Funny Screenshots: Part Deux

[EmperorFool]

The whole vote defiance system has bothered me from the start.

First, you should only be able to defy the resolution yourself. Voting to defy the outcome should not stop the vote from succeeding and binding others to the resolution. Denial works like a veto rather than refusing to follow the voted outcome.

Second, you shouldn't have to defy the vote up front. Instead, you should be able to vote no and only if it passes should you be given the option to defy the resolution. It sucks to defy a resolution and paying the price when the vote ends up failing anyway.

World: "We've decided not to ban nukes!"
Me: "Too bad, I'm going to keep building them."
World: "You will pay the price for refusing to do what we agreed not to do."

 

[Silu]

Second, you shouldn't have to defy the vote up front. Instead, you should be able to vote no and only if it passes should you be given the option to defy the resolution. It sucks to defy a resolution and paying the price when the vote ends up failing anyway.

I'm pretty sure the game does function like you say it should (you don't get the unhappiness if it would have failed anyway).

 

[LegionSteve]

First, you should only be able to defy the resolution yourself. Voting to defy the outcome should not stop the vote from succeeding and binding others to the resolution. Denial works like a veto rather than refusing to follow the voted outcome.

That would perhaps make more logical sense, but might not be great for gameplay. Imagine everyone votes Yes to ban nukes, but one civ defies - they can now build nukes but no-one else can. It would make voting Yes to ban nukes very dangerous.

Second, you shouldn't have to defy the vote up front. Instead, you should be able to vote no and only if it passes should you be given the option to defy the resolution. It sucks to defy a resolution and paying the price when the vote ends up failing anyway.

Like Silu said, I thought that's how it works now - you only get the Defy unhappiness if the vote would have passed?


The only thing I would really like changed with the voting would be to be able to bribe the others to change their votes, like you could in SMAC.

 

[choxorn]

Imagine everyone votes Yes to ban nukes, but one civ defies - they can now build nukes but no-one else can. It would make voting Yes to ban nukes very dangerous.

Only if no nukes have yet been built. Kind of like in the real world, where a few rogue nations defy the non-proliferation treaty and try to get nukes, but don't have a monopoly on nukes on account of the several thousand other nations already have.

 

[deanej]

But with the current system, a vote can come up again and again. If you defy something and an AI in the secretary general, then that same vote will often come up again and again until it's passed. If you're serious about defying the resolution, the unhappiness (which is permenant as far as I can tell) builds up very quickly and your empire will be ruined. By the way, the AI brings up civic votes most often.

 

[TheLazyHase]

But with the current system, a vote can come up again and again. If you defy something and an AI in the secretary general, then that same vote will often come up again and again until it's passed. If you're serious about defying the resolution, the unhappiness (which is permenant as far as I can tell) builds up very quickly and your empire will be ruined. By the way, the AI brings up civic votes most often.

I don't see the problem. Yes, it's costly to refuse the will of the UN, especially if the UN absoluty want that thing. And in real life they actually are topic that come back every few years.

The unhapiness is not permanent in that you can make it go away if you vote right. For example, if trade route pass and you voted yes, the unhapiness of UN go away.

 

[jmas]

the unhappiness (which is permenant as far as I can tell)

I have no direct experience with the UN, however, I wonder if the unhappiness penalty is similar to the one for the Apostolic Palace. From this thread on the AP, concerning defiance:

"The Happiness Penalty lasts for 20 turns but this duration is reduced for other religions present in the city. Further Defiances prolong the duration of Villain status."

I am guessing that religions don't make a difference concerning UN-defiance unhappiness, but the 20-turn duration and the "Further Defiances prolong the duration" certainly may apply.

 

[CivIVMonger]

What is wrong with this hill? (Funny Wierd, not haha.)

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

I agree with EmperorFool.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

What is wrong with this hill? (Funny Wierd, not haha.)

It gets like that when you regenerate or build it in World Builder. Save it and reload, the graphics will go back to normal.

 

[bestbrian]

What is wrong with this hill? (Funny Wierd, not haha.)

View attachment 230718

Some Carpenter Giant left his hammer and sandwich on it?

 

[jsweeney]

Some Carpenter Giant left his hammer and sandwich on it?

best.response.ever

 

[Joecoolyo]

Even Hitler's facepalming at what he's saying here:

 

[mechaerik]

Win? or Fail?

 

[bestbrian]

best.response.ever

 

[Kanzera]

Even Hitler's facepalming at what he's saying here:

I'm sorry, but did you scratch out your last name? Nice pic, though. Happened to me, too!

 

[bestbrian]

Love the Hitler pic. I once had an isolated start, and when I made contact I found the main continent dominated by Corporal Hitler, who was the head of the Jewish Apostolic Palace, and was involved in a holy war against Stalin.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

1) Best.Euphemism.Ever.
2) What is wrong with this picture?
3) How Ironic!

 

[6K Man]

I had no idea Gilgamesh was so kinky

 

[bestbrian]

I had no idea Gilgamesh was so kinky

What's kinky? He had an event planning business.