UN a bust?

[biohazard72]

It is much too easy to win by diplomacy the moment it becomes available. Votes should be restricted to the UN founder + one other civ (highest in score who didn't build UN?) so diplomacy among other civs matters. Also city-states should have less voting power.

As it stands, there is no reason to keep anyone alive to vote for you - there is no need for FRIENDS at all.

 

[Jharii]

As it stands, there is no reason to keep anyone alive to vote for you - there is no need for FRIENDS at all.

Sure there is. You want a different play experience other than rolling over the map with your 4 Horsemen.

 

[BubbaYeti]

At the moment the "diplomatic" victory is misnamed--it is an "economic" victory in reality. I don't have a problem with the existence of a way to out-economy everybody else, but the AI needs to try for it too occasionally to make it meaningful. (Has anyone ever seen an AI build the UN? I haven't.)

 

[PawelS]

I don't like any of the 4 victory types, and I play without them - I use only "time".

 

[elprofesor]

It is much too easy to win by diplomacy the moment it becomes available. Votes should be restricted to the UN founder + one other civ (highest in score who didn't build UN?) so diplomacy among other civs matters.

I like your idea, although that would mean that the moment the UN was built, the game would end, since one of the two players would win the vote. I guess a 3rd civ should be added to the vote?

 

[Varanid]

I'll third biohazard's idea but only if they help with the diplomatic AI first. Like, have trade routes, pacts of cooperation, etc matter.

And as for the city state request; they'd be great if they were more varied but they're 50% of the time, just, go kill this other city state! I wish there was a way to try to mediate between them.

 

[eric_]

Money would still give you influence, so that your good relationship lasts longer

Great idea. Money slows the degradation of relations, but only fulfilling requests can actually improve relations.

I think it would also be cool if there were a way to "mediate" inter-CS disputes. So, A asks you to eliminate B, but if you're allies with A, you have a "mediate dispute" button. If you select it, the dispute goes away, at the cost of either gold, a lump hit to relations with A, or perhaps a more rapid degradation of relations with A (representing that you've made a diplomatic demand of them).

edit: lol, nice x-post varanid

 

[Varanid]

I just dream of real political intrigue and alliances and backstabbing and weaseling *sigh*

 

[MadRat]

I ignore the UN in CiV. It is the most messed up implementation of the diplo win in ANY 4x game. It is bona fide travesty of programming worse than "hello world"!

Rat

 

[DaveGold]

Yes the UN is bust. There were a great many opportunities to add interesting game play with city states and those opportunities seem to have been nearly all squandered.

 

[TheFourthDoctor]

The UN would be more interesting if you could force peace and force the return of conquered cities to other civs. Or even better, force the liberation of conquered civs and city states.

 

[biohazard72]

I like your idea, although that would mean that the moment the UN was built, the game would end, since one of the two players would win the vote. I guess a 3rd civ should be added to the vote?

I was thinking Civ3 style, where the AIs will vote for you if friendly (ex: Pact of Cooperation), vote for themselves if applicable, or abstain. AIs would have voting power based on size or score. City-states would have much less influence but would have a vote. There could easily be draws if a majority wasn't found. They'd of course have to tweak the ineligible AIs to not "play to win" for this one and only victory condition. And Diplomacy would have to become more important, the AI less random and more transparent with it's feelings towards you, etc... I could imagine a player who makes lots of Cooperation Pacts and who gives other Civs assistance when they need it would finally see some benefits from playing this way.

That way, to win by diplo, you'd actually have to be DIPLOMATIC.

 

[Rohili]

One way to make diplomacy interesting is to make it so that civs cannot vote for themselves. At the same time, increase the power of a civ vote to 4 times that of a city-state vote.

That way, the civs' votes will actually matter.

 

[killmeplease]

what if not civs themselves should vote but their populations?
e.g. if you are developing peacefully, trade with other countries, have open borders etc your prestiege is rising. if you goes to war, razing cities, do not sign peace on demand etc - your prestiege is decreasing. When UN "world leader" voting comes, players have no ability to vote but it is determined if their populations like the candidate.

* Player can prevent his population from voting for his rival by adopting autocracy.
* There should be UN resolutions to adopt freedom, to pacificate an agressor, and to overthrow a dictator (a one of players running autocracy).

also i second elprofessor's idea about CSs:
do requests to get friendly/ally status, fail requests to lose ally status, pay gold to prolongate good relations not to get good status.

 

[bobacjj06]

The diplomatic victory is pretty lame right now but the AI actually tried to stop me from winning with it. I was Alexander and was going for the diplomatic win to see how it was. As soon as I was researching the tech for the UN, Suleiman called a peace with Augustus and started warring with all the city-states I had aligned with myself. I actually had to quick buy some military and protect some of them so that I would have enough votes to win. I thought that was excellent for Suleiman to do. I needed 7 votes to win so I had myself and 6 city-states and Suleiman destroyed my other city-states to leave me with just enough to win. If I didn't quick get some troops over to my other city-states, I surely would have been screwed.

 

[MadRat]

One way to make diplomacy interesting is to make it so that civs cannot vote for themselves. At the same time, increase the power of a civ vote to 4 times that of a city-state vote.

That way, the civs' votes will actually matter.

That is a bit silly, that the civ cant vote for itself. I'd like to see the old civ 4 rule where only the #1 and #2 civs could be voted for and the vote is proportional by pop.

Rat

 

[Brawndo]

Instead of 1 vote per civ and city-state, they should go back to votes based on population like in Civ 4

 

[lschnarch]

I don't know a lot about modding, but does anyone who does know whether it's possible to make some kind of Global Resolutions mod? I've made a couple of posts on the Creation board but no replies

Not without access to the source code. And even then it has to be fully understood and then to be enhanced the way you are thinking.
Don't expect such a mod to come before end of 2012.

That's why I keep a unit on alert in each of the CS's, to attack the incoming barbarians. 5 points is awarded if you kill them within the CS borders.

Just so you don't think I am trying to be contradictory, I am not saying that they can't improve on the current CS system (they most certainly can). Just merely offering some playstyle options with what we have currently.

Haven't you been the one who said not being bribing the CS? How can you place units within their borders, then?

 

[killmeplease]

IMO AIs voting for human player's victory is just a lame thing in essence.
Can you imagine human player voting for AI's victory, or for other human player's victory (that is not in his team)?
I think it should be reworked heavily.

 

[Rohili]

That is a bit silly, that the civ cant vote for itself. I'd like to see the old civ 4 rule where only the #1 and #2 civs could be voted for and the vote is proportional by pop.

That would turn diplomacy into a pseudo-conquest/expansion victory. IMO diplomacy should be truly about diplomacy - i.e. the other players' attitude towards you. A player should be able to win by diplomacy without having to have tons or gold, land or population.

I don't see why it is silly to disallow civs voting for themselves. It's a pretty common rule in plenty of voting systems. It is infinitely more silly to have a situation where every civ just votes for themselves, making their votes essentially inconsequential.