Tourism and Loyalty

[Esmond]

Does anyone else feel that there was a missed opportunity to tie the tourism and loyalty mechanics together? When heading towards cultural victory in Civ 5 BNW, the closer I got to victory the more it affected the other civilizations. Usually I went freedom and the computer almost always picks order or autocracy, meaning that they suffered massive unhappiness penalties as I got closer to victory. It made generating more tourism meaningful. In Civ 6 it doesn't seem to do anything until you win the game. Perhaps they could have a mechanic where if you have more tourism than another civilization your loyalty pressure is increased against that civilization. Or perhaps for every civilization that you have more tourism than, your tourism extends out by 1 more tile. Just was wondering if anyone else feels that way. Just my thoughts.

 

[Cyon]

it would make a lot of sense.

 

[Tech Osen]

Uhm, just because I would very much like to visit Paris (or whatever) doesn't mean I want to live there.
But seriously, there are a lot of complaints from people who live in tourist cities like Barcelona, Venice and Amsterdam about the endless stream of tourists and the effects it has on housing prices, etc.

 

[liv]

Yeah having these different systems impact each other is missing. The interplay between ideology and culture in civ V was alsays fun. In this game you collect winning point in different buckets that do not interact at all
It seems like loyalty will be tied a bit to affinities so maybe some interaction between those two systems in the next version?

 

[anandus]

If there's one missed opportunity then it's having religion having an effect on loyalty. Cities with a different religion could've (should've?) lower loyalty. Unless there's some offset into play (a card, belief, UA or whatever).
But that's slightly offtopic as this thread's about tourism

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Most stuff that give you tourism give you Culture which help you amongst other to progress in the Civic tree. And the stuff that don't give Culture give you other stufff such as amenties from national parks.

 

[Tech Osen]

If there's one missed opportunity then it's having religion having an effect on loyalty. Cities with a different religion could've (should've?) lower loyalty. Unless there's some offset into play (a card, belief, UA or whatever).
But that's slightly offtopic as this thread's about tourism

Religion would make more sense than tourism if you'd ask me.

 

[Temppu]

Tourism, Loyalty, Amenities,....
They should be condensed into 2 different things. One which controls your ability to expand your civilisations with new cities you've built/conquered (a bit like Loyalty and Amenities). And another which controls your abilities to influence/overtake other civilisations (a bit like Loyalty flipping and tourism victory).

Loyalty is a good name for the former, while the second could be called something like Influence.

Could also be used to get rid of the absurdness of amenities being a system which gives city-wide bonuses/penalties, but is mostly determined by empire-wide distribution of luxuries over which the player has no say!

Merging the Loyalty with Amenities would make sense because low Loyalty has similar effects as low Amenities in city production and growth. One could get rid of the somewhat artificial Luxuries/Bonus resources and let number available of resources affect Loyalty; EC could be a Loyalty district. Distinct Loyalty pressure to foreign cities and Tourism has room for integration as well. Maybe get rid of Tourism and make it a weaker but global Loyalty mechanism that does not decrease with distance like Loyalty?

Perhaps remove Religion and Tourism victories and create an Influence victory in which you must be influential over all other civs, either religiously or via Tourism and Loyalty?

Nevertheless, these are such massive design issues that at this point theres no way of having them in Civ VI unless they have been planned all along.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I feel that religion definitely should affect loyalty at least in earlier eras. It would make so much sense.

 

[Amrunril]

I agree completely. The fact that tourism in Civ VI does nothing up to the moment it actually wins the game feels like a huge regression from Civ V and its ideological battles. In a culture victory game, the lack of effect makes the buildup to victory feel underwhelming, and any any other game, it makes all of the game's interesting tourism effects literally useless. The loyalty system seems like it would have been a golden opportunity to address this issue, while making the loyalty system itself more compelling. As I noted in another thread, I think the the loyalty system should initially focus more on internal factors such as amenities and distance from one's own cities. Proximity effects from other civs should be dialed back by default but increased to or beyond their current levels when combined with factors such as shared religion, major tourism differential, or past city ownership.

 

[acluewithout]

Should tourism impact loyalty? I’m not sure it should across the board. Maybe it could add to loyalty pressure on foreign cities, but only after the modern era or some tech is researched (like computers)?

Religion should be more integrated. Having a religion in a city different to your capital should have a consequence. Maybe reduced loyalty or reduced amenities? And then, maybe this should be reduced after you get into more modern eras (just like how religious tourism drops off). You’d have to tweak India’s Dharma as well, so they somehow avoid any penalties for having different religions.

