Okie what is this BS? I just got BTS expansion today and I was doing quite well. Until I noticed the unhappiness of my people was sky rocking and so I checked why. I had some strange new +Unhappiness modifier called "World considers you a villain" And it kept raising up to +15 where it is now?!? This completely ruined my game as even with all the +happiness buildings built I still can't support cities much higher then like 6-7 people. It cripple my economy and I've lost well over half my pop. I'm considering restarting cause I went from the top empire to like 5th.

My question is what the heck is this STUPID modifier coming from? I normally play a rather peaceful game and go for space race victory or sometimes the Diplomacy Victory. But this time around I was being a bit more aggressive and I wiped out the French which is about when I think it happened. I've seen the AI wipe out tons of other civs in the past and they never seem to have a problem maintaining their population happiness afterward so not sure if that's where it's coming from.

The only other thing is the great new opition to flatout refuse to go along with a UN vote which I think is great cause I always thought Enviormentalism was a DUMB civic to have but stupid UN always forced me to when I wanted to keep free trade. Well that vote also came up the last turn before I wiped out the French and so I was like heck no I'm not changing civics you idoits and selected the new Never(Defy Resolution) option.

I was wondering where what was it I did that caused that to show up cause either way it's STUPID. If it's the warmongering and wiping out another Civ it's like you think the Roman people cared that the rest of the world hated them and were unhappy?? Umm NO! And as for the UN thing it's totally different then the real UN cause in real UN it has to be unanimous not a simple majority vote. And UN doesn't pass laws telling other countries how to run themselves like think cold war. You think the US would of cared had the UN gone you must become Socialist. Or that Russia would have accepted it had the UN told them to convert to Capitalism.

Anyhow any feed back on this would be very helpful.

The penalty is a penalty for defying the resolution.

And yes, the UN is a game-ism. Most things in Civ are. That's because it's a game and not a history simulator.

Maybe an Enemy spy used Foment Unhappiness on you?

I think Drawmeus is right. That is the most likely the unhappiness modifier for defying a UN resolution. It slowly increases with time if you continue to defy the resolution.

Saddam Hussein invaded his neighour and was in breach of various UN resolutions too.

Look at what that did for his PR!

I think Drawmeus is right. That is the most likely the unhappiness modifier for defying a UN resolution. It slowly increases with time if you continue to defy the resolution.

Well yea that's just dumb cause I've defied several votes in the past and it didn't show up. How are you suppose to KNOW which thing you defied?!? And I don't think complying works. I changed my civics to all the ones the UN would of voted for and still no change the world considers me a villain even after several turns. The biggest reason it's dumb is it doesn't tell you where it's coming from how how to stop it. The only other comparable hit to unhappiness is warweariness for being at war for a long long time but that you know where it's coming from and easy enough to correct unless your getting hammered by AI who won't agree to peace (that always sucks).


Also I understand that just it is a game-ism and not a history sim. But in a small way it is trying to be a history sim so how about instead of your people becoming unhappy which I think is DUMB a more realistic and accurate way is if the world does consider you a "villain" that your relations have negative modifiers instead that would make a LOT more sense.

But, do you think it is dumb?

Is there more of an unhappiness penalty if the vote for a particular UN rule was unanimous except for you?

"When I come back no more Mr. Nice Guy." Adolf Hitler :goodjob:

It's actually a wise thing to put unhappiness on refusing those UN elections.. What's the point of having them if everyone can just refuse with no penalties.

It's actually a wise thing to put unhappiness on refusing those UN elections.. What's the point of having them if everyone can just refuse with no penalties.

Because then it would be like the real UN

People finally got their wish and players can finally defy UN resolutions.

Funny, they're still not happy. That's because it's not very realistic for anybody to give a crap what civics you're running. So why have all kinds of diplomatic and happiness penalties?

Because without the penalties, the UN is useless. It would be a bunch of voting buttons that do nothing. That might even be realistic. But it would do nothing.

The real answer? Get rid of the UN. It's a useless, stupid feature. It adds nothing to the game. Either that, or redesign diplomacy from scratch.

That's because it's not very realistic for anybody to give a crap what civics you're running.
Exactly!
No country or leader has ever objected to the fashion in which another leader has run his nation, ever.
Especially not in concerns with fascism or communism.
Nope.

Instead of a unhappiness penalty in your own cities, you should receive a diplomatic attitude adjustment vs the civs you voted with:

If you voted against them:

-2 You voted against us, villain!

If you voted same as them:

+2 we share the same beliefs in our votes

People finally got their wish and players can finally defy UN resolutions.

Funny, they're still not happy. That's because it's not very realistic for anybody to give a crap what civics you're running. So why have all kinds of diplomatic and happiness penalties?

Because without the penalties, the UN is useless. It would be a bunch of voting buttons that do nothing. That might even be realistic. But it would do nothing.

The real answer? Get rid of the UN. It's a useless, stupid feature. It adds nothing to the game. Either that, or redesign diplomacy from scratch.

The UN is stupid both in RL and game. But that's beside the point. Anyhow there are no DIPLOMATIC penalties that I've seen for defying the vote. There is only the happiness one from what I can tell which is what I'm saying it the STUPID part. And a +15 unhappiness?!? That's like 2 esp hits on all your cities continuously that's a bit more then a penalty that's crippling you might as well never defy them with that kinda penalty. War takes a lot longer to have that kinda penalty hit and is usually easy to correct, just make peace.

