The problem here is that the only "resource" is bricks. Assembling bricks from another resource is just tedious makework, if it's the only thing that can be made from clay. If on the other hand, clay can be made into several different things, and the player is choosing to turn clay into one of those things, with the opportunity cost of a loss of the ability to turn it into something else, then you have a move in a game. Making a decision as to what to do with the clay.

As long as there's something else to spend it on, it is a resource that can be played with.

I was thinking the same at first but as a player I have serious doubts.
- Turning all raw resources into multiuse resources can lead to the game complexity being increased artifactually. Like to make more uses for clay we could add pottery as a customer good for our citizens. But is it such a cool thing to have pottery? Would be introduce these if we weren't "forced" to find more used for clay?
- Sooner or later we will run into single use raw resource. Like if we want to make glass we need coal+sand. Now try to find a reasonable other use of sand...
- As a player, do I want to rememer if my clay will be sufficient to make bricks and pottery? Is it fun for me? Not really... There are fun resources like this, which is wood. Everyone know you can make plenty things from wood. Coal is a good multiuse resource too. But if I had to think of multiple use of more raw resources than these two... I would get overwhelmed as a player.
- Note that there is already resource allocation decision regarding final product (on what use steel, a typical dilemma ), adding similar decision for raw resources... it would be too much for me as a player.
- Multiuse raw resources dilemma is a weak decision. If we can use clay on bricks or pottery we have very low decision actually. We want first allocate all on bricks because it stops our growth and switch to pottery only if there is people revolt risk or only later when we have abundance of clay. It is not a hard neither fun decision.

Not every transformation chain is a bad thing, but too many are not of any additional value to the player.[/quote] Yes... I wonder how many of these chains would be too much
Also, I think that some chains are good, especially when we consider a game in our universe (no SF) with all these use wheat ot make flour and then bread. Some players will find it fun and ALL players will undestand the chain immediately and without reading any manual.

Increasing game complexity depends on your target audience. The Eastern Suns mod for Diablo 2 increases item construction and upgrade complexity, and is for me much more fun than vanilla Diablo 2. So it depends on who you are choosing to write the game for, which is a design decision.

The objective of a opportunity cost scenario is to make it a one-or-the-other choice. It's not supposed to be "Do I have enough for bricks AND pottery," it's a choice to use the resource for bricks OR pottery. And this is a matter of making the needs for each product sufficient and the resource scarce enough that there is a decision: Will you make bricks this turn, or do you need the pottery more? Then there is pressure to increase the intake of clay in an attempt to cover both costs, but doing so will require other things to be sacrificed. Maybe the manpower could have been used for soldiers, or the building production time could have been used for making a guard tower instead of a factory this turn.

- Multiuse raw resources dilemma is a weak decision. If we can use clay on bricks or pottery we have very low decision actually. We want first allocate all on bricks because it stops our growth and switch to pottery only if there is people revolt risk or only later when we have abundance of clay. It is not a hard neither fun decision.[/quote]

Your game, and you decide how weak or strong the decision is. Maybe pottery is a source of cash income, and cash is a required upkeep cost for maintaining an army. The choice of how important it is is entirely up to you. So if you want it to be a no-brainer, sure it will be almost automatic choice. Which I like better than no choice at all.

Ultimately, you are crafting how the game plays out, what the ideal path is to success. What if there was only one path to take? There's more replay value if there's more than one path.