Economic mechanics...done before? if so where?

Below, I have described the basic economic structure that I am tinkering with for my co-op game. I tried to simplify my description so that I could test how complex it sounded. I will leave that to you all to feed back to me.

Layer 1: Locations produce Communal Resources as long as locations remain unconquered. No player decisions involved...the team just needs to protect the locations by deployed sufficient combat resources there. This layer sounds pretty much like RISK 2210, with the energy, the reinforcements, and all.

Layer 2: Players now choose from the Communal Resources and combine them to manufacture Supplies necessary to advance workers and combat resources.

Layer 3: Players can use manufactuered Supplies to advance their workers into combatants, removing them from the Layer 2. However, with each victory, the team has greater opportunity for recruitment of new workers.

I am trying to give the economics some depth, but not make it confusing. Does it sound too complicated? Of course, art and iconography would be helpful in conveying the economics, but I need the general concept first.

More comments, ideas, and thoughts are welcome.

Resources are traditional wooden cubes and such. While i have other shapes for the manufactured goods, i like the idea of tokens for them unless they are big things like cannons. Combinations of tokens and additional resources provide the upgrades to the workers and combatants. For my prototype, I have meeples for workers and spies and little plastic minis (from Risk) for the combatants.

Currently, there are cards but not players' hands. There are events cards and reward cards, and battle cards are among the event cards. They are not strategic. They provide randomness.

Customized dice are the main combat mechanism, but again it's combat against the game's battle conditions. The workers start out as that or militia, which can also be used to manufacture supplies, but not both at the same time. They can be upgraded to infantry, which are better combatants that cannot manufacture anything. Workers, militia, and infantry can also be converted into spies. Infantry can be upgraded into cavalry and officers. Cavalry can become officers also. Except for workers, each type contributes a different set of dice to the combat. Do you think that the event can cards and custom dice are enough? My playtesting will certainly help determine that. I am thinking that I can work the event cards cleverly to give additional dimension with choices.

I agree with you, Tbone. While I don't want to digress, it may be that doing so will help me explore the ideas you all have presented. So please bear with me. There a few things that I didn't clarify that might make this game appear simpler:

1) This is a co-op game, and each player "trains" one of the troop types of which there are only four (4) -- militia, infantry, cavalry, and officers. So for any given battle, each player only rolls one type of dice throughout the game. They are not having to keep track of all the different kind of dice, unless they are playing multiple roles. Consider it part of their player special power. If they themselves are in a battle, they can also roll one officer die (because each player is an officer). This way, everyone is rolling dice to some degree for every battle (assuming every troop type will be involved), but each player focuses on his own "special dice" during the battle. I think the only advantage to special dice is that interpreting pips is even more tedious and confusing IF the envisioned "special powers" are agreed to be worthwhile thematically and mechanically.

2) DICE: Per some previous posts and subsequent feedback, customized d6s appeared to get the most positive responses overall. Each troop die has 1 "negative" result (so, a 1 in 6 chance). Otherwise, the rest are "positive results." For the Militia and Infantry, currently, each die has 1 miss (= zero); the rest of the sides show hits (1 to max of 5 for Infantry). The Cavalry supports the other troops by adding additional hits to the other two troops (Militia and Infantry) in addition to their own hits (depicted as swords). The Cavalry's possible negative result is a "dead horse" which means the unit turns back into an infantry unit. The Officers simply manipulate the other troops die results (e.g., reroll an Infantry die); which are optional--you don't have to roll if you like the results as they stand. The only negative result I have for Officer dice is a "white flag" which is basically a dead die for that battle. If you choose to roll for ALL officers in the battle, and they happen to roll all white flags, you have surrendered that battle. The upside is that you do not take any preset unit losses...just the battle loss (which is enough of a loss in and of itself because resources are a stake).

I have chosen to have an order to the resolution of the dice rolls based on troop type--Militia first, then Infantry, then Cavalry, then Officers. The dice more or less piggy-back off each other mechanically. They can be rolled simultaneously and resolved in order, but something tells me that rolling them in order adds suspense (thematically) to the battle. I would like to hear thoughts on this.

