Trade routes... aren't?

[Olleus]

In common parlance, a trade route is a flow or exchange of goods between two distant places that happens repeatedly over an extended period of time. The silk road or the spice trade routes are famous historical examples. Yet, in the game, it's more of a one-off sale of goods. If this was just a semantic issue it would hardly matter, but I think it's a missed opportunity.

The trade route system in AtS is essentially a duplicate of selling things to the traders, ie, turning excess goods into currency. Sure there are some minor differences: which goods you can sell to whom, waiting for a trader vs waiting for the route to complete, and needing provisions. But that doesn't change the fundamental similarity, and that makes trade routes rather boring and inconsequential. They can be powerful and generate lots of amber, but not in a way that feels distinct or unique.

Instead, I think AtS could take inspiration from what trade routes actually mean, and from the supply line perks. Each destination could have a list of resources it wants to buy, and those it wants to sell. You'd select one from each list as well as an amount, and pay a fixed sum of provision packs to get it started. Then for the rest of the game (or until cancelled) you'd lose X of one resource per minute, and gain Y of another. For example, you could pay a lump sum of 6 provisions to lose 5 grain per minute in exchange for 3 copper ore per minute. The trade route level could still upgrade, but increase slowly over time rather than in discrete lumps like now (perhaps going up faster with a bigger volume of trade too). As well as giving you a better buy-to-sell ratio, this levelling up could also give you +1 Reputation if you max it out as a way of making trade-heavy strategies extra enticing. If you didn't have the promised resource to trade away in your storage, then you'd also immediately lose the benefits and the levelling up bar would start decreasing. Current systems like paying amber to get more trade route options or upgrades that increase concurrent trade routes you can have would translate across to the new system directly.

This wouldn't be a huge change to the game and wouldn't require fundamentally new systems or rebalancing, but it would make trade routes more interesting IMO. Firstly, it would differentiate them properly from traders. Secondly, it would provide a sustainable way of acquiring resources that aren't on the map/you don't have a recipe for. Thirdly, it would avoid the tedium of the current system that requires checking all potential trade routes every season in case one is worthwhile.

[Alexander]

Trade routes used to work similar to what you describe in early pre-Steam versions. There was no reputation and ration packs weren't involved. If I remember correctly, each neigbouring settlement got one or two resource types for you to import, and a selection of resource types they accepted as payment. When you activated a trade route, you got a fixed amount of the selected resource import per minute in exchange for a certain amount of the resource you selected as payment, until you deactivated the route or run out of the export resource. Then the old trade system was replaced by the one you currently see in the game. I don't remember the motivation for this change.

[Voidmonger]

neat idea. however I think that it'd be potentially more powerful, making the game easier.

[Olleus]

Huh, I'm flattered that I think along the same lines as the game designers originally did lol, but I'm curious why they removed it. Only reason I can think of is that managing stock levels and preventing them getting too low would be a lot of pain, and buildings having internal storage not part of the warehouse could make trade routes auto cancelling/pausing kind of frustrating. The solution there would be to smooth out the logistics side of things, not dump the whole trade route system out for something dull.

I don't see why it would make the game easier. There are lots of variables (buy-to-sell cost ratio, what resources are available to buy or sell, amount of provisions needed to set up, max volume of trade route, max number of trade routes, etc...) to tune so that it has the right difficulty. Not to mention that the current system, combined with cornerstones that give reputation for amber earned, can lead to ridiculously easy victories as it is.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Olleus:

Huh, I'm flattered that I think along the same lines as the game designers originally did lol, but I'm curious why they removed it. Only reason I can think of is that managing stock levels and preventing them getting too low would be a lot of pain, and buildings having internal storage not part of the warehouse could make trade routes auto cancelling/pausing kind of frustrating. The solution there would be to smooth out the logistics side of things, not dump the whole trade route system out for something dull.

I don't see why it would make the game easier. There are lots of variables (buy-to-sell cost ratio, what resources are available to buy or sell, amount of provisions needed to set up, max volume of trade route, max number of trade routes, etc...) to tune so that it has the right difficulty. Not to mention that the current system, combined with cornerstones that give reputation for amber earned, can lead to ridiculously easy victories as it is.