I'm not saying their shouldn't be a penalty I'm saying it should be a DIPLOMATIC one. Defying the vote should lower your standings with the other civs not cause your people to riot which is stupid cause if anything a culture being forced to change against it's will would cause more rioting then refusing to bow to some outside dictator's demands.

I don't have an answer, but this is related to something with civ4 that I've never agreed with. The happiness modifiers all have stupid names. Things like "we just feel happy" and similar is not helpful at all. It should at least say in parenthesis what is causing it (resources, troops in city, civics etc.)

i've thought about having a diplomatic penalty before too, but it'd be useless in human multiplayer.

Defying the vote should...not cause your people to riot which is stupid cause if anything a culture being forced to change against it's will would cause more rioting then refusing to bow to some outside dictator's demands.

Well, I've participated in a couple marches to protest my government's refusal to play nicely by the rules of the international game. That's not quite rioting, but it's unhappiness.

The unhappiness penalty works on a system of diminishing returns. Once you hit future tech, unhappiness is a thing of the past. Either you keep researching (for +1 :) in all cities) or set your culture to a very high level. Either way, the UN penalties are temporary and feeble at best. It could make a difference in the space race, though.

I suspect that Firaxis tried a diplomatic penalty and quickly discovered that some players will defy every last vote. Diplomatic penalties are not enough.

Hence the happiness penalty. It was the only way to make players thoughtfully weigh whether it's worth it to defy or not. Now that the happiness penalties are high, you'll think twice about defying. You'll only do it when absolutely necessary.

Realistic that your people care about the UN? Probably not. But like I said, the most realistic UN would probably be a bunch of resolutions that don't actually do anything. If you went with that, you might as well not implement a UN at all.

Does any one know the mechanics of the penalty as it can start very early. I don't have the apolistic palace and the other 4 civs on my large continent are a lrage religious block and started voting to return the cities I had won one by one to their 'rightfull owners'. I defies at city three and have a 5 unhapiness penalty now, managable but a pain. this is very recent in my game. Will it go up slowly....

if you wipe out the Civ you have cities from I am presuming they can no longer vote to return them? or can they!!!

How can you redeem yourself. In my situation for instance can I get the last 2 cities of the guy I am hammering then will the penalty stop, will it take 10 turns, will I still be a villan. Will I have to stop war then covert the the blocks religion away from the free religion I am in as I built the any religion civic thing early.

I don't think complaining about the penaty helps, the game has rules, fair or otherwise, learn them, get over them, use them to your advantage and get back to winning. I do think however all the info to understand the rules is needed or it is unfair, and these 'rules' seem to be hard to come by.

Can someone here give a brief info on how the penalty works lasts etc. I am on Noble (1st game to see) continents normal map size and speed.

INFO PLEASE.

Because then it would be like the real UN
This is still a game, not history simulator. You have to admit it makes sense as a game mechanic.

A more realistic penalty would be the loss of trade routes with member nations. That could conceivably be quite a problem for empires with lots of trading partners, but manageable.

there shouldnt be a unhappiness penalty in your own lands, for example american are worldwide hated and they keep defying the UN, but they dont care nor are even really aware of being the world's villains. However there should be other penalties, like reduced commerce and barbarian spies (terrorism).

Defying the UN should cause terrorism? :lol: That's a new one in my book. If anything, it would be the other way around.

i've thought about having a diplomatic penalty before too, but it'd be useless in human multiplayer.

Yea so most diplomatic penalties are kinda pointless to cause even if the AI doesn't like you if you have a much larger army they often don't attack. I got a -9 penalty from on empire yet they haven't declared war on me cause I got a huge empire. Their could also be a bonus like if you attack someone who is classified as a "villian" you have less warweariness.

I suspect that Firaxis tried a diplomatic penalty and quickly discovered that some players will defy every last vote. Diplomatic penalties are not enough.

Hence the happiness penalty. It was the only way to make players thoughtfully weigh whether it's worth it to defy or not. Now that the happiness penalties are high, you'll think twice about defying. You'll only do it when absolutely necessary.

Realistic that your people care about the UN? Probably not. But like I said, the most realistic UN would probably be a bunch of resolutions that don't actually do anything. If you went with that, you might as well not implement a UN at all.

Well yea you have to defy every vote. I mean the vote doesn't always past the first time so you gotta keep defying it. And like with the new Medevil UN building you can vote to put imbargo on someone. Well whoever is in control always seems to select stop trading with the civ they hate. I had to keep defying them cause that civ was close ally and I got a lot of trade with them.

I seem to get the +15 after only ONE VOTE. I think that one might of actually pass and that is why I got the penalty? But still if you get the penalty for defying only ONE vote and no more later then why not just defy them all?? Also I don't understand why it went up over a couple turns to reach +15? And I seem to have no way to correct fix it.

to Gaius: yeah you're right, completely stupid proposition haha ;)

there shouldnt be a unhappiness penalty in your own lands, for example american are worldwide hated and they keep defying the UN, but they dont care nor are even really aware of being the world's villains. However there should be other penalties, like reduced commerce and barbarian spies (terrorism).

Quite a few of us Americans are quite angry at our government for making us into the world's villains...of course, the Civ mechanic is, as always, an odd reflection of reality, since most of us don't quit our jobs and refuse to work because of our anger.

