You don't make a game different from other games by getting ideas/examples from other games, you gotta think of something new.
In general you want to only concentrate on a few aspects/genres in a game, else you're gonna have a hard time explaining the whole game to the player(we're not that smart)
while the player only wants to concentrate on that aspect he enjoys most.(You need to bring a consistent gaming-experience)
I don't think I was clear enough, I do have original ideas but I am also looking for some mechanics that are already tried and true to blend them with mine. As for your second comment, I agree, but I am trying to do something different here. I think that it is time for at least a small part of the gaming community to evolve into more complex games.
Such approaches are usually doomed to fail, its not easy to create a seamless experience, also players rarely appreciate games with 32,485 features. No need to mention you'll quite probably end up with no time or resources because of greedy goals.
I agree with no time or resources comment (:
You need to test both your hundreds of ideas and borrowed and suggested ones in working prototypes; only the context of an actual game can show the value of a certain feature. Most prototypes will show that your ideas are bad or incompatible, but some experiments will be good, and some will be original; if you are lucky, both. High complexity and combining multiple aspects of strategy are features in their own right, and common sense suggests implementing them gradually, over the course of many prototypes, and stopping when complexity becomes cumbersome and strategic sophistication becomes frustratingly difficult.
Yes, I have been doing this. It is problematic because this is time consuming and expensive, but it is necessary.
Give us a starting point for the hundreds of ideas your working with. The initial foundation for the game allows the ideal mechanics to be matched with it. For example, if you want to explore a strategy game from the perspective of a single character (like starcraft II) as oppose to a "hand of god" style game (black and white) the ideal game mechanics would include more personal interaction with individuals and the impact the greater conflict has on them.
In short, what does your strategy game need to have in it as a foundation for your vision?
I edited by initial post to include one of the main ideas, I just don't want to tell too much at one time or people may lose interest with too much reading. But two mechanics I see as a necessity are the interactive dynamic gameplay I mentioned and entities that can change hands (such as the leaders of nations or the executives of a corporation).
What I love in strategy games is when you get a connection to your units, like X-Com. If you try that but put them in a large scale army it would be cool, but I don't know how to make the player feel a personal connection to the soldiers if you have hundreds of them :/
I'm glad you brought this up, because I find this important as a secondary feature also. For starters, the map will be more local and there will be more emphasis on using few game pieces. I really feel that it is an important mechanic to have players focus on fewer game pieces and make it so that many game pieces are too hard to manage. This can bring a more personal flavor to the pieces, create a balanced game atmosphere, and require more cooperation (or manipulation, and therefore strategy).