From what I've read on the forums, I realize that most players will say that, if you are not going for a Diplomatic victory, the UN gets skipped. Unless you're concerned about some other civ building it and winning the vote.

I've only built it once myself, and what I'm curious about is this: is there any strategic value in passing any of the resolutions?

To me it seems that you might even be giving the AI some help by putting them on a civic they don't have, or could benefit from.

Now if a Free Religion resolution passes, this would help with the fanatical-zealot problem (talking about you, Isabella). But has anyone gained an advantage in passing any of the other resolutions?

Also, if a civic switch becomes mandatory due to a resolution, is there a turn of anarchy involved?

I have never seen any real benefit come from a UN resolution to be honest, however sometimes it can mess up their war plans if you make them pass things like free speech if they are running nationalism, could make their demise earlier:king:

Also there is no anarchy involved in civic switching with the UN, use that to your advantage

I suppose you might get a financial benefit from passing +1 trade routes in comparison to the other Civs. Forcing a warmongering Civ to give up police state could mess them up. A Civ with a large military could be financially crippled by passing pacifism.

I think the main payoff would be to eliminate any positive diplo modifiers between the other Civs. If other Civs love each other because they have the same religion, pass Free Religion. If other Civs love each other because they have each others' favorite civics, you could eliminate that, too.

The main point would be to undermine other Civ's good relationships so you can get more votes for the diplo win, or manipulate them into wars with each other. The problem is, if you have a few good allies (Friendly), then probably you only reached that level because you share a religion, or have their favorite Civic. So you could do yourself as much harm as good passing the Civics resolutions.

There's no turn of anarchy when the UN forces a civics change.

Because of the way trade routes work, "single currency" benefits civs with large cities most. If your civ has several mega-cities, pick this. If your cities are small, avoid it.

The no-nukes resolution can make a huge difference in late-game strategy. Use it if you have hostile civs who are building Manhattan (or already have). In Civ IV, nuclear wars are bad for everyone... the only time you want to use nukes is when you're the only one who has them.

Note that there are no take-backs; all resolutions are permanent. So think carefully before using them.


Waldo

if you already have built some nukes, then passing a non-nuke treaty would prevent the AI from building any, giving you quite an advantage if a large war breaks out

A Civ with a large military could be financially crippled by passing pacifism.

You can't force them to Pacifism. You can only force the last civic in each column.

Note that there are no take-backs; all resolutions are permanent. So think carefully before using them.

Actually they can be repealed. If you put a passed resolution up for a vote again and the majority vote against it the resolution will be repealed.

I've used the "force free religion" vote to make Isabella less dangerously rabid.