Please go with option 1.  That option sounds perfect to me.  The closer you can get it to Eve's economy the better.  That is the only game where playing the market and buying and selling stuff is actually fun for me.

Hands down, CAMP 1  PLLEEAASSEE!!!

I am also for camp 1. Since the game will be turn-based, the additional time taken to properly set up "trade routes" and create upgraded items is OK. And, camp 1 allows for expansion to even crazier items in the future - once the proper resources are gathered, of course.

For me, it depends on how good the AI governors are.  I'm all for being ABLE to toy with all manner of little details, but I'm NOT into HAVING to mess with them incessantly.  Civ 4 does a good job managing specialists and production without my ever having to look at them--but if I decide that what I really want isn't to grow the city's population, but to work toward a great artist, there's nothing stopping me from doing that. 

What I like about camp 1 is that I can do whatever I want.  What I don't like about camp 1 is that it sounds like I'll have to really worry like mad about this getting here, that getting there, whether or not my storehouse is full, whether or not the potions for enchanting swords in the other town are in stock, or if they ran out and now swords are piling up there for no reason, and on and on.  LET me tinker like mad when I've got a goal to accomplish.  Don't MAKE me do it when I'm busy with another goal, and heavy micromanagement elsewhere is a distraction.

Camp 2... eh, it sounds a bit too dumbed down, even when I DO want to let AI run the minutae.

I'd never say "Make it play like Civ!" (I'd just keep playing Civ if that's what I wanted), but the balance they struck between micromanagement and freedom is pretty ideal, I think, and one of the reasons it remains popular.

On a side note, I'd be a little disappointed to hear that this is mostly going to be a military sim.  One of the things I really liked about GalCiv was that you could play the whole game with minimal attention to the military aspects (I often won without firing a single shot "in anger" for almost the whole game); I like fantasy wargames, but I was hoping for more of a 4X with interesting economic and political models and multiple paths to victory.  Also, my wife really likes playing games where she doesn't have to knock down all the other people in order to win, and I kinda sold her on Elemental on the promise that we'd be able to play together the way she likes.

That aside: I like the idea of the sophisticated economic model.  I don't know if I'd like the reality of it, although it would be easier to say if we could try it out (hint hint ).  It'll depend on what sort of UI (and helper facilities) you can build around it.  It would be a bit of a leap of faith if you haven't got a design yet.

Just looking at the problem offhand, it seems to me that the big, important thing is that you should do economic management *on the empire map*, not in a series of separate dialogs for every city.  I would really want some sort of interface that recognizes the interconnectedness of the different refineries and resources, ideally drawing out shipping paths like Frogboy did.  This could get complicated with multiple sources of material, etc, but here's an idea I have:

When I enter "economic management mode", I should see all the nodes in my economic network on the world map, drawn as some sort of icon (maybe a circle).  Selecting a node pops up a list of all the resources that travel through that node.  Selecting a resource draws out part of the economic graph involving that resource; it should fade out progressively for a few steps forward and backward, and clicking nodes forward and backward should select the appropriate resource(s) in those nodes so that I can navigate around the economy.  (the fading out is to avoid showing so much information that it's overwhelming -- perhaps it could be skipped)  Appropriate visual cues should be used here, e.g., the color / size of arrows should be related to the (relative?) rate of shipping, icons of goods should be drawn over arrows, etc.

So for instance, if I select the alchemist's workshop from the list in its node, I'd see "Potion + Sword -> Glowy Sword" (with icons) over that node.  I'd see incoming arrows for "Potion" and "Sword" and an outgoing arrow or arrows for "Glowy Sword".  Further back, there would be more transparent arrows from the mines to the potion / sword creation facilities.  I might put the number of resource involved next to the icons, so for instance we would have "5 Potion + 5 Sword -> 5 Glowy Sword" above the glowy sword maker.

Once I have a resource selected, I should be able to assign new shipping destinations by clicking the destination (well, maybe I have to press an appropriate command or click-drag from the source to the destination).  I should be able to summon sliders on the outgoing arrows (or maybe they'll always be there) that control the rate of travel along each edge.  I don't know the economic model well enough to know whether they'll be relative or absolute rates, but in any event the numbers will update in real time.

I almost forgot about warehouses -- maybe when you select a resource the warehouse capacity and utilization should pop up next to the resource, or maybe it should just be part of the list?  I like the idea of having a little bar next to the list, though; it would make it easier to see what was happening at a glance (esp. at the other involved nodes).  The number of items going into or leaving the warehouse per turn should be shown on the map as well.

I think the map-centerdness is really important here because it will make it a lot easier for the user to keep track of what's going on and see the "whole picture" (or parts of it).  I can see micromanaging this stuff late into the game with this sort of a system; without it I think it would become unmanageable very quickly.

