I'm not sure about anybody else but one of the main reasons I'm excited about BtS is the supposed overhaul they are going to give to the UN system, which is something I've always found lacking in Civ IV. I thought it would be a good idea to make a thread with some speculation/suggestions about how this will work out.

Apostolic Palace: I really want to know how this is going to work. Will the AP totally replace the UN or will it be some sort of UN lite with less resolutions to vote on. I really want to see how they are going to work two UN-like buildings into the game.

Defying the UN: This has to be in. Of course the downside would be huge diplomatic penalties with all other civs and some sort economic penalty as well (ie sanctions). Maybe loss of all foreign trade routes and the inability to trade resources with other civs.

Making other civics global civics: If you are in charge of the UN there is no reason why you couldn't put a vote forward for having state property or nationhood or monarchy as a global civics. It shouldn't just be restricted to the late game ones.

Vote Bribing: Make it like SMAC where you could bribe leaders with gold or tech before the vote takes place so they vote your way of course others can do the same or offer you a deal. Have it so you can't buy votes for the diplomatic victory vote so you can't buy yourself a victory.

I think just these changes alone would come a long way into improving the UN and hopefully we'll see them in BtS.

I was told they added a completely different UN-like building to make diplomatic victory possible earlier. I hope they include the other features you listed. I'd like to see the Apostolic Palace call for Crusades!

I know they won't completely replace UN, but I think they'll be like what the poster above me said, getting your religious buddies to crusaide against heretical nations, adopt civics and such. Like the UN, but not for all nations and without a diplo victory option. Probably also led by the religion's founder rather than an elected leader, another benefit to having a holy city?

I was told they added a completely different UN-like building to make diplomatic victory possible earlier. I hope they include the other features you listed. I'd like to see the Apostolic Palace call for Crusades!

It would certainly allow for more dimensional diplomacy. I feel that the AI is not aggressive enough earlier in the game, so perhaps the AP's multitude of "resolutions" will force certain diplomatic conditions (i.e. war) without the human player having to do all the legwork.

I don't want an early diplomatic victory, but if the AP has other purposes, then I can accept it.

I'm not sure about anybody else but one of the main reasons I'm excited about BtS is the supposed overhaul they are going to give to the UN system, which is something I've always found lacking in Civ IV. I thought it would be a good idea to make a thread with some speculation/suggestions about how this will work out.

Apostolic Palace: I really want to know how this is going to work. Will the AP totally replace the UN or will it be some sort of UN lite with less resolutions to vote on. I really want to see how they are going to work two UN-like buildings into the game.

Defying the UN: This has to be in. Of course the downside would be huge diplomatic penalties with all other civs and some sort economic penalty as well (ie sanctions). Maybe loss of all foreign trade routes and the inability to trade recourses with other civs.

Making other civics global civics: If you are in charge of the UN there is no reason why you couldn't put a vote forward for having state property or nationhood or monarchy as a global civics. It shouldn't just be restricted to the late game ones.

Vote Bribing: Make it like SMAC where you could bribe leaders with gold or tech before the vote takes place so they vote your way of course others can do the same or offer you a deal. Have it so you can't buy votes for the diplomatic victory vote so you can't buy yourself a victory.

I think just these changes alone would come a long way into improving the UN and hopefully we'll see them in BtS.

I am very interested in your ideas, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

One possible additional perk for the Apostolic Palace (assuming it is religion-centered) would be a "declare crusade" option, with any member civ who doesn't declare war on the designated target (after a successful vote) getting kicked out and declared an enemy as well. If you've spread your religion well and maintained good relationships, you could create an instant dogpile--or be subject to one, if the AI can manage it.

Defying the UN: This has to be in. Of course the downside would be huge diplomatic penalties with all other civs and some sort economic penalty as well (ie sanctions). Maybe loss of all foreign trade routes and the inability to trade recourses with other civs.



