I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but I still wish they would change it.

In previous civ games (especially civ4), the UN always had some sort of meaning. Whether it being for the benefit of the builder like in civ2, or as actually world body that affected the game like in 4, it added a dynamic to the game that i liked. Now its serves no purpose other than to say "Ok, who do you want to win the game in a diplomatic victory?"

I liked the civ 4 UN, made things interesting with the laws that could be passed, or the consequences for ignoring them. I don't even bother building it anymore. Opinions?

Absolutely.

I don't miss the old UN or particularly care for the new one. The old one was WAY more powerful than it should've been.

Yeah. I also miss actual diplomacy.

I miss it as well. The expanded UN was one of the few things I liked about CIV, and it's a shame they reverted it back to Civ3 form.

Heck yes, the new UN is just like what, Don't feel rather diplomatic whatsoever.

I just turn off the UN cuz its a economic victory or military victory.

Heck yes, the new UN is just like what, Don't feel rather diplomatic whatsoever.

I just turn off the UN cuz its a economic victory or military victory.

....the CivIV one could be achieved through nuclear war.

Yes, the old UN with resolutions and intricate voting politics (wherein the AI actually weighed if they liked you more than the other AI) was very, very good compared to the current Civ V UN, which does nothing other than provide a ticket to victory if you're rich.

No I don't miss the old U.N. it never quite worked for me - it all seemed like useless fluff to me

In my games (for both civ 4 and civ 5) the so called diplomatic victories were always defacto domination victories anyway. 4 because it's population based (conquered population plus vassals) and 5 because I've usually already "won" the game and its the shortest route to an official win.

I'd like a score/power victory condition where if you have a suitably big enough lead in the game you were declared the winner

I do like in 5 how building the U.N. tends to lead to ww3 - I enjoy the irony

I think a true diplomatic victory would be great, but not the 4 system thanks.
Something involving ideologies (religious and or political), and forming military, economic and political alliances (nato, warsaw patch, eu) and shared victories

I'm with SS-18-ICBM.... I miss Civ4-style UN, as well as the diplomacy system generally... I actually really enjoyed the political wrangling that went along with the UN... :)

Came in to say

Absolutely.

No I don't miss the old U.N. it never quite worked for me - it all seemed like useless fluff to me



I agree, most of it was... however, the small amount that wasn't was good...

In V the UN means you or the AI with the most money will win shortly after... personally, I often disable this as I believe it can ruin a good game. I don't want the temptation to take the easy way out.

Personally, I'd like to see a proper diplomatic victory, rather than this economic one.

I'd like a score/power victory condition where if you have a suitably big enough lead in the game you were declared the winner

I agree with this... if you're so far ahead, you're going to win anyway, so what's the point? This victory condition would, however, have to be turned off for those going for a high score...

I don't miss the old UN or particularly care for the new one. The old one was WAY more powerful than it should've been.This. The in-game UN was always dramatically more powerful than the real-life one.

This. The in-game UN was always dramatically more powerful than the real-life one.

The real-life UN is just a large, corrupt and incompetent organization. Old-style Civ UN was really good and fun to use. Old-style UN could "create" Civ5 diplomacy if they would ever revert it back to old-style form.

I do think the Cv IV Un was a better model, however it was very complex and you really needed to know the AI diplo mechanics to win. There were some situations where you could'nt win UN, unless you went for diplomation (vassles + UN votes). Getting those votes in civ IV was'nt easy, and required alot of thinking.

However in V its the complete opposite, abuse the city state social policies and bribe them, bit too simple to be honest (Sulla shared his views on it in one of his games aswell.)

If they do change it, i'd like to see a more popultaion focused and balanced version of the civ iv model, in trems of winning the votes, and more ways of getting the AI to vote for you (as they only vote for themselves). I don't want it to be too easy (buy all city states) or too hard like civ iv, just balanced.

I think the UN is my least favourite part of the game. It's imbalanced so in my games somebody will always win with it as soon as it's built. There's always 1 city state hording Civ. So I have to consciously wipe out city states to keep the game going. It means I have to be active in this era but it shouldn't be this way.

I kind of wish the UN did something. In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri it was called the Planetary Council. It wasn't a victory requirement but it allowed for a different kind of game dynamic. Sure there was the option to win in there but there was much more... like melting the polar ice caps. Which leads me to desire climate changes in Civ. But that is a whole other can of worms.

