An Idea on changing the UN

[cFccFc]

I just recently played a game with the UN where I was in war with one civilization quite hostile to me. He had been hostile the whole game and even declared war on my best neighbour and myself a couple times. I decided to take him out as he was nothing but a pain in the ass. But as he was at least technological equal in the beginning this wasn't easy at all. I used alot of times to turn my cities into military production cities. I created alot of units over time and sendt them down, when I had captured a couple of cities my population started to get a bit angry and I had to change to Police state. With Jail, police state and that national wonder mountain I was going just fine untill the UN came up. I had captured almost half of his cities when suddenly the UN had decided to put out the Universal Suffrage as a must. Then my cities was suddenly filled with red populations, these damn useless communits that wants nothing else than to be angry. This pissed me off and made me think a little.

As I see it, the UN's domination in these strategical changes is nothing but unrealistic and destroys alot of the fun. Why shall the UN make it impossible to create nukes or to play as a dictator for a time? It doesn' so in the real world, the UN was even a tool used by muslim states and dictatorships in their struggle against Israel in the 70-80's. It is impossible for the UN to make their decisions a must for every nations in the real world, and so it should be in CIV.
If we remove the must-change and replace it with a dyniamic close to the emancipation and in the same time make other civs a bit more hostile if you remove yourself from the decisions.
This way you could make nations going away from the flow abit easier to isolate just like in the real world as well. Nations that continues with Police State or Theocracy instead of free religion gets punished by creating some angry populations and a one or two minus on other civs feelings toward you.
This would make it impossible for civs to go against the UN on several standards and still be effective, but it allows a little extra freedom.
If you follow everything the UN says, you could also get an extra smily or two and get one + on other civs feelings towards you.


What do you guys think? I think it would make the civ world closer to reality in how civs react to each other and give some extra freedom to the player.

What also could be great if there was a wonder that took away your own angry population that was created by your unwill to follow UN's decisions.

 

[Jerky]

I actually like this idea. I hate trying to be a police state with Diplomatic victory on because then I can't do my plan. A UN mod like this would be great. Once again great idea.

 

[cFccFc]

Thanks Jerky...

No other feedback? Come on guys...
Is there already a mod like this one or?

 

[Gerikes]

Thanks Jerky...

No other feedback? Come on guys...
Is there already a mod like this one or?

Might've received more feedback had you posted this on the correct forum.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Here it is for tutorials, ref & guides. I will read your post once it has been moved.

 

[cFccFc]

Well, now it has been moved. Sorry guys, I am new on the forum...

What do you think?

 

[Diamondeye]

I like the idea, although I am not much for playing the late game part of the game, and thus have experienced a UN being formed. I tend to destroy everyone who is either weak or warmonger and then try to beat my enemies using score and a couple of nukes - or five.

Sounds fine though.

 

[cFccFc]

Thanks mate. Can anyone who know a thing or two about modding and stuff, tell me if this is easy to create in a mod?

 

[Khan Quest]

I was thinking along the same lines with defying UN madates causing a significant relations hit.

 

[Wodan]

Personally I would suggest waiting to see what they do in the new expansion. They've announced significant UN changes, and we're only a couple months off now.

Wodan

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I like this idea.

It's for the very reasons you've stated I usually am the one who builds the UN and also the one with enough votes to turn the world the way I want.

 

[cFccFc]

Yeah, but it sucks the times you didn't build it, doesn't become the leader and doesn't have the votes demanded to have a big impact.

Thanks for your replies, if anyone could make this playable I would be forever gratefull.

 

[Macha]

This idea has came up again and again

 

[OTAKUjbski]

This idea has came up again and again

All the more reason it should be implemnted, eh?

 

[cFccFc]

So say I. Didn't know that it has been mentioned before. Still no modmakers that can tell me about my question if it is easy to do?

 

[RVallant]

Civ4's UN is more like the EU... Single currency, open trade, stupid ideas... Did I miss anything? >_>

Anyway yeah it needs changing =)

 

[magicalsushi]

The UN (in the game) is just another obstacle, in the same way that your opponents' armies are obstacles. If someone else builds it or controls it, there's no reason you should expect it to benefit *you* - they're the ones who've put in the effort to get control of it, and their reward for that is that they can now use it to make life difficult for their rivals. I think that's fair. If the resolutions are unacceptable, then you'll need to make a plan to make sure you gain control of the UN yourself. It is certainly possible, even if it's difficult. If it's too difficult to be worth doing, then don't do it, and endure the civic restrictions.

As for it being unrealistic, it's true that in real life, the UN is pretty toothless. However, I've noticed this doesn't stop real-life conservatives moaning about it trying to spoil their fun, voting against wars and stuff. I quite like the way it gets to control civics in the game - it could certainly be improved, but the basic idea seems fun to me. If you don't want the UN to stop you using a civic you need, then you'll have to plan accordingly. It takes effort, in the same way that grabbing the most land, building the biggest army and winning the tech race also all take effort. If you choose to focus on something else, and don't put in the effort to become leader of the UN, then you have to get used to obeying the (limited) restrictions that the leader can inflict on you. The UN is just another (interesting!) way to make things difficult for your opponents.

[I seem to disgree with just about everyone else on this issue, but I'm not trying to criticise anyone or say anybody's opinions are invalid. As KMadCandy would probably say, just play the game however is most fun for you! I do think it's worth giving my perspective on the issue though, since no-one else seems to see the UN this way!]