I like this idea a lot. The other day I was extremely short on happiness resources, so I was using hereditary rule and a stack of old units to keep my capital happy, when the UN voted for global universal suffrage. I was the only one who voted against it, and it took me out of the game. I would have loved to been able to refuse and take a diplomatic victory.

I remember reading in the details that the AP will bring "more options for a diplomatic victory".

There are two way of implementing the Apostolic Palace:

1 - Earlier UN: limited abilities but allows diplomatic victories. One good thing is it allow for earlier peaceful victories, leaving spaceship victories for latter victories.

2 - Religious UN: allows for cooperation between civs of same religion, including warfare.

One thing I hope they fix is the whole idea of the Diplomatic Victory. Why in the hell would anyone (including the AI) ever vote for someone else to win a diplomatic victory? It just makes no sense. Especially for a game that is now more popular multiplayer. There needs to be a way to achieve a diplomatic victory without requiring people to forfeit the game by voting for you. Maybe have it so like if 90% of the world votes for you be the head of the UN, then you achieve a diplomatic victory.

I am very interested in your ideas, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

One possible additional perk for the Apostolic Palace (assuming it is religion-centered) would be a "declare crusade" option, with any member civ who doesn't declare war on the designated target (after a successful vote) getting kicked out and declared an enemy as well. If you've spread your religion well and maintained good relationships, you could create an instant dogpile--or be subject to one, if the AI can manage it.

I think they could creat a religion victory. It could be like that:

------------------------

To win a relligion victory, EVERY CIV must have the same religion that you have. To that, you have to:

A - Eliminate civs with other religions (warmongering way)
B - Eliminate civs with Free Religion and other religions (late game)
C - Try to convert everyone (peaceful)
D - Call a cruzade between members of your X religion against a Y religion.
E - Combine all of these and you have victory
F - Be the founder of said religion (or own the Apostollic Palace)

There are two way of implementing the Apostolic Palace:


2 - Religious UN: allows for cooperation between civs of same religion, including warfare.

I think a religious UN is plausible.

There are two way of implementing the Apostolic Palace:

1 - Earlier UN: limited abilities but allows diplomatic victories. One good thing is it allow for earlier peaceful victories, leaving spaceship victories for latter victories.

2 - Religious UN: allows for cooperation between civs of same religion, including warfare.

I think number 2 is a possibility. But then there might have to be a way to break power of the religion bloc (schisms and such), otherwise it might become overly powerful.

The suggests its going to be religious based. It would be cool to initiate holy wars or crusades, something along those lines. I don't know how that will work out for a diplomatic victory however. To be honest, its kinda lame to see the diplomatic victory much easier to achieve.

The suggests its going to be religious based. It would be cool to initiate holy wars or crusades, something along those lines. I don't know how that will work out for a diplomatic victory however. To be honest, its kinda lame to see the diplomatic victory much easier to achieve.

Maybe. How about an "religious" victory, where you convert X percent of the world, you win?

Probably not: it might encourage abuse (i.e. missionary factories).

What is an 'Apostolic Palace'? Google it. This is what pops up first:

"The Apostolic Palace, also called the Papal Palace or the Palace of the Vatican, is the official residence of the Pope in the Vatican City."

Just stating the obvious here, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet it'll be religious-themed. Crusades seem extremely likely.

Maybe. How about an "religious" victory, where you convert X percent of the world, you win?

Probably not: it might encourage abuse (i.e. missionary factories).

Not necessarily, because of Theocracy.

What is an 'Apostolic Palace'? Google it. This is what pops up first:

"The Apostolic Palace, also called the Papal Palace or the Palace of the Vatican, is the official residence of the Pope in the Vatican City."

Just stating the obvious here, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet it'll be religious-themed. Crusades seem extremely likely.

Here's an idea:- since it basically means the Vatican (as you said), I wouldn't be surprised to be able to vote on a sort of global religion. Also remember, if its a say medieval building, its quite likely whoever builds it hasnt met all the world nations yet.

