Do improvements need to be worked to produce tourism?

[Mahasona]

Just finished a game as Persia but I'm confused as to whether or not Pairidaezas need to be worked to produce toursim.

They are pretty high value tiles by the end of the game but if a city has mostly plains that can drop the population, so it would be nice if they didn't have to be worked.

I had a look at the tourism lens which showed a tourist on an unworked tile but I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the results correctly.

 

[Meluhhan]

Improvements that provide tourism do not need to be worked for their tourism yield to be counted.

 

[Mahasona]

Thanks. Good to know the tourists turn up when the attractions are closed...

 

[criZp]

yeah, it doesn't really make much sense.

 

[Leyrann]

Improvements always provide their tourism, whether or not they are worked. If improvements also grant gold equal to their tourism (like the Seaside Resort) then you do need to work the tile to get that gold, however.

Oh, and a piece of advice, a question like this can also be asked in the Quick Questions and Answers pinned thread at the top of the forum.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Way back when Civ 6 was announced but not yet released, when they teased about Builders having charges and Districts needing a certain number of Population to build, I really thought they were going to get rid of the City Screen and choosing which tile to place your citizens to work. I thought the development team was moving towards a system where a Farm, Mine, etc. produced on its own, since it now had a direct cost (Builder charge) to produce. Your Population would then simply be a measure of how many people lived in the urban centre itself.

Now we have a hybrid system where districts and buildings will produce things on their own without any population assigned, but produce a little bit more with a population assigned. Most improvements won't produce anything without a population assigned, but some will produce some yields like tourism independently.

At this stage, I really think they could simplify the game by:

• Not requiring population to be assigned to tiles, but instead have only tiles with improvements produce.
• Not requiring population to be assigned to buildings, but instead have the output of buildings depend on a combination of the improvements in the city and the size of the city's population.

 

[Aristos]

Way back when Civ 6 was announced but not yet released, when they teased about Builders having charges and Districts needing a certain number of Population to build, I really thought they were going to get rid of the City Screen and choosing which tile to place your citizens to work. I thought the development team was moving towards a system where a Farm, Mine, etc. produced on its own, since it now had a direct cost (Builder charge) to produce. Your Population would then simply be a measure of how many people lived in the urban centre itself.

Now we have a hybrid system where districts and buildings will produce things on their own without any population assigned, but produce a little bit more with a population assigned. Most improvements won't produce anything without a population assigned, but some will produce some yields like tourism independently.

At this stage, I really think they could simplify the game by:

• Not requiring population to be assigned to tiles, but instead have only tiles with improvements produce.
• Not requiring population to be assigned to buildings, but instead have the output of buildings depend on a combination of the improvements in the city and the size of the city's population.

They don't even need to re-invent the wheel. The Call to Power model of production was exactly what you describe, and worked perfectly well if you ask me. But, God forbid learning a lesson or ten from the competition, even if it does not exist anymore...

 

[Archon_Wing]

Of all the bad systems that exist in this game, this is actually pretty consistent.

Tourism is entirely passive, as parks, resorts, works, and other improvements don't need to be worked to provide tourism.

It's for the sightseeing, obviously, though with resorts this makes less sense. It'd also be assumed that the maintenance is also taken care of by tourist revenue, or at the very least it'd be not very fun if they cost mainetance.