I'm really enticed by the depth and richness that option 1 has the potential to be.  I can understand that people are worried about the hassle that may result, but if the system is designed to focus on the fun parts, I don't think it will be a problem.

I basically envision a system where resource distribution is mostly handled automatically and over time requires less and less attention (for a given resource).  In the late game, I would imagine most of my cities would have a huge surplus of basic cheap equipment, but as a player, I'm only interested in the higher quality stuff, and so that is all I would spend time managing.

The player should still have full control so that he can take care of possible shortages, deal with supplying the front lines, that sort of thing.  Also, when first obtaining a new resource, I can imagine wanting to be in control of exactly where it goes first.

Making everything in the game a resource gives the game a huge amount of flexibility, and I think its a terrific idea.

I definitely choose Camp 1: Sophisticated!

I agree with all the others that if Camp 2 is so simple just make it an option for all of those that dont want to deal with more strategy.

Matrix Games Crown of Glory has this option: Advanced Economy or Simple Economy

Why not both!? Everyone's Happy!

Plus it would be cool to be able to play the game differently once in a while! Would increase the playability!

Given a binary choice between the two, I vote camp 1: Sophisticated.

However, if given a sliding scale between the two, I'd vote for camp 1.2 or camp 1.3 - still pretty sophisticated.

I think ckessel above had an interesting compromise idea: rather than modelling full logistics of having all natural resources shipped from one city to another to another, have item building times depend in part on how far away the resources used to build them are. In other words, if the city with the blacksmiths is close to your iron supply, they will be operating at optimal speed, but if the close by iron mine is taken by the enemy, they'll have to switch to using the other mine on the other side of the kingdom, with their efficiency taking a dramatic drop. This would avoid the big problem in camp 2 many people here have pointed out: that given such a system, all players would naturally concentrate all their resources in a handful of cities near their capital, resulting in a pretty bland gameplay experience.

I also believe that item tracking should not be modelled with pinpoint accuracy. Like I said in the comments of the previous dev journal, I believe a good compromise would be to list items with a combination of item type and item quality. In other words, instead of producing clubs, sharp sticks, swords, axes, spears, dire moonstone axes and felwood spears, you'd produce quality 1 weapons, quality 2 weapons and quality 3 weapons. Similarly, you could produce quality 1, 2 and 3 barding for your mounts, quality 1, 2 and 3 enhancement potions, etc. When the produced items are used to construct buildings or units, they'd require a certain number of of items of given quality levels. For example, to produce a magical knight unit, you might for example require a quality 3 weapon and a quality 3 armour plus a quality 2 shield. The experienced ranger unit proficient in both close and ranged combat might be designed to require two quality 2 weapons, quality 1 armour and a quality 1 mount, and would then be shown with a spear, a horse, leather armour and a longbow. The blacksmith quality 1 building would require 10 units of timber and 5 units of iron ore to build. A quality 2 weapon and a quality two enhancement potion could combine to create a quality three weapon, or whatever's determined to be a good efficiency for alchemy in terms of game balance. Finally, each unit or building would tend to require some amount of currency to build, and currency would be earned from taxation, gold and silver mines and so on. I personally believe this level of detail would present an optimum middle ground between detail and abstraction.

Ordered production would then first check the stores of that city to see if some or all of the required items are present. If some or all are missing, it would create a pull effect in the other cities, starting with the closest ones and moving further away if there are no close-by cities with the required items. There'd be a button to manually force a given source for the items, but the default would be for the game to suggest the closest source of required out-of-city items. If a given manufacturing building, such as a blacksmith, would be getting pull effects from multiple sources for multiple purposes (quality 2 weapons, quality 1 armours etc.), there'd be a slider with several pins on it so the player could easily adjust the weight given to all the needs placed on them. For example, if the blacksmith could produce 10 quality levels' worth of stuff in a round, the player could manually adjust it to produce three quality two weapons for the city's local needs, two quality one armours for the needs of the neighbouring city, and finally allocate one quality two weapon for the further-off city. By default, all needs would be given the same priority, but this way the player could if they want to prioritise some needs over others. For stretches of road that have a very high amount of traffic, the road quality would have to be improved and/or better trading base buildings would have to be built at the cities along it to enable it to handle all the items moving along it.

Completed items that are transported away from the manufacturing cities would then be abstracted as caravans along the connecting roads, which could be raided by enemies (probably abstracting the loot for currency rather than completed items), but the roads could also be assigned patrols from completed troops. Perhaps players would have the option of supplanting currency for required items in cases of short-term shortage, though this would be an inoptimal choice only really advisable at times of emergency.