So lets say the Jewish Aztecs (well its civ isnt it) build the appo palace, and have Judaism voted as global religion. All those who don't like it can stick with their religions, but are immediately at war with all "official" Jews. Instant-Crusades...! (and wouldn't this make sense as well as being a whole lot of fun)?

Yes I admit there are huge holes in this (as its off the top of my head), but something similiar may be on the cards.

A religious version of the UN sounds like good fun. I'm bothered by the prospect of early diplomatic victories (how will it be possible to win space race?), but otherwise it sounds like it should be good.

Like everyone else, I'm hoping for crusades and other "new" UN options, but I'm wondering if the AP might have some civics options similar to the UN, but with different civics. Maybe all civs following the same faith as the AP's owner could also be forced to use the same religious civic? Or perhaps it could let you force the middle-row civics, in the same way the UN lets you force the bottom-row ones? Aside from Theocracy, they're more or less the most liberal of the older civics, in the same way that the bottom-row are more or less the most liberal of the modern civics. That said, I guess there's no reason the AP should promote liberal civics like the UN does.

Here's an idea:- since it basically means the Vatican (as you said), I wouldn't be surprised to be able to vote on a sort of global religion. Also remember, if its a say medieval building, its quite likely whoever builds it hasnt met all the world nations yet.

So lets say the Jewish Aztecs (well its civ isnt it) build the appo palace, and have Judaism voted as global religion. All those who don't like it can stick with their religions, but are immediately at war with all "official" Jews. Instant-Crusades...! (and wouldn't this make sense as well as being a whole lot of fun)?

Yes I admit there are huge holes in this (as its off the top of my head), but something similiar may be on the cards.

I would think that the Apostolic Palace wouldn't be able to dictate to nonbelievers. So, in your example, Taoist Tokugawa "who cares about outsiders" would not be directly influenced by what was happening with the Aztecs, who had invested so much infrastructure into their state religion that it became a super-state. However, the Americans, who had been converted to the Aztec faith, would be very keen to play along (because all their citizens insist on it). So when Monty declares that the unbelieving Taoist infidels must be neutralized, FDR realizes he must go along with the war or suffer huge diplomatic and happiness penalties (just a thought of how it might play out).

So, the victory condition might need to be framed in terms similar to a domination victory--your faith (and the civs that embrace your faith in good standing with the AP) must be embraced by X % in terms of number of civs and total population. Practically speaking, this would be a hard victory for an isolated start, and would probably become nearly impossible as civs moved to free religion (and hence dropped out of the AP's councils) after liberalism.

I think crusades would work well if they end up being all civs of x religion declares war on all civs of y religion.

As for the suggestions I made I hope at the very least defying the UN gets put in as it would add a great deal of choice & consequences to the game. I think having decisions like: "is it worth having everybody hate me in order to keep my current civic or build a nuke" would add a great deal to the gameplay.

I had a nostalgia moment: I imagined Monty making a request that I convert to his religious preference, with the caption "My words are backed by THE APOSTOLIC PALACE!"


It made me chuckle.

I hope that the earlier UN-like building doesn't have the ability to allow for a diplomatic victory. Since the best time to get a diplomatic victory is about 10 techs before mass media. Before this time, it would be way to easy to win a diplomatic victory because of the +4 or higher modifier from sharing the same religion.

I would really hope for some sort of crusades.

Well, the press release specifically mentions the possibility of diplomatic victory earlier.

I dislike the current U.N. dynamic, because a) there's no clear strategy to getting votes for victory -- the motivation as to who votes for whom seems very haphazard, as even my closest allies like to vote for someone else -- b) the various measures that are passed do little except restrict your civics choices, and there's no option to ignore or defy them. Aside from the idea of an all-powerful UN being historically incorrect, what's fun about that?

The idea of this crud being imposed on the player even earlier in the game is not a pleasant one. I can only hope that the system has been substantially changed.