3) OTHER COMPONENTS: I think the worker, spy and troop components are good as meeples or some other miniature (again, I happened to use natural-colored meeples for workers, black meeples for spies, and then white and blue RISK minis for the various troop components). They are "people" afterall. But I can say that the various resources (because there are a lot) could be confusing. I am certainly open to suggestions on the components for resources and manufactured supplies. I used wooded meepley components (wooden logs for timber, wooden meeple horses for horses, cubes, etc). My thought was to have the basic resources as the cubes and such, and manufactured supplies as tokens with art. For example, IMO coal (basic resource) is well-represented by a black cube, whereas gunpowder (manufactured supply) might be better represented as a token with an image (such as a conical mound or powder horn) so as not to confuse the two things. So, the wooden components turn into image tokens, etc.

4) PLAYER BOARDS: I have only prototyped 1 set of player boards. Not happy with them. I would like to use them to better manage the mechanics around the resources and workers. Conceptually, the board is there to simply manage resources/supplies you take from the shared inventory so as to not be available for others. Similarly, you place them back in combination to make manufactured goods or with workers/troops to advance them. Does that make sense? It's similar to the various resources in Agricola. I also thought it would be good to start each player with a set of 2 or 3 resources (predetermined, or randomized). I would like to hear thoughts on that idea.

5) GAME BOARD: The game board is also currently unsettled. For now, it has three main areas--resources/supplies, battle map, and the cards area. Let me briefly discuss each of them.

RESOURCES: Each location on the map produces 2-3 resources for the players, unless it has lost a battle there (effectively, been conquered). Similarly, each location may manufacture 1 or more supplies. I was thinking that I had to put resource combinations on the board to permit the manufacturing of a supply, but then I realized, that is just an exchange that you simply declare when you have the correct combination. See the paragraph above on Player Boards.

BATTLE MAP: There is no tactical battle "play" on the map, because battles in this game are not tactical. I would like the map to be used to show where players and troops go, but I am thinking it doesn't have to be on the map, exactly. Each "year" there will be a present number of battles (3 or 4 depending on whether I go with 3 or 4 "years"). The battles are represented by cards. My thought is to simply place the components on the card to show that they are being deployed there. Once the battle begins, all your troops are ready to be resolved with the dice rolls. However, does it matter if I don't relate "where" the resources, supplies, and troops are originating from? Again, that feels more tactical than I want. I would like to hear thoughts on this.

CARD AREA: There are three main sets of cards--Event cards, Battle Cards, and "Bonus" cards. The Event cards add some randomization that can be positive or negative. At this time, there are about 40 Event Cards. Battle Cards are the battles with their victory conditions, losses, and spoils information. At this time, there are 28 Battle Cards of which 12 get used in the game. The "Bonus" cards also add randomization, but for achievement (such as a victory) throughout the game--so they are always positive. At this time, there are about 30 Bonus cards. None of the cards get played by any player. They are a programmed mechanic, so to speak. They effect the players together as a team, even if specific card effects appear to target one player over another. I would like to hear thoughts on this.

IN SUMMARY:
I was hoping that simplicity came from theme and logical mechanics even though there is a lot going on in terms of actions, decisions, and components. If you have played Agricola or Terra Mystica, they are component heavy, yet the theme, rules and mechanics come together to keep confusion at bay (for the most part). That being said, please feel free to agree, disagree or tell me I am a lost cause :-)

If I say my theme is the American Revolution, does that put everything in greater perspective?

I am going for simple math. The troops in my game are not represent as 10s or 100s in magnitude. It is more like 4 minis max per troop type...then roll up to that number of dice (basically 1 troop = 1 die). There are no "enemy British troops," per se. The opponent is represented by a battle victory condition value comprised of the sum of the Militia value, Infantry value, and Cavalry value. So, for example, if M=6, I=10, and C=4, the BVC=20. If the total result the players roll meets or beats the battle victory condition value (i.e., 20 in the example), you win.

In addition, each troop type may win or lose compared to their individual victory condition, regardless of the overall battle victory condition. For example, let's take that battle victory condition of 20. Militia may actually roll 8 (beating its target value) and Infantry may roll 8 (missing its target value) but contributing the exact same total (16) nonetheless. Any of the troops could easily roll more or less than their target. When it comes to Cavalry, however, if they roll 1 "dead horse," then the Cavalry unit would be replaced with an Infantry unit, and the Infantry unit would roll another die to add to their count. Actually, the Infantry actually rolls higher die rolls all together compared to Cavalry, but there is a Cavalry target to be met, nonetheless. Does this make sense? It's a bit more abstract consider the subject of war, but then again, I said it wasn't tactical either.

With all that said, if you roll your troop's target value, then the team would get a bonus card. I do not want to reduce this mechanic down to a single victory value because having the individual values is key to other mechanics around how you replay battles and spying.