How should the UN be changed in Civ 4?

[Trade-peror]

As everyone is well aware, the UN has never played much of a role in Civ, and that is of course not very reflective of the *actual* role the UN plays in international relations. So here are a few improvement suggestions for starters:

The UN should be able to
1. Broker peace (or declare war) through a Security Council
2. Impose "sanctions" on rogue nations
3. Send "Peacekeeping" forces where necessary
4. Issue loans through a World Bank
5. Issue "resolutions" that are guidelines to be followed by all nations (such as a resolution to reduce pollution), and which confer some diplomatic or political penalty for those who choose to ignore or contradict such resolutions.

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!

 

[ybbor]

an increase in the Un's power would be either unbalancing or defeat the purpose of computer games in general, usually, what ends up happening is either the player controls the UN, or the computer controls the UN, the computer controlling the UN defeats the purpose of video games, to have control over your section of the world, if the player controlls it it would be too easy too get the whole world against 1 nation, and look at real life, Bush didn't get squat through the UN, and even if somehow he gto the security council, he would probably recieve just as much backing

 

[jalapeno_dude]

1. It should be able to act as a third party negotiator, but not declare war.

2. Yes. Worldwide trade embargo (or on just luxuries, or GPT deals).

3. Yes.

4. You could, but there isn't really a point to loans that late in the game.

5. Yes.

I agree that the diplo victory doesn't make sense.

However, the game would need to be extended for these things to happen, since most games are already won at this point.

 

[Trade-peror]

@ ybbor:

Before I comment much, could you please define "the purpose of computer games in general"? Thanks!

And, I know Bush didn't "get squat" through the UN, but I would not say that he would necessarily have received very much backing in the Security Council.


@jalapeno_dude:

1. I was originally thinking that a Security Council would declare war and then use UN troops against the rogue nation...but that would require some reconsideration. As for third party negotiation, that is just what I also had in mind!

4. I suppose that could be true, since there aren't too many civers out there who would give "humanitarian aid" to a poor, suffering AI ...

Also, I understand how most games are just about over by the time the Modern Age arrives. But this new UN feature would perhaps give more incentive to try a more "modern" (?) way of ruling, holding off victory in the previous ages. Combined with the changing economics of the Modern Age that would occur if my new trade system (discussed here ) were implemented, playing in the modern age would actually be quite different from previous ages, which might make the modern age more interesting to those players who find it or the game somewhat boring by that time.

Finally, I find the current form of "Diplomatic Victory" to be illogical, almost random, but I think the concept of winning diplomatically is interesting and should be considered.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by Trade-peror
As everyone is well aware, the UN has never played much of a role in Civ,

I couldn't possibly disagree more. The majority of players are warmongers. The UN means we have to either win before the UN rolls around or keep our noses as clean as possible while killing everyone. There's a number of players who just never enable Diplomatic victory because of it.

If your games are consistently over before the UN rolls around, chances are you're not playing at a level appropriate to your skill.

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.

Not only do I believe it was instituted to make the game less about waging war, but I personally think it was introduced to give builders a 'back-up' plan in case they were going to get beat out on a space/culture race.

 

[Margim]

To have any realism, you need the US in Civ 4 to be able to ignore any and all decisions/effects implemented by the United Nations wonder.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. If you want to argue about real-life diplomacy, go to the Off Topic Forum. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Underseer]

Originally posted by Margim
To have any realism, you need the US in Civ 4 to be able to ignore any and all decisions/effects implemented by the United Nations wonder.

You're operating under the assumption that there will be no negative repercussions from Bush's actions. It is far to early to make definitive statements about that, but I hope those @$#% republicans will keep in mind that we won't be the biggest dog on the street forever. No civilization ever is.

Moderator Action: Warning - Don't feed the trolls. If you want to argue real life diplomacy, go to Off Topic. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Speedo]

To have any realism, you need the US in Civ 4 to be able to ignore any and all decisions/effects implemented by the United Nations wonder.

There are plenty of threads in OT for foaming at the mouth about Bush. Spare us from dragging it through the rest of the forum...

1. Broker peace (or declare war) through a Security Council
2. Impose "sanctions" on rogue nations
3. Send "Peacekeeping" forces where necessary
4. Issue loans through a World Bank
5. Issue "resolutions" that are guidelines to be followed by all nations (such as a resolution to reduce pollution), and which confer some diplomatic or political penalty for those who choose to ignore or contradict such resolutions.

1. It shouldn't be able to declare war. I don't really see how it being a 3rd party in peace deals would really help.. unless it was offering gpt or something to bribe peace...

2. Could be interesting, but I don't think it would happen often.

3. Don't think that would work so well. To much possibility for exploit.

 

[IsTinPoliBoy]

What would constitute a rogue nation in a CivIII game? I fully agree that the modern age needs to be more dynamic... less about war and more about economics and diplomacy. I don't know if the United Nations is the way to go about it, though. If there's to be more detail in the UN portion of gameplay, then other multinational organizations could possibly come into play (i.e. NAFTA, EU, OPEC, etc.) But that's not what Civ is about (not the first 3, anyway... we'll have to wait and see what 4 holds in store). The bottom line is: if you want a more diplomatic game, look somewhere else. CivIII is just too dog-on militaristic.

