New prototype:

http://www.silverlemur.com/work/ir-prototype.zip

- interface completely redone

- workers allocation system (each factory/mine/farm sets up wages and population change jobs over time; there is no migration between provinces yet)

Production of resources is half broken in this version, ignore.

What's gonna be the goal of the game ?

Not sure, most likely some economic goal (reach something/build something/make people happy/etc). Also, there will be most likely a campaign system, like there are 20 scenarios that you unlock linearly (each time you start in a new island with different setup and different objectives).

Standard of living mechanic

I was thinking, the Anno1xxx/Caesar/Pharaoch "tiers of people that require more advanced goods" does not fit with the rest of the mechanics so well, yet I like the concept. So I thought, how about a button to increase "Standard of living" (consumption of goods) for all your population?

At the beginning people require just food and almost nothing more, when you increase/upgrade the standard of living they start (gradually, not like suddenly 100% population require fancy sugar) demand/consume more/different goods. It affects all your population, but the classes (peasants/labourers/clerks) are considered separately (so peasants will basicly need almost nothing for the whole game while higher classes would require more and more luxuries; therefore if your country has mainly peasants and high standard of living they still would be consuming a modest/low amount of fancy stuff since mostly higher classes consume it). You can also decrease the standard of living (but the population will be unhappy).

Why the player would want to increase standard of living:

- it positively affect taxes, boosts research, boosts efficiency per worker, boosts growth rate and immigration

- some stuff might be simply locked until you reach a certain level of standard of living

- the population will have "expected level of standard of living" which increases over time, you need to meet it or face riots

If you are not able to deliver the goods it decreases the happiness of population (if there is a small shortage (in percentage of needs) the drop would be minimal, so there is no problem with small shortages as long as overall you mostly deliver what you promised).

Questions:

- what you think overall? does it make sense? does it sound fun? do you have a better idea or an idea how to improve it?

- should the standard of living be per province or one per whole country?

- how to "theme/rename" the "increase standard of living" button? it sounds so artificial...

New version of the prototype available (link 2 posts above :D)

I have a problem with money flow, and could use some thoughts/advice.

Overall, the economic system in this game is artifical and it's more like a "state capitalism" since the player owns and controls all factories. It's on purpose (I exchanged here realism for fun) and I accept it will have some drawbacks. Now, how to make it work...

* population go to factories and get jobs there, the factory automaticly adjust the wages (range from $1.00 to $9.00) to maximize the output (if not enough workers it increases wages, if too many it decreases), population is drawn to factories that have the highest wages (that's the only purpose of the wages mechanic)

* population pay tax each turn (fixed $5.00)

* most likely the population will also pay for consumed goods (Standard of living mechanic topic), since this make balancing it easier (no other reasons)

Important thing, the money comes out of the air. The population is not accumulating the money they earned in jobs (these money just disappear) and when they pay taxes (or "pay" for consumed goods) this money also comes out of nowhere.

The problem is twofold:

1) in a long run all factories end up setting up $1.00 wages (if there is a slightest unemployment)

2) the money flow is chaotic, the player is either earning tons of money or losing tons of money

Put all the money the workers earn into the unregulated sector, then tax it ? (by % )

Put all the money the workers earn into the unregulated sector, then tax it ? (by % )

You are a genius powerneg :) That solves half the problems.

So, population is taxed by % of wages (so it's not chaotic anymore). I also modified wages so they depend not only on factory needs but also on the unemployment rate in the province (with 0 unemployment the wages will not fall below $5.00 and only at severe 50%+ these fall to $1.00).

OK, it works, but it's a bit rough (also the player has always negative income since wages would always exceed taxes (since taxes are % of wages), at least without export). I wonder how to refine it...

Especially, I wonder about the consumption mechanic. Should population pay for the goods (to the player)? Or just keep these free (much simplier I suppose)?

Actually that's a good question.

What's the point if people are either unemployed/farmer or worker? I mean is there a way for player to "lose" beside extreme underutilization?

How does this sound:

The player's goal, or at least a high priority during the game must be to keep/make the people happy.
Give the player access to the country 's money printer, aka the player has unlimited money.
(make most of the advanced buildings cost resources besides money)

The player does need to account for the money in the country though; the people are going to want to spend it.
(Keep check how much money is present in each province)
Introduce the first few consumer-goods, let the player set pricing, probably picking between cheap/normal/expensive,

let him set the pricing for each province individually but give the option to set for the entirecountry as well.

Then introduce the dictator-mechanics that you were working on.

Acharis has many similar threads. I'll put this idea here.

You could make the game simplistic and more personal if you were to change the human statistics. Statistics represent a group and elevate the reader's power, but statistics have no personality, and that's something a few players will crave, personality.

A city could be one entire person, one piece in the set. Their resources can be a glass of water, an apple, a screwdriver, a butter knife, etc. A faction is a thought in their head and can be represented as a % of the conversation they'll make. The metaphor is very open ended. The game would still be about micromanagement.

Instead of dealing impersonally with quantities and numbers, the reader has been presented with a person first. Any attempt to recognize this person is actually a group becomes secondary to solving the problem: The problem is you need their resources and at the same time keep them happy, prevent them from gaining power over you.

I remember reading several details implying proximity is important. A clever trick like making the people stand still, so they can only talk to their neighbor covers that. Someone with rebellious ideas only has a strong influence on his neighbor, and newly seeded ideas spread slower.

Understanding geography is probably the only reason to bring an actual map into the game. Strategic warfare games are about locations and dominance. The idea has been to avoid this mentality.

The player's goal, or at least a high priority during the game must be to keep/make the people happy.
Give the player access to the country 's money printer, aka the player has unlimited money.

Unlimited money is not possible/desirable for two reasons: 1) I need money for international trade 2) in that era the money was under gold standard insteads of paper money you can print.

But the rest sounds good (keeping people happy, setting up prices levels, population wealth per province). Just if we can use these ideas without unlimited money...

What's the point if people are either unemployed/farmer or worker? I mean is there a way for player to "lose" beside extreme underutilization?

You mean the way of losing the game or the economic system? Generally, I have not planned any lose condition related to economy (it can only indirectly cause it if your population is unhappy and they rebel or you fail to achieve a goal on time due to lack of economic assets).

I need money for international trade

nah you just need another coin for international trade, .

in that era the money was under gold standard insteads of paper money you can print.

The gold standard was about not needing (physical) gold as payment, and instead using paper money.

The gold was locked away, and you could theoretically get a piece of gold back for your paper money if you wanted to, that's how the money was promised to keep value,

In the UK this promise is still printed on the money.
It was all an attempt to make (paper) money valuable.

With unlimited money, it is up to the player to give the money value.

Do keep in mind the player is leading a country, if at some point the total amount of money in the country(owned both by the population and the government) is double that of a few turns ago, you have a strangely balanced game under the gold standard,
while with unlimited money, the player has an obligation to suck the money back out of the country(population)

This all said, it may be too complicated to both design and present to the player.