How to implement UN peacekeepers ?

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Hiya people,

Just downloaded the canadian "Blue Cask" unit and thought about making it a universal unit for use a modern unit buildable after the UN has been established...

The problem I see is that of implementing it into the game.

I thought about giving it a low attack value (*peacekeeper*) but a healthy defense bonus- it should be easily deployable by helicopter/apc and not be attacked lightly by any civ. I don't think there should be a privateer flag with it (some people may want to use it to scout out enemy terrain) as it would get attacked- besides UN troops are only to be used under terms of explicit treaties that allow their deployment...


Please feel free to include your ideas as my mind is quite busy at the moment, as I have to start writing my dissertation soon...

 

[Smoking mirror]

How to implement UN peace keepers?
If you find out, you may want to tell the UN, cos they certainly don't know.
The problem is, that even in the real world understanding how UN peacekeepers are deployed, sucessfully and unsucessfully, is a problem that almost no one understands. Just what constitutes sucess in a peacekeeping mission? Some people would say that it is using the armed might of the UN to protect civilians, by sheer intimidation of armed dissidents. Others want the peacekeepers to activly seek out terrorists and eliminate the threat to foreign civilians. The military units currently in Afganistan are not UN peace keepers, in game terms they are traditional military units, eliminating a hostile force, and then giving the territory (captured cities) to another government.
I think Un peace keepers should be mech infantry, with the privateer flag, but almost no attack. Just move them in to the territory of a civ that is at peace with you, but is under attack from a hostile civ (but that is not at war with the UN) If they want to attack entrenched mech infantry, that is thier business.
The other option is to just make them a standard unit and use them to protect civs who you have an alliance with. High movement, attack and defence scores intermediate between the modern armour and mech infantry. If the unit is well suited to distant war people will use it rather than traditional armour.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
How to implement UN peace keepers?
If you find out, you may want to tell the UN, cos they certainly don't know.

Hmm, perhaps Firaxis should take the "unused" flag and make it sth which punishes the AI (and players) from attacking the UN flagged unit...

The UN unit should also be able to recon surrounding terrain- i.e. inspecting procedures and military movements...
Problems i've encountered with the privateer flag are that foreign units even atack specops units (with this flag) in my own territory if they can reach them in one turn (railway)...

 

[MonkeyPaw]

Here's an idea:

What if you made UN Peacekeeper units have low offense, high defense and hidden nationality? You can deploy them into enemy territory and try and get between warring civs, and they can be attacked without you being dragged into the war.

Just a thought.

(Oop- I see you already suggested that idea as "Privateer" flag. Sorry, I'm new with the editor.)

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by MonkeyPaw
Here's an idea:

What if you made UN Peacekeeper units have low offense, high defense and hidden nationality? You can deploy them into enemy territory and try and get between warring civs, and they can be attacked without you being dragged into the war.

Just a thought.

so we r talking about a REALLY high defense

 

[Womoks]

hi all !

well , i completely agree with the APC idea, some sort of mech infantery with high defense and low attack is quite realistic.

some suggestions:
-an entire set of modern U.N units. Infantery , APC, and tank.
all with lower attack rate and better defense.
-maybe they could be less expensive when you have the U.N wonder.
-They could be very weak .But they could add some happiness in cities they are defending. ( like military units under despotism and communism , but there , for all governments )

 

[TheDS]

One small problem: The civ you're trying to protect will not be grateful for the UN's appearance. Whatever square they are put on cannot be used by anyone else. So if you're sitting on some important resource or rail line or something else like that, count on seeing the protected civ attacking it too.

This begs the question: is there really a use for such units? if you want to protect a civ, just get a right-of-passage, then park your defenders where you want to block the enemy advance. Sure, they might attack you too, if they're frustrated enough, but that's why you get mutual defense treaties with their neighbors.