I agree with Sealot...however strange the notion is realistically, it's an effective game mechanic. It might be interesting to let the player's choice of civics affect the degree to which defying the UN upsets its populace (i.e. maybe Free Speech adds unhappiness for defying the UN, since dissenters from the government position are able to disseminate their views, while Police State reduces the Penalty, since dissenters are tossed in jail).

Frankly if they were going to restrict the UN to serving its real-world purpose it might as well not even exist, the effect would be too small.

Its a game-ism. It's not intended to be realistic, it's intended to provide a different set of strategic considerations. And especially post-BC, it does that in spades.

If I remember correctly, you fix it by accepting UN resolutions... but then you have to, well, accept UN resolutions. I could be wrong about that, not having personally defied the UN.

Quite a few of us Americans are quite angry at our government for making us into the world's villains...of course, the Civ mechanic is, as always, an odd reflection of reality, since most of us don't quit our jobs and refuse to work because of our anger.

Pomp I frequent http://alternet.org/ on an almost daily basis and I know whats the feeling in the liberal american community, however its a small, almost negligible part of the american people and can in no way nor shape represent the american people.

The "I dont know nor care" population on the other hand...

I hate the UN so much I wish there was an opition to turn it off. It more then anything else in the game annoys me cause it takes away your choice on how to run your own empire. And the addition of the defy with unhappiness penalty really isn't much of a choice cause they often keep demanding things that hurt your empire so it's like damned if you do damned if you don't.

I hate the UN so much I wish there was an opition to turn it off. It more then anything else in the game annoys me cause it takes away your choice on how to run your own empire. And the addition of the defy with unhappiness penalty really isn't much of a choice cause they often keep demanding things that hurt your empire so it's like damned if you do damned if you don't.

Turn off diplomatic victory. UN is off.

Pomp I frequent http://alternet.org/ on an almost daily basis and I know whats the feeling in the liberal american community, however its a small, almost negligible part of the american people and can in no way nor shape represent the american people.

It's also a relatively small portion of your population that turns into unhappy faces, from what I've seen in screenshots (haven't made it to the UN yet in my own games).

Of course, none of this really matters since, as we've all been saying, the game mechanic doesn't reflect the real world very well anyway. Although, I suppose it would be fun to buy one of those sexy red shirts and quit my job to stand around being disgruntled and not working, if only I could convince the local governor to give me two food per turn for free...hmmm...

Because then it would be like the real UN

LOL!
so true

Damned if you do damned if you don't is pretty much the only time there's a real choice in the game. You actually have to think about what you want. What kind of choice is "would you rather be damned or not damned?" That's a no-brainer. That doesn't sound like a strategy game, that sounds like a grade 2 vocabulary test.

If you can't stand it, turn off the UN. I don't think it adds that much to the game anyway.

I didn't plan on intervening on this thread, but I'd just like to say that the real UN has its purpose.
That it is very useful in many circumstances
and that it is a shame that people think it is useless.

Of course, it is far from perfect, but it is not useless.
War criminals have been prosecuted because of the UN.
There are today much more international law than you can possibly believe because of the UN.
Programs against landmines
Programs against hunger.
Programs to assist refugees.
Programs against AIDS.
This may seem like small achievements to you compared to questions of World peace, but for the poor who has got something to eat everyday or who doesn't have to walk for miles to get water, it makes a hel of a difference.

The obvious solution ... build the U.N. then you can refuse to propose resolutions that you don't like.
That said, I agree it is just a game mechanic. The point is that sometimes it helps you, sometimes it hurts you, you make decisions and live with them. The unhappiness is your trade off for having the right to defy resolutions. In the old game you had no choice, no you make the call.
In real life it does sort of work like that. For example, when the U.S. entered Afhganistan with a U.N. approved coalition, the international community didn't really get that ticked off. When they went their own way into Iraq, against the U.N.'s sentiment, people abroad got really annoyed.
A lot of people in the U.S. were actually pretty unhappy about it.

NOTE: I'M NOT STARTING A POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ. I MERELY SAYING IN REAL LIFE THERE ARE INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC ISSUES THAT COME FROM DENYING THE U.N.

So that said, it's just a part of the game. Meant to be a challenge. If you want to just beat people up there's always AOE.

Building the UN is no guarantee that you will get elected, just that you will be on the ballot to be secretary.

Its a great mechanic as it stands - it makes the late game dangerous. You have to decide whether to build it - and risk losing control of it, or to delay it yourself and subject yourself to the whims of others if it is built.

If you want to defy the UN, you may need to capture it, or eliminate enough competition that you can gain control. That adds some urgency to your late game play.

Likewise the Apostolic Palace is a major speedbump for conquering on Pangaea. Either you invest the tech and hammers into building it yourself which slows down your war efforts, or you risk losing control of it and being forced to stop attacking a dominant religious coalition. You are likely to get mass attacked if you war against the religious coalition and any cities you capture are going to be either continuously unhappy or forced to be returned. Or keep razing cities and rebuilding your own.

So you have to plan against it - you can't just build enough troops and ignore the diplomatic part of the game any more.

They need to add a UN screen in one of the advisors with the following:

- Resolutions (passed, failed, n/a)
- List of civs in the UN
- Date of next election

Because then it would be like the real UN

LMAO IRL

They need to have some game dynamic where only the powerful civs can defy the resolutions, and if the weaker ones do it's used as a pretext for invasion.

How can you redeem yourself. You need to vote for a resolution that passes to remove the penalty. (I hope the next vote isn't for leader ;))

I didn't plan on intervening on this thread, but I'd just like to say that the real UN has its purpose.
That it is very useful in many circumstances
and that it is a shame that people think it is useless.

