In true Civilization fashion, the choice of government dictates how players will go about spreading their ideas. For example, democratic players will benefit greatly from building radio towersvoices of freedomacross the land. A Communist states citizens may hear these messages and slowly grow unsatisfied with their working conditions. Likewise, if you chose Communism and have managed to keep the workers happy, citizens of a capitalistic nation who are feeling powerless might convert.
So would ideological spread be a separate component from tourism? I am intrigued on how the ideological systems would work. It is also implied that some buildings has an extra effect locally and in your neighbouring countries depending on your ideology. This itself brings potential problems. IF you are communist, you will probably not want to build stuff like radio towers. Maybe stuff like factories would give extra happy if you are communist and barracks for fascist countries?
I believe that it is a Tenet of Freedom Ideology that will enable your Radio Towers to disseminate unhappiness in neighboring empires that do not have Freedom.
The more I hear, the more I'm starting to think calling it "tourism" and representing with a piece of luggage is misleading. If tourism is the reason your insular, oppressive regime is being corrupted by bourgeois rhetoric, you might want to stop issuing so many passports.
The more I hear, the more I'm starting to think calling it "tourism" and representing with a piece of luggage is misleading. If tourism is the reason your insular, oppressive regime is being corrupted by bourgeois rhetoric, you might want to stop issuing so many passports.
"Tourism" is a pretty terrible term, it sounds corny and too CivRev-ish. It's the only thing I'm not looking forward to in the expansion! Can't think of a great alternative however.. "Influence" would work well, but that's used already. Ditto for "Pressure". Noteriety or Prestige maybe?
See, I'm not so sure that the term "tourism" is apt an descriptor for all of that.
What I'm wondering is, how early do you start racking up tourism? The renaissance? The industiral era? Aside from the occasional once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage, tourism is a fairly new concept, which requires fast means of travel and an abundance of people with both disposable income and vacation time.
I'm a little lost here... I thought this thread was about ideologies. What has that got to do with tourism being a poor choice of word for another unrelated system?
I'm a little lost here... I thought this thread was about ideologies. What has that got to do with tourism being a poor choice of word for another unrelated system?
It's just that it is kind of hard to speculate if one must say things like "boost your tourism to create a more efficient fascist police state" or "the recent victories in war have make the empire unhappy".
Switch to influence and stability and it makes more sense. It's casuistry really.
So those ideology would seem to be a good candidate as a role for tourism for players who don't seek a CV. If the tenets are powerful enough it might justify building stuff just for that, and a good tourism will make sure your neighbors suffer the most from your ideology choices.
so AI with chosen communism will almost always convert other players. i'm not sure how i feel about it, since it seems to be a one way trip when you wouldn't be able to change their people.
so AI with chosen communism will almost always convert other players. i'm not sure how i feel about it, since it seems to be a one way trip when you wouldn't be able to change their people.
No, the Ideologys are affected by how much the influence of Rival Tourism, if their Influence is bigger than your own culture you start to lose happiness until you chose the same Ideology as the Tourism.
It's tied to the Offensive/Defensive Culture/Tourism thingy.
See, I'm not so sure that the term "tourism" is apt an descriptor for all of that.
What I'm wondering is, how early do you start racking up tourism? The renaissance? The industiral era? Aside from the occasional once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage, tourism is a fairly new concept, which requires fast means of travel and an abundance of people with both disposable income and vacation time.
The term tourism is fine to me. And it's not a new concept, people in antiquity used to tour the Great Wonders and people have been doing Grand Tours of Europe for centuries. As long as there is relative peace between nations people will visit and stand in awe at Great Wonders.
Well, technically, one is cultural influence and the other is diplomatic influence. But I otherwise agree that you're correct. I'm fine with representing it symbolically and just "translating" it in my head. Happiness is easier to refer to than stability, for example.
It's just that it is kind of hard to speculate if one must say things like "boost your tourism to create a more efficient fascist police state" or "the recent victories in war have make the empire unhappy".
It does make sense. Why else would regimes like North Korea build huge arches and ridiculous hotels? They're trying to justifying their rule to the populace and this has been going on for millennia. Same as the Washington Monument and Mt. Rushmore.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