Thing is, I’m just excited R&F has loyalty. Firaxis have a good track record of tweaking stuff to get it from ‘good’ or ‘great’ to ‘awesome’. eg how the last patch really improved religion. I’m sure loyalty will be the same. And then there are modders too...

 

[Ivan Hunger]

In a culture victory game, the lack of effect makes the buildup to victory feel underwhelming, and in any other game, it makes all of the game's interesting tourism effects literally useless.

Is this actually true? The four main sources of tourism are great works, world wonders, national parks, and seaside resorts. None of those things only generate tourism. They all have some kind of side function, even in games where cultural victory is turned off.

As far as I can remember, the only sources of tourism that don't give you anything other than tourism are the bonus to America's unique building and that one late game policy card.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

As far as I can remember, the only sources of tourism that don't give you anything other than tourism are the bonus to America's unique building and that one late game policy card.

The film studio still act as a broadcast center and gives everything that building gives but the unique part is +100% tourism.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As far as I can remember, the only sources of tourism that don't give you anything other than tourism are the bonus to America's unique building and that one late game policy card.

Film studio gives culture and even more culture if you put a great work in it along with the tourism.
I would have said Seaside Resorts but then I just figured out you get gold from them as well.

 

[UWHabs]

If I were mixing the systems, I think I would designate Religion as having "offensive" loyalty pressure, and tourism be "defensive" loyalty pressure.

Having high tourism as mentioned above doesn't really make other people want to join you. Paris having all the culture doesn't make Brussels want to join France (although obviously all the systems are made up, since I don't think Brussels cares if Paris is governed or not), but I can definitely see the notion that high tourism = sense of pride, which is used defensively to stop flipping.

Religion, on the other hand, tends to be more offensive than defensive. Basically, if the religion you follow is aligned more with your neighbour than your current civ, then I can certainly see increased loyalty pressure there. That could also lead to an extra push to go for the enlightenment, to drop other people's religious loyalty pressure.

It would make it very hard to use loyalty to flip civs going for a culture victory, but in many ways, that makes sense, since if they're winning by being more culturally enlightened than others, it's not like they're going to have cities break away to join a rival civ - you'd think they want to stay in the best country in the world!

 

[Uberfrog]

Is this actually true? The four main sources of tourism are great works, world wonders, national parks, and seaside resorts. None of those things only generate tourism. They all have some kind of side function, even in games where cultural victory is turned off.

As far as I can remember, the only sources of tourism that don't give you anything other than tourism are the bonus to America's unique building and that one late game policy card.

You're right, but this just highlights the fact that Tourism as an in-game quantity exists only as a counter towards Culture Victory. It serves no more gameplay function than "Score". This is not a good design choice, and is just an example of how needlessly complicated aspects of Civ VI are from an outside perspective.

Amenities and Loyalty I have less of an issue with, but I think if you were to design Civ 6 from scratch tomorrow, you would roll those into one.

 

[pgm123]

I agree completely. The fact that tourism in Civ VI does nothing up to the moment it actually wins the game feels like a huge regression from Civ V and its ideological battles. In a culture victory game, the lack of effect makes the buildup to victory feel underwhelming, and any any other game, it makes all of the game's interesting tourism effects literally useless. The loyalty system seems like it would have been a golden opportunity to address this issue, while making the loyalty system itself more compelling. As I noted in another thread, I think the the loyalty system should initially focus more on internal factors such as amenities and distance from one's own cities. Proximity effects from other civs should be dialed back by default but increased to or beyond their current levels when combined with factors such as shared religion, major tourism differential, or past city ownership.

Honestly, I don't think the Civ V BNW system was well-implemented. Ideological battles were only a small part of the late game. Achieving cultural dominance gave you an advantage over civs of different ideologies, but civs of the same ideology could and would still attack you and your cultural dominance gave you nothing. Even when it did help you flip a city, it wasn't really that useful in my experience.

 

[Uberfrog]

Honestly, I don't think the Civ V BNW system was well-implemented. Ideological battles were only a small part of the late game. Achieving cultural dominance gave you an advantage over civs of different ideologies, but civs of the same ideology could and would still attack you and your cultural dominance gave you nothing. Even when it did help you flip a city, it wasn't really that useful in my experience.

Rise & Fall's Loyalty flipping mechanic seems like a much more sensible implementation than either Civ IV's culture-flip or Civ V's pointlessly late ideology-flip ever was.

 

[Stringer1313]

i generally agree with OP but a balance has to be struck against snowballing as well.

Perhaps they can do it like the space race, where getting % of all tourists triggers some one-time event.