I think you could do a complex 1 resource RTS game, if you had trade offs.

-production
Mines-produce the energy quickly but run out.
Solar arrays- produce energy over time if you have not lost any unit in the past 2 mins
Geothermal Array- produce energy over time on some nodes.
Hydrogen Arrays- built by water, produce energy over time. Downside waterways can't be "walled" or defended easily.
reactor-low hit point, high space. produce the energy over time. Meaning these are very detrimental to defense.

-modifiers
Storage-increases resource max. If destroyed lose all energy it is "storing".
Relays-everything within range of the relay have -build time(buildings) and -upgrade time(units). Cost in space and organization.
AI module- everything within range has -costs(production) and -upkeep(units and buildings). If destroyed all items in the process of building/upgrading are interrupted(losing the build cost energy).
Efficiency Module- all energy buildings have +efficiency. Massive energy cost if destroyed(can put into negatives easily).

Game mechanics
-All units and buildings have an upkeep (in and out economy).
-if >50% max energy you will "store" energy less efficiently getting worse the closer to 100% you are.

[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1298118822' post='4776297']
In turn based games it would simply be the number of turns it takes for a unit to be produced.

Not really. In RTS you have several queues, a queue from barracks, queue from factory, queue from starport (so you build some lowly units even if these are not very powerful, but because these are cheap and you have free production capacity). In turn based games you always have just one general queue (strangely, there seem to be not even one exception here...)

As for the original post i don't think any of them are "better",it depends on how big a part (as a designer) you wish the economy to take in the game. There is certain realism to having more resources while making a single resource can simplify a system that would otherwise be a lot more complex, like the total war series.[/quote]Good point. Let's assume a game with mid or heavier focus on economy for purpose of this thread.

the idea is that you start with a few (or just 1) types of resources. However, you need to refine it into more specific types of resources. [/quote] Slightly similar to Deadlock2. It was not a groundbreaking feature but not a bad one either.

If it was me and both recourses where going to be the same quantity then i honestly don't think i would bother doing it, it’s nothing a single recourse couldn't do and seems like it would obviously limit players choice. What i would think of doing is making tritanium come from mines but in small quantities. That would at least make it seem like it’s rarer than iron. [/quote] Well, the whole purpose behind this is that when you play a game you build best cost effective units. Therefore there are no elite units. If you want to introduce elite units these have to be expensive and if these are expensive you would just produce regular ones. If the elite units are too cheap you just produce elite units only. If these are perfectly balanced with regular units it is irrelevant since you just build a random one... I can't find any, even theorethical, solution to this problem. Except for making a separate quota of resources (or another limit) that simply make elite units very powerful but still not competitive with regular units. I'm thinking about it not as a limit for a player but as an opportunity (or allowance) to build elite units even if your economy is not very strong. I do agree that the resource to make elite units should be lower quantity, purely for psychological effect.
Can you see other solutions for this?
[/quote]

For unit cost/quality tradeoffs, I have one major point. If cost effectiveness is the name of the game, then "effective" is the key word. Many games have units that are specialized and only useful in a given context. If your context doesn't match the unit's strength, then the cost of that unit probably won't be worthwhile. The more complex the economy, the more of this you can allow, because a complex economy makes for lots of possible combinations of choices. But even in a fairly rigid game, the use of a unit goes well beyond a simple "basic" or "elite" level. Even if you mean something like a Hero unit (versus just a very powerful type of unit), this is still the case. Even when you have a scheme like upgrading units (they cost the same or a similar amount as normal, but for an up-front investment you can make them more effective), the improvements you choose to make are based on your overall strategy.

If your economy isn't strong, why would you create an elite unit? If they are similarly cost-effective to normal units, then a weaker economy isn't going to be able to provide the support that the elite unit will need to be effective. If they are not as cost effective, then investing your limited resources in them would be a losing strategy as they could be better invested elsewhere. If you want elite units, then I don't think you should go out of your way to give players special opportunities to have them. The reward for having them is their usefulness on the battlefied, and you get them in return for building an economy that can support them.

I know that you are wanting to focus on more complicated economies, but look at some examples with simpler economics for reference. In Perimeter, you have just one resource, and you can change your units on demand to meet your current needs. You gain access to more options for your units as you choose to invest that resource in different areas. There are no units that are elite, just groupings that are currently effective or not. In a game like Sacrifice, you have 1-2 resources (mana and souls), and it's still a matter of picking the right unit for your situation, not just going for the "best" one, because there is no objective "best" unit.