What do people think about this suggested compromise? It would preserve most of the chain of refinement aspect from camp 1, but reduce the overall complexity somewhat in favour of less micromanagement and less individual item types to keep track of. One reason my preference leans towards the sophisticated end of the scale is because the developers have stated that rebuilding civilisation is one of the themes of the game. Given that theme, I think some degree of economical detail would serve to emphasise the amount of different stuff a fully developed civilisation requires to reach its peak.

That's not the impression I get at all though...

20 cities * 15 resources = 15*20 sliders presupposes that you have access to every resource in every city.

For the "Sophisticated" option you would only have access to a very limited number of resources in each city though. It is exactly the reason why you would move them around.

Even if you did have a lot of resources in every city, there would not be much point in adjusting all sliders in every city. You are not going to move a resource, say iron ore for example, from every city to some other city. Otherwise you would just be moving iron ore around the map all the time without actually ever making any swords.

And I don't think the point of the "Sophisticated" solution is that you are actually forced to move your resources if you don't want to.

If you build your blacksmith and alchemy shop and barracks in Forgotten Well, you would only have to move your crystals to Forgotten Well as well and it would work the same way as the "Simple" solution. You can train your soldiers with the +2 swords right there.

It doesn't have to be as complex as the example given -- it just gives you the option to do more sophisticated things if you want to.

Well it seem that most people here want a sophisticated economic model, which I am glad to hear, but I should point out the people at Stardock that this isn't a very acurate sample of the people you are most likely to be trying to sell the game to...I mean, most people here, myself included, have been following the game since it's announcement/when they first herd about it, so of course we want to the game to have as much depth as possible!

BUT HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION!!!

---Start as big and sophisitcated as originally planned, and if it's too complicated it can simplified and refined durning beta...isn't that what a beta is for?

P.s. Whatever you end up doing with the economics, I hope it ends up being less convoluted than the GalCiv2 economy. Don't get me wrong, I love GalCiv2, but that games economy really gives me head aches when I play it lol.

In my mind it should be option 1, but largely automated.

I think that the problem is not between option 1 and 2, but we should have a fairly sophisticated system you can easily use.

As a player I just want to say to the comp "I want sword +2 in the town of Blablabla", then it calculates all the things you need. And a caravan UI would let you tinker with what the comp porposed to you, in order to enhance the placement of the caravans.

So, if I have ressources like horse, iron, potions the game would let me create a complete plate of armor with magical sword, whatever the ressources come from, then you sai "I want it in that town", then it calculates, then you go to caracvan UI if you're unpleased by the comp choices and tinker with it. You can use a sophisticated system in an easy way

EDIT :

And why not :

1) You create the item sord +2. There's a recipe

2) You go to town and say "I want loooots of swords +2"

3) the comp ask where the ressources should come from (the UI would be a minimap with points of interest, like a gps ^__^)

4) comp creates caravans and aks if you're ok.

5) You can tinker caravans in order to avoid a dangerous forest, for instance

6)Then you click "Give me moaaaar" and voila.

7) In the caravan UI you can see a map with the links and you can modify them.

If I remember correctly, EWoM is a kind of "make your own game you really like" system. Meaning: there are distinct focuses which depend on your play style.

You like civilization and settlers? Go for it and organize the resource and supply lines.
You prefer sth like the Total War series?  Well, focus on army building with all those distinct units and sent them marching.
You would like to play even more abstract and make it a diplomacy heavy game? Fetch the stick and the carrot and  talk to the other empires.

If the  gameplay would really be as diverse as you seem to aim for, you will need a high complexity in all of those aspects with an option to heavily streamline and simplify the parts of the game the player doesn't want to focus.

With respect to the resource system: I am with camp 1.
However, there should be the option to click on a town, decide the end product (magic sword wielding bear cavalry) and let the AI handle the rest. Otherwise, the players, who just want to fight it out will get annoyed if they have to build up a heavy industry before they can start with the part of the game they really like.

The same would be necessary for other aspects of the game. (Spying, Trading, Diplomacy, Military). If you indeed manage to get a lot of depth into each part, and if the player can decide how deep the various parts shall be to fit his or her play style, then you will have created the ultimate game... But then, it might take years to program such a complexity...

I don't see any mention about multiplayer aspect. As Stardock has said there will be a multiplayer aspect and than online multiplayer will be on Stardock servers, I am wondering how caravan can be targeted/intercepted in a multiplayer game.

If multiplayer means simultaneous turns, trying to intercept caravan can be impossible, meaning that they can be abstracted and made untargettable. The only way to disrupt them would be to blockade the source or the destination of the caravan.

I know that single player features shouldn't be too dumbed down for multiplayer playability. But multiplayer can't be added as an afterthought.