Multiple Markets for Trade Routes?

[yu210148]

Hi All,

I was playing a game on a large map with multiple allies and established trade routes between my market and theirs. It occured to me that it'd be nice if I could select multiple markets for my traders and have them cycle between them. In other words, set up a market, establish an 'origin' (my market) and 'destination' (one of my allies) market but also have my traders stop in at my 3rd ally's market making a circuit so we would all benefit from the trade. I don't know what all would be involved in coding this 'feature' but I wonder if there's any appetite for something like this in the gameplay dynamics?

What do folks think?

kev.

[Gurken Khan]

I think it'd be nice from a roleplaying perspective, but practically I'd just establish separate trade routes for each ally. (From the furthest points possible so they're as lucrative as possible.)

[Grautvornix]

While you are right with respect to the current game, a roundtrip could even deliver more profit, as the total distance travelled could even be longer (profit relates to distance in game). Tried to establish such a roundtrip scheme but is does not seem to work. What appears to work (at least using trader ships) is to define a specific path to follow. I did that to avoid being attacked in that route, but it might be possible to maximize trade income by defining a longer detour.

Did anyone check this can work? Or is the distance travelled just measured "as the crow flies" i.e. shortest connection between origin and destination? 

[Perzival12]

On 12/10/2025 at 7:17 AM, yu210148 said:

Hi All,

I was playing a game on a large map with multiple allies and established trade routes between my market and theirs. It occured to me that it'd be nice if I could select multiple markets for my traders and have them cycle between them. In other words, set up a market, establish an 'origin' (my market) and 'destination' (one of my allies) market but also have my traders stop in at my 3rd ally's market making a circuit so we would all benefit from the trade. I don't know what all would be involved in coding this 'feature' but I wonder if there's any appetite for something like this in the gameplay dynamics?

What do folks think?

kev.

That sounds like a good idea. You should talk to Stan about adding that to the game.

[yu210148]

2 hours ago, Perzival12 said:

That sounds like a good idea. You should talk to Stan about adding that to the game.

Forgive my ignorance, but who's Stan and how would I get in touch with him? 

Kev.

[Perzival12]

1 hour ago, yu210148 said:

Forgive my ignorance, but who's Stan and how would I get in touch with him? 

Kev.

Here is a link to his profile. Try sending him a PM. He’s the 0ad project leader. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/profile/12287-stan/

Edited October 13, 2025 by Perzival12

[yu210148]

Thanks, will do when I'm infront of a machine that isn't my phone. I wonder if the logic of the patrol mechanism could work for this. I don't know how the resource acquisition would work though. Haven't thought it through that carefully.

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, Perzival12 said:

Here is a link to his profile. Try sending him a PM. He’s the 0ad project leader. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/profile/12287-stan/

I think it's better to convince @wowgetoffyourcellphone or @real_tabasco_sauce 

[Stan`]

Hey, I'm Stan.

I'm technically no longer the leader though. Regarding changing this gameplay mechanic aside from convincing some people you'll have to make a patch on Gitea. There are a lot of great ideas, but developper timer is scarce, and patches speak louder than words  

Do note however that having a patch doesn't mean it'll get merged.

[yu210148]

Thanks for the reply Stan,

Cool, yes. I agree that patches speak louder than forum discussions.  Unfortunately, I don't currently have the skills (nor the time) to produce one. Truthfully, this was just a thought I had and figured I'd put it out there. Thanks for helping to coordinate development on a pretty cool game. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I suppose the way to do it would be to set origin, then destination, and then use shift+click to "add" destinations in order, similar to queueing orders for normal units.

[Gurken Khan]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I suppose the way to do it would be to set origin, then destination, and then use shift+click to "add" destinations in order, similar to queueing orders for normal units.

I think it's not possible tho i wish it were: set trade routes that don't involve the producing building. Quite frequently I produce traders from a market but have a port further away; I would like to set that route at the market and wouldn't have to tell the traders.

[Classic-Burger]

https://riseofnations.fandom.com/wiki/Caravan

Worth mentioning.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I suppose the way to do it would be to set origin, then destination, and then use shift+click to "add" destinations in order, similar to queueing orders for normal units.

This isn't already a thing? Could have sworn it is... 

[hyperion]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This isn't already a thing? Could have sworn it is... 

You can set waypoints in between markets that way.

Setting a route with multiple markets is always less efficient then one between only 2 markets and therefore isn't implemented.

[Perzival12]

9 hours ago, hyperion said:

Setting a route with multiple markets is always less efficient then one between only 2 markets and therefore isn't implemented.

It should be. After all, did the ancients really do things as efficiently as possible? We are thousands of years more advanced, and we still don't do things as efficiently as we could. We know how to be efficient, we just choose not to. Besides, real merchants would travel from one market to the next, then on to another one, not just back and forth between two markets.

[LienRag]

On 15/10/2025 at 7:30 AM, hyperion said:

Setting a route with multiple markets is always less efficient then one between only 2 markets and therefore isn't implemented.

Having multiple markets of the same players on the same route should stay less efficient, lest it becomes exploitable.

But the OP idea of having a route with multiple markets of different allies (max one market per ally) should be made a little bit more efficient (I don't think it would be hard to tweak the formula to make it so) as it's funnier, has nice strategic implications, and is immersive (that's how trader worked historically).

[Grautvornix]

@LienRag I like that idea, and it has indeed some potentially interesting gameplay twists!

