1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Going for Gold: Tourism

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by CrazyG, Jan 3, 2020.

  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    I'm going to keep defending the current TR model, and I haven't seen any compelling reason to change this other than "TRs for tourism are too strong". I agree, and I think an appropriate reduction of tourism makes sense. But why do we also need to nerf the spread of tourism from TR. Reducing overall tourism solves a problem, adjusting the spread creates a new one....no reason to do both.
     
  2. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,084
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Because it creates a niche for the Tourism bulb from TRs: Double the off-target tourism, but no main-target tourism. So you still have your min-max options for tourism routes + the TR with major civ modifier, but then Statecraft's tourism from routes with CSs has a niche as the "rising tides lift all boats" option, with a clean 33% => 66% => 100% progression
     
    civplayer33 likes this.
  3. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,868
    Location:
    Beijing
    "TR for tourism are too strong" is not a fair summary of my or amateurGamer's posts. His first paragraph is pretty clear. You are free disagree, but please share some reasons. Please don't pretend another point of view doesn't exist.
     
    civplayer33 likes this.
  4. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    As I've said previously, I respect the opinion that TR should not be part of a CV, though I do not agree with it. My point is, adjusting the spread of TR is not the right answer. Reducing the overall strength of TR makes sense, removing TR as a component even makes some sense, but I think reducing the spread just introduces old problems back into the game.
     
  5. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,084
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Isn't the current system 50% of tourism towards the target civ is directed at non-target civs? If so, I'm only suggesting an off-target reduction of 17% for Major civ ETRs, while also buffing tourism gain from CS ETRs.

    If base TR :tourism:tourism yields are kept as is, I'm advocating for MORE TR :tourism:tourism yields overall. The previous iteration of this system didn't give ANY off-target Tourism. Going from 50% to 33% is not equivalent to going from 50% to 33%. I struggle to see what your actual issue is with my proposal.

    If Statecraft is going to get any :tourism:Tourism-related bonuses, then it follows that Statecraft should be a viable pick for CVs. Otherwise there is no point to this boost at all; it's worthless diversionary fluff. Statecraft could be the :trade:Trade & :c5influence:Espionage -based CV to Artistry's :c5greatperson:GP/:greatwork:GW/:c5goldenage:Historical Events -based CV focus. The best way to make that TR :tourism:Tourism boost viable is to slot its power somewhere between main-target tourism and off-target tourism yields.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  6. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,868
    Location:
    Beijing
    Just something for reference, I currently have 0 tourism per turn as part of a challenge game. A trade trade took 27 turns to complete, and was chosen only for its low completion time. This is a talking point, I get a lot more tourism from 27 turn routes than my other ones, which go as high as 42 turns to complete.

    According to the game, I got 1,416 tourism with Egypt, and 1,416 with all other civs. So that's 52 tourism per turn with Egypt, or more than 17 great works. Assuming the text is an error and it is halved by 50% to other civs, it's still worth more than 8 great works with the other civs (and themeing bonuses mostly don't exist this patch). I think that's way too high personally. You can do the math to see how a -25% or a -33% would affect this, when compared to great works or Stupas it still seems very high to me.

    This is what I mean by inconsistent. Sometimes, I get a lot, sometimes I get little to none. Being sanctioned can functionally cost me more than 80 great works of tourism per turn.

    If tourism is affecting all civs, I think the trade route should just give tourism per turn. It is a lot easier to compare its benefits to other tourism sources, removes the variance based on number of TR turns, and removes the variance of having to complete the trade route (if a city gets conquered this turn, I get 0 tourism, if it gets conquered next turn, I get 2,000).
     
  7. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    It's actually likely even higher than the notification shows...I picked one of my TRs to see what the actual numbers are and they are as follows:
    Per-turn-Tourism: 59
    Two ETRs complete on the same turn, each of which triggers a notification saying that 1352 Tourism was delivered before modifiers to all Civs...during the AI's turns one of them negotiates peace with me, which gives me another one-time-boost (warscore > 25).
    The actual change in Tourism for 4 sample civs for whom I simply wrote down the Tourism values the turn before and the turn of completion of the TRs:
    Rome (target of TRs and vassal, +108 -> +115 (% modifier)): 66042 -> 74341 (+8299)
    Polynesia (at war with, 0 -> 0): 39382 -> 42028 (+2646)
    Netherlands (vassal, +108 -> +108): 57765 -> 62394 (+4659)
    India (just another civ, +21 -> +27): 51883 -> 55701 (+3818)
    So, as you can see, the numbers are pretty weird, especially considering India, who seems to have received significantly more than they should, for some reason. But the 50% modifier does seem to be more or less applied; still, the boost is quite extreme compared to the measly 59 Tourism base I'm getting.
     
    cerk and CrazyG like this.
  8. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,851
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I'm not opposed to tourism per turn from trade routes, but finding a balanced value that scales well across the game would be tricky.

    G
     
  9. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,084
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I don't like the idea of consistent tourism yields because of the meta strategy which I feel is entrenched enough at this point surrounding pillaging and blocking TRs to eliminate tourism potential. If TRs give consistent yields it's not as necessary to get them to finish. I like that they are all or nothing now, and prefer the choices/counterplay options that engenders.

    edit: maybe this is just my own historical bias, but the per turn tourism coming from GWs/buildings while TRs and historical events give instant boosts helps me demarcate the two in my own mind. It will be harder for me to distinguish the sources of tourism if too many of them are lumped into per-turn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2020
  10. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,851
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    In my current WIP build, I've removed the 50% to other civs bonus. I found a few quirks in the code that were giving us incorrect, inflated values for tourism from TR, and I also fixed numerous bugs in the tourism theming code for the AI. I'm also bumping tourism from GWs by 1.