 

[oregonduckman33]

I like all of your ideas except maybe for #3. Maybe you could do something kinda like that. But as Speedo said, it could probably be exploited easily

 

[Smellincoffee]

Due to Civ3 diplomacy, it'd be hard to sterotype a "rouge" nation. Some one with lots of nukes? One nation going after everyone else? What happens if there's a minor skirmish and the player uses the UN to get everyone else on his side even though the player is in the wrong?

I despise the UN in "real" life, but I find it handy so I can play the modern age without worrying about spaceship parts. (I only go after spaceship if I know I can get it, one of my own hangups)

 

[Margim]

Originally posted by Trade-peror
The UN should be able to
1. Broker peace (or declare war) through a Security Council
2. Impose "sanctions" on rogue nations
3. Send "Peacekeeping" forces where necessary
4. Issue loans through a World Bank
5. Issue "resolutions" that are guidelines to be followed by all nations (such as a resolution to reduce pollution), and which confer some diplomatic or political penalty for those who choose to ignore or contradict such resolutions.

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.

Ok, firstly my apologies for my post above. It was the wrong place for that kind of humour.

My comments -
1) An AI in the wonder itself should be able to force treaties in conflicts where the loser has only one city remaining regardless of their 'membership'- on threat of incurring the wrath of the entire world. Non-compliance either results in UN nations declaring war, or the issuing of peacekeepers as specified below.

2) Membership to UN achieved through commissioning of diplomats to the building city. Non members, or 'rogues', are sanctioned if they declare war on a member state. Members declaring wars on non-members permissable. Non-members/rogues are also inelligable for funding from the world bank. Members are required to pay some sort of upkeep fee for membership, to create the funding basis of the world bank.

3) Peacekeepers would be useful as an AI controlled body, to be activated when 'Civil Wars' (which should also be included) take place, or when extinction of a Civ becomes a possibility. The UN would effectively become a Civ of its own, but could only be controlled by the AI. Possibly could completely remove and replace barbarians somehow in the late game. Cities captured by the U.N. gain an automatic income for world bank purposes.
Peacekeepers would be issued on a majority vote of all 'member nations', with deadlocks, if they occur, being decided by the builder of the wonder.

4) Applications for World Bank funding (as requests to borrow gold are done in Civ 3), would be made to this AI, and be granted on the basis of some calculation of a civ's power and demographics, but would have to be ratified by a member vote.

5) Resolutions a great idea, but once again would require member ratification.

If the city owning the UN Wonder was captured, the wonder is instantly destroyed and relocated in the capital of the second member Civ (providing they haven't beomce rogue).

 

[Turner]

Civ3 gave us more diplomatic options. It was a great first step in the right direction.

This game, as said, does put more emphasis on war than peace. I'd like to see some kind of peacemongering that could be done. Maybe a unit created, called a protester, or somesuch, that can inflitrate a city and increase WW. Or something along those lines.

I'd like third parties to be able to initiate peace between two waring civs. Let's say the HI is Babylon, and they're at war with the Mayans. Babs want out, but the Mayans won't listen to the envoy. The Babs can go to, say, the Celts and ask them to talk to the Mayans. The celts get a percentage of the peace deal. Or a straight GPT/lump sum for doing it.

Civ has always been about war, and expansion through conquest. I don't disagree with this concept, I've been using it since Civ1. But it would be nice to see other options to play. Civ3 made some great first steps in that direction, with the culture win and the diplo win. And of course there's always been the space race victory. I'd just like to see other avenues to pursue.

 

[globester]

what about being able to make demands, but other parties shouldn't find these too outrageous.
Like sending troops to some country, but if they don't agree, they can depose you as Secretary-general and have a re-election or something

 

[ybbor]

Originally posted by Trade-peror
@ ybbor:

Before I comment much, could you please define "the purpose of computer games in general"? Thanks!

And, I know Bush didn't "get squat" through the UN, but I would not say that he would necessarily have received very much backing in the Security Council.

well, if you read on you would see i said

the purpose of video games, to have control over your section of the world,

also if you readon about the security council you would see i said

even if somehow he got the security council, he would probably recieve just as much backing

 

[xxyyzz]

I think the UN has some possibilities, but not as a game ender, I'd like to see it continue on.

Some of the things I like to see, is maybe have it kick out a mech infantry unit every so many turns. Have these specailly designed units labled as multi-national or something. They can be used to shield workers, rebuild roads in wartorn countries... So if an AI attacks them they will be declaring war on a number of countries. Hopefully that will desuade them.

