How should the UN be changed in Civ 4?

[collin_stp]

I was going to suggest a similar idea, but never got around to posting it.

I think in addition to the UN, multiple country deals and alliances would be good, but this has been mentioned a few times if I remember correctly.

For the UN, it should be a combination of the UN, WTO, IMF, etc. You should have a choice if you want to join or not, and have to pay some tax into it dependent on power. There should be some set bylaws, for instance, no attacking countries without just cause, etc., and some voted on bylaws, like a nuke ordinance. It could provide funds for countries in trouble. Also, you should be able to build troops to carry out UN duties for a smaller cost. If you get UN approval for a war, war weariness should be significantly lower. Because countries should get either an equal vote, or a semiweighted vote, it should give more power to weaker countries, and in some cases counterweigh the stronger ones. Nobody would be forced to follow the UN, but it could cause the UN to encourage war against a defying country, with UN troups (which again would be cheaper).

Not perfect, but I think this would really help in the modern age, and could be an extra thing that strong countries have to heed.

 

[Trade-peror]

@ AdHHH:

Why should UN allow a "Diplomatic Victory"? What is the rationale and what might be a reasonable explanation for such an event?

@ collin_stp:

I'm not sure what you mean by "some tax" that must be paid "dependent on power." As I interpret it now, that means a membership fee.

As for how it might "provide funds for countries in trouble," I hope you don't mind reading my suggestion in a previous (long) post as to how the World Bank does and should work. What do you think?

UN sanctioned wars should indeed reduce war weariness significantly, since they are "justifiable."

In resolutions, all countries should wield only one vote, as in reality and thereby leveling the field.

 

[Ukraineboy]

Originally posted by Trade-peror


Finally, I still do not understand the logic behind the "Diplomatic Victory" of becoming the Secretary-General of the UN. Perhaps that should be changed as well.

All of the proposals above are pretty sketchy, so specific suggestions are encouraged, as well as general new ideas. Hopefully the Civ 4 UN will have much more meaning than its previous versions!

lol yeah, the Secretary-General thing is stupid.. technically, in our world.. Nelson Mandela has won a diplomatic victory on behalf of the Zulu

 

[Knowze Gungk]

It should just be simple like, say, if anyone wishes to declare war after it is built, it's put to the vote.
It won't matter if the two nations in question vote or not, 'cause their votes will cancel each other out (unless the target nation is itching for a fight). If the invasion is out voted, the aggressor can still declare war, but will recive a massive rep. hit if they do.

 

[AdHHH]

Tradeperor: The idea of UN secretary general is simple: it provides non-warmongers with an opportunity to win the game without the Space Race, the non-war elements are under-developed as it is and taking away the UN would just make this worse. As i said in the Civ4 thread, the UN builder should also get a veto on all votes made, unless they are unanimous against the UN holder, this would allow the player to help allies and/or hinder foes. Can you think of another way to end the game without violence?
1. Maybe if the UN builder prevented all wars until 2050 s/he wins?
2. What about a 'happiness' win, call it utopian victory or something, it requires x amount of happy voices through all ages?

 

[Trade-peror]

I understand the need, as I specified earlier, for the *concept* of a nonviolent victory method, but I simply do not see how it is possible to logically explain how becoming Secretary-General of the UN means a player has dominated the world. In other words, I do want something to adopt the function of the "Diplomatic Victory," but perhaps not the UN.

 

[AdHHH]

Well what do u suggest? The no-war thing is an option, but could be exploitable (i.e. build it on 2049 and get the victory bonus without doing anything) but there would have to be a time limit. Although Kofi Annan is no massive symbol of world power, he has won the 'popularity test' that is democracy and therefore holds a definite authority over world affairs because he has the respect of nations. Non-violent victories are not always a show of "domination" but one of respect for honouring agreements, trading generously etc. and generally being a peaceful Civ... And i still can't see how Peacekeepers could be used in the game...

 

[Trade-peror]

With the respect of nations, I do not necessarily think a player should win, but should instead receive some kind of bonus towards a win, such as more favorable attitudes in negotiations, or ability to "force" a peace deal that a party could not refuse without a massive reputation hit.

And as you said, how the "no war" thing will work is still maybe exploitable, unless modified.

As for peacekeepers, I am not sure if you have been reading all the ideas thrown around so far concerning them, but they are still pretty difficult to fit into the picture without unbalancing the game. In a long previous post of replies, I suggested and described a "peacekeeper Army" unit. How do you suppose that idea might work? And notice how vaguely my very original post described "peacekeepers" .

As for other kinds of peaceful victories, I think my new trade system, described in a link in my second or third post in this thread, would allow many possibilities in terms of an economic win. What do you think?

 

[AdHHH]

Sorry for such a late reply Ive been a bit busy (not least reading your trade suggestion!). The only changes I would make to trade would be that in Communism you can only trade with Communist states, and in Democracy/Republic the CPU trades with whoever will give the most money at the time (as they would in a capitalist state). I think the UN should be used to stop wars, particularly ones which are only being waged to destroy spaceship construction. There definitely has to be a UN victory in Civ4, and another non-war victory, as the point scoring is far too focused on war-mongers.

 

[Zidane]

I think the UN should be similar to the Planetary Council or whatever its called in Alpha Centauri, the leaders can raise and abolish certain rules in the game. Maybe the person who builds it could be like the head leader.