Of course, it is far from perfect, but it is not useless.
War criminals have been prosecuted because of the UN.
There are today much more international law than you can possibly believe because of the UN.
Programs against landmines
Programs against hunger.
Programs to assist refugees.
Programs against AIDS.
This may seem like small achievements to you compared to questions of World peace, but for the poor who has got something to eat everyday or who doesn't have to walk for miles to get water, it makes a hel of a difference.

And that's why the UN is useless in Civilization games. If you want to win a civilization game, you'd want to:

- be the best war criminal, backstabbing and razing more than anyone else
- put landmines right in your enemy's territory, making it impossible to do any farming
- starve the rest of the world as you win the space race
- generally have as much population as possible
- invent and spread AIDS to your enemies

That's pretty far off from the world we know. Not to say that the real world is a non-competitive, co-operative utopia. But many of our real world goals are motivated by something other than "be the first to ..." or "control the most ..." When you can make a fun game out of those new goals, then you can have a fun and useful UN.

This may have been mentioned, but is it possible your city has been hit (perhaps repeatedly) by 'foment unhappiness'? I noticed that Shaka had this same modifier amongst his unhappy civilians immediately after I had a spy foment unhappiness.

Pomp I frequent http://alternet.org/ on an almost daily basis and I know whats the feeling in the liberal american community, however its a small, almost negligible part of the american people and can in no way nor shape represent the american people.

HAHAHAHAH! Bush has approval ratings of 30% right now. It's hardly a fringe minority that is upset with him. Of course, it is true that alternet's audience is the hyperliberal fringe, but that doesn't mean that everything they agree with is only true for the fringe. Even old Reagan diehards fear what Bush is doing to our country.

Sorry to others for going OT here, but I can't sit idly by as an American when I hear someone say this. I'm LIVID about what our government is doing, and I'm by no means part of the leftist fringe, and I'm by no means lacking for company.

I think that a way to solve this would be to completely rework the UN and make it in this way: to vote also the consequences of defying a resolution, that is, how much powert the UN truthly has. On its highest level, defying a resolution would be a true problem and the UN could be a great instrument for world peace. On the lowest level (aka the real one), the UN would be an almost cosmetic accessory. Make the player (or whoever builds the UN) decide it. It will not only make the UN more interesting, but also you might have very different end game scenarios. For example:

Possible power levels of the UN:

Feeble:

Diplomatic protest: -1 to all the relationships with every other civ t hat abstained on the resolution, -2 with every civ that voted for the resolution.

Nascent:

-1 of happiness in all your cities, diplomatic protest and:

Trade blockade: You loose the benefits of the unique coin, you loose every trade route with the nations that accepted the UN resolution.


Solid:

-2 of happiness in every city, diplomatic protest, trade blockade and:

Weapon embargo: -25% to the production of military units.

Almost world like goverment:

-3 of happiness in every city, diplomatic protest, trade blockade and:

Military intervention: Just in case that you defy a military resolution (nuclear weapons, stop attacking X civ): 5 marine units with 4 of exp are granted to the attacked / adjacent civ.

I didn't plan on intervening on this thread, but I'd just like to say that the real UN has its purpose.
That it is very useful in many circumstances
and that it is a shame that people think it is useless.

Of course, it is far from perfect, but it is not useless.
War criminals have been prosecuted because of the UN.
There are today much more international law than you can possibly believe because of the UN.
Programs against landmines
Programs against hunger.
Programs to assist refugees.
Programs against AIDS.
This may seem like small achievements to you compared to questions of World peace, but for the poor who has got something to eat everyday or who doesn't have to walk for miles to get water, it makes a hel of a difference.
Some of those might make good random events.

They need to add a UN screen in one of the advisors with the following:

- Resolutions (passed, failed, n/a)
- List of civs in the UN
- Date of next election

Currently the victory screen allows you to see a list of resolutions that have been passed by the UN and AP.

I think that to simulate a better game-ism, when someone defies a resolution that passes (I'm mainly thinking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it should go with the rest of the resolutions as well) There should be resolutions that can be proposed that will allow for international trade embargo's (similar to how the AP works except for civs that have defied votes) and also to call an international war (currently a holy war by the AP).

I don't understand why this hasn't been implemented yet. I also liked the idea a little ways back about how different civics should greatly vary the unhappiness factor for denying resolutions that pass. (Free speach adding unhappiness, while police state and theocracy decreasing it)

Most of the nations in the UN are not democracy's so I have a hard time with it forcing civics on the player.

That is why several nations should defy resolutions that have to do with changing civics. This would also tie in with my above post about how this should add embargo/war declaration options in the UN. This could create political blocks similar to RL.

Oh, wait, Shaka had defied a resolution to end a war I had started with him, so yeah, that's probably why he had the "considered a villian" modifier.

Quite a few of us Americans are quite angry at our government for making us into the world's villains...of course, the Civ mechanic is, as always, an odd reflection of reality, since most of us don't quit our jobs and refuse to work because of our anger.

Yes, but with our Malls and Hollywood, Broadway, AND Rock and Roll that's like a +9 right there. Add to the fact that we have EVERY luxury resource at our disposal and it makes us passive Hindu cows. Mmm... Manifest Destiny.

I mean look at the only time unhappiness got that high and we had MASSIVE war weariness penalties AND an emancipation penalty to boot (ahh Jim Crow).

