the Chinese Empire at the time was just as important and in fact more advanced in some ways than Rome. Depends on what part of the World you live in and what language you speak. Rome was the dominating power in Europe, so of course it's name is used, but only because it easily tells people what era you are talking about, and the map was Europe.

Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them.

Again it depends on what Market you are going for. As stated before by Diatovelli the Asian Pacific Market is vast compared to the Western one, and I can assure you that most Chinese gamers would prefer to see a game set in their own country rather than overseas. However the key point most people fail to make is that yes China has the biggest population in the world, but it also has the worst piracy problems as well. (I can buy fake copies of ANYTHING in legal shopping malls!) So yes the market over here is the biggest, but the potential for profit sadly isn't. What's more there is a lot of xenophobia in the East. Ask almost any chinese person what they think about Japanese and you will get the response of 'little devils' with no joke intended. Its a hate culture, and so you won't see a big profit in China from a game based in Japan. I can remember only 1 Chinese clan when STW was just out.

You restrict your opinions to Western markets and people who come to English-speaking websites. I can understand this as most Chinese people do the same for their own language. (Try looking at a Chinese website see how far you get

And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

No offence meant, but try opening your mind to the fact there there are more people in the World than just those from Western countries. Also don't think that there are only English or European-speaking forums and websites for the TW series.

As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

India is an up and coming technological country. A lot of IT companies are locating there. China is the same. Microsoft have 2 offices in China, (Chengdu - my city, and Dalian), Intel have just built their biggest factory here in Chengdu.) It's nothing to do with 'Middle-Class' in Asia. Internet Cafes are the process, and there are millions of them. IBM has financed a Chinese Company from Xian to build net cafes throughout China. They have just built one in Beijing that I think has 7 floors of computers in a huge building. Net cafes over here are cheaper than you can imagine (£0.07/hour) and people literally live in them as they are open 24/7. I read a report not long ago based upon a person who lives in a Net Cafe in Japan. It has facilities such as showers!

Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it. In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time? Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as.

Again, not to be rude but you are thinking with a Western mind-set. Open your mind to the fact that different cultures think in different ways. I can tell you right now that the Chinese people (much like Americans today) are very nationalistic. They see their country as the best and cling firmly to this opinion. Yes you come from the Ukraine, but I believe you don't have this feeling because was there ever a Ukrainian Empire? At the end of the day it's about power, and the Chinese have sustained their position in the World longer than any others.

Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

From what I read about people playing RTW, the most common question was 'How can I unlock the other factions?' Most people played as Rome because they were the starting factions. The first mod for the game was an open all factions mod, which came out pretty quickly if I recall.

So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

In terms of people knowing about it, 1.5 billion directly know the history of China, and many others from outside China know a lot or a little about it. Famous in terms of no. of people knowing it, or in terms of no. of people in your area knowing it is a different thing.

This post is not to put you down I Am Herenow, I just see a lot of people thinking what they study and learn about at school or in their private time is what everyone in the World studies and learns about. Having lived in both West and East (native of the UK now living in China) I can promise you that this isn't the case.

As for CA and profit, I cannot see a direct move to gain from the Chinese market, because even after looking at all the statistics about it's size, its all fake. Firstly people here don't buy games, they go to Net Cafes and play them. Net Cafes do not buy a copy for each computer as they should, but actually just 1 copy and install on all computers. This drastically cuts the possible profit down. Then on top of that piracy problems mean its an almost no go area.

But opening up a new era for Western minds isn't such a bad idea. I didn't know anything about medieval Japan before I bought Shogun. Although I had just finished reading James Clavell's book 'Shogun' at the beginning of 2000. It opened my mind to a new era, and I found myself learning as much as possible about it because it turned out I loved it.

As for the next Total War: *sucks teeth* anything is possible. As most say it depends on what market they are trying to reach. I would like to see Chinese Warring States, because of the multitude of factions, plus the map wouldn't have to be that big. No point having a World map if 'Russia' is just one province. A remake of STW is always a nice choice, but will maybe stagnate the genre further as Duke John mentioned. Mongols is kinda difficult since they already have an Expansion pack about them, although this is localised in Japan. Still the map would be huge Covering all of Asia (including Indonesia) and then much of Europe as well, if not all. Greece would be nice, if it was done in detail, because of the number of factions available. The Fantasy genre is now a tough nut to crack, unless they purchase some special rights, which I am sure SEGA have the cash for.

The question is after 7 years, where can they take turn-based strategy?

[I Am Herenow]

OK, I'm going to say the same thing to you as I did to diotavelli: would you put your own money into making a TW game based on China? Well, you've already answered that question in your post: no. I don't dispute that you will know more about China than me, but when I asked whether there was a games-buying culture in the East, why did you first argue that there was, but then admit that, in fact, there wasn't (due to internet cafes etc.)?

Also, as for turn-based strategy, I actually prefer a turn-based campaign map as that is more manageable. Battles are meant to be chaotic and realistic and so it's good that they're real-time, but a real-time campaign map where armies advance on you and you have to counter them, as well as building buildings and all the usual stuff, would probably drive you mad.