Expanding the UN.

[swmaniac]

At the moment, the United Nations wonder is single purposed, existing only to enable the diplomatic (more economic, but that's not neccessarily bad and another topic entirely) victory. The UN should function as more than that, giving a reason to build it in a non-diplomatic strategy.

There would be a number of changes.

First of all, it needs to be unlocked earlier. At the moment, it's so late in the tech tree that it actually somewhat makes sense as a victory condition. The UN came into existance 24 October 1945, which doesn't seem to be reflected in the tech tree. Globalization (which unlocks the UN) is a prereq for a future tech. I'm open to suggestions for when, but I was thinking early modern at least. The issue is that it comes so late that the game is already essentially over.

The UN system should be change such that becoming a member of the UN is a strategic choice, rather than required.

If you build the UN, you are automatically added as the only member. Other civs may decide to join as time goes on. If a civ attempts to join the UN, members get to vote (simple majority) on whether to let them. If they enter, they may decide to leave or be kicked out at any time.

The UN would have the following effects on diplomacy:

*Between member civs, the lowest possible diplomacy status is "Guarded"
*The UN acts as a defensive pact between all member civs. Fight one? Fight 'em all.
*The UN acts as a permanent open borders agreement between all member civs.
*Every 10 turns, there are multiple votes. You may choose to ignore them (abstain from voting), or vote in them at your preference - votes will be "remembered" in the next vote and do not have to be recast unless you've changed your mind. This is to prevent the need for repeatedly voting in each election.

There would be more resolutions.
These would include:

*UN Declare War - A response to a massive warmonger. The member civs of the UN each declare war to try to disable a civ that seems to be killing everyone in sight. This would be a last resort measure, and would require a unanimous (all approve or abstain) vote to pass. (This can only be declared on a nonmember civ)
*UN Diplomatic Sanction - A response to a hostile civ. UN civs denounce and quit trading with a civ. This would require the same number of votes as the diplomatic victory. (This can only be declared on a nonmember civ)
*UN Protectorate - Essentially the same thing as each individual nation Pledging to Protect a target civ or city-state. A measure to be taken to defend a nonmember civ.
More to come in editing.
*Kick from UN - A vote to remove a civ or city-state from the UN, they would lose all privilages from membership and be unable to attempt to rejoin for 10 turns.
*Admit to UN - A vote to permit a civ or city-state to join the UN.

Defying UN decisions:

When the UN passes one of the above resolutions, you are given 2 responses.
1) Accept and follow resolution.
2) Refuse resolution.

What happens if you accept should be obvious. However, you can refuse. If you refuse, you irritate the other members. Refuse too many important resolutions, and they'll move to kick you out of the UN.

Good idea? Suggestions?

 

[Camikaze]

How exactly does diplomatic victory fit into this?

I would think mid-modern would be a good place to have the UN; would seem to fit reality best.

TBH, I don't particularly like these ideas all that much because they don't really seem to fit in with the reality of what the UN is. I mean, members of the UN don't suddenly fight alongside each other simply because they are in the UN.

Some sort of more in depth alliance system would probably be good, and a more in depth UN would be good, but there's no real need to conflate the two.

 

[swmaniac]

How exactly does diplomatic victory fit into this?

TBH, I don't particularly like these ideas all that much because they don't really seem to fit in with the reality of what the UN is. I mean, members of the UN don't suddenly fight alongside each other simply because they are in the UN.

Diplo. victory is one of the votes that occurs every 10 turns.

I see what you mean in the second point, maybe that should be moved to a different section of diplomacy?
The ability to form military alliances would be an interesting idea.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Keep the UN exactly where it is.

-- Coordination issue with any of the other victory conditions.

If not well, some might enjoy multiplying CS variety -- click until you can decide otherwise.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it's very late. Electronics or Mass Media might be preferable (although make Diplo victory unlocked at Globalization).

I personally did not like the implementation in Civ4, which made me not want to have it in Civ5. But I do think there needs to be a Nuclear Non-Proliferation element, so the UN would make sense. Quick, off the top of my head ideas:

1. Let everyone in (including City-States). I realize this seems less than ideal, but I think it's better overall. However, only allow the builder and next two largest civs to propose resolutions. City-States that are allied to other Civs will always vote with them. Otherwise, they should vote with their interests.

2. Defying resolutions. Should be possible. If you do so, you become a suspended member, which means you can't vote until you comply with the resolution. You would also be vulnerable to sanctions and war.

3. Sanctions and War. Two options should be sanctions and war. They should only be available for use against suspended members.
Sanctions will result in a giant economic hit (maybe all trade routes become invalid). In addition, no civ can trade with a civ under sanctions unless they choose to defy the resolution.
War would be similar except it authorizes Civs to declare war against the suspended civ. Civs that declare war get no warmongering reputation hit. In addition, while at war, they should get some kind of bonus (maybe a combat bonus). There would also be a UN flag that appears next to the units or something.

4. Force peace. Can demand that another Civ make peace. Failure to do so would result in being suspended from the UN.

5. Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Requires that no new nuclear weapons be built. However, all current nuclear weapons would still be in force. Should not be available for a vote until Nuclear Fission in order to let some nukes be built.

6. Whatever ideas left, none of them should be "feel good ones" like global currency from last time where there was no reason to vote no. I could see something like "global trade" that would lead to universal open borders. Or maybe something City-State related. But, either way, make each vote actually require a choice.

 

[swmaniac]

1. Let everyone in (including City-States). I realize this seems less than ideal, but I think it's better overall. However, only allow the builder and next two largest civs to propose resolutions. City-States that are allied to other Civs will always vote with them. Otherwise, they should vote with their interests.

