I've been batting around ideas with various people and have 3 issues with the existing trade route rules:

1.1. At present rulers, temples, even mages, often seek to take over guild holdings in order to set up a few trade routes and see the gold roll in. This makes playing a guilder quite difficult and poorly represents the situation - ruling or ministering to the faith was a full time job, extorting money from merchants is one thing, becoming one another.

1.2. Trade often results in a lot of money sloshing around the system, which makes it ubiquitous in developed areas, by contrast it is almost entirely absent (seas aside) undeveloped areas, ideally it should be possible but just one of many strategies available to rulers.

1.3. The BRCS rules also make it irrelevant what size the province is - only the guild holding size affects income (unlike 2e where guild size was irrelevant and province size dominant). I'd expect larger provinces to be more profitable - outgoing goods will be worked and thus more expensive, while incoming goods find a larger market helping them avoid low prices.


How about the following alternative:

2.1. Create trade route doesn't set up an automatic series of caravans, ships etc - it just builds the desire for trade, makes the necessary contacts, ensures that the road is passable / port tariffs are manageable, etc.
2.2. To actually make money, the guild regent needs to spend an action - during which they are amassing the caravan, negotiating with town mayors, etc to allow passage trade, etc.
2.3. Income is based on province size (volume of goods, quality of goods, size of market, etc), but the number of trade route actions is dependent on the guild holding size - since each action needs organising, the holding only has the manpower to run one route per holding level.
2.4. Income could be capped at holding level unless the guilder succeeds well, is high level, or has the support of the ruler, law holders etc - that way the city of Anuire is not automatically a cornucopia.
2.5. Trade can be between provinces which have a connecting road/river, or are on the coast or - to help undeveloped areas, simply share a border. Should trade be able to bounce between road/river/coast without needing a separate trade routes each time?

Questions:
3.1. court, realm, or personal action?
3.2. how much income? Average of province level at each end? Terrain/resource dependent?
3.3. should income from the route be deferred?
3.4. should the action be automatically successful or need a roll, if a roll, should the outcome affect the income generated?
3.5. would the need to spend actions deter non-guild regents from branching out? (They would only get the base income, not trade route income as they are busy elsewhere)
3.6. Should the income include maintenance for roads, ships, ports etc?
3.7. Does a trade route create income at both ends?
3.8. Does the trade route take up a 'slot' at each end with each province only having goods/services for one trade route a month/season/year per level?
3.9. Should trade be between regions/domains or provinces?
3.10. If trade is between provinces, should it be simply different terrain/culture, or should each province be assigned produce and needs with trade possible wherever there is a match?

Notes.
Trade routes come in the following types:
4.1. The basic route. Province A to province B, both fairly nearby
4.2. A long or difficult route, but otherwise similar - but should the income, deferral of income, etc be different?
4.3. A chain - Province A to B to C to D - each leg being individually a basic route / the whole chain being a route with unusual income.
4.4. The grand caravan - multiple trade route actions between province A and B carried out as a single action.
4.5. The wheel - multiple trade routes of caravans carrying similar goods from the same province to different provinces as a single action, or gathering similar goods from multiple provinces for a single province as a single action.
4.6. A route 'to the far ocean' - no need for a friendly guild at the other end.

I can see these either being different actions, different DC's, feats or open to higher level characters. Should the income be different?

What do people think? Should we aim for income similar to 2e, BRCS, higher/lower? Will this leave guilders doing nothing but trade actions (boring) or still leave them scope for other actions?