They actually boosted usefulness of the trade quite a bit back then, and the new system is more fun than the old one (remember, it didn't have all the fun features you proposed ). The idea of the new system, as I understand it, is to make the traders primarily a way to import stuff and trade routes a way to export.

However the whole game was less developed at that point, so I agree that the old system might merit a second look now. Actually two systems could coexist and benefit from each other. Say, current trade routes are renamed to offers, otherwise they are unchanged except for some balance tweaks (personally I would check if the limit of simultaneous trades can be removed in exchange for increasing the minimum amount of all trades). In addition to them a system of actual trade routes is added, similar to the old one, but with certain differences:

Each neighbouring settlement has up to three resource types it is willing to sell. They are determined at the start of the run, similar to forest mysteries. All those are basic raw resource types, something you usually harvest in camps, mines or fields (except wood). Also these resources are grouped into four groups: craft materials, crops, provision, fuel, according to the most simple recipes that may be used to transform these resources into packs of building materials, crops and provisions. [Note: there's no pack equivalent for fuel. Should it be added? Also I'm not sure what to do with copper ore in this system.] This is important, because each settlement proposes resources only from one type [maybe two?], and in exchange they accept packs of goods, but only the types which do not correspond to the resource types they produce themselves.

To initiate a trade route player must have a required amount of packs of goods. Once initiated and until stopped trade routes produce a constant amount of the selected resource per minute and require the same amount of packs each minute. Packs of provisions work as regular payment resource here, unlike the trade offers. As relationships with neighbouring settlements improve (by completing trade offers), more options for trade with that settlements are unlocked (initially only one resource per settlement is available for trade), and trade routes become upgradable. Basically trade route upgrade is an option to import more resources with equivalent payment increase. If viceroy's settlement does not have the required amount of packs for regular payment to keep a route running, the route is automatically downgraded (if the settlement still has enough packs for downgraded route to continue) or cancelled.

Trade routes are supposed to serve as sources of raw resources which are unavailable for a player in the current biome or with current build. For example, a surplus of wheat may be converted into packs and exchanged for fiber or sea marrow.

[Garney]

When I originally opened trade routes I thought it was going to be like that, a way to steadily bring in small amounts of a needed resource. Then the whole 'trading hub' cornerstones would make sense. Now and then I do get a pleasing 'delivery line' effect and those are lovely!

Since that disappointment, I rarely touch trading. It gives me amber, okay? I don't generally need amber except to roll blueprints, something I've stopped doing so much as I adapt to the RNG and roll with what I'm given instead of going for a certain win. More often than not amber in my vault means I get hit by some nasty glade effect that eats it or creates hostility.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Garney:

When I originally opened trade routes I thought it was going to be like that, a way to steadily bring in small amounts of a needed resource. Then the whole 'trading hub' cornerstones would make sense. Now and then I do get a pleasing 'delivery line' effect and those are lovely!

Since that disappointment, I rarely touch trading. It gives me amber, okay? I don't generally need amber except to roll blueprints, something I've stopped doing so much as I adapt to the RNG and roll with what I'm given instead of going for a certain win. More often than not amber in my vault means I get hit by some nasty glade effect that eats it or creates hostility.

Amber can be used to buy blueprints and cornerstones from traders, and those are very valuable. There are also very powerful cornerstones related to trading. Personally I have packs of provisions recipe as a secondary priority when I pick the blueprints.

[Garney]

But nah. Making packs of things takes resources away from my people, and I rarely have the amber to buy those things as it is, unless I'm already rolling good economy, and by that time I don't need blueprints, or I'm spending all the settlement resources on something and then struggling to get back on my feet.

I've tried it, been forced into those trading perks and such, and I hate it every single time. The trading aspect of this game just isn't one that pleases me as it stands.

[Narandia]

It is a bit awkward to set up for sure. Not a fan of the packaged goods because I always have to watch it like a hawk and make sure not too many are produced (other than provisions).
Then again thats more a problem with orders requiring me to make them.

But having the cash on hand for cornerstones and blueprints from traders is incredibly handy. Sometimes their actual goods can also be helpful, though I do wish they had a tad more on offer... even if it was only a small quantity.

