UN a bust?

[Dark_Jedi06]

Anyone else notice how pathetic they made the UN mechanic in Civ5?

All you do is buy off as many city-states as necessary, then vote for yourself...the AI will always vote for itself as well. The person with the most gold wins. Not to mention there are no resolutions. While this does seem to make sense (as the resolutions in Civ4 were based of off game mechanics that have been changed i.e. Universal Civics), but certainly they could of thought up something better?

 

[UknowsI]

The person with the most gold wins.

This would only be true if the AI tried to win. The AI will usually have enough gold to win but not use it, so it would be better to say. "If you have enough gold you'll win, otherwise nothing will happen". If you are talking about multi player, it's more correct, but in multiplayer you'll also be able to deny the other players votes.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

I don't have a problem with gold being the key, but I do dislike the AI's inability to handle it.

Gold being one of the big influences seems alright, because then you have Culture victory, Science (space) victory, Gold (Diplomatic) Victory, and Military (Domination) victory.

 

[Callonia]

UN is terrible and boring and nonanger inducing in Civ 5 D=

you can't propose resolutions to piss off people with it.

Oh the rage i do when i get forced into enviromentalist civic, so i turned the whole world into desert >

I have a fetish for turning the whole world into desert, i don't care if it wrecks my land too, i just like see the whole world into desert XD

 

[logintime]

I don't have a problem with gold being the key, but I do dislike the AI's inability to handle it.

Gold being one of the big influences seems alright, because then you have Culture victory, Science (space) victory, Gold (Diplomatic) Victory, and Military (Domination) victory.

But diplomacy can and should be about more than simply paying people off. It's supposed to be about building relationships with fellow civs and gaining their friendship and trust. That's a hard mechanic to do well- Civ4's was decent but certainly could have been better- but it also adds and entire different element and way of playing to the game.

I don't necessarily disagree that Gold shouldn't be a victory condition though, given it's newfound status as THE most important element in the game. Perhaps we could have a Wealth victory, wherein making up a certain large percentage of the global economy or reaching an unfathomably high amount of gold triggers a win? Because that would also be more interesting and fun than the current UN victory.

 

[UknowsI]

But diplomacy can and should be about more than simply paying people off. It's supposed to be about building relationships with fellow civs and gaining their friendship and trust. That's a hard mechanic to do well- Civ4's was decent but certainly could have been better- but it also adds and entire different element and way of playing to the game.

I don't necessarily disagree that Gold shouldn't be a victory condition though, given it's newfound status as THE most important element in the game. Perhaps we could have a Wealth victory, wherein making up a certain large percentage of the global economy or reaching an unfathomably high amount of gold triggers a win? Because that would also be more interesting and fun than the current UN victory.

If the AI knew how to use diplomacy it would be more complicated. But I think relationship with city states should have more of a memory. 1000 gold can now trump 1000 years as allies, which I don't find realistic. How long you've been allies and your previous actions should matter more.

 

[Varanid]

I don't know, economic hegemony has certainly been a fact of life before, so I don't object to it finding a way into the game. I Just don't like the execution of it; as others hav ementioned, it comes down to bribery. If the AI was smart it'd be one thing but it isn't. I did an experiment and went most of a game without allying to the city states until I was building the UN...I went and purchased thier votes 4 turns before the vote triggered. There was maybe *one* city stated allied with another civilization before that. I did have 2 votes in my pocket for liberating those city states too.
I mean, they hadn't cultivated alliances at all :-/

 

[Rohili]

I agree. Diplomacy in this game really sucks. It is either a gold victory or a war victory (liberate multiple city states).

 

[Perkus]

I agree with OP that diplomatic victory is pretty lame. I had a ton of gold in my last game and realized I could easily do this, but didn't bother - it seemed too cheap. I went on for an easy science win instead.

 

[CivDude86]

In the modern era turn the great merchant into a great lobbyist that spends your gold when doing a "trade" mission in return for thier vote. We get keep the buying votes mechanic but it least takes some work.

 

[GenericPlayer]

Its good to know I wasn't the only one who felt dirty when it was time to buy votes.

 

[jahsoldier]

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

 

[elley]

You could say diplomacy is an alternative science victory, first one to hit the tech and build the wonder wins.

 

[Jharii]

But diplomacy can and should be about more than simply paying people off. It's supposed to be about building relationships with fellow civs and gaining their friendship and trust. That's a hard mechanic to do well- Civ4's was decent but certainly could have been better- but it also adds and entire different element and way of playing to the game.

You know, you do have the option to exhibit some self-control and not pay them gold and instead answer their requests and protect them. I started a new game last night and I am doing that very same thing. I am doing everything for the city-states as long as it does not involve destroying other city-states and giving them gold.

I am 250 turns into an epic game and I am allied with 6 city-states at the moment, one of which I just successfully defended from China's attempt to conquer them.

All of the other city-states, I have a unit stationed in to protect them and to engage barbarian camps.

It is actually quite a fun and rewarding game.

FYI, if another AI is eliminated from the game, if you wrest control of their former capital city, you can bring that AI back into the game and they will always vote for you from that point forward.

