A different approach to the Strategy genre ???

So... what exactly in your approach is different then?

Do you make the visual design by yourself?
Things like font and how the box and the board looks. (Are those final btw?)

P.S:
It might be me, but comparision with Risk and Chess might scare away potential players.

UPDATE:
So I've read through the description of the game and some of the rules.
And I have some more questions:

1) How much playtesting the game went through?
2) Did you test it with random people? I.e. not friends&family
3) Which strategy games, apart from Risk and Settlers, have you played recently?

Ok, some more questions then...

1) Who are your target audience?
2) Which games specifically your game is aiming to replace?

Potential problem I see here is that if it's "Chess, Risk and Settlers", I don't feel that it is going to work out for you in its current form.

(Disclaimer: Please don't take my scepticism personally, I`m trying to help by sharing what little KS experience I have. Also, I might be wrong in some, or all, of my assumptions).

So..

Two of these three games you've mentioned are arguably so called "gateway" games (and rather old ones at that) and the third is a centuries old abstract strategy.

From what I've seen on KS, people there are mostly past the Risk and Settlers stage. I.e. they will be hardly excited by a game which is "like Risk, but different" as they tend to not hold Risk in high regard in the first place (mostly due to its randomness and unjustifiably long playing time).

98% of "chess-like" games are failing on KS, as are most abstract games (or at least that's the impression I`m getting).

Your game is extremely heavy on the randomization side. It might be the way you present it, but it felt like there's very little actual choice for the players to make, between the "draw a card and read it" and "roll a dice and see where something moves".

Take a look at Bloodrage, Through the ages: a new story of civilization, Twilight struggle, Game of Thrones, Small world.

These are all extremely different strategy games, of different levels of complexity and with different themes, but they will give you an idea of "what else is there" and what your potential backers might expect.

Both from the sense of gameplay and visual design.

P.S: I've sort of like the idea of polution causing negative events, but if it's affecting everyone with equal chance, then why should any player bother with fighting it?

For this to work there must be a mechanism where only the player who have committed least to the cleaning of polution gets the negative effect (or everyone, but the player who committed most)

Pretty much, yes. I believe I got the general gist, but it seems unappealing to me, largely as it looks like there are a lot of different parts that haven't yet been brought together to smooth gameplay and ease learning.

Absolutely yes. If you want people to give you their money, you should give them as much information as you can to convince them that your game is as great as you say it is.

From what you are showing, though, I think you need to do a lot more work, even if it is just tidying up. For instance, there are a lot of typos and spelling mistakes both in the text and on the pictured components.

I assume you mean me?

That's not really what I meant, so apologies for being unclear. That is entirely on me.

I think your clarity of explanation is OK (apart from the spellings, etc.) and is certainly better than some I have seen.

My problem is that it makes the game look like there are just loads of rules in there and many ideas that probably seemed like a good idea but it looks like the game might be disjointed and awkward feeling to play. It looks a lot like a game where the playtesting has not been thorough and the designer has not been asking the right questions, really listening to the answers, and watching how the players behave when they are playing.

I may be entirely wrong, and I may be reading more into your page than I should, in which case I apologise, but it really looks like the game just isn't ready to be published. And I'm not just meaning from an art/graphic design point of view.

I don't mean to beat on you or your game. The basic idea of having the pollution and other environmental threats rolled into a game of territory and wealth building has the potential to be really good. But the way things look at the moment, I would guess that you will miss funding by some margin.

I would be happy to have a read through your rules as they stand and see if I can help you find the good, the bad and the ugly in them.

Also, ElKobold is raising some great points: try reading them carefully and figure out answers to them without getting defensive. He is also trying really hard to point you in the right direction so you can end up with a successful game. It just might take you longer than you had hoped. If you have, as you say, been working on this game for 20 years, a few more months of working with people here can't hurt, can it?

I'm glad you aren't taking our comments and questions as attacks. :)

I'd be happy to look over your rules and maybe your gameplay video. I'll keep an eye on this thread for when you have them.

Good luck.

Know, spell cheque is not enough. Ewe knead two look four other errors.