Including tourism in future versions of Civ

[ChickenHawk]

Um, how about Grenada?

But seriously, I like the idea of tourism. Of course, it wasn't really economically significant until after WW2 I believe, so it shouldn't appear before then.

I agree that I wouldn't want nations fighting for a tourist destination.

Also, the idea that tourism is already sort of contained within culture is interesting.

[Vince278]

Tourism? Not sure if I'd want to visit most of my cities.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by bobbo008
this would definitely favor the French, which, as a fan of invading the French, cannot happen :|

j/k

What are you talking about ? Invading France ? Dare to repeat, fool !

As for tourism, great idea. It would be a commercial ressource, which could even work with small countries.

[Dr. A. Cula]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


I like the idea, but the problem with it is civs would fight each other for the natural wonders. When was the last time two nations fought each other for a tourist destination?

I see a bit of history is required here. Tourism has been around since at least the 19th century (IRC), but it was not a thing "for the masses". During the first half of the 20th century, this fellow named Adolf H. invented the notion of mass tourism, where every member of the working class had the opportunity to get a taste of this tourism business. One of his ideas of implementing tourism was to have hordes of german tourists traipsing all over Europe and North Africa in armored vehicles, an operation later called World War 2. Other nations were not very happy about this, especially when they saw the mess those tourists left behind, so they banded together to send them (the germans) back home.

This form of tourism is already implemented in Civ3, with the AI sending all those troops picknicking (sp?) inside your borders, then declaring war when you ask them to leave.

[Kuciwalker]

that's funny

Actually, I think it'd be kinda fun to fight over tourist locations.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by dexters
I think adding a new output, "tourism" is out of the question. Too much coding.

The original suggestion was basically tourism that increases gpt income, and not a tourism bonus per se.

What thread are you reading? I don't know whose original suggestion you are referring to - not mine. You even suggested earlier in this thread that a commerce bonus would be good. Explain why gpt bonus makes more sense than commerce bonus. Tourism stimulates local commerce. The government then decides how best to use the proceeds of that additional commerce - for science, cash, or happiness.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by ChickenHawk

But seriously, I like the idea of tourism. Of course, it wasn't really economically significant until after WW2 I believe, so it shouldn't appear before then.

Tourism had an financial impact on Egypt after Pyramids were built. Look at Civilopedia description of Colossus. Says right there that it made tourism impact on Greece.

I agree that I wouldn't want nations fighting for a tourist destination.

Is that idea any more strange than fighting for control of UN or Eiffel Tower while playing Civ3?

[Brundlefly]

To anyone who dismissed this idea of adding Tourism to future version of Civ3 because of "too much coding" : Please explain your qualification to make such a statement and back up your statement with proof. Otherwise , don't talk about something you don't understand!

[Panag]

hi ,

, well there could be more wonders , civ specific or trait specific wonders would also be nice and welcome , ......

the french could have the eifeltower , that would give lets say a happy face and one two wealth , .......

have a nice day

[Solomwi]

Feephi, the too much coding issue was in reference to a "Tourism" output, along with shields, beakers, happiness and gold, not the idea of tourism as a commerce and/or gpt (which I think are being used interchangeably, since a strict gpt bonus would still free up more income for science/luxury) bonus.