I do think the Cv IV Un was a better model, however it was very complex and you really needed to know the AI diplo mechanics to win. There were some situations where you could'nt win UN, unless you went for diplomation (vassles + UN votes). Getting those votes in civ IV was'nt easy, and required alot of thinking.

However in V its the complete opposite, abuse the city state social policies and bribe them, bit too simple to be honest (Sulla shared his views on it in one of his games aswell.)

If they do change it, i'd like to see a more popultaion focused and balanced version of the civ iv model, in trems of winning the votes, and more ways of getting the AI to vote for you (as they only vote for themselves). I don't want it to be too easy (buy all city states) or too hard like civ iv, just balanced.

Have we played the same CivIV? Because I'm sure a nuclear war was the easiest way to winning a diplo victory in CivIV. Not only that, but after you crowned yourself Secretary General, you could somehow order the entire planet to not build any more nukes and place IAEA inspectors in every city of every country on the planet to prevent anyone from building nukes, even if they voted against the resolution. Defying a resolution would cause your population to be angry which makes no sense either in most cases.

The CivV version is too realistic which is why people don't like it.

People really play with the diplomacy win box ticked?

Agreed. The more experience I have with Civ5, the more features I tend to disable. I'd definitely like more UN options, and wouldn't mind if they stripped the only voting "issue" we currently have.

The CivV version is too realistic which is why people don't like it.

I suppose your view of the efficacy of the actual UN depends on your view on international politics.

People really play with the diplomacy win box ticked?

Difficult to win a diplomatic victory without it ticked.
Why not build the UN yourself?
Or - why not own all the CSs by the time it gets built?

I suppose your view of the efficacy of the actual UN depends on your view on international politics.

Given the UN has yet to pass a resolution that effectively ended a war in Africa, pass a resolution that effectively stopped people from building nuclear weapons, pass a resolution to create a one-world currency, and many other things, the CivIV one is too strong regardless. The problem is that a "realistic" UN in game would basically be the CivV one with ignorable resolutions.

This is a really good point. All of these failures have stemmed from noncooperation, and all of these failures have generated or contributed to mass "diplo hits" and internal unhappiness. That reality suggests that a similar game mechanic could be created--one that places us in a cool and interesting position of balancing our civ's needs and goals through defiance, with the interests of collective security through international cooperation. This sort of complexity would definitely make the happiness system and diplomacy more thought-provoking.

I don't care for the UN in Civ V. I think it's bad design and anticlimactic.

However, I'll play devil's advocate: the UN victory *does* force players to act differently. While I may not want to win with a Diplo victory--or can't, as the situation may be--it still forces me to make sure no one *else* wins that way, either. The UN forces players to deal with City-States, either by preventing a win by another player or managing it to secure your own. When you have this victory turned off, you can safely ignore this aspect of the game. I prefer the challenge.

Now, to be fair, I would like it expanded in the types of votes (as in Civ IV); I would also like the ability to decline victory to make it easier to manage the game.

God yes I miss it.

It made the end-game fun. I rarely play past the rennaisance now.

Not saying the UN in Civ IV was perfect but it was at least interesting. Now we have nothing.

I also miss global warming although it was implemented correctly. Could see a good combination with the UN as well there.

The Civ4 UN was infinitely more enjoyable to play with than the the current UN. The current UN is just a wealth victory, the old UN changed the political landscape and made the game more interesting.

I would like resolutions, but the UN in civ5 usually means victory in 10 turns (for the human or AI).

A better UN should be moved to an earlier tech, so resolutions can have their effect, but only allow a vote after Globalization is reached. And it could be used as a time where diplomacy is expended; maybe by use of new global missions for city states. Currently, the mission of a CS is user-specific, if I remember correctly from a multiplayer game I played.

A better UN should be moved to an earlier tech, so resolutions can have their effect, but only allow a vote after Globalization is reached.

Combine this with some of the suggestions for the Diplomatic Victory and it will become a truly interesting and fun victory condition.

In Civ 4, I love it when my empire cover 70% of world population and UN vote me for the world president. I call that 'Democracy'.

I LOVED the old UN and hope it comes back. All the resolutions were so much fun and added a twist to the game. Heck keep the current UN building but why cant we add resolutions to it?

When I was old UN chancelor, I often had to cancel voting when the fools didn't exercise good judgement. Voting is a privelege, not a right.