Improvements to the United Nations

[ianinsane]

I had a similar idea connecting ideologies with organizations using apostolic palace wonders. In BTS, the Apostoloc Palace works with religions. So we wouldn't need to change anything if we connect it with ideologies, our replacements for religions. Each ideology would have its own Apostolic Palace-like wonder. These could be:

Mercosur for Amerindian
African Union for African
One still to build for Eastern
One still to build for Hindu
One still to build for Jewish
Organization of the Islamic Conference for Muslim
Commonwealth of Independent States for Slavic
One still to build for Western

Of course only those with that ideology could be member.

Maybe someone knows better alternatives...

 

[DVS]

But ianinsane, do those voting organizations exist in reality? Not really. I say we wait on that idea until we have our trade orgs developed. African Union and Mercosur are part. Others here.

These are slightly different groups from ideologies, but some cut close.

 

[ianinsane]

Alright.

 

[ganjha]

In regards to civics, I think the U.N. should not vote for one civic to become the global civic but ban civics one at the time until only a few remain.

 

[Ekmek]

In regards to civics, I think the U.N. should not vote for one civic to become the global civic but ban civics one at the time until only a few remain.

Brilliant! Thats a way better way than firaxis did it.

 

[Adhesive86]

Brilliant! Thats a way better way than firaxis did it.

I'm wondering, are you planning on representing the WTO in any way? This might be done via the U.N in terms of exacting a penalty for certain civics, perhaps through trade reductions e.g. -25% per trade route, -1 trade route if not free market etc. (of course the WTO is very North America-EU centric with a prevailing free market ideology, references available on request)

All i'd say about banning civics is that instead of 'banning' them, a penalty would be more realistic, whether financial, diplomatic or whatever.

 

[ianinsane]

That's even more brilliant! Maybe this could also be connected with a trade embargo.
For example an option like "Trade embargo against all Darwinism civs"...

 

[Adhesive86]

For example an option like "Trade embargo against all Darwinism civs"...

Yeah, that sort of thing, exactly.

----

Having said that, the push for free markets has been rather unrelenting (even if it may be argued the current economic climate may change this somewhat, especially many of the elements of deregulation).

Along the lines of WTO I was specifically thinking: Proposal= 'Create World Trade Organisation?'

'Gives all free market civs a trade bonus and penalty to protectionist civs (I use the terms 'free market' and 'protectionist' as I'm still thinking about how to represent given the new civics, but you get the idea)...

I was thinking the WTO could be representative of a sort of 'global civic/ideology' in the way that the emancipation and free speech civics can be in the game proper, but with the option to opt out and receive a penalty. I think this represents reality with the growing hegemony of the influence of free trade (see China joining the WTO and Russia lobbying the EU to sponsor their application). Broadly I agree with the idea of not choosing favoured civics, but I would argue that the free market ideology is really very strong and such is its nature of delivering competitive economic advantage that the penalty function is more than apt (perhaps moreso than the original civ4 penalty for non emancipation)

Of course the civics are all changed so there is nothing as simple as a 'free market' civic, I guess the closest is 'deregulation', so maybe my specific point is less applicable, but I figured I'd share my thoughts.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I love all the ideas Adhesive, really great stuff, just a few comments though. I really like the idea of taking away the whole "banning of civics" and replacing it with just bonuses and penalties. But I think when all the civs, for example, vote to create a WTO, that the ones who don't except it don't get penalties, but instead just get negative diplo points with people that voted for the proposal and are in the organization. It seems more realistic that way. For another example, if today we were to create a new WTO (in the real world I'm talking about), lets say that every country except Mexico joins. All the other countries would get benefits like larger economy, more trade, etc. But Mexico wouldn't really suffer any penalties, its just missing out on an opportunity to better its economy and trade more. Its only real penalty will be that other leaders who want Mexico to join it will just get angry with the country... not much else in Mexico other than angry foreign leaders would really happen to the country. Same would go with civics, Mexico wouldn't change a bit while the rest of the world (who adopted the civic) would just get pissy at Mexico for it. The only other penalty realistically I can see happening to Mexico if it were to defy U.N proposals is angry citizens that want the civic change... other than that I think it would be more realistic not for the Civ to suffer penalties, just negative diplo points and the possibility of angry citizens.

 

[Adhesive86]

I love all the ideas Adhesive, really great stuff, just a few comments though. I really like the idea of taking away the whole "banning of civics" and replacing it with just bonuses and penalties. But I think when all the civs, for example, vote to create a WTO, that the ones who don't except it don't get penalties, but instead just get negative diplo points with people that voted for the proposal and are in the organization. It seems more realistic that way. For another example, if today we were to create a new WTO (in the real world I'm talking about), lets say that every country except Mexico joins. All the other countries would get benefits like larger economy, more trade, etc. But Mexico wouldn't really suffer any penalties, its just missing out on an opportunity to better its economy and trade more. Its only real penalty will be that other leaders who want Mexico to join it will just get angry with the country... not much else in Mexico other than angry foreign leaders would really happen to the country. Same would go with civics, Mexico wouldn't change a bit while the rest of the world (who adopted the civic) would just get pissy at Mexico for it. The only other penalty realistically I can see happening to Mexico if it were to defy U.N proposals is angry citizens that want the civic change... other than that I think it would be more realistic not for the Civ to suffer penalties, just negative diplo points and the possibility of angry citizens.

Joecoolyo,

I agree about the diplo thing, infact I actually consider this a penalty, so I guess it's just a difference of terminology there. As I said in the initial post, non adherence to a successful proposal could attract financial/trade/diplo penalties.

I would have to slightly disagree with your point about there being no financial hit from pulling out of international trade agreements or indeed being the last one left when everyone else is trading. You acknowedge the loss of opportunity from new trade, but consider that in reality your existing trade is liable to be substituted if a new trade organisation is set up and you don't join. Why would someone continue to pay your tariffs if they can now get it cheaper from somewhere else? Such is the globalized economy that any financial penalty would just be simulating the role of the competitive marketplace.

Also, for instance, think about all those firms investing in Mexico. They only have limited resource (and demand for their products) so maybe they'll pack up and go to Brazil where it's cheaper? And not just manufacturing industry- the WTO protects intellectual property so make sure you don't invent anything or have any sort of industry secrets in Russia- NOT in the WTO- because they think nothing of just stealing it... companies will leave in droves (admittedly maybe not straight away as they have sunk investments).

I guess this depends on the extent to which the economy was geared towards receiving Foreign investment and also the extent of imports/exports. The vast majority of nations ie free market liberal would take a hit- so if Canada did that then it'd be disastrous, whereas North Korea can't really get much worse and Myanmar, Cuba etc has an economy which is planned to be less exposed and reliant on international trade.

So I guess I'm suggesting something like:

Penalty= -x diplo points with WTO nations
-1 trade route per city OR/AND -x% per trade route for civs with 'Deregulated' or 'Corporatist' economic civic

This represents that if you operate a free market economy, so characterised by a reliance on trade then if you begin to lose your competitive edge then you will lose some of your existing commerce.

---

Also, the WTO vote can also be used to screw developing nations as free trade (not fair trade) is heavily biased towards the interests of corporate US/EU and other developed nations.

How this could be done I'm not sure as I'm not as clear on the entire make up of this Mod, but some sort of bonus for corporations would make sense.