Why does tourism NOT produce gold?

As the title, tourism is a big money maker to any civ in reality but not in BNW? How about +1gold per 1 tourism point?

 

Brazil would become the new Venice, if that were the case. Hitting +800-1000 Tourism late game is not so complicated, honestly. I do agree that Tourism should improve your income somehow.

 

Last thing this game needs is even more ways to make gold.

 

0.5 gold per tourism would be fair, and give culture empires some decent means of making gold

 

Yes. I think tourism should produce gold too.

 

Culture empires don't have any gold problems, they have just as much access to trade routes as everyone else. 0.5 would be ridiculous for the latter half of the game.

 

There should be a way for tourism to generate money, yes. Maybe a policy choice?

 

I could not disagree more as I'm making -88GPT: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502917

 

pretty much any gold for tourism income would be a massive advantage for a culture Civ
they would have to give military or faith civs something as well to make up for that then we would be awash with cashed up ai's who want to destroy everything!

 

Agreed

 

Yes, but those are your decisions that have led to that (eg masses of useless roads, no trade routes, many small cities).

I've personally never had a problem earning 50-100+ gold per turn throughout the entire game and easily match my G&K gold outputs, if not exceed them.
I think anyone playing to the new mechanics would be the same.

 

This
Made
Me
LOL

 

Maybe the gold/tourism should be scaled based on the era. This would also encourage players to develop tourism early on (I tend to procrastinate until later, when the modifiers from wonders can make Great Works more valuable).

So, maybe 1.5 gold/ tourism in the Ancient and Classical eras, 1/tourism in the Medieval, increasing eventually to 0 in the modern eras. It might not be historically accurate, though you could make the claim that it was the wealthy aristocrats who visited tourist sites in the olden days, while today, tourist attractions also cost mega-bucks to maintain.

 

Wasn't the whole premise of this idea to make it more "historically accurate"? If you're adding gold to tourism and then having to make dubious justifications for your system being a reflection of reality at all... Then aren't you really just shoehorning gold in to tourism for the hell of it?

 

Yeah...
But clearly, if gold were applied to tourism (which, I personally see not too much reason for there to be--there are plenty of gold-oriented civs such as Portugal and Morocco which can net you many thousands even before the WC is founded), it would no doubt have to be a diminishing return system. When you're dealing with 1000 tourism you cannot be getting 1 gold per tourism point; that would be worth one city state ally (factory) per turn!

Alternatively, gold bonuses from tourism could be linked to certain buildings; zoos, stadiums perhaps, but not coliseums, to make it fair (as tourists visit major attractions in addition to the Great works). This would effectively reduce maintenance on happiness buildings, something that would be much appreciated.

 

i suppose they could make tourism production of a city factor into the GPT from a trade route, could be minor (like .25 per tourism or even less) or perhaps 0.5 for every great work (this would be slightly less than .25 per tourism) This would go both ways so as not to over advantage one player too much

 

GPT from a city x (0,5 x tourism of that city). Or just 0,5 per great work, that seems great

 

I think what they could do is add the Tourism output of cities to the formula calculating the income of trade routes somehow.

 

And that would break the game.....

 

Doing it per great work/world wonder would work better. That way you strip out all of the UA and building multipliers. Even if you did it at 1 or 2 gold per great work/world wonder, I can't imagine a person being able to make more than 100 or so gpt out of it.