alt Hacker NewsShow HN: I built a text-based business simulator to replace video courses
I am a solo developer, and I built Core MBA because I was frustrated with the "video course" default in business education.
I wanted to build a "compiler for business logic"—a tool where I could read a concept in 5 minutes and immediately test it in a hostile environment to see if my strategy actually compiles or throws a runtime error.
The project is a business simulator built on React 19 and TypeScript.
The core technical innovation isn't just using AI; it's the architecture of a closed loop between a deterministic economic engine and a generative AI validation layer.
The biggest technical hurdle was building the Market Engine.
I needed it to be mathematically rigorous, not a hallucinating chatbot. I wrote a custom `useMarketEngine.ts` hook that runs a discrete-event simulation. Every "run cycle," it solves a system of equations, including a specific Ad Fatigue formula—`1 / (1 + (power - 1) * fatigueFactor)`—to force diminishing returns.
I also coded the "Theory of Constraints" directly into the state management: the system enforces bottlenecks between Inventory, Demand, and Capacity. For instance, a single employee has a hard cap of 7 operations per day. If you scale demand beyond that without hiring, the system burns your cash on lost orders.
To handle the educational content, I moved away from hardcoded quizzes.
I built a module that pipes the static lesson text into Gemini Flash to generate unique "Combat Cases" on the fly. The AI validates your strategy against the specific principles of the lesson (like LTV/CAC) rather than generic business advice.
These two engines are connected by a "Liquidity Loop."
Passing the AI cases earns you virtual capital ($500), which is the only fuel for the Market Engine. You literally cannot play the game if you don't learn the theory.
If you go bankrupt, my heuristic `Advisor` analyzes your crash data—comparing `lostRevenue` vs `lostCapacity`—and links you back to the exact lesson you ignored.
I am inviting you to test the full loop: read a brief, pass the AI simulation (Combat Cases ), and try to survive in the Market Engine.
I specifically need feedback on: 1. The Content: I aimed for maximum density—are the lessons too dry? 2. The AI Simulation: Does it accurately validate your logic based on the lesson? 3. The Market Economy: Does the math feel balanced, or is the "Ad Fatigue" too punishing?
Comments
I tried the "initial drill" and part of the "finance and capital one" and the content is rubbish.
The content is simplistic and makes sweeping assertions, the correct answer to most questions is "insufficient data".
Its very easy to guess the answer they want (I got it every single time) but in many cases I do not agree it is necessarily the right answer.
A text book would be better, and this convinces me of the value of studying business the conventional way.
OP, get someone who has a clue to write the content and the tests and then you might have something worthwhile
Executive Suite is a surprisingly fun and replayable game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Suite_(video_game)
You can play it here: https://www.pcjs.org/software/pcx86/game/other/1982/esuite/
Slightly off topic, but I am continually perplexed by so many adhering to this archaic idea that memorizing and regurgitating information is "learning."
The issue in this context is that there are very few "right" or "wrong" answers in business (there are some) but the vast majority of the decisions you will make in business are pros/cons and weighing the best option at the time. And what works for one business will not work for another.
I've always found quizzes and tests to be a giant waste of time, largely because they have you spend time trying to guess what the "teacher" or material wants you to say rather than what's actually beneficial or useful to what you're trying to accomplish.
A better alternative is to give "projects." Not busywork, but something specific you can do that can actually help you take steps toward launching or growing a business. (Not worksheets, something you can actually use).
Beyond all of this, the information isn't really valuable anyway unless it's coming from someone who has build numerous successful businesses and can provide insight into which pieces they found valuable and which they didn't.
Insight is always way more valuable than conventional wisdom, especially in the realm of business.
I like the design, it's fresh and have good visual hierarchy (cool be improved in place but overall very nice). The content is fine for a first iteration I suppose. The tone is a bit aggressive sometime, I get you want to give a NO-BS focused mindset but maybe a tad over doing it. Also visually I think you could make more use the monetization impact of the game decisions - maybe that would help with "focused" branding without having to resort a condescending tone in some places. You probably will want a bit more nuance - businesses have multiple growth path and there isn't just once recipe for things but tradeoff are real and choices have impact - it is more important to understand the impacts of the tradeoff that to be locked in on some mantras. But again, all these are improvements that you will probably navigate yourself :)
Funny, I ran into a marketing advice section. Every single piece of advice would cause me to insta close the site and go somewhere else if used to sell me something.
But now I know where those idiots that want you to sign up for a waiting list come from...
I've been on the site for 10m, and I'm loving it. I find the interface quite confusing. I'm getting value from the theory tidbits, and the scenarios. The simulation was confusing and i just noped out. I'd say the UI is a bit too overdone
As someone who made websites in the geocities days, it's amusing to me that one of the tell-tale signs of a Gemini-built website is a MARQUEE! I genuinely love that the marquee tag is making a come-back due to what I can only imagine was someone on the Google team who loves it too and decided to put that into the system prompt when websites are requested.
Nice, I also have built another text based learning tool with drills
I don't see the link between the website and your description above. The website is some startup advice + multichoice quizzes... what are we supposed to be clicking on to get the 'business simulator' etc.?
As an aside, I think the font sizes and spacing would be better if much smaller/more dense.