This option still has the minor problem of allied units not being able to walk through squares you are occupying, so they can't send their units after the bad guys, nor can they use any rail lines you're occupying, but at least the cities can still use the squares, and you probably won't have your ally attacking your units.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by TheDS
This begs the question: is there really a use for such units? ...

This option still has the minor problem of allied units not being able to walk through squares you are occupying, so they can't send their units after the bad guys, nor can they use any rail lines you're occupying, but at least the cities can still use the squares, and you probably won't have your ally attacking your units.

Well, the idea I initially had was to have a unit which could be deployed without raising political trouble in a civ's territory- by making it a regular one we'd have to get a right of way treaty- and if we give it the privateer flag it will be attacked... the problem with disallowing the civ to get certain ressoures is ok (just think weapons inspectors in Irak)

What we'd need is a flag (UNUSED ?) that makes the unit be able to move through foreign territory, while its destruction by any civ would result in a harsh reaction from the free world- i.e. sanctions... if repeatedly done war...
(has anybody played SMAC ???- me being a fan was very dissapointed when I realised that they left out so many good ideas- probably they will reappear in a Firaxis sole-lead project one day )

 

[d3dash]

cool idea, but remember we have to think about what the computer will do with them. Can you think of mech ifantry in your territory stopping up your movement, and getting in your way???

 

[Jagdpanther]

great point smoking mirror. hahaha... the UN...

you sure you can represent the peacekeepers with just unit?

i'm saying in the real world, some UN peacekeepers are obviously superior in material and training to others... ex: peacekeepers from NATO countries vs. peacekeepers from nigeria or wherever (the ones in Sierra Leonne or congo)

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Well there could be civ related differences, i.e Zululand being able 2 build infantry (blue caskets) while nations like france would have a mech...

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by W.i.n.t.e.r
Well there could be civ related differences, i.e Zululand being able 2 build infantry (blue caskets) while nations like france would have a mech...

Sorry- quoting myself now... uhm actually the issue is not unit related its more flag and feature bound. In smac u were able to position your own troops in allied cities of another civ- sounds great dont it- so defending the other ones city... and the treaties gave one the options of asking others to stop warring on your allies/friends...

What I am missing in Civ3 is the options that should be related to the UN rather than just winning the game- I mean Annan is the Sec. General- has he got ANY real power ? (No!- if you didn't know) So where did this winning requirement come from (Mars?) - in SMAC there were issue to be voted for- like increase trade levels, allow/dissallow nukes, if you were in an UN affiliated government and killed citizens (raising cities or whipping) sanctions would be imposed.

Where is all that ??? MOO3 will even have senate patrol ships comming after you when u dont comply with the charta... where...?

 

[HomeAir]

Well, maybe using UN soldiers may not work, but as it is now, the UN does very little. It should have a use, not just a vote for a diplomatic victory. How about this? When the UN is built, anyone having 25% land, pop., etc. as it is now will be the "permanent nations" admitted and can vote on whether to interfere in a aggressive action taken by a country (attacks for no reason) and can force them to stop and if they don't military actions by the nations of the world could be at hand. This would essentially start a world war, but the aggressor could be put down through attrition unless they are so strong that no one would be able to stop them anyways. This would help protect the smaller countries.

I want to add some more. A war could be forcefully stopped or at least a cease fire called after 5 rounds or a number of cities have been taken over and a severe hit of war wariness could be placed on the aggressor if they break the cease fire or start another war without some just cause.

 

[d3dash]

Ok, now this is getting somewhere good, I would love the UN to do something other than enable a diplo win. That would be cool to get a pop up screen saying "Stop bomming the Persians back to the stone age or be subject to UN intervention!" I miss the ability to convince 1 civ to stop attacking another. and on the otherhand, I miss the ability to ask a civ to start a war with another without me being dragged into a war for 20 turns. Remember the good old days of "please declare war on the Americans, I will give you 1000 gold for your compencation."