2. Defying resolutions. Should be possible. If you do so, you become a suspended member, which means you can't vote until you comply with the resolution. You would also be vulnerable to sanctions and war.

I agree, but I think that you should have to manually enter the UN. If you don't you get a flat negative diplomacy hit from all non UN members, but aren't punished for disobeying UN resolutions.

 

[Louis XXIV]

See, I'd like to keep as many AI attitude modifiers as things that aren't mechanical as possible. In other words, the things that bother AI players should be the same things that bother human players. I realize I cheated a bit by having UN sanctioned war not give a rep hit, but that's also because human players are generally not as upset by AI warmongering as the AI are about human warmongering.

Also, the punishments I have for disobeying UN resolutions are fairly weak. The only thing automatic is a denial of voting privilege. I created stronger options, but they're only effective if other sides are either not important trading partners with you or actively want war with you. Generally speaking, lack of a vote would be the most obvious consequence. And, in order for that vote to matter, you have to be admitted into the UN in the first place.

 

[awesome]

You may choose to ignore them (abstain from voting), or vote in them at your preference - votes will be "remembered" in the next vote and do not have to be recast unless you've changed your mind. This is to prevent the need for repeatedly voting in each election.

i just have one question about this particular point: wouldn't deciding whether or not you change your vote from last time be the same amount of effort as voting the same way again?

 

[Glak]

In reality the UN does two things: It provides jobs for bureaucrats and allows a coalition leader to easily get allies.

In Civ 4 I would represent the jobs using a smiley face in the capital. In Civ 5 I might represent it as a 5% bonus towards getting social policies.

The coalition part I would represent with free units whenever the leader of the UN is at war.

 

[Camikaze]

6. Whatever ideas left, none of them should be "feel good ones" like global currency from last time where there was no reason to vote no. I could see something like "global trade" that would lead to universal open borders. Or maybe something City-State related. But, either way, make each vote actually require a choice.

It kinda makes sense to have such resolutions, though. The tradeoff does exist in terms of opportunity cost. You can't deny your opponents nukes and pass an entirely positive resolution like global currency at the same time. And it makes realistic sense too, especially coming with Globalisation. The idea of those resolutions is to represent the benefits of multilateral organisations. Makes sense for this to happen in the game, even if for gameplay it's a bit of a formality.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, if the punishment for violating a resolution is getting kicked out, I could see having a trade bonus for being in the UN. But, at the same time, I'm not a fan of resolutions that everybody's going to vote for no matter what. Really, what is the point?

 

[Camikaze]

I guess the point is the same as everyone receiving a bonus from a technology, for instance. It's representative of the realistic benefit (i.e. the ostensible benefit) of the UN as a world wonder.

 

[dexters]

Resolutions as proposed is just carrying the Civ4 model to Civ5.

I personally feel the UN, as long as it is a wonder, becomes a 'gambit' of sorts. The benefit of building it in Civ3/ Civ4 was you control the agenda, in Civ5, it grants an extra vote.

UN ideally should not be a wonder but an organization that is negotiated and build up by getting everyone to sign up. But since we're not quite there as a design, the best way to expand the Civ5 UN is to integrate it better with an expanded City state system.

The bonuses/penalties will be 'for fun' and not have major gameplay impact.

The Security Council
Civs only
-Mirror's real world council
-Top 3 Civs get a 'seat' with veto power
- Builder gets guaranteed seat in council. If builder is not a Top 3 Civ, the other two seats are filled by the Top 2 Civs.
- Seats are recalculated every 30 turns
-If there is no quorum for 3 Civs, the council is adjourned and does not function

Wars against City States
- Council member may convene council to admonish Civs for invading City states/wars etc.
- Target Civ can veto if they have a seat on the council or may petition a permanent member (via gold/resource/lux) to veto
- If the resolution passes, see part B
- If it is vetoed no effect (perhaps happiness penalty/ but this seems like an arbitrary penalty -- ie: authoritarian states won't care, but to not apply happiness penalty equally weakens freedom as a policy path -- thus social policies will need to be reworked to function with the UN)


Wars with another Civ
- Council may be called to admonish an 'aggressor'
- Obviously if the aggressor is in the council veto will be applied and and this that
- Target Civ can veto if they have a seat on the council or may petition a permanent member (via gold/resource/lux) to veto
- If resolution passes, see part B
- If vetoed no penalty

Part B: embargoes/Sanctions
-Sanctions Civs vow not to trade for 10 turns/ All existing trades cancelled w/ no penalty
-If the target Civ is allies to a CS embargo Forces CS to stop producing benefits to the master Civ for 10 turns.


UN Resolutions
Civs + CS have votes
- Cultural Resolution +10 influence to those already allied with Cultural CS
- Maritime Resolution +10 influence to those already allied with Maritime CS
- Mililtary Resolution +10 influence to those already allied with Military CS

-City states will have original preference to vote based on their CS type, not who they are allied with
- Main Civs influence which resolution is passed by first voting which resolution to vote on, before the city states approve it. Thus Civs can agree to steer to only allow for certain types of resolutions that is most advantageous to them.

This party probably needs more balance/improved CS interaction before it will be fun, as it stands, its probably too complicated/ overpowered. But the idea is to include all active players in the game to vote on something.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think veto power would work in the game. You'd invariably be one of those with veto power, so the UN would just be another tool for the player, rather than representative of some actual organisation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the veto itself would make it essentially useless. I mean, you can argue the UN is useless in real life, but you might as well leave it how it is now if you want it to be useless.

 

[dexters]

Fair enough. I wrote most of it at 3am after a long game. I went back and reread your proposals Louis, it is very good and balanced.

 

[Scios]

I propose an anti-UN. This would be to balance the UN and it's huge powers which sw want to put in (which I like). After all, we want conflict. 