[Thalatta]

On 15/10/2025 at 7:19 PM, Perzival12 said:

real merchants would travel from one market to the next, then on to another one, not just back and forth between two markets.

Merchants would mostly keep to certain regions. Hardly anyone in the Mediterranean tried to travel to the source of tin for example. I think it's fine that a given Trader bounces between two Markets (representative of a region, not two literal markets, of course they went around a few). I think a problem is that the game makes the most profitable trading route the only one worth having, making things quite dull. To solve this, I think traders per route need to be limited (have slots like resources, varying with distance), and the gain be such that multiple Markets at both ends is not the most profitable configuration (that's why a per Market limit instead would be easily exploitable).

Looking at the code, the trade gain goes with distance squared, with a damping for long distances (dividing by 1.25 at map diameter, I think). Ignoring the damping for now, the question would be: given a bunch of Markets with all routes full, where should a new Market be placed for maximum profit? I'll assume Trader slots will vary linearly with route length, to account for time needed to travel them (fixing Traders arriving to Markets per unit time). This problem is then a generalised Leibniz geometrical theorem (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.0342), since one wants to add up the square of the distances to all Markets. The solution is that profit is greatest the farthest away from the centroid of all original Markets (I don't think damping changes this result much, and not in an obvious way anyway). This is not nice, since Markets would need to be in a periphery, as expanded as possible (a circle empty inside would be ideal for a given centroid distance, obviously), instead of forming a more interesting network.

I don't have a proposal for now, but I think this issue is worth exploring to reach a solution that is simple, intuitive, interesting and not exploitable.

[Perzival12]

39 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Merchants would mostly keep to certain regions. Hardly anyone in the Mediterranean tried to travel to the source of tin for example. I think it's fine that a given Trader bounces between two Markets (representative of a region, not two literal markets, of course they went around a few).

I’d agree with you, if the maps were large enough to encompass multiple regions (such as if there was a “Greece” or “Central Europe” map). However, based off of the size of the maps, it’s not much different than the trader walking from one town to another in a localized region.

[Grautvornix]

The pont point here is can I send a trader (automatically/repetitively) from trading post 1 to post2, then to post3, then to a harbor and then back to 1 or the same route reverse?

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Perzival12 said:

I’d agree with you, if the maps were large enough to encompass multiple regions (such as if there was a “Greece” or “Central Europe” map). However, based off of the size of the maps, it’s not much different than the trader walking from one town to another in a localized region.

Yes, but the point was that there are worse problems with trading routes to begin with, which could be solved by limiting Traders per route, and if one wants to make them go to other Markets, that would be harder to analyse. I tried to do it already anyway, for example I thought one could have many Markets, and to reduce micro, the Market screen could show a map with all possible routes, and one would enable or disable them (if some went through enemy territory), Traders taking any enabled route from any Market equiprobably (all to reduce micro, I wouldn't like having to click for every Trader every Market, sometimes more than once if they get disrupted, like this just one click would put them on the allowed network). Still, limit on number of Traders and gains with route length have to be such to have what I think is the ideal algorithm: Markets homogeneously covering the available area, the more Markets the better, but up to certain limit, in my case related to the total amount of Traders one is willing to have. This last bit is hard to get a grasp on if Traders travel to many Markets, that's why just bouncing between two Markets was more than an acceptable simplification to understand the maths, all things considered. Not that it's impossible, but working algorithms are the important bit, after deciding what characteristics for sure people want to be present.

To try a working algorithm with random walk, Trader profits could be independent of route length, and Markets have a minimum separation (because of lack of diversity in products and clients), this way they would homogeneously cover the map in hexagonal patterns. Since I don't like hard limits (that's why my Suggestion 56, "Separation criteria", proposes a more flexible approach to Fortress and Tower minimum separation), another possibility could be that the Trader profit has a maximum at the Market separation wanted (long routes have more risks and logistical costs, reducing profits). This would also cover the map in hexagonal patterns (if possible, profits could be indicated when placing the Market, same as height bonus is indicated for the relevant structures). Limiting the number of Traders considering total enabled route length (keeping their average "density" constant, and to disable routes one might need to get rid of some Traders first) would still be needed to justify expansion (on top of all this a trading garrison/ungarrison cooldown could spread Traders better and remove any teleportation exploit in general).

 

7 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

The pont point here is can I send a trader (automatically/repetitively) from trading post 1 to post2, then to post3, then to a harbor and then back to 1 or the same route reverse?

No, and even if you could, it would be way less profitable than making it oscillate between the two furthest points, which is the reason of my post

[Thalatta]

Ah, forgot to mention it: to emulate local trade, Markets could also give a trickle. I think this could be an alternative to "limiting the number of Traders considering total enabled route length" to justify their expansion (garrison/ungarrison cooldown could still fix the other things). Best is, with simple rules, to generate something interesting, obviously.

[Grautvornix]

40 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

No, and even if you could, it would be way less profitable than making it oscillate between the two furthest points, which is the reason of my post

Of course you are right, but what if the outermost market was destroyed? Then the traders would just not know what to do and stop operation. Instead they could use the next trading post. Probably this is taking realism too far. 

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Grautvornix said:

Of course you are right, but what if the outermost market was destroyed? Then the traders would just not know what to do and stop operation. Instead they could use the next trading post. Probably this is taking realism too far. 

The problem would still be the same: only one route is worth using at a given time. Retreating to the next longest route is putting a band aid to an exposed femur fracture