I know how to get rid of the problem that most people have with diplo victory: namely, that it is absurd for the AI to "give away" the win to someone else. It's simple - get rid of the abstain option; you HAVE to vote. Whoops. But then the humans would never build the U.N....

I dislike the current U.N. dynamic, because a) there's no clear strategy to getting votes for victory -- the motivation as to who votes for whom seems very haphazard, as even my closest allies like to vote for someone else -- b) the various measures that are passed do little except restrict your civics choices, and there's no option to ignore or defy them. Aside from the idea of an all-powerful UN being historically incorrect, what's fun about that?

The idea of this crud being imposed on the player even earlier in the game is not a pleasant one. I can only hope that the system has been substantially changed.

I definitely think there should be an option that allows you to defy UN, but with penalties, e.g. reduced trade routes like the real life economic sanction.
Even better if you keep defying UN there may be an invasion etc.

my speculation
-there will be a way to defy UN resolutions (with penalty)
-can bribe/threaten other civ to vote in your favor
-UN security council can declare war or force peace

I know they won't completely replace UN, but I think they'll be like what the poster above me said, getting your religious buddies to crusaide against heretical nations, adopt civics and such. Like the UN, but not for all nations and without a diplo victory option. Probably also led by the religion's founder rather than an elected leader, another benefit to having a holy city?

What would happen if the founder of the holy city is of the same civ, hoho? I often get all the holy city in ONE city... in settler and chieftain only though.

What would happen if the founder of the holy city is of the same civ, hoho? I often get all the holy city in ONE city... in settler and chieftain only though.

Ever heard of a place called Jerusalem ?:mischief:

Ever heard of a place called Jerusalem ?:mischief:

Jerusalem was only the holy city for Christianity and Judaism, and you could even argue the popular version of Christianity came about when it spread in Rome.

I definitely think there should be an option that allows you to defy UN, but with penalties, e.g. reduced trade routes like the real life economic sanction.
Even better if you keep defying UN there may be an invasion etc. Even something as simple as - you defy the UN, everyone declares war on you - would be welcome.

Or a way to turn the dang UN off. I don't think disabling diplomatic victory disables the UN measures.

I'm pretty sure that disabling diplomatic victory doesnt allow the UN to be built and good ridance I say. If the new building is anything like the current one, it better disable with that option as well because you are correct, it is trash.

Seems to me that Diplomatic Victory conditions should be a bit more robust as far as when the AI will and will not vote for you (or anyone else) IMHO to have the AI vote for you to win you should have to fulfill maybe 5 of these 7 criteria:

a) Share a certain number of civics (4 of 5?)
b) Be ahead in score
c) Share a religion
d) Be an "Friendly" relationship
e) Be ahead in commece
f) Be ahead in culture
g) Be ahead in science

Basically what the AI is saying is: "I am very interested in your ideas, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter." - so interested you should rule the world.:goodjob:

I think the AP should only be buildable in a holy city.

BTW - I also like the idea of being able to "bribe" up someone for UN votes - if they were using my criteria (7 of 9 or whatever) then it should be easy to assign a table for how much of a bribe you need to pony up -

Base value for each UN resolution (times)
How far away that civic/religion/goal is from their own (times)
How far away their religion/civic/goal is from your own (times)
Leader trait modification (times)
Score position modifier

So if I want to bribe an agressive leader who is in Theocracy and in second place to switch to global pacifism its going to cost me a pretty penny - but bribing a Financial leader in free market to adopt a common currency would be no problem (they'd probably vote for it anyway).

Obviously Diplo victory would have the most agressive penalties - but if I'm down to a 3 civ world and need the votes of the pissant little third civ, I should have some options in swaying their votes.

Ever heard of a place called Jerusalem ?:mischief:

I know, but that's the real world. I'm now talking about the game mechanics.;)

Also, I wonder if NOT JOINING the UN is an option?