Just to threadjack a BIT, it is interesting to consider the massive happiness boosts we have in the U.S. (40% culture rate to be fully gimped)

+9 We have Broadway, Hollywood, and Rock and Roll (+3 ea. with broadcast towers and malls)
+4 more for culture from the Broadcast towers
+3 for at least a tri religion city that we have (Free Religon)
+3 more for the temples of said religon
+3 for cathedrals spread throughout most of our major cities (assuming only one per city of course)
+3 from the coliseums (w/ culture) Go <insert team name here>
+1 from the markets (Fur is murder! ;) )
+3 from forges
+5 for our theatres

All told that's a whopping +34 happiness ... not too bad if you ask me.

Anyway, as you can see from that, those of us in the mildly populated Midwest love ourselves some Republican candidates as long as they keep feeding us our luxuries, but a constant defiance of UN measures (which wouldn't happen because we're the ones that set UN policy) could easily creep itself into the large metropolitan areas. I've had -15 before from war weariness and lack of emancipation and even with a +34 that's unhappy folks unless I have less than 19 population.

In the end I like how this works now. Much better imo

That is why several nations should defy resolutions that have to do with changing civics. This would also tie in with my above post about how this should add embargo/war declaration options in the UN. This could create political blocks similar to RL.

Well, if you look at the current drama playing out in Iraq, massive unhappiness goes hand in hand with the stress these nations are put under by being considered "villains" by the world (and facing those consequences). I mean we still trade with most of thse places or somebody does so they're not exactly embargoed. I don't think ANYBODY is going to stop trading for Iran's oil anytime soon...

We get little to no news out of North Korea about the populace, but one can only imagine that they are going to take out a lot of anger if and when they are liberated.

Am I the only one who finds it a little strange that if I am so dastardly as to defy world opinion by choosing a free market economy over environmentalism my whole population goes into revolt, but if I march through my neighbors territory and exterminate their entire population and burn their cities to the ground no one so much as bats an eyelash?

I'm still on page 2 and could not wait to respond though, of course, I will read the rest.

I say if there is a penalty for defying the resoultion then a civilization should be able to build propaganda which, naturally, decrease the effect of the unhappiness in the city in which it is built. Moreover, a new unit could be built in this building: Psycological Operations Special Force. Which acts similar to a spy except that it uses its special ability it is consumed by its action. The special ability?

Fomenting unhappiness.

I just got the game yesterday and I am still on my first game. Terrible start on continents. I got the southern ice cap! I only see 1 other country and he is dominating me and I see all these wonders that are light years ahead being built. I think I'm done

I think that a way to solve this would be to completely rework the UN and make it in this way: to vote also the consequences of defying a resolution, that is, how much powert the UN truthly has. On its highest level, defying a resolution would be a true problem and the UN could be a great instrument for world peace. On the lowest level (aka the real one), the UN would be an almost cosmetic accessory. Make the player (or whoever builds the UN) decide it. It will not only make the UN more interesting, but also you might have very different end game scenarios. For example:

Possible power levels of the UN:

Feeble:

Diplomatic protest: -1 to all the relationships with every other civ t hat abstained on the resolution, -2 with every civ that voted for the resolution.

Nascent:

-1 of happiness in all your cities, diplomatic protest and:

Trade blockade: You loose the benefits of the unique coin, you loose every trade route with the nations that accepted the UN resolution.


Solid:

-2 of happiness in every city, diplomatic protest, trade blockade and:

Weapon embargo: -25% to the production of military units.

Almost world like goverment:

-3 of happiness in every city, diplomatic protest, trade blockade and:

Military intervention: Just in case that you defy a military resolution (nuclear weapons, stop attacking X civ): 5 marine units with 4 of exp are granted to the attacked / adjacent civ.

Yeah, I like this idea. The power of the negative modifier should be in direct proportion that the UN has Militarily.

Without teeth, the UN has no ability to punish offenders. I just wouldn't go too crazy about unhappiness penalties. Propaganda (again) is a very useful tool.

I like your trade embargo idea. I like your weapons embargo idea. Some of the units ideas. The units idea made me think of this: What if one of the penalties was somethin along the lines of a few barbarian type troops pop up out of cottages that you have. You could call them terrorists or rebels if that is too strong, something.

Anyway there are a lot better ways to give the UN "teeth" rather than simply creating an unhappiness modifier. In my opinion, the unhappiness modifier was either caused by laziness or lack-o-creativity.

I like your ideas and I agree with the thread starter.

Although, I Am still in the early-mid game in my very first game of Beyond the sword. (I'm taking a serious beating due to an plains/tundra/desert start with just enough grasslands for one city. All I can build are archers and citizens just started striking. After a couple suicide workers i finally got it to 30% science 0% espionage. LOL. I got walls built in every city though. I figure that if I am a good little boy I might just squeak buy until gun powder. Then I better be an extra little good boy. Its on agressive AI so I think I'm about to get crushed by a level that I am used to owning. Anyway, I like the game so far but I getting worried about all the complaints I am reading about...

I'll just have to see for myself.

With that said, I still agree with the thredad starter.

Yes, but with our Malls and Hollywood, Broadway, AND Rock and Roll that's like a +9 right there. Add to the fact that we have EVERY luxury resource at our disposal and it makes us passive Hindu cows. Mmm... Manifest Destiny.

I mean look at the only time unhappiness got that high and we had MASSIVE war weariness penalties AND an emancipation penalty to boot (ahh Jim Crow).