[Olleus]

Whether or not trade routes are useful as they are isn't really the question the thread is about. It's more about whether they are interesting and provide a meaningful level of player choice above other systems. Sure, they let you exchange some excess goods for amber, and we can argue all day about whether that's worth it or not. But it's so similar to selling resources to traders that it serves no distinct in-game purpose. It's just some half-hidden menu that is disconnected from the rest of that game, that you have to remember to visit every season after setting provision pack production with a low cap. It's not interesting and it's not engaging; neither mechanically, nor in terms of immersion. Whether it's balanced or not hardly changes that at all.

I like @Alexander's additional suggestion that you sell (almost) any packs as the "outgoing" part of the trade route, and buy resources that are fixed for the duration of the settlement as the "ingoing" part. That feels like actual trade between minor outposts, with each having very few excess resources to spare, and having to put extra effort to package stuff you send a way.

[Stübi Senpai]

My main beef with the trade routes is the requirement of sending packs of provisions along, which makes most of the trade offers seem like they only very minorly actually give you a profit, if at all.

Additionally, food is the main "timer" you have besides impatience, and the hardest economy to balance. So not only are you sending the ressources away, you are also potentially sending a substantial amount of foodstocks along as well.

I only ever actually interact with traderoutes if they come as part of an order or the requirement for a cornerstone buff. I feel they are very much not worth it just for their own sake.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Olleus:

I like @Alexander's additional suggestion that you sell (almost) any packs as the "outgoing" part of the trade route, and buy resources that are fixed for the duration of the settlement as the "ingoing" part. That feels like actual trade between minor outposts, with each having very few excess resources to spare, and having to put extra effort to package stuff you send a way.

Thanks!

Fixed set of resources available for buying actually comes from the old pre-Steam system. It used mostly raw resources on both ends of a trade route. I think one of the reasons the new system was introduced is to make packs more valuable and make a place for trade-oriented builds. That's why I proposed packs as payment resource. I think it will further promote trade-oriented builds and make buildings producing packs even more valuable. This way a viceroy could decide to rely on trade routes to acquire certain raw resources, and take corresponding blueprints instead of camps/fertile soil buildings.

[joiss90]

Originally posted by Olleus:

Not to mention that the current system, combined with cornerstones that give reputation for amber earned, can lead to ridiculously easy victories as it is.

I am pretty sure the trade perks (that increase reputation/resolve or reduce hostility) trigger on good sold not on amber earned? Which makes them a lot better as traders have a limited amount of Amber but as long as the trader is willing to buy the goods you can sell as much as you want (I am pretty sure it counts even if you give it to trader for free)

Though trade routes aren't great for selling of lots of goods in my experience though you can always just sell off the amber you earn to the traders (as amber also counts as goods being sold when you trade it away rather than spending it on cornerstones)

[Alexander]

Originally posted by joiss90:

Though trade routes aren't great for selling of lots of goods in my experience though you can always just sell off the amber you earn to the traders (as amber also counts as goods being sold when you trade it away rather than spending it on cornerstones)

I never checked it myself, but trade routes are supposed to give you more amber for a given amount of resources than traders would. Trader's prices for non-packed goods you sell were significantly lowered when the new trade routes (the ones you currently see in the game) were introduced.

[opie]

At prestige 9 they just become a better way to make amber. I think it's better this way because if the neighbouring settlements just offered some random good, the chance they'll have something you want and something you need is very slim. You can always use amber, though.

[Olleus]

Originally posted by opie:

At prestige 9 they just become a better way to make amber. I think it's better this way because if the neighbouring settlements just offered some random good, the chance they'll have something you want and something you need is very slim. You can always use amber, though.

Amber could be one of the things that settlements give you in the new system? You drop feed them luxury goods, they drip feed you amber?

But frankly, if getting gold on the higher prestige difficulties is a little harder, I don't think it matters. That's a balance question that can be addressed by tweaking the buy-to-sell ratio of the traders. It's pretty unrelated to the more fundamental problem that trade routes, as they are, are just a dull replication of selling things to the trader through marginally different routes.