24 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

And then, Gandhi organized peaceful protests, tried to spread ideas....
It's a bit hard to turn into a fun gameplay, isn't it?

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

5 minutes ago, 1024 said:

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

I would disagree, because one won't be able to use the region's resources
The only availible resource with such a concept is more followers. Which is rather boring... Or am I wrong?

This screenshot illustrates my current concept and what I've already created

51 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

It's a bit hard to turn into a fun gameplay, isn't it?

So it's hard. Stop talking about how hard or how possible something is. 

54 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

how would players use them? Just clicking on buttons like "call for peaceful protests"?

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures. 

Just now, Tom Sloper said:

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures. 

Oh, sounds interesting, thanks a lot!

3 hours ago, Tom Sloper said:

So it's hard. Stop talking about how hard or how possible something is. 

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures. 

Dialogue can be subtle, but communicating subtlety in text alone can be difficult --especially when you might be thinking about multiple languages (one could argue humor is worse--Knights of Xentar scribe here. Google it and see the insults of my weak jokes and equally weak voice direction)  

Alternately, colors, symbols, numbers and icons and communicate a great deal (insert caveat about clutter and overcomplication). Kismet: just today I was reading about the leftist Paris protests of 1968, and unease many felt with the adulation of Che Guevara and opposition to war in Vietnam did not mean philosophical alignment with the Vietcong. Later I heard a news piece about those who voted for Obama and Trump. 

In a game, commitment is something to be nourished in your people, but 100% commitment? Those are fanatics and it could go sideways. 

To go back to the just like a wargame perspective, replace "commitment" with "morale"...
 

5 hours ago, 1024 said:

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

This. So much this. 

Think of your game this way: it's warfare of ideas. So a lot of concepts of warfare, like shoring up defenses, defending, attacking, armies clashing etc, have analogues here to, like defending is propaganda, attacking is spreading your ideas aggressively, armies clashing could be something like civil disobedience etc. This is possible inspiration as well. 

The sims???? Is close to a non violent success story? 

The truth is non violent... Isnt so peaceful... Like the monks burning themselves to death. People starving themselves to death. Even if you take the peaceful route... The other side typically doesnt resort to a peaceful route... Many non peaceful protests can result in violence.

Humans are omnivores... And the traits associated with that prevail through.

Non violent games have a low appeal... Lets be honest sports games are violent... Truely non violent games make 1-5% sales and the market?

Its a non sense argument fundamentally that violence in games is the root of all evil as is being portrayed... Its the same thing pushed upon smokers and gun users... That an object is evil... And that a person is evil because they posses an object. And somehow if they didnt have an object would be cured and good again... If a person doesnt play videogames they will find another outlet of self destruction or violent outbursts... Video game violence is a way to place blame upon a persons horrible decisions upon someone else.

Hey, maybe you can consider something similar to the game Plague, Inc. where you have to "infect" the world with your ideas of peace step by step. Players can choose between different upgrades or events like a protest and need to share the idea of peace, while some enemies try to stop the idea from spreading and to defeat you.

3 hours ago, Logende said:

Hey, maybe you can consider something similar to the game Plague, Inc. where you have to "infect" the world with your ideas of peace step by step. Players can choose between different upgrades or events like a protest and need to share the idea of peace, while some enemies try to stop the idea from spreading and to defeat you.

Yes, I've played that game, thanks. It may be a nice source of inspiration, though, may also require some research on how core systems work there.

Are adding money and separating inspiration and influence good ideas to implement?
Money could be used to:

• Provide financial help to different provinces in order to make them loyal to the player
• Strengthen the player's movement

Influence could be used to:

• Call for peaceful protests
• Negotiate with the British
• Gain other leader's support (gives various bonuses)