Another UN idea

This may actually be workable.

The UN has both a major and minor wonder capability. The person who is the first to build the UN major wonder has it in their city. This person will also get the bennies of having a minor wonder.

The UN minor wonder allows you to be a permanent member of the security council. The number of UN minor wonders is limited by map size (or number of civs in game). 2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for std, 5 for large or huge.

UN functions: once the UN is built (the major wonder) each civ will be asked to join. Joining the UN costs 2gp per city in dues.

1. End war with cease-fire: The nations told to do this either comply or UN declares war.

2. Impose sanctions: all UN members embargo for 5 turns. Repeatable only once without DOW.

3. Declare War: UN declares war. This means that any nation that wants to can go beat up on the victim, they may either declare war or not at their option.

4. Help out a poor nation: UN will half its dues money to a given civ (or minor).

5. Set up a demilitarized zone: Only workers would be allowed on the tiles selected (tiles could not include a city tile, i.e. one where the city is directly located).

Anyone with the UN minor wonder could veto any vote. All civs who are members of the UN can vote. Votes go Yes, No, Abstention (thus only a NO could veto). The veto will prevent any permanent member from breaking any trade agreement (the others could be out of luck).

If the UN declares war, they will consider peace in 5 turns and every turn afterwards. Vote does the trick, except that no veto power exists for peace.

The creator of the Major UN wonder automatically has the minor UN wonder, however, in all but the tiny map this civ could also create the minor wonder. This would have the effect of taking one of the veto nations out (unless/until one of the cities containing one of the UN projects was taken by a rival civ).

Once the UN major wonder is built, all nations may attempt to build the minor wonder (regardless of tech).

This would give the UN a real role in the game, while allowing "Veto Power" nations the ability to promote their own agendas. Those who do not join the UN are not subject to its demands, but could easily face retribution by all other UN nations.

Attacking a UN member would be risky, at best, unless you have Veto power (or an allie who has it whom you can depend on).

If two UN nations are at war then the UN is in crisis. Votes can only be for Cease-Fire and embargo.

I welcome other suggestions

Edit: forgot to mention that the UN wonders can be captured and revert control to the capturing Civ.

every body should be in UN. it won't be fun to exlude some member.

No member would be excluded, everybody can join, but they have to pay the 2gp dues. If they choose to not pay the dues, they don't HAVE to join.

These would be great if Civ was primarily a game where you played against other people, but 95% of games are against the AI. The AI can barely handle improving its terrain & wars. And we all know the ludicris trades the AI tries to get away with, you really think this is even possible?

The UN can make you win or lose the game, isn't that enough?

I agree with Mr. Kahn.

I think this is something too look into. Maybe not exactly like this, but this would give some real depth to the game and also make the UN have some use other than just winning the game.

To Mr. Khan: I agree that the AI would likely be difficult to get to agree with proposals, however, so are the Chinese and Americans and French and Russians and English. If how the AI handles the UN can be bothersome, have a toggle to turn it off (like exists now) or have it used in MP games only (although the former is probably the better of these ideas). Also, the AI-AI diplomatic conditions would become more important in the game if the AI wanted cooperation from those civs later on.

It drove me nuts to see (in Civ2) one AI commit treachery against another one 15 turns in a row and then have the two of them sign an alliance against me! This has not happened in Civ3, but some instances have seemed pretty close! If the AI-AI behavior was tracked instead, and the UN proposals that one of those civs make would often (or always) be blocked by others due to bad behavior, then the change to the UN would be worth it to me.

I suppose that this means that I would really like to see the AI do better diplomacy, but I still think that the UN idea is both functional and would add fun to the game.

The UN shouldn't be able to declare war, though. Or are you talking about "declare rogue nation"?

Actually, I was referring to the UN declaring war. The UN did, in fact, declare war on N. Korea (the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN at the time, they never did that again). If the UN declares war, then any country that was part of the UN would be allowed to declare war without penalty (on their rep). Additionally, a certain number of units (or all of them) would be allowed to operate against the rogue nation without a declaration of war. In effect, however, the UN declaration of War would mean that all UN members would have an embargo until the war was lifted (requiring another UN vote).

By idiodic trades I mean when the AI offers you his WM for your WM & Nationalsim. They make at least as many rediculous trade requests as sincere once, if not more.

Put a UN like that in the hands of an AI, and it's just going to blunder around with it according to the RNG. Put it in the hands of a player, and it's another VERY strong tool for world domination, and I can't even imagion all the exploits.

Lets say Rome,Spain and England are the member of the UN on some game,than Japan declare war on Rome and all the member of the UN declare war on Japan and England capture a city from Japan,what would happen to that city ,who would keep it?the UN or England?

England would keep the city, Noldor, (unless the occupation rule was implemented). The occupation suggestion was that all cities taken during a war would, ostensibly, still belong to the original owner until either the war was over or the entire city was converted to the conqeror's nationality (whichever came first). The end-of-war peace treaty would then decide which cities went back to the original owner. The difference between what goes on now and the occupation suggestion is that wars of liberation (e.g. France in WWII) would allow governments in exile to still exist. It would also require a victorious nation to negotiate to keep (rather than negotiate to get) any cities from the vanquished.

I like the idea of demilitarized zone idea. Its great besides you could get a way to stop aggressive nations kool

I have faith in the AI to play like a human -- if they REALLY give thought to the AI. I think there is the risk that they'll spend time improving the graphics, and adding a few concepts... and the AI will be too easy at some levels, and cheat to win at other levels. I hope some AI civs play like humans (even if others play just for flavor, being passive).

With that said, this UN idea is fantastic. I support it absolutely. And, also, my impression is that this would REPLACE the diplomatic victory function of the UN -- which sucks. And in real life, everyone is welcome to the UN, but some nations do not sign on. I imagine Civ would be no different.

I like the UN idea...I'd like to see the security council...so if one civ is attacking another...using weapons of mass destruction...Security Council (All the civs included) would vote for use of force or against it...

wisewood said:

I like the UN idea...I'd like to see the security council...so if one civ is attacking another...using weapons of mass destruction...Security Council (All the civs included) would vote for use of force or against it...

Click to expand...

Still don't like the idea of giving the UN more features. I just can't see the AI handling it in any meaningful way at this stage of CIV developmenbt. Besides, nations already ban against a nation that using Nukes.

Overall a decent idea, although it should be noted that the UN itself has some institutional "will", and while it can be a tool that players can use against one another, it could also represent a threat to their very sovereignty. Imagine if the UNSecGen was an independent actor [basically, a temporary Great Leader that is empowered and sacked by UN members], and the UN could control cities like a civ.

That said, you would think that the creating player would get to divvy out Security Council slots upon creating the UN (isn't that why most positions are held by the former Allied powers?). Create the UN, and then see offers from each player for a spot on the SC. Your relationships could very well change dramatically.

Anyway, if it gets rid of diplomatic victory, that's fine by me.