If I had to choose between the two options, I'd vote Option #2. Here's why:
*I'm playing a fantasy strategy game where resource management is but ONE aspect of the game. I'd also like to devote time in varying degrees to combat, unit creation/placement, research, diplomacy, and general strategy.
*Option #1, while conceptually is really cool and would be genre-defining, seems to be one of the bad aspects of GalCiv 2 (no more sliders, please!)
*Option #1 also involves making strategic choices, but not about fun stuff. Things like, should I upgrade my warehouse? Where do I need to click now to manually move around my resource production? It's strategic, but not fun strategy. We could also add in a system that handles waste produced by processing resources and by units, but who wants to manage crap? That would be, well, crappy.
Here's the bigger idea- is it really that black and white for choices (option 1 vs. option 2)? In the long run, I'll get satisfaction from the game if I'm able to conquer my foes in a variety of ways. Having superior resource management could be a possible factor in that, but is that really that fun? I mean, it may be a necessary component, but I view it more as the means to victory, not the reason for it.
The reality I'm thinking of is this:
WHATEVER SYSTEM IS CREATED, IT SHOULD BE FUN, EASY TO USE, AND OFFER AN ELEMENT OF STRATEGY.
I think both of these system proposed could fit that, but I'd also encourage looking at a hybrid, Kyro's unique ideas here, and re-examine how this feature fits in with others. I would much rather have Option #2, as it's simpler, and get other areas that get more time and attention, than a complex/sophisticated economic system with watered-down combat/diplomacy/trading/research/etc.
Thanks for asking, Brad!