For a text-based business simulator, i'd make the text far easier to read. I'm finding it to be a little to fast, with a lot of eye strain. There's a couple of techniques, including making sure that your text isn't completely black.
I'd look a little more into some of the design strategies, including smoother scrolling for text, better typography design, colors that are easier to read and more focus on the content itself.
Especially if you expect someone to read 20 minutes for an article. Just take a bit of a refresher on techniques for web readability!
I spent 1 minute and couldn't configure out how to use it. I clicked the first CTA. Then on the next page I clicked the first CTA. It has some progress bar that says 'decrypting' but then nothing else.
The whole UI is a mess IMO. Words put on new line while 40% is still available on a macbook 16'.
One letter of the second title is put on a new line as well in "Transformation".
Looked through 3-4 articles. The content is rather shallow and written in a way that wants to be 'different' and edgy but does not convey any confidence to me.
For those reasons, I'm out.
Ha, this made me think of Viznut's Micro$oft - Simulaattori [1].
[1] http://viznut.fi/demos/msdos/ (pick mssim.zip) or on Pouet https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=21174
I like the concept, but density of the text and awkward UX are keeping me from engaging deeper.
There should be one (and only one) obvious button to advance the flow at all times. For instance:
* I took the “test” before realizing the topics were clickable.
* after getting a test question right at the end of a section, my “reward” was another wall of text explaining the question I’d just gotten right. Confusing and off-putting.
This is so vibe coded, I can't even look at it.
Have been having fun on here for some 10 minutes now. Not interested in the gamification, but I like the flash-card-esque, short lessons and the interactive tests.
This wins the internet today. Amazing work!!!
Don’t care if it’s vibe coded, love the raw and unapologetic aesthetic
10/10 shitpost, congratulations.
The UI is hard on the eyes. I tried using it but felt overwhelmed by the design. Feels like I’m working with an IRS form.
> The Conflict: If your content doesn't build an asset, it's just an expense. You are a hamster on a wheel.
> The Truth: Content is a "Digital Real Estate." Every piece of content should either lower your CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) or increase your LTV (Lifetime Value).
Usual AI over-confident bollocks. There are multiple reasons to post consistently beyond just these simplified reasons.
I'm out. Might as well waste my time with crapgpt
I'm kind of amused by the presentation aspects.
The writing style is "Watch me jump a motorcycle over fifteen buses! AWESOME!"
The visual style is "DOS app".
-----------------
1. The lessons are written in a flashy, attention-catching way. They could stand to be drier.
2. The "simulation" involves one multiple-choice question. Well, up to one. Here's the combat simulation I was given from https://www.core-mba.pro/course/biz-101/lesson/l3 :
A legacy taxi firm faces extinction from ride-share apps. Instead of lobbying for regulations or cutting fares, they pivot to 'Executive Mobile Offices,' equipping luxury vans with high-speed Wi-Fi and desks for traveling executives. They stop fighting for general transport to create a new category.
[A] Lower fares to undercut ride-share apps
[B] Lobby the government for stricter industry laws
[C] Launch 'Executive Mobile Offices' for productivity
[D] Upgrade current fleet for better fuel efficiency
You might notice that there is no question. We have a case study, and then four multiple-choice "answers". Answers to what, we're not sure.
When there is a question, this format is the same thing you'd find in a textbook, except that the questions in a textbook have been chosen to be instructive and these questions haven't. Why is this beneficial? Content generation means you can generate a large number of questions of varying quality levels. But you only ask one, which removes your only theoretical advantage over a textbook, while imposing severe downsides.
For material that starts with "features don't matter", dynamic question generation sure feels like it was intended to help the marketing team rather than the user.
3. The market simulator reports "missed sales due to low stock" and "staff could not process orders". I find this annoying; if my staff are saturated, I can't be missing any sales due to low stock. It is admittedly useful to have perfect information about how many sales I could make with more staff.
After the "stock" bar is full, I can continue to produce more stock.
The only way to produce stock is to click a button that produces one stock. This should be fixed.
The event 'market downturn: demand collapsed' lasted for one day. This seems unreasonable. Maybe the unit of time should be months.
Does the math feel balanced?
The simulation feels extremely simplistic. If you have unmet demand, hire more workers. If you have idle workers, produce more stock. If you have excess stock, boost ads.
Can a scenario arise where it's not obvious what you should do?
-----------------
There is a typo, "encaging", in one of the early lessons.
Awesome content reads top notch
Looks fun, I’ll give it a try.
Design is slick. I like the sloganeering ticker tape. Wish it had dark mode.
This is your brain on too much sycophancy. Please kids, touch some grass.
This is cool.
But it trivializes a lot of stuff. Maybe go all in on the satire.
VC Bro simulator.
From this you'd think that you can just make up ideas all day and someone will give you money.
[dead]
No.
Some content simplifies the problems to such a high degree, that this is more a game of "guess what I wanted you to answer" than anything else.
Eg "Your only senior developer knows the entire code. He just asked for a 200% raise or he leaves."
- Pay
- Fire and hire 2 juniors
- Give equity
I chose give equity and it was "wrong" because they turned out to be a "bad founder". How would I even know that? I hired them in the first place right? And 200% of what? Do I have money to pay them? Am I a startup that is able to pay them or is paying going to risk the entire company?
PS: the "right" answer was "hire 2 junior developers" btw