Patch basis: 9.0, including the June 2026 weapon rebalance patch line. Written 2026-08-16. No station prices, ship costs, or profit margins are hard-coded below — those move every patch and every save. What is fixed here is the decision structure, which does not.
A thread titled “How to handle logistics” pulled 54 comments on 13 August 2026, and reading it is a study in people talking past each other: one reply says start with a central trade station, the next says subordinate traders are strictly better, a third says forget both and mine manually until you can afford automation. All three are right — for a different starting situation. The thread never converges because “how do I do logistics” is four separate questions wearing one title.
The four setups, and why none of them is universally correct
- Manual trading (you fly, you decide). Zero setup cost, full control, and it does not scale past one pilot’s attention. It is the only option that works with almost no starting capital.
- Subordinate traders under a station manager. Each trader ship runs its own local trade loop and reports up. Cheap per-ship, resilient to losing one ship, but slow to react to a price spike across the whole galaxy because each trader only sees its own patch of it. Because a fleet controller reads their own subordinates, this setup does not need a full economy overview to function — it works sector by sector.
- A central trade hub with dedicated logistics ships. One managed station buys and redistributes, with dedicated haulers running fixed routes. Higher setup cost, much better at exploiting galaxy-wide price differences, but a single point of failure: lose the hub station’s control and every hauler under it goes idle at once.
- Manual mining, no automation at all. The slowest way to build capital, but the only one that is completely immune to the other three failure modes, because there is nothing running unattended to fail.
Pick by situation, not by reputation
The table below genuinely disagrees with itself row to row — that is the point, and it is why no single “best logistics setup” ranking survives contact with more than one starting position.
| Your situation | Manual trading | Subordinate traders | Central trade hub | Manual mining |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under roughly 500k credits, early game | Yes — the only option with no setup cost | No — you cannot afford the ship count yet | No — the hub itself is the expense you can’t cover | Yes, in parallel — builds the capital the other two need |
| 2–5 million credits, want to stop flying manually | No — you have outgrown the attention cost | Yes — cheapest way off manual play | No — premature, the margin gain doesn’t cover the setup yet | No — opportunity cost is now too high |
| 10M+ credits, multiple sectors under your control | No — does not scale to what you can now afford to automate | Workable, but leaves galaxy-wide margins on the table | Yes — this is the setup that exploits scale | No — pure waste of capital at this stage |
| Contested or Xenon-adjacent sectors | Yes for that sector specifically — you can react to threats mid-run | No — subordinates keep flying into danger with no threat judgement | No — a hub anchored in contested space is a standing liability | Situational — only if the sector is also mining-viable |
| You have under an hour of play time per session | No — manual trading eats your whole session | Yes — set once, check in occasionally | Workable once built, but the build session itself needs a longer sitting | No — mining also wants attention to route around threats |
Read any single row and the recommendation flips depending on the situation column — that is what makes it a decision matrix rather than a ranking with a coat of paint.
The mistake the thread kept making
Most of the disagreement in the 13 August thread was two people at different net worth defending the setup that worked for them, not realising the other person was describing a different row of this table. The fix is not to find the “right” answer — it is to check which row you are actually in before asking the question.
What breaks each setup, specifically
- Manual trading breaks the moment you take on a second responsibility — a fleet, a second sector, a war. It is not a scaling problem, it is an attention problem, and no amount of credits fixes it.
- Subordinate traders break when a single commodity crashes across your whole area, because every subordinate reacts to its own local price and none of them see the crash coming from a neighbouring sector.
- A central hub breaks in exactly one way that matters: lose the hub station itself — to combat, to a rebalance of station defence, to your own mismanagement — and every hauler under it stops simultaneously. Anyone running a hub in contested space should read this as the single point of failure it is, not as a hardening problem to solve with more turrets.
- Manual mining does not break. It simply caps your income at whatever your own attention can extract, which is the trade-off you are accepting by choosing it.
Where this fits with automation troubleshooting
This page is about which setup to choose. If you have already chosen one and a specific ship in it has stopped working — sitting idle, refusing to collect cargo, ignoring its assigned area — that is a different problem with a different fix: see the idle ship triage checklist instead of re-reading this decision.
Sources
- X4 Foundations Public Beta - Version: 9.00 Release notes — official Egosoft patch notes covering the subordinate command hierarchy and station manager behaviour that separate the “subordinate traders” and “central hub” setups on this page.
- “Station subordinates won’t trade” — X4: Foundations General Discussions — confirms (with a community answer) that a station needs an assigned manager before subordinates will act, supporting the setup-cost differences described above.
- “Assigning subordinates.” — X4: Foundations General Discussions — friction evidence for how subordinate-trader assignment is commonly misconfigured, used only as evidence of the pattern, not as a source for specific numbers.