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Originally posted by d3dash
...and on the otherhand, I miss the ability to ask a civ to start a war with another without me being dragged into a war for 20 turns. Remember the good old days of "please declare war on the Americans, I will give you 1000 gold for your compencation."

Hummm, I was about to say that I always found that bit of Civ2 unrealistic... but then again I saw the abomination of 21st century politics before my inner eye *shudder*

 

[Geddy]

Peacekeepers should get deployed by the AI and should be slightly weak and readily identifyably but attacking them should give the same reaction as a Nuclear Strike. It pisses everyone off. Alternatively in a random manner, a city under attack would be converted to a UN city when it got to no defending units left.(or one maybe) If you occupy the city then it has the above reaction...now thats a better idea.

We should also have a new small wonder that is called the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE that the American civilization can't build it however( since for some strage reason it refuses to honor it's treaty obligations and help set it up now). This could reduce war weariness and make people happier.


P.S. Look at that photo of GWB, what a dunce....
P.P.S. Interesting browsing for you Americans who believe the propaganda....http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/indicator/

 

[Jagdpanther]

I'm tempted to post a picture of some unknown european leader to get a pissed off reaction, but... naw

Originally posted by Geddy
We should also have a new small wonder that is called the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE that the American civilization can't build it however( since for some strage reason it refuses to honor it's treaty obligations and help set it up now).

the ****? treaty obligations for the international court of 'justice'?? there were never any, despite what Clinton said. if you know how the US govt works you know what i'm talking about... important thing called SENATE RATIFICATION. and for this POS international court of 'justice' ( ), there was never any. that's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Geddy
P.S. Look at that photo of GWB, what a dunce....
P.P.S. Interesting browsing for you Americans who believe the propaganda....http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/indicator/

hahaha what a player hating flaming dolt. you can tell from a picture that a person's a dunce? you must be a f'ing incredible genius and world-class psychic. i envy you.

 

[TheDS]

Hey, let's not be pinging on the country's favorite person named Dubya.... Everyone's kids do dumb things, but he doesn't have the luxury of keeping it quiet; just out of prison...

This UN stuff you guys are coming up with reminds me of Europa Universalis.. Kinda like you want to change Civ into EU, or have a more modernized EU. Civ is no place for that. That's a whole other game.

Now some of the useful ideas of AC shoulda been in this game, like "Please stop attacking my friend" and moving your units into allied cities so they can repair themsleves.

But you don't really want to have all 16 civs still around in the late game. That drops your score. Maybe you don't want to have to be in constant wars, and you're trying the challenge of winning without fighting a single war, and that's not a bad way to play, but it doesn't give you all that high of a score. (Just a lot of personal satisfaction.)

I would like to see a Civ surrender, or merge into my Civ, to take ideas from AC and EU, and I would like to have a little better interface, with less obnoxion in it, and these are somewhat (slightly?) realistic expectations, but adding all this extra functionality (beyond the AC Council, which had little use either) that you're discussing sounds to me like adding a whole new segment to a game that's already packed and in need of a little plaster here and there to fix the holes and the oversights.

So while I'm not slamming your UN ideas, I am saying I don't believe it should be expected to be implemented.

 

[MetalMorph]

I think Firaxis made the UN useless in the game specifically because that's what the UN is in real life.

Completely useless.

 

[d3dash]

TheDS

I agree to an extent. I do agree that some post in the thread are alittle too far out of the civ world and into the fictional. As for UN troops, I don't know if I agree with having them, becuase if you think about it what are UN troops, different civs that lend them to the UN. But what I do want is the diplo ability to expand. I want added: "stop beating the hell out of my frind so and so", "please declare war on so and so, here is a donation to your election", "Me and them will not trade with you till you give paris back to the french", "lets form a military aliance to stop the Aztecs American war". so, the UN would be more of like a council where the strongest decide who to back, or wether to jump in and grab some land.

p.s. I still say there should be an agresion level that you can change when you are talking to another leader.

peace