Hi!

Im making a post-apoc/sci-fi/orwellian empire builder similar to total war on a risk map. You control regions of the world and build infrastructure, train armies, build nukes etc, you conquer regions and tax and develop them.

I use "funds" for buildings and units, research for tech tree, and plan to use a "influence" resource for some things (spycraft and affecting the game in several ways). The plan i have so far:

Earning influence:

Your capital earns a flat +2. You can build 1 expensive building in a region ("Ministry") which gives +1 income. That is all right now. Maybe earn income when helping another weak nation against a bully nation or something? (such as gift some military units when needed -> gives +10 influence).

Spending influence:

• Covert actions: incite revolt in a region, convert it, sabotage infrastructure, spawn units there ("proxy forces")
• Influence another empire: improve relationship, make them declare war on a third empire, steal tech from them, sabotage their research
• Once a region is conquered: spend influence points to make it a vassal state (more expensive the longer it has been part of your empire)
• Activate boosts for your empire or enable "edicts" which changes how your economy/production works.
• Buy generals (which enhances a single army. Not sure i need this however).

Any comment? More ideas?

No feedback? Does it seem like a good idea? Another route to take is to skip the influence resource alltogether and just pay covert actions with the "funds" resource. What would you prefer?

Total war only has one resource (money) but that doesnt mean it's the most fun way to do it:) Paradox games like Stellaris and Hearts of iron has LOTS of resources.

It simply represents your administration's capabitily to "influence" (manipulate) the world. In a very orwellian world, there needs not be much difference in influencing internal affairs and international ditos.

And you can choose to spend it on covert actions or diplomacy. In your example you have the same usages, only you earmark each point to a more narrow use. I dont think it's really more intuitive

I don't like that influence is both earned and spend the same way money is.

Maybe turn it into a sort of action-point;

-The player loses all unspend influence at end of turn (maybe they give a small % tax increase next turn)

- Having more influence enables more advanced actions

-Most actions also cost money to be executed, and,

- some actions can be sped up by spending more money.