    I'm hoping this helps make the tourism game a little more tourism per turn focused.

    G
     
  11. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    I guess part of the question is: what strategic decisions do we want players to make when they are pursuing CV.

    All victory types are comprised of 2 parts: The things you do regardless because they are just good ideas, and the things you do specifically to obtain a victory condition.

    Example for DV: While I always get a few embassies and CS allies regardless, I make a special focus on spheres of influence and early GDs as much as possible. That's the "going for DV" part of my strategy.

    So where do we want players spending their "strategic capital" in securing a CV?
     
  12. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    +1 bonus is not going to be enough to compensate for the massive loss of tourism the removal of the 50% spread is going to provide. CrazyG and CivPlayer33 quoted some numbers earlier that shows just how much tourism TR is generating compared to Great Works.
     
  13. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,868
    Location:
    Beijing
    The whole point of my post is that TR give too much tourism, so giving less than that number is the goal.

    I'm pretty sure I can win a cultural victory without trade routes at all (maybe it can be my next challenge), provided I get the right religion. I suspect a lot of people who depend on TR for tourism are picking the wrong religious beliefs.
     
  14. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    You also said in your initial post that you thought CV was easiest....though that may have actual changed due to recent adjustments (aka the verdict is still out). So are you also saying CV should in fact be more difficult, or is the goal to replace instant tourism with per turn? If its meant to be a straight swap, than a +1 to GWs will not compensate for that large reduction in TR tourism.

    So wait...so TR provide too much tourism, or don't they? This is suggesting that a couple of religious beliefs can compensate for all TR tourism.
     
  15. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,868
    Location:
    Beijing
    I read my posts, they are clear. Trade route tourism is extremely inconsistent. They give 0 when they fail and too much when they succeed.

    If you are depending on finishing many trade routes in the late game to meet your tourism goal, your strategy is very inconsistent. As an example, in a current game France on another continent will probably become my cultural rival. Let's say I had all 10 trade routes waiting for peace with France. I send them all on the shortest possible paths available, which gives me a range of 28 turns to 42 (feel free to explain why that 28 turn route should functionally give 150% the tourism per turn of the longer one). Alright, so in 28 turns, I get some tourism, right?

    • Well, there's a chance I complete all of them, in which case I'll earn collectively almost 20,000 tourism, more than doubling all tourism I've accumulated so far (how on Earth is that reasonable?) If you can complete a lot of TR, CV is the easier than science or diplomacy, without contest.
    • There's a (much higher chance) I complete none of them, earning 0 tourism. I need to be at peace with for at least X turns consecutively. He will probably declare war on me at some point, or be bribed to war. I might want to declare on him, or someone he has a defensive pact with. Or I'm at war with someone else, whose ships find my trade routes. Even if at peace, either one of us could be sanctioned .

    This is a moment from a real game. First I avoided sanctions by a single vote, and next session they want to sanction France. France + Me alone won't have enough votes to stop that. But I don't even get that far, because he is bribed to war with me. Also, if France did just stay at peace and let all those tourism bombs hit him, wouldn't that be an example of poor AI?

    TR might give you a hundred thousand tourism one game. The next, they might give you 0. That's a nightmare to balance.
     
    crdvis16 and Bromar1 like this.
  16. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,288
    I feel like we are arguing about the wrong point. I agree with you that tourism for TRs should be weakened, completely agree. Though I will say your notes just now is one of the reasons that the spread bonus was put in the first place, so you didn't have to put all of your TRs to one civ and suffer the penalties you just mentioned.

    But that aside, I am all for reducing TR tourism, and it seems G is also considering it. My concern is that the trade is not equitable. +1 to GW will not compensate for the loss of so much TR tourism income. Your right that the TR income is inconsistent, but even if your only getting a portion of your TR through its still a tremendous amount.

    I am not convinced that CV needs to be harder, and reading over the posts in this thread it looks like there is no consensus to reduce tourism overall...though there is a fair consensus on reducing tourism instant bonuses in favor of per turn. So my goal is to find an equitable trade if we are reducing TR tourism.
     
  17. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,868
    Location:
    Beijing
    From my point of view, I'm not losing very much tourism, because I almost never get to collect TR tourism in the late game. And I do find CV easier than the other options, and it certainly isn't because of TR, so I think its close to a wash or maybe even in favor of the way I play
     
  18. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,084
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I thought the mechanic giving a portion of the main target's :tourism:tourism was something that most people were relatively happy with, and that it was implemented to address a more serious issue with being blocked by wars and landlocks and stuff. I'm a little confused and sad to see it being dropped entirely, perhaps the bugs in the system were just insurmountable?
     
    cerk and Kim Dong Un like this.
  19. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,851
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I'll elaborate further - I'm removing the existing mechanic and replacing with a mechanic in which you get tourism with the civs the target player knows. This should make @CrazyG 8% happier...

    G
     
    cerk, crdvis16, CrazyG and 1 other person like this.
  20. azum4roll

    azum4roll King

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    708
    Gender:
    Male
    What about the tourism/culture ratio for instant tourism yields? Shouldn't it be changed from 1:1?
     

Share This Page