[Vote] (2-39) Museum Split

[Rekk]

Historic Events rely on tourism per turn to function. If you nerf tourism per turn, you nerf historic event tourism at the same time.
Your base value is /3 +.

 

[CrazyG]

Okay I'm rereading this proposal and have more thoughts:

1. The gallery gives no culture which isn't very flavorful.
2. That new museum art clearly portrays a science museum but it gives no science, which isn't very flavorful.
3. The gallery is a pretty darn bad building. The only reason you build it is to unlock museum. That will feel bad to play. People are going to get that CS quest to build more galleries and complain.
4. I get the idea of adding something to architecture but I don't think this really does that. Before, the only two reasons to get it quickly were the wonders or to rush towards archeology. Now, the only reasons to get it quickly are the wonders or to rush towards archeology.
5. Current museums are themselves a pretty bad building for their cost, often worth skipping outside the capital or unless you can theme it, and now they are even worse, you are just coerced to build them to get archeologists.

I think the core disagreement is why is CV strong, and the answer isn't because amphitheaters, opera houses, or museums are too strong.

Historic Events rely on tourism per turn to function. If you nerf tourism per turn, you nerf historic event tourism at the same time.

I found this thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/adjusting-cv-part-1-sources-of-tourism.679022/#post-16335185

Is the equation here still correct? Also to be clear, was it
(culture + tourism) /3
or (culture/3 + tourism)?

 

[pineappledan]

Historic Events rely on tourism per turn to function. If you nerf tourism per turn, you nerf historic event tourism at the same time.
Your base value is /3 +

Exactly. If you nerf sources of tourism and you hit culture point for point, you are hitting CV offense more than you are hitting CV defense

 

[Rekk]

Exactly. If you nerf sources of tourism and you hit culture point for point, you are hitting CV offense more than you are hitting CV defense

There's no equivalent to Historic Events on the defense side, so I don't think you can make that assertion.

 

[pineappledan]

Yes I can.
If you reduce a source of / by 1 point you are reducing offensive CV potential by 1 point and defensive CV potential by 1 point.
BUT tourism sources are overall smaller and less plentiful; they depend on multipliers in all sorts of areas of the game to overtake cultural defense in the late game. That is core to how this system has always worked. You have pointed out a salient example of this, where HE calculations require 3 to make up for every 1, so if you lower a flat source of both / point-for-point, you are nerfing Tourism harder than you are nerfing culture.

 

[pineappledan]

That new museum art clearly portrays a science museum but it gives no science, which isn't very flavorful.

Yes. Artifacts don't give .
Part of the proposal is to increase science on public schools, and Museums come directly after both PS and Zoos. You don't think adding science onto Museums might be triple-dipping?

The gallery is a pretty darn bad building. The only reason you build it is to unlock museum. That will feel bad to play. People are going to get that CS quest to build more galleries and complain.

Yes. Though I will point out that it streamlines a very specific gripe I have with Architecture:

If you tech architecture before acoustics and you weren't able to grab Taj Mahal or Porcelain Tower, there is only 1 other thing on the tech: the Hermitage... Which you cannot build until you grab acoustics.
Now you have this (weak) gallery building which on the same tech though, so you can at least build it in your capital and immediately unlock the Hermitage without detouring for Opera House. At worst, you only need to build 1 gallery in your empire.
If you tech to architecture, there is a not-uncommon possibility that it gives you NOTHING TO DO except tech to acoustics. That's Garbage. The Gallery might be weak, but it's not Literally Nothing.

Current museums are themselves a pretty bad building for their cost, often worth skipping outside the capital or unless you can theme it, and now they are even worse, you are just coerced to build them to get archeologists.

Yes. What I have proposed to do is move some Museum bonuses earlier, increase overall costs by 600 and 4 per turn while adding nothing of value.

I think you are beginning to understand

 

[Rekk]

Archaeology is clearly considered a cultural endeavor by the game. It's not a difficult leap to lump paleontology in with it.

 

[Rekk]

Yes I can.
If you reduce a source of / by 1 point you are reducing offensive CV potential by 1 point and defensive CV potential by 1 point.
BUT tourism sources are overall smaller and less plentiful; they depend on multipliers in all sorts of areas of the game to overtake cultural defense in the late game. That is core to how this system has always worked. You have pointed out a salient example of this, where HE calculations require 3 to make up for every 1, so if you lower a flat source of both / point-for-point, you are nerfing Tourism harder than you are nerfing culture.

Sorry, I swear I had read "you nerf offense by 3x more than defense" when I made my reply. I war responding to the quantitative assertion.

 

[CrazyG]

Now you have this (weak) gallery building which on the same tech though, so you can at least build it in your capital and immediately unlock the Hermitage without detouring for Opera House. At worst, you only need to build 1 gallery in your empire.
If you tech to architecture, there is a not-uncommon possibility that it gives you NOTHING TO DO except tech to acoustics. That's Garbage. The Gallery might be weak, but it's not Literally Nothing.

