I agree that the UN needs more resolutions, however. And perhaps even a war on defy resolution.
I got it! Diplomatic consequences and benefits for voting yes, no, or defying. +1 for voting in someone's interest, and then -3 for defying. Eventually, the world will begin to hate you for being so isolationist (cough cough, North Korea).
You don't seem to understand how UN works. Yes only few members can veto a resolution, but no one can force anyone to accept a resolution in any other way than sanctions or military intervention. A lot of countries defies resolutions of UN and nothing is done about it. Look at Syria for most recent example.
Is there a resolution for Syria now? Looks like I am missing news since I'm out of town now
Last news I heard days ago, China and Russia keeps veto all resolutions for Syria -_-
On another note,
I think in UN, not all civilization should be granted option do defy resolution.
IMO, this cause most of UN Resolutions, except Nuclear, to be defied every turn.
I don't remember but usually it's either India or Iran that defy the Secularism? resolution.
And there's always another civilization that defy resolution A or resolution B.
In the real life,
only 5 civilization are allowed to veto the resolutions : US, France, England, China and Russia. Civilization like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia can do nothing but accept the resolution. Sometimes the resolutions cause disturbance in the country, but well, what can one do?
Back to DoC,
Here's my proposal related to the above paragraph :
Only 5 member can veto the resolutions :
The civilization ranked #1 in Scoreboard
The civilization that control the biggest land
The most populated civilization
The most advanced civilization
The most cultured civilization
IF
Scoreboard Rank = China, Russia, USA, German and Mughal
Biggest Civ Rank = China, Mongolia, German, Spain and England
Most populated rank = China, India, Indonesia, USA, and Japan
Most advanced rank = China, Japan, German, USA, and Poland
Most cultured rank = China, India, Arabia, Aztec, and Iran
Then
China
Mongolia
India
Japan
Arabia
Should be granted the veto rights. Therefore, if there's same civilization that control all, in this example : China, all rights will not be granted to the same one civilization; but to next in line~ order of checking is from Scoreboard to Culture; So India will only be elected because of Population, not because the Culture.
Veto list is checked every time there's new UN Secretary Election, so no permanent one like in the real life. Whoever is the most influential at that time, they get the veto right
If there's less than 8 civilization at the time UN is built (highly unlikely, usually there's at least German, USA, France and/or Spain, Turkey, Arab and/or Egypt, Russia, Thai and/or Khmer, British and/or Norway, Dutch by the time it's built.), there is no veto right, so everybody can defy the resolution.
IMO we need more resolutions, like Open Borders with everyone, Adopt all civics (not limited to Secularism/Enviromentalism etc that happen to be the newest civs option) so one can propose "Adopt Theocracy" to UN, War against newly-respawned civilization, Peace against newly-respawned civilization, "Fission" technology for everyone (about balancing the technology so backward civilization can get free tech), etc.
Is there defy resolutions thing in AP? I don't remember.
Yes, AP resolutions can also be defied. The result being that you get a negative impact with civs and in your cities (the world considers you a villain), and you might possibly start a war.
Not sure but I thought only war resolutions(forced peace / give away city) could fail through defiance.
If an open borders resolution is passed but someone defies it, well their borders stay closed but all others opened them towards each other. (in theory)
Haven't had UN resolution in a long time though.
There is a large difference between a Veto and defiance.
Say there's some resolution against whoever (say a trade embargo).. USA puts in a Veto. You can defy that veto and go through with the Embargo, risking war with the USA and anyone they can rally against you. Or a resolution is passed that UN inspectors should be allowed access to N. Korean nuclear facilities. IIRC N. Korea/Iran refused to let them in in the past, despite the resolution..
I'm guessing S. Africa defied a few during the apartheid era too..
There are several Countries that defy resolutions, iirc mainly Israel, Iran, N.Korea and probably a lot more, the five security members just have the advantage that they can avoid being condemned by putting in a veto so that the resolution doesn't even come into effect in the first place.