Also the dynamics need to be increased, surprisingly there isn't a development of cold war organizations like NATO and Warsaw Pact. I'd love to be able to see the AI react/join/ drop out of said organizations. These would enable MPPs, trade embargos on a 20 turn base, in which an option would arise to join or drop from the organization.

Edited for spelling.

 

[Will_518]

yes to all.

The peace keeping force could be used to bully other countries (e.g. Korean war), as an excuse to start an invasion.
the resolutions thing and rogue nations can be used in the same way. (hey, this is quite realistic!)

I'd like to see the UN used as an alliance sort of thing for small nations, so late in the game, other civs can still pose a big threat to you.

 

[Trade-peror]

@ superslug:

Sorry, I should have rephrased my sentence as:

"As everyone is well aware, the UN in Civ has never reflected much in terms of its ostensible role in the real world..."

Maybe that would be more agreeable?

As for the Diplomatic Victory, I (as mentioned in some post before) find the reasoning illogical, but not the concept. As in, how does becoming Secretary-General allow you to "control the world"? The concept of an escape route for a peaceful civ about to go under is a good one, however.

@Speedo:

1. I suppose the "declaring war" needs some serious reconsideration. As for third-party negotiations, perhaps the UN can pressure parties to stop a war or suffer maybe a reputation hit.

2. I thinking along the lines of the Trade Embargo in Monte Cristo's Political Tycoon. If anyone has ever played it, its diplomacy system has some interesting *ideas*, although of course I would also say it is quite lacking in many other aspects.

3. If the UN cannot declare war, then "Peacekeeping" forces would be irrelevant as combat units--as mentioned by xxyyzz, perhaps they could "rebuild roads in wartorn countries" or something.

@IsTinPoliBoy:

Sorry, I was not being specific with the term "rogue nation"--it was simply a general reference to any non-UN or noncooperating country.

As for Civ being a conquer-the-world game, I agree that that is what it has been, and more robust UN, diplomacy, and economic systems would shift focus away from that in the more modern eras. In other words, I would not define Civ as a warmongering game; perhaps war is useful early on in ancient and medieval times, but as modern eras arrive, there should be changes in the style of ruling.

@Margim:

What interesting ideas!

1. Your modifications here seem reasonable--the UN will try to prevent the complete "genocide" of a particular race (civ).

2. I am not sure about a membership fee, for the express purpose of funding a World Bank.

In the real World Bank, nations contribute however much they want and when the time comes to vote on a loan proposal, they vote a certain number of "shares" they want to contribute to the loan, and these shares are based on what they have invested in the World Bank. For example, the US has more than $30 million worth of shares. If there is a loan proposal asking for $70 million, then the US can contribute some of its shares to the proposal. If, after all countries are done contributing and the proposals has not amassed $70 million worth of shares, the loan fails. If it has, the loan passes.

That may be a bit more complicated than optimal for Civ, but the membership fee would also demand a justification--what do civs get for being in the UN? Are the benefits worth a fee?

3. As mentioned in my replies above, the Peacekeepers idea is somewhat iffy as combat units, because it is not clear who would control such forces. The AI could, I suppose, but that does not really reflect actual situations. In reality, nations contribute to the UN forces--there is no real "UN civ."

Therefore, I think maybe an *Army* unit called Peacekeepers might be possible, where you load units contributed by member units into it, and the overall force of Peacekeepers is controlled by whoever contributes the most forces.

4. As the specific nature of the member ratification is not mentioned, I would prefer the method used by the real World Bank explained above.

5. Exactly!

Relocating the UN is perfectly reasonable, since the organization cannot be physically destroyed. But this demands reconsideration of other concept-wonders. For example, you can physically destroy "Universal Suffrage" or the "Theory of Evolution."

@Turner _727:

I like the idea of a unit that can infiltrate cities and raise war weariness, but I don't see the connection to the UN...

@Will_518:

I think the UN *would* turn out to be, basically, a "massive alliance."

 

[IsTinPoliBoy]

For something like the UN to work in a competitive game, there has to be some incentive for the "big" player(s) to help out the "little guys." Otherwise it's just a useless feature, like the paratroopers::wink::

 

[AdHHH]

OK Ive already posted on the official ideas thread about this, but Ive had another think. This is what the UN should do.

1. Enable diplomatic victory
2. Allow MPPs between more than 2 nations (for anyone)
3. Allow any number of players in an alliance against any number of civs (for anyone, i.e. England, US and Spain against France, Germany and Russia)
4. Trade embargoes, SMAC style
5. Pollution agreements with pre-stated punishments


*New Ideas*
What if the UN allowed the builder to use martial law in a democracy/rep by using 'peacekeeper' non-civilizational units?

A cost based on Civ size, which the builder does not pay, entrance is obligatory, ejection causes a rep hit worse than breaking ROP (because the Civ must have declared war after the UN). The UN could effectively be used to win Space Race without the risk of being attacked, which is what usually happens if you manage to avoid a diplomatic loss.