 

[Wodan]

Magicalsushi, one problem with your analysis is that control != ability to direct the mandate (or not) of civics. The Secretary does this, and who is the Secretary is determined by vote.

Secondly, it is my opinion that the very notion of having mandated civics at all is a mechanic that stifles creativity and enjoyment of the game. It reduces replayability thus repeat enjoyment.

For example, I devise a civ which makes a very creative use of (pick some civics). This civic combination is not one of the "usual" choices that players would follow and find to be the most powerful in the game. Call it "the road less traveled" if you will. Yet, it turns out to be very powerful the way I play it, and it's a lot of fun.

Then the UN comes along and either another player builds it, or I build it but lose control of the vote and other civics get enacted. Suddenly my economy comes crashing down and I lose the game horribly.

What's the lesson there? The UN adds a risk to other strategies. A calculated risk... "can I sneak past the UN, or is it going to nail me at the end?" This risk has to be mentally added into the game-start decision whether to choose that strategy, or whether to use a strategy which uses the "UN approved" civics (such as your standard CE strategy). It is a negative to the other strategies, a negative to variety.

You point out, "get control of the UN yourself." So, you say that this also becomes a tool for the player. Proactively direct your game strategy to building infrastructure such that the "UN approved" civics are your goal. Build the UN, and force all other players to adopt. This will hurt those other players who did not adopt the same strategy from game start. Any human player who is on the receiving end of this is going to have a negative play experience, whether in MP or against AIs. "Get control yourself" in no way reduces the negatives about the UN.

The only real saving grace to the UN is that most games don't get to this part of the modern era. People tend to conquer much earlier than that.

Wodan

 

[Mewtarthio]

Additionally, the UN stretches suspension of disbelief. Sure, I'll buy that most of the game is an abstraction, but when you get a single entity that can enforce freedom and democracy upon a massive, world-crushing dictator armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons who has cut off all contact with the outside world save the contact of hot bullets upon the flesh of those who stand before him, that gets unrealistic. Heck, you can force Tokogawa to chance civics. Tokugawa, who won't have anything to do with anyone!

No, you should be able to defy the UN, but the penalty needs to be harsher than some diplomatic red text. Perhaps trade sanctions (cut off foreign trade routes with law-abiding nations) and unhappiness.

 

[magicalsushi]

Magicalsushi, one problem with your analysis is that control != ability to direct the mandate (or not) of civics. The Secretary does this, and who is the Secretary is determined by vote.

...

Then the UN comes along and either another player builds it, or I build it but lose control[/B} of the vote and other civics get enacted.

I was careful to distinguish between 'build' and 'control' when writing my post - as you were when writing yours. You seem to have missed the distinction when reading my post, however; when I talked about putting in the effort to control the UN, I wasn't only talking about building it, I was talking about becoming secretary. This is why I emphasised that it's difficult to do (just building it is a lot less difficult). I was talking about gaining control of the UN, which certainly is equal to the ability to NOT mandate civics, as you can just avoid picking those resolutions. On a related note, control of the UN does not give you the full power to vote in mandatory civics, as you need other players to agree with you. Of course, if that's your goal, controlling the UN certainly wouldn't hurt. Another issue, somewhat damaging to my case, is that, even if you do gain control of the UN, it might be difficult to get rid of civics that have already been voted in. All you can really do is keep trying to get them repealed, and hope your opponents are sick of them too.

It is a negative to the other strategies, a negative to variety.

When you put it like that, I can appreciate why you think it's detrimental to the game. Don't forget though, that if you're expecting to persue a non-UN-mandated set of civics as part of your strategy, and are not confident that you'll get control of the UN, you could just try destroying it. I've never done so, but I presume that kills off the resolutions. Sounds like fun, actually. Obviously, that takes effort, so it's still a minus to any esoteric strategies, but hopefully not an insurmountable one.

"Get control yourself" in no way reduces the negatives about the UN.

Also a fair point. The fact that only one player can succeed in getting control does mean that the rest of the players are guaranteed to be disappointed, if control is very important. I think that's the real problem - control *is* very important, because the UN is simply over-powered.

Allowing resolutions to be proposed mandating civics from any row (perhaps only the ones the secretary is actually using, though) would help remove some of the "bottom-row bias" that you've suggested currently sucks variety out of the game. Making the AI vote more intelligently would also help.

No, you should be able to defy the UN, but the penalty needs to be harsher than some diplomatic red text. Perhaps trade sanctions (cut off foreign trade routes with law-abiding nations) and unhappiness.

YES! I agree very strongly with this - the UN debate comes up over and over again and each time, people are almost (or entirely?) unanimous that the UN should be defiable. I'm one of the few people who's tried fighting the UN's corner (and the experience has helped convince me it probably has a malign influence on many games), and even I've always agreed that it should be defiable. I also agree that diplomatic red text is not enough - not only is it a feeble penalty in a single player game, it's almost meaningless in a multi-player game. I'm glad Firaxis have moved away from "human ignorable" wonder effects, like Civ 2's version of the Eiffel Tower.

The main reason I've stood up for the UN is that I was previously a Civ 2 player, and the implementation of the UN in that game was really mediocre. It has much more of an impact in Civ 4 - too much of an impact, it seems. I'm not remotely bothered by the fact that the real-life UN is relatively unimportant, but this thread is starting to convince me that the Civ 4 UN is game-damagingly powerful.

(but don't forget folks, you could just try knocking it down!)