Or in the lucky case of Israel that the US intervenes in their favor(iirc current record holders, over 50 veto's concerning Israel).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just one example: that resolution wasn't vetoed, Israel just ignored it..
United Nations Security Council Resolution 250, adopted unanimously on April 27, 1968, warned Israel against holding an Independence Day Parade in Jerusalem, Israel's proclaimed capital. Israel ignored the resolution. In response, the Council passed UNSC resolution 251 condemning Israel's actions.
So IMO the current system seems pretty accurate. Only that everyone actually gets to vote unlike in reality in which it's more of an exception.
Or only adding that any of the top 5 civs can veto a resolution so that they can avoid the downside of defiance.
edit: hmm seems it took me over 30min to write this, the topic has already been discussed
and on the Syria subject..
I've stopped believing the media and the US government for quite some time now..
And as a US citizen, I think I have every right to question the motives of my country, even if I don't live there.
Link doesn't open, but I think it's quite clear that Syria will get a new government (for the better or for the worse) and that there is a civil war going on there. But I have no idea what we (the other countries) can do to reduce the bloodshed to a minimum, aside from ridiculous ideas like abducting all Syrians and deporting them to places all over the world.
EDIT: HopliteJoe is right.
Leoreth, what are you planning to do with the settling on resource thing? Does a city now give the full yield of the fitting improvement for every resource hammers://)?
Did you change something about spawn-flipping? I played as the Egyptians, and when the Arabs spawned, they flipped Makkah (which I had just taken from them) and the other cities they normally flip without asking, but none of my cities in Egypt flipped, or tried to flip.
Yes, without asking. I also noticed that they did indeed flip all the tiles they're supposed to in Egypt except my capital, but I didn't notice at first because my culture immediately covered them all again.
Edit: Also, my only city in the Arabian core is my capital, so that might have something to do with it.
I've just completed the bare mechanics of the slavery feature. I'm still running a final test game to see if there are still problems but a commit should follow soon.
It works as follows: if you are running Forced Labor, you can "draft" slaves in Sub-Saharan cities. If you are a native African civ (Ethiopia, Mali, Congo), the slaves can conduct a trade mission at cities of Catholic or Protestant civs that run Forced Labor, which yields a little gold and gives the owner of the city a slave of his own. Other civs can use their slaves to build a slave plantation instead of a normal plantation (for an extra +1 +2 ) or settle them as a +1 slave specialist in non-European cities.
I've also changed the Aztec UP so that it gives slaves instead of workers.
The AI for all of this is still lacking so currently it's only a thing for the player.
Why only christian civs? Certainly there was a vibrant Muslim slave trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade perhaps just a Mali/Kongo exception would be appropriate (Mali/Kongo can't trade slaves to one another) this would also enable Kongo to accomplish their UHV in case something drastic happens in Europe that results in no African colonies. Does this mean Carthage or Rome could settle a sub Saharan African city for the purpose of slaves and thus slave plantations? Do slave plantations revert to normal plantations when forced labor is abandoned, or perhaps tie these bonuses to Agrariansim/forced labor? Slavery just has such an enormous negative effect on a modern economy that it is would seem wrong for a modern society to benefit from even a history of slavery.
Why only christian civs? Certainly there was a vibrant Muslim slave trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade perhaps just a Mali/Kongo exception would be appropriate (Mali/Kongo can't trade slaves to one another) this would also enable Kongo to accomplish their UHV in case something drastic happens in Europe that results in no African colonies.
Do slave plantations revert to normal plantations when forced labor is abandoned, or perhaps tie these bonuses to Agrariansim/forced labor? Slavery just has such an enormous negative effect on a modern economy that it is would seem wrong for a modern society to benefit from even a history of slavery.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
in your cities (the world considers you a villain), and you might possibly start a war.
/
)?
+2 