Just to threadjack a BIT, it is interesting to consider the massive happiness boosts we have in the U.S. (40% culture rate to be fully gimped)

+9 We have Broadway, Hollywood, and Rock and Roll (+3 ea. with broadcast towers and malls)
+4 more for culture from the Broadcast towers
+3 for at least a tri religion city that we have (Free Religon)
+3 more for the temples of said religon
+3 for cathedrals spread throughout most of our major cities (assuming only one per city of course)
+3 from the coliseums (w/ culture) Go <insert team name here>
+1 from the markets (Fur is murder! ;) )
+3 from forges
+5 for our theatres

All told that's a whopping +34 happiness ... not too bad if you ask me.

Anyway, as you can see from that, those of us in the mildly populated Midwest love ourselves some Republican candidates as long as they keep feeding us our luxuries, but a constant defiance of UN measures (which wouldn't happen because we're the ones that set UN policy) could easily creep itself into the large metropolitan areas. I've had -15 before from war weariness and lack of emancipation and even with a +34 that's unhappy folks unless I have less than 19 population.

In the end I like how this works now. Much better imo

I don't usually play on diffilculty levels that I get that far advanced so this modifier really sucks. It only balances the game if a person consistently play below their ability. It not right for those that playing at higher difficulties that have bad blood with their nieghbor for 1000's of years. It needs to be reworked from what I am hearing. After this post I will play a few games at various difficulties and find out for myself. I'm a little worried about all these gripes I am reading about.

In Civ as in real life we should remember the vast wisdom of the Florentine, who said, "It is better to be feared than to be loved." Most Americans, rightly, don't give a damn what 'world opinion' or the hypocritical UN thinks about anything. American's political leaders should do what is in the best interest of their country, just as the leaders of other countries should do what is in the best interest of theirs.

The main reason the real UN doesn't exercise the feeble powers of reprisal it has against the US for overthrowing Saddam is straightforward; the US pays a larger portion of the UN's budget than any other nation. Go on, UN, please throw us out of your ridiculous debating society and save us the waste of the millions we give to you each year.

What gauls the Europeans is that they are no longer the center of the world, but have been reduced to fairly powerless second and third rate nations. So, instead of trying to conquer the world, as did France and Germany and Russia, the Europeans suddenly become the conscience of the world and lecture everyone else on morality. They look silly, so silly that the UN is the perfect place for them to spew their pacifistic nonsense.

And, yes, the UN has too much power in Civ, which is why I always turn off diplomatic victory. Civ is a simulation, which tries to follow, in very broad outline, the way history and nations and civilizations work. It does a fair job of this; it would make a good teaching tool for school students. But the Aposltolic Palace and UN are absurd in real life and bothersome in the game.

In Civ as in real life we should remember the vast wisdom of the Florentine, who said, "It is better to be feared than to be loved." Most Americans, rightly, don't give a damn what 'world opinion' or the hypocritical UN thinks about anything. American's political leaders should do what is in the best interest of their country, just as the leaders of other countries should do what is in the best interest of theirs.

The main reason the real UN doesn't exercise the feeble powers of reprisal it has against the US for overthrowing Saddam is straightforward; the US pays a larger portion of the UN's budget than any other nation. Go on, UN, please throw us out of your ridiculous debating society and save us the waste of the millions we give to you each year.

What gauls the Europeans is that they are no longer the center of the world, but have been reduced to fairly powerless second and third rate nations. So, instead of trying to conquer the world, as did France and Germany and Russia, the Europeans suddenly become the conscience of the world and lecture everyone else on morality. They look silly, so silly that the UN is the perfect place for them to spew their pacifistic nonsense.

And, yes, the UN has too much power in Civ, which is why I always turn off diplomatic victory. Civ is a simulation, which tries to follow, in very broad outline, the way history and nations and civilizations work. It does a fair job of this; it would make a good teaching tool for school students. But the Aposltolic Palace and UN are absurd in real life and bothersome in the game.

I think I once posted why american voters should be held responsible for Bush's policies. And this is why, and this is why Bush got elected in the first place, not because the american people are 100% controlled by media and corporations. I don't want to get into an online argument, it's just these are really provocative comments.

But more relevantly, why can't New York and California defy US legislature? They are relatively richer and powerful than many of the other states. Then you can consider european states defying the EU, which does happen. The civ UN concept isn't ridiculous, it's just there are different degrees to buying into collective governments.

Or you could just disable diplomatic victory ;d

I almost never play with cultural space or diplo victory I prefer to conquer the world!

But more relevantly, why can't New York and California defy US legislature? They are relatively richer and powerful than many of the other states.

Uh, they do sometimes, but they're not nearly as autonomous as the independent nations comprised by the EU, so when it comes down to it, US legislature has final say. They are states, which are the constituent parts comprised by the unitary nation called the USA. That was the crux of the whole federalist/anti-federalist debate: do you have a decentralized organization of which the significantly more autonomous states are members (anti-fed) or a powerful centralized government whose law takes ultimate precedence? Guess who won...

As for individual voters being individually responsible for the actions of the government, I'm not sure I can agree. I mean, as an American, I definitely realize that actions are carried out in my name, at least in how others perceive us. But, as a voter, I feel very specifically unrepresented by elected officials for whom I did not vote, especially if they veer so completely off from what I feel is a good direction for our country. As such, I kind of resent feeling responsible for what they do (though not for being seen as such, as that's understandable given that we approximate representative government).