 

[elprofesor]

Maybe they could make diplomatic victory more interesting by making impossible to improve your relation with a city state via money. That is, if you want to befriend a CS, answer one request. If you want to ally them, answer 2 request. Money would still give you influence, so that your good relationship lasts longer, but wouldn't simply be a means to buy all votes a turn before the UN election, and then you should spend more money on city states, since you want to be prepared for the election before the UN is completed.

On a side note, I think there should be more ways to trigger a vote than the UN. I think that some tech should trigger a vote, and the civ discovering the tech would get 2 votes; if somebody gets enough votes (which would be hard at the beginning, because you havent many CS allied yet, and all civs are still around), he wins; if nobody does, then whoever got the most votes would have some kind of reward, like a 10 turn golden age, or whatever.

 

[Jharii]

Maybe they could make diplomatic victory more interesting by making impossible to improveyour relation with a city state via money. That is, if you want to befriend a CS, answer one request. If you want to ally them, answer 2 request. Money would still give you influence, so that your good relationship lasts longer, but wouldn't simply be a means to buy all votes a turn before the UN election, and then you should spend more money on city states, since you want to be prepared for the election before the UN is completed.

That's all fine, but it's really easy to not click the button and not give them money.

You can impose that above rule upon yourself very, very easily.

 

[Deggial]

I have to state, that I never tried a diplomatic victory yet (as I tend to be a warmonger. Maybe, that is why I like the game very much, so far...)
But what is said about just buying votes, does not sound so exciting, indeed!

What can be done about this issue?

I think, we need two different mechanisms to influence citystates and two different "counters" that are influenced.

And - they are already there!

One "counter" is the relationship, we can spend money on. This mechanism is just fine for me and I really like it. Let us pay to be friends with an CS or even be allied and get his resources.
This relationship degrades over time. The rate of degrading is dependend to the citystates "temper". A "friendly" CS will last longer, the relation to a "irrational/hostil" CS will cool down faster.

Hey! HERE is our second counter!
And - if I did not get it wrong - it is already used as one:
When I played as Dschingis Kahn, I conquered some CS early in the game. If I remember correct, I did not meet any "friendly" SC afterwards any more. And, furthermore, CSs mop up against a mayor civ, conquering too many of them...

Why not use THIS counter, to trigger UN votings?

As elprofesor suggested, let your doings talk for you, not your money!

My proposal:
- Let citystates have their initial "temper" (from "hostil" to "friendly"), to make things diversified.
- Let this "temper" be different for any mayor civ, but evenly spread in the average.
- Let this change overtime with your doing. Fulfill a mission and the temper will rise. Destroy a CS, and all tempers will fall. (The "short term effect" on your relationship stays, at it is now!)
- Money gifted to the CS may enhance the temper aswell, but *much less* than your doings! You may *not* change a "hostil" temper to "friendly", just the turn before the voting. There *could* be a timebased cap for enhancement, here...
- let THIS be the critical counter for UN-votings, NOT the moneydriven relationship!

Maybe, but this is not thoght-out, as this is just a very offhanded writing, citystates could have more than just one vote, spreading 3/2/1 votes on the mayor civs they like best.

Side effect of this would be, that, if you try to be a valide partner for the citysates over a long time, your monytriggered influence will decline slower.

What do you think about this?

 

[elprofesor]

That's all fine, but it's really easy to not click the button and not give them money.

I see your point, but now the requests made by CS are somewhat rigid, because you can simply bribe them. Now, by turn 50 half the CS want you to conquer another CS, which is usually a bad idea, specially if you're going diplomatic. And they will stay that way till endgame.

So if I can't pay to improve my relationship with them to gain their vote, there should be either more than one request at a time for each CS (maybe 2 are enough), or some kind of cycling for their request (for example, they change their request every 50 turns), or else diplomatic victory is probably unfeasable.

Thus, some tweaks should be made on CS requests, before forbidding myself to bribe them (as I maybe should from the very beginning, since the AI doesnt know how to...)

 

[joequality]

I was surprised at the simplicity of the UN as well:

"United Nations Votes!"

Uhh... ok. What am I voting on? Secretary-General? Victory? I correctly guessed the latter, but the whole concept seems like an afterthought. Instead of building from previous Civ games, the UN is extremely simplified. Maybe an expansion pack will add more.

Its good to know I wasn't the only one who felt dirty when it was time to buy votes.

lol

 

[Jharii]

I see your point, but now the requests made by CS are somewhat rigid, because you can simply bribe them. Now, by turn 50 half the CS want you to conquer another CS, which is usually a bad idea, specially if you're going diplomatic. And they will stay that way till endgame.

So if I can't pay to improve my relationship with them to gain their vote, there should be either more than one request at a time for each CS (maybe 2 are enough), or some kind of cycling for their request (for example, they change their request every 50 turns), or else diplomatic victory is probably unfeasable.

Thus, some tweaks should be made on CS requests, before forbidding myself to bribe them (as I maybe should from the very beginning, since the AI doesnt know how to...)

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.