When I played I enjoyed the pace of character progression and the continuous unlocking of new game features that came along with it.

Players in these towns can amass resources in order to increase their influence at this level, with the implications that players with similar
clout can vie for control (or cooperate).

My first impression is some nobles mustering their troops and taking over land, but that does not sound as a viable solution for a town...

I think that's a very important acpect of it all. Progression. How about unbalancing the income curve? Right now it's almost static (a new player and an old one would earn the same amount per day on average). How about making it grow so a old player earns x10 than a new one after a year of play (and after a year he hits a cap and the income becomes stactic again)? By grow I mean of course via player's investments, not a simple function of time

I think that more important than the quantity of resources that can be gathered is how the resources can be used. If I can generate 10x more income than a new player, I won't care if that only means I can buy 10x more chairs. I would expect an older player to have more ability to produce things than a new player. Progression, to me, would suggest something like new activities that are not feasibly available to a new player. Wealth is a fine way to define when new activities become available, but it isn't the only possibility.

I have a trouble visualising the "influence resources"... Do you have some ideas/examples what could increase influence over a town? BTW, how it works in real life?
My first impression is some nobles mustering their troops and taking over land, but that does not sound as a viable solution for a town...

What I'm imagining is more like there are offices that players can hold, and those offices give players the ability to make different things happen. Maybe there's a mayor of a town who can decide what buildings will be built, and he can court "lower" players by suggesting buildings that they would want either by giving them something to do or by increasing demand for the resources they produce. Or a regional governor can demand resources from towns in her region, and can impose some kind of penalty if someone doesn't meet the quota.

Influence isn't so much a distinct resource as it is the ability to impose things on or demand things from players/institutions below you.

What I'm imagining is more like there are offices that players can hold, and those offices give players the ability to make different things happen. Maybe there's a mayor of a town who can decide what buildings will be built, and he can court "lower" players by suggesting buildings that they would want either by giving them something to do or by increasing demand for the resources they produce. Or a regional governor can demand resources from towns in her region, and can impose some kind of penalty if someone doesn't meet the quota.

Influence isn't so much a distinct resource as it is the ability to impose things on or demand things from players/institutions below you.

I was thinking about it for a while, and I see two big problems.

One, it's only about the players on the top, the "players/institutions below you" do not benefit from this feature at all. Only a small minority of players would ever enjoy it. Therefore, it's not solving the problem. I'm concerned about the players at the bottom, because those at the top will enjoy the game anyway, just because they have the power over others :D The key point is how to make it fun/interesting for those at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Two, it's bacisly how it works right now... There are kingdoms and one player (who accumulated morst influence, mostly by lending it from other players) in each is the ruler. Sure, I could add more tiers (like duches), but the concept is still the same here (plus I won't have that many players to fill a multitier hierarchy - I estimate 300-500 active players total which will be spread (unequally) among 26 kingdoms).

Consider contingencies to keep the 'cooperation' working when players quit or go on vacation or just dont have much time to play.

How much interaction (initial and continuous) will the 'cooperation' require to work.

If one or more of the scenarios in the first line above start happening will any organized arrangements which make your kingdoms work quickly fall apart?

If you have someone new step into whatever roles you have and are they restricted in what they can change from whats previously been organized (and how much checks and balances are there if say they decide they are quitting and decide to trash everything they can lay their hands on ??)

Its a problem many of the MMORPGs have where groups to achieve raids or whatever are often short lived (and its hard to even find serious people any more in many of them who actually want to cooperate - many are just in it for what they want and are gone instantly once they get it)

Mansion

There are 2 systems:

1) You have one mansion and it "travels with you". A strightforward system.

2) You can have any number of mansions but only the best on in your CURRENT kingdom adds influence (this system is used right now). The reminaing mansions add prestige, but no influence, so excessive mansions are mostly useless with an "consilation prize". The advantage of this syetm is that you can't easily make a hostile takeover (move a group of players to another country, take over the throne, wreck the kingdom, and then come back to your original kingdom) because in the new kingdom you don't have the mansion which is a significant source of influence.

I'm hesitating which one to use in the final version...

Level up

You have skills, but... I guess these don't seem too progressive. I'm thinking of making it more traditional (you are poor at the beginning and overtime your income increase significantly), but it has drawbacks too...:

"Progression. How about unbalancing the income curve? Right now it's almost static (a new player and an old one would earn the same amount per day on average). How about making it grow so a old player earns x10 than a new one after a year of play (and after a year he hits a cap and the income becomes stactic again)? By grow I mean of course via player's investments, not a simple function of time"

Rulers of kingdoms

I just released a new version and basicly all kingdoms start with an ability of a king now (almost no vassal kingdoms).

@Hasmond, since you played it, tell me, should I redesign the gameplay totally (like making fighting over land system or something) or rather stick with what currently is and improve it (by adding proper level up system for example)?