"The Florentine" wrote in years before mass media, before modern democracy, before the notion of human rights, and before the notion of a guerrilla "people's war". It may sound good to focus on one's national interest. But the realities of the modern world make that much more complicated than "screw world opinion".The misadventure in Iraq, which appeared to be in America's national interest, now seems like something that has been good for almost no one. World opinion seems to be a vital resource for winning a war, up there with manpower, cash, and weapons.

That said, I agree the UN is pretty much useless. What really kept the peace for 40 solid years was mutually assured destruction. But the UN *has* been occasionally useful for serving some regional or global goals, even just by having a forum where discussion is possible. The problem is there are no regional or global goals in Civilization. It's everyone for themselves.

People finally got their wish and players can finally defy UN resolutions.

Funny, they're still not happy. That's because it's not very realistic for anybody to give a crap what civics you're running. So why have all kinds of diplomatic and happiness penalties?

Because without the penalties, the UN is useless. It would be a bunch of voting buttons that do nothing. That might even be realistic. But it would do nothing.

The real answer? Get rid of the UN. It's a useless, stupid feature. It adds nothing to the game. Either that, or redesign diplomacy from scratch.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's almost as if you were talking about the real thing... were you?

The considered a villain by the world thing is just flat out stupid.

1. I defy illogical and stupid resolutions that would harm my people.
2. The other nations are fighting amongst themselves constantly, committing espionage and getting caught constantly, lack emancipation (ie, still slaving), are running other oppressive civics - and so - so WHY would my people care what "the world" thinks of MY policies?!
3. The penalties for being a villain are beyond ridiculous. It'd make more sense to have tiny penalties - give maybe 1+ happy for being a member in good standing and -1 happy for being a rebel.
4. The UN (or AP) in the game should not have so much impact or control over the late game (if it's a factor - it often isn't). It's just not fun.

there shouldnt be a unhappiness penalty in your own lands, for example american are worldwide hated and they keep defying the UN, but they dont care nor are even really aware of being the world's villains. However there should be other penalties, like reduced commerce and barbarian spies (terrorism).

Do you live in america? because it sure seams like you dont!

Most americans Are pissed at our government, Not that I think of any other government in any better light, The fact that no country has yet to surpass america in quality of living and freedom of rights is extremely pathetic! children could run countried better than most of todays leaders

that said, This addition to BTS has to be one of the stupidest right in line with religious victory, being said, I cant beleive diplomatic penalties wouldnt be enough of a penalty, if you have alot of enemeis, this could very easily spiral into a war!

I don't have an answer, but this is related to something with civ4 that I've never agreed with. The happiness modifiers all have stupid names. Things like "we just feel happy" and similar is not helpful at all. It should at least say in parenthesis what is causing it (resources, troops in city, civics etc.)
If you mouse-over the happy faces it does tell you what is causing the happiness. However, there is a base number of happy people; those are the folk who say "we just enjoy life." But all the benefits from resources, buildings, etc. should be spelled out.

Yeah, I like this idea. The power of the negative modifier should be in direct proportion that the UN has Militarily.

Yep, and also, make the founder of the UN decide how much of theeth the new institution is going to have. Also, in order to add more variety and less "determinism" to the system, it would be great to be able to vote in the UN if you want to upgrade or downgrade the UN power level. It would be nice to see an evil empire stripping the UN's power due to his latest conquests, or a coalition of small, peaceful countries supporting the UN and helping it to become a force to be reckoned with in order to mantain world's peace.

Without teeth, the UN has no ability to punish offenders. I just wouldn't go too crazy about unhappiness penalties. Propaganda (again) is a very useful tool.
I agree that unhappiness penalties are kind of a vainilla, lame penalty. However, I included them as a bit of an accesory penalty to the other ones. Keep in mind that a powerful UN would also have more control over the media and culture of the planet (on its highest levels, the UN would be the equivalent of the Star Trek federation), hence why the happiness penalties. Still, perhaps another way to solve this "vainilla-ness" would be to tie the strenght of the penalties to the civics: free speech would double it, police state would halve it. Another option would be to tie them to buildings:

You defy a resolution of a nascent UN:
Diplomatic penalty, trade embargo and
Radio stations causes 1 unhappiness (the media is influenciated by the UN)

You defy the resolution of a solid UN:
The previous effects plus army embargo and
Universities causes 1 unhappiness (the intellectual elites are likely to side with the UN)

You defy the resolutuon of a powerful UN:
The previous effects and
Theatres causes 1 unhappiness (the "liberal artists" are likely to side with the UN, as well)

I like your trade embargo idea. I like your weapons embargo idea. Some of the units ideas. The units idea made me think of this: What if one of the penalties was somethin along the lines of a few barbarian type troops pop up out of cottages that you have. You could call them terrorists or rebels if that is too strong, something.
That could also be a quite nice option, but I think that it would be better suited as a spyionage action (only avaible perhaps after defying a UN resolution?). However, I kind of find more interesting the periodical appearance of "peacetroops" in the cities of the civs that are being attacked after their agressors defied a UN peace resolution. The more the agressor civilization drags the conflict, the more reinforcements will arrive to the attacked civ. And even better, these reinforcements would be modern troops. Imagine your typical scenario: Moctezuma, in the other side of the planet, extends his empire by attacking a small, technologically backwards civ. That could seriously put him near a domination victory. But then, after a powerful UN tells him to stop (and he doesn't); he finds out that the small civ is not defending with crossbowman against their calvaries but with fully trained marines (tanks too?).