If you aren't playing for a cultural victory its worse than literally nothing. Its just a way to lose production and gold, and give yourself a terrible CS quest in the process. Your gripe with architecture is reasonable, but your solution isn't a solution.

Yes. What I have mainly done is move some Museum bonuses earlier.

I think you are beginning to understand

The only bonus that's been moved earlier is the extra great artist points. You've made museums effectively more expensive, and they don't need to be more expensive. If by 'beginning to understand' you mean agreeing, no, I think this proposal totally misses the mark.

This isn't going to slow down CV significantly. Heck, the public school buff might be enough to speed it up, you'll reach radio, Christo Redentor and other stuff faster than before.

There's really only one idea here that will slow down a CV an amount worth mentioning, and its museums for archeologists. Even that I'm not sure how much impact there will be, all the other civs will have their own archeologists slowed down too.

Everything else is essentially a rounding error. I redid the math on your great work suggestion, I way overestimated its impact, its going to reduce end game tourism by less than 1%, in close games tourism numbers can reach 1 million, your idea reduced a tiny percentage of a few thousand tourism.

For non-cultural victories, I think architecture is worse than before. The gallery is 600 hammers to lose 1 gold per turn and the flavor isn't there. You can't even say 'just don't build it', its still a disadvantage because researching architecture will likely give yourself a terrible CS quest (which will block all other build X buildings quests). And museums go from not really worth building to being even worse.

 

[rkkn]

Great Works:
Reduced to 32 base (need a Gallery to bring back to old 33)

This does not look like a good change. It nerfs tourism in the early game where it's already weak and irrelevant, and then buffs it back up just in time for the nerf to have no effect in the long run.

 

[pineappledan]

Its just a way to lose production and gold, and give yourself a terrible CS quest in the process.

You can't even say 'just don't build it', its still a disadvantage because researching architecture will likely give yourself a terrible CS quest

It seems like you dislike situational buildings, and are using a CS quest as a cover for that. If not, then you should be directing your ire towards this particular CS quest.

Edit: That particular CS quest actually had a congress proposal implemented in the latest version to relax its build requirements. I note in the discussion for it, you didn't post a comment. So either you didn't see it or aren't interested in the build X buildings on empire quest except as rhetoric.

Moderator Action: Personal attacks and accusations are not permitted. Please be civil and attack the argument, not the person making it. - Recursive

This does not look like a good change. It nerfs tourism in the early game where it's already weak and irrelevant, and then buffs it back up just in time for the nerf to have no effect in the long run.

That's entirely possible. If it's a stick to beat players with that don't invest in the infrastructure needed to go towards a CV then it will have done its job.

 

[hokath]

This was a really engaging thread to read.

I agree with rkkn's sentiment: this change nerfs tourism in the early game for a minor benefit later on. I don't like that very much and wouldn't vote for a proposal that contained it right now.

I am generally in favour of there being more buildings in the game, and I don't like the CS quest argument against the existence of niche buildings. If I had to choose, I would remove/change the CS quest.

Edit: Smithsonian gives you a Museum in every city. Might want to comment on that?

 

[CrazyG]

That's entirely possible. If it's a stick to beat players with that don't invest in the infrastructure needed to go towards a CV then it will have done its job.

I don't want to be beat with a stick. This is a proposal is to make the game less fun in an attempt to balance CV against others, which it won't even achieve.

Really this is several mostly unrelated proposals, which is unfortunate because a lot of them are great (like finally renaming The Hermitage).

 

[rusbeh]

I like the proposal a lot, but why not make the gallery provide like +2 culture? It would help the building not suck as much, boost the defense against tourism and be thematic.

 

[pineappledan]

Not opposed to adding some per-turn culture. I wish we hadn't exhausted our yields and methods on the other buildings though.
Museum has a culture scaler, BC tower has a tourism scaler, opera house has a culture modifier. Amphitheater just gives flat culture. My proposed scriptorium gives a small % science now.

The obvious choice would be a small tourism % modifier, but that would be counterproductive

Edit: Smithsonian gives you a Museum in every city. Might want to comment on that?

Doesn't seem like anything needs to change?

 

[pineappledan]

amended proposal to add that Uffizi should give a free Gallery in the city.

 

[nekokon]

Random thought, Architecture would be a great tech to unlock the canal idea here if we're to implement it, both timing gameplay-wise and theme-wise

This looks rather amazing actually. If possible I would like to see this kind of canal to become a separated tile improvement rather than fort and citadel though.
Then we can apply a bunch of different rules to it (like taking forever to build and destroy, and take longer to be destroyed by enemies, and allowing land city to have some coastal city feature). Also would be very interesting tactical-wise as we can destroy them to prevent enemies from using (which was historically true but we couldn't simulate in game with road/railroad/bridge).

 

[pineappledan]

I can sponsor this

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by pineappledan.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.