Poll: Should Tourism "Do More?"

[Stalker0]

I have see the old debates start to flair up again, that perhaps Tourism should provide more benefit than in its current form.

I realize that over the years (actually found a post from 5 years ago debating this very topic), we have done lots of idea brainstorming, but we never really asked the fundamental question, "Does the community actually want a change to Tourism?"


And so the question: Should Tourism provide more benefits than it current does?

Note: This is not the place to discuss ideas, its a simple yes/no kind of poll, keep tourism as is or look at changes.

 

[Rean]

I'd agree, tourism aside from going for CV in the early game feels very unimpactful. As the game goes on it becomes more useful with increased trade route cap, but that's dependant on running external trade routes. There's room for a buff somewhere IMO.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I agree, the current bonuses are nice, but I think it could be more useful, that would be great.

To the question of "how exactly": no idea yet, but I'll think about it

 

[DeAnno]

Another part of the reason Tourism feels unimpactful in the first 2/3rds of the game is how little early tourism even contributes to victory. The exponential nature of how it rolls means that early tourism can predict late tourism but it doesn't contribute much to the full total.

 

[pineappledan]

Some ideas:

Immigration - For each level of Influence you have on another major civ in Excess of their influence over you, you gain 2%Growth, and they lose -2% Growth

For example, if you are Familiar to the Zulu, but the Zulu are only Exotic to you, you get a growth bonus and Zulu get a growth penalty.​

Hearts and Minds - Average cities' per turn on Empire could slightly accelerate influence decay for other civs. Base decay would have to be lowered to compensate

 

[InkAxis]

I had the idea where tourism was less static in the early eras, but harder to get as tech increased.
So for example if you really put everything into tourism you would be able to get Influential in Classical Era. But you would have to keep up with more and more tourism to keep this in later eras. So you would get a influence penalty every couple of techs, or every era, or something like that.
But this would require an actual incentive to do this, current influence levels do some things but they should definitely do more.

EDIT:
I wanted to add a few of @corps_of_discovery 's ideas that I thought were good:

• Foreign units fighting in your territory have diminished combat effectiveness based on your cultural influence level.

• War weariness increases faster for enemy civs based on cultural influence level

• Tourism acts like religious pressure, or gain a tourism bonus modifier based on proximity of your capitals. It makes sense to be culturally influential over your immediate neighbors

I think the first two work perfectly as a buff to non-war, as many people have recently said war is a little too strong. Now of course this should be capped, such that it doesn't completely halt any conflict, but it should be a factor.
The last one just makes too much sense. Also works better for my suggestion because my suggestion might be a little strange on pangea maps as tourism is applied to all civs. This would serve to change the dynamic a little.

 

[Stalker0]

No ideas in this thread all, just the poll

 

[CrazyG]

I think we should be able to discuss ideas in this thread. If you ask 'should tourism do more?' (without specific ideas) you are going to get a lot of yes, but once you actually add a specific idea, the consensus can vanish.

My personal view is this idea sounds really nice on paper but it just doesn't play out well. Also many of the suggestions above are similar to things already in the game, they don't result in non-CV players wanting tourism. Many players seem unaware of some of tourism's bonuses.

Their main impact, in my opinion, is to help tradition civs who get many early historic events to snowball even further, which I really hope we can avoid since it's nice for the top AI to be someone with progress on occasion.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I voted no simply because the actual question should be "did tourism even exist at the time we are trying to make a purpose for it?"; Tourism as we know it today (or at least what i see in my country) did not exist before the last century so it makes nosense to try to fit a role for tourism when tourists almost (I know, people like Ibn Battouta existed) never existed (outside of merchants and trading caravans whose primary purpose was not tourism itself).
I think the impact of tourism should not precede the appearance of tourism itself.

 

[usadefcon1]

I voted no simply because the actual question should be "did tourism even exist at the time we are trying to make a purpose for it?"; Tourism as we know it today (or at least what i see in my country) did not exist before the last century so it makes nosense to try to fit a role for tourism when tourists almost (I know, people like Ibn Battouta existed) never existed (outside of merchants and trading caravans whose primary purpose was not tourism itself).
I think the impact of tourism should not precede the appearance of tourism itself.

I guess it depends on your definition. Do you consider religious pilgrims tourists?

 

[Ranslee]

I think that 'tourism' is just a shorthand for 'cultural influence' which has existed well before the modern tourism, even if it was mostly among higher echelons of society (royalty, courtiers, scholars, merchants, although there were also pilgrims).

I know it's just a poll thread, not full-on discussion thread, but the results are pretty one-sided for now so I'll throw in some food for thought.

A huge impact of tourism is where money goes. It's one of the ways capital can flow from one country to another and a vital part of economy for some places. Siphoning money from other civs via tourism sounds interesting. Of course that part would come around midgame but again, just food for thought.

 

[Gazebo]

Key with tourism bonuses is that the reason that their yield bonuses scale with Trade routes is to offer a control against map size. Otherwise tourism would be more valuable on large maps than small.


G

 

[Circe]

I find tourism's current bonuses to be pretty nice, it's just that only one or two strategies can really make it relevant early on. Like all yields, its benefits become less poignant the later they arrive. It's not a very active victory, and I think that's where the weakness is. All players have a strong incentive to pursue most methods of generating tourism, that's why players often fall into it accidentally if there's no major culture rivals. On the other hand, most AIs don't seem to view it this way, so even while I'm hoarding great works just for culture I'll only have one or two serious competitors.
The % food that influential trade routes generate is particularly great though. Pair with Way of the Pilgrim and you can actually see the effects soon.

 

[azum4roll]

My suggestions on Tourism (and CV as a whole):

• Current cultural influence bonuses are fine, no need to add general ones. Policies/beliefs that benefit from cultural influence can be considered, however.
• Increase early game tourism but decrease the multipliers from tech, to decouple CV from SV more.
• Change the tourism penalty from wide to more line up with the ones for tech and policies. Something like "you need (1+10n%) the amount of culture of a target civ to be influential to them, where n is the number of non-puppets you have". Remove all wide penalties on the tourism yield.

 

[cammcken]

Change the tourism penalty from wide to more line up with the ones for tech and policies. Something like "you need (1+10n%) the amount of culture of a target civ to be influential to them, where n is the number of non-puppets you have". Remove all wide penalties on the tourism yield.

The counterbalance to the # of cities penalty was always intended to be historic events and trade route completions, which also account for raw, empire-wide culture output. Do you feel like these are not effectively filling that role?