I like your ideas and I agree with the thread starter.


Yay ^_^

The considered a villain by the world thing is just flat out stupid.

1. I defy illogical and stupid resolutions that would harm my people.
2. The other nations are fighting amongst themselves constantly, committing espionage and getting caught constantly, lack emancipation (ie, still slaving), are running other oppressive civics - and so - so WHY would my people care what "the world" thinks of MY policies?!
3. The penalties for being a villain are beyond ridiculous. It'd make more sense to have tiny penalties - give maybe 1+ happy for being a member in good standing and -1 happy for being a rebel.
4. The UN (or AP) in the game should not have so much impact or control over the late game (if it's a factor - it often isn't). It's just not fun.

I totally agree totally with 1-3, and the OP.

4 - I've had the AP vote away a lot of my vassals cities away, this was in the modern age. Found it rather annoying. However, I would like that to stay.

I heard somewhere that if you destroy the city the UN wonder is in you can stop the voting. Perhaps an attack of those bureaucrats is in order. It might almost be as fulfilling as razing Mecca or Jerusalem and seeing -9 or -10 in diplo modifiers.

I have to agree the penalty is way harsh. I defied an AP resolution to stop trading with my best trade partner and got -5 happiness which was impossible to overcome at that early stage of the game. I will say it did go away after the next vote, maybe because this time I had learned my lesson and did not defy the vote even though I wanted to.

The odd thing is the penalty only appeared in two of my cities. How come only two of my cities care that the world thinks I'm a villian?

Maybe it has something to do with the sizes of those particular cities. Maybe cities above 5 will consider you a villain or something of the like?

I love the arguement that "It is stupid that people become unhappy as I defied a resolution that would harm them". The only Civics you can force as a UN is Free Speech, Universal Sufferage, Free Relgion, etc. I'd be curious as to what Civic you were running. I think the unhappiness penalty is apt and needed. Making it Diplo would unfairly bias against war mongers - as usual.

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

It's a game, nor real life!

In a world with mostly fascists and communists* then your democratic little nation would be treated as "vilain". But I do agree upon that it would be better to have a massive boycott instead.

* When I play I usually play with "democratic" civic choices and most of the other civs are state controlled police states. But perhaps it's just me.

The odd thing is the penalty only appeared in two of my cities. How come only two of my cities care that the world thinks I'm a villian?With the AP, it is my understanding that the penalty will only happen in cities with that religion present.

Here's your "in-game" solution. Find out which city has the UN...then nuke it until it glows! muahahahahaha Or just raze it via conventional means :evil:

With the AP, it is my understanding that the penalty will only happen in cities with that religion present.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. Thanks.

But more relevantly, why can't New York and California defy US legislature? They are relatively richer and powerful than many of the other states. Then you can consider european states defying the EU, which does happen. The civ UN concept isn't ridiculous, it's just there are different degrees to buying into collective governments.

If you think that the unhappiness penalty for defying the UN is inappropriate, consider this, how SHOULD the game represent the effect on US productivity when the state of California finally decides it has had enough of federal policy and stops sending tax returns and national guardsmen to the federal government?

That said, I really like the idea that if a civ is in defiance its theaters, universities, broadcast towers, religions, and other cultural institutions should stop generating culture points and start generating unhappiness points.

If you have the "world considers you a villain" unhappiness, and you go and raze the city with the UN/Apostolic thingy, will your unhappiness penalty go away?

If so that would be ironic, considering destroying the UN would be even more villainous than defying it

I had some strange new +Unhappiness modifier called "World considers you a villain"


The only other thing is the great new opition to flatout refuse to go along with a UN vote which I think is great

I suspect that Firaxis tried a diplomatic penalty and quickly discovered that some players will defy every last vote. Diplomatic penalties are not enough.

Hence the happiness penalty. It was the only way to make players thoughtfully weigh whether it's worth it to defy or not. Now that the happiness penalties are high, you'll think twice about defying. You'll only do it when absolutely necessary.

Realistic that your people care about the UN? Probably not. But like I said, the most realistic UN would probably be a bunch of resolutions that don't actually do anything. If you went with that, you might as well not implement a UN at all.

Emphasis on these. It's a game and an interesting global gameplay mechanic, I wish there was an actual leader panel like in Alpha Centauri but this is ok.

The reason there's a :mad: penalty is that if you were warmongering you could defy all resolutions at no cost. Who cares if you get a diplomatic penalty if they already have -10 from declaring war on them, their friends, and razing all their cities? The Apostolic Palace would be worthless too.

The :mad: from the UN can be mitigated soon by Future Tech, as other people have said, or an extra point on the cultural slider. If you're on a conquering spree you should have such a large population anyways that you can simply vote No and resolutions will fail. If not, make friends with people far from you that aren't in your crosshairs.

Also, with the Palace, the :mad: goes away quickly in cities that do not share the Palace's religion. It only sticks around for a long time in cities that have the same religion. So if you only have 1-2 cities with the religion of the Palace, your citizens won't really care what you defy, and you receive no diplomatic penalties either. I had 1 city with Buddhism and the Palace kept voting every 10 turns to end my war with Asoka, but I just defied it and easily lived with the +5:mad: in 1 city. If your entire Civ is the same religion though, it becomes a big deal to defy the will of the other religious leaders.

I might just go ahead and build the Apostolic Palace to stop this from happening again.