Expanding UN to be (possibly) evil as well

[sela1s1son]

Please no political arguements, just a fun idea.


With the current UN you can mandate: Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Religon, etc, etc, etc...


What if you could BAN those? Better still would be "Mandate Government Civic" and you vote for which civic you want to mandate. So you could mandate Police State or heriditary rule.... or Free Market or State Property, etc, etc. Could make it very interesting!

Not sure of coding, but perhaps it could be coded that leaders would either vote for thier fave civic (if appropriate) or current one. Perhaps even going so far as to mandate state religions.

I think it'd add variety to the game, and make the UN a tool for both GOOD, NUETRAL, and EVIL.



Would someone know how to accomplish this? Any more ideas to expand this?

Of course, it'd be neat to have a universal embargo on someone, etc.

OTher fun things for UN:
World Health Organization +2 Health in all cities

 

[vbraun]

Not a bad idea. But what if there was no clear majority for one of the five civics in your thing, meaning there are 5 civs and they each vote 5 different civics?

 

[donZappo]

I think this would be an awesome idea, and my initial look at things appears that this would be an exercise in XML writing. Hopefully I'm correct, as I was going to give a whirl at it tomorrow.

-donZappo

 

[sela1s1son]

Not a bad idea. But what if there was no clear majority for one of the five civics in your thing, meaning there are 5 civs and they each vote 5 different civics?

I do understand the difference between a clear majority and simply having the most. Possibly having lower thresh-holds?

IE at least 25% and most... or 33% and most or something like that...

as with five options you may get:
(hope I get my math right)

Paganism: 5%
Organized Religion: 35%
Theocracy: 28%
Pacifism: 15%
Freedom of Religion: 12%
Abstaining: 5%

So Organized Religion in THIS example may only have 35% (small in most elections) it still has the most and would meet the threshold of at least (either 25% or 33%).

I'd say 25% if the "Mandate state religion" was selected ESPECIALLY if "No State Religion" was an option

-----------
EDIT:

Run off Elections would be harder to code I think, but I thought I'd edit this post and offer that possibility as well.

 

[NKVD]

how about declare war on a specific civ ? lol that would be evil...ask saddam.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I think it'd be better to make it so that the Secretary-General's civ determines what civics are up for vote. (I actually thought that was the case since I happened to have all the civics that were being proposed )

That would make sense to me for an evil UN... proposing Police State if the Sec-General is the leader of one etc.

 

[Gogf]

I agree with DP. That way, civs can encourage other civs to use their favorite civics, even if they're not the highest in each category.

 

[Rabbit_Alex]

How about making the UN incredibly corrupt and being anti-Semetic towards any nations who practice Judaism? (Sorry but I can't resist a chance to bash the UN)

 

[Dom Pedro II]

How mature of you...

 

[AgnosticMonk]

I think it would be nice not only if you could choose to propose different civics then just the more liberal (meant in the general not-specifically-political sense) Civics, but also you can choose NOT to follow a UN mandate if you didn't want to, but with the result that there would then be a UN resolution proposed for all those who do comply to declare war on you. That means the UN can be founded on different political lines if the political mindset of the world is vastly different which isn't that far of a strech at all. It can also be a useful and realisitic tool for isolating leaders who have a preference for differing ideologies. Imagine if you could get almost the whole world to accept State Property as their ideology, all except for Mercantilist Japan, who also just so happens to be a rowdy neighbhor of yours. Under those conditions I'd lower the neccesary votes, and just allow human nature to take its course .

 

[Mewtarthio]

Outright war is too much for defying the UN. Better to make it a universal trade embargo.

 

[AgnosticMonk]

True, it does suggest the UN is more efficent then it really is Couldn't resist. Perhaps just have it as a seperate resolution which requires unanamous
consent from all abiding powers to declare war. At very least though, the offender should lose the ability to vote until they comply.

 

[nusurvivor]

So for you MOO fans out there, you might remember this little ditty- if you lose the victory vote to another player, you can choose to reject the outcome and take on the rest of the world. All the computer players immedietly trade all technologies they have and gang up in a permanent alliance against you, but if you can destroy them all, you still win.

With the perminent alliance option in Civ4, would a mod be possible so if you lose the UN vote, you can take on the globe and have one last shot to conquer them all before the clock winds down or they conquer you first?

 

[Tulkas12]

These are all beautiful ideas....

 

[Fireb]

As Tulkas pointed out, and as the Civ2 millitary advisor would have said slightly more bluntly: actions, not words, are needed

If anyone is seriously considering actually doing something about implementing a UN mod, you may like to look into or contribute to the UN mod (which aims to implement embargoes/peacekeeping) over at Apolyton: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143490
No implementation has yet been done, but the emphasis there is on doing something, as soon as someone can figure out how to do it