Allow the UN to declare war on a nation attempting to develop WMDs by providing evidence from spies to declare war with other countries without taking a rep hit. I would also like it if the UN could control cities, i often capture ****ty cities and destroy them as i can't defend them or maintain order. Let the UN control some cities so the map isn't empty and cities don't just disappear. It would be good if you could join the UN or withdraw like the LON. Principally though i think the UN should exist to ensure that nuclear weapons aren't used or stockpiled by any nation!
Let the UN play a bigger role
- Thread starter Ian Beale
- Start date
Furius
Prince
Is this a request or a protest on the war in Iraq? If it is the former then I think this would be a bit too detailed to implement. I like the UN controlling cities, though.
Maybe one would suddenly want them back and get declare war on the UN! That might be fun!
Maybe one would suddenly want them back and get declare war on the UN! That might be fun!
I'd prefer more an UN that would work like a political arena where civs could push for their own advantages, backstab each other, grab for more power, and generally make the life of other civs more difficult. I mean what's the point of having a goody-two-shoes organization in a game of World Domination? 
My vision of an advanced UN in Civ:
Once built civs get automatic membership (just to avoid some exploitation tricks...) with each having a number of "votes" or better called "influence points" based on the relative strength of the civs (number of cities, military might, population, etc). The builder of UN gets some bonus points to make building it worthwhile. Democracy is for the masses while international politics is Influence and Power so some civs will be more equal than the others.
In the UN any civ can propose an Edict. An edict can be:
- Ban building a unit/improvement
- Ban unit/improvement totally (=both owning and building)
- Ban the trade of a luxury/resource
- Ban a luxury/resource (=both trading and accessing)
- Ban a treaty form (MPP, MA, etc.)
- Declare war against civ X
- Give development aid to civ X (=everyone pays the proposed amount of gold or gpt to civ X)
- Other?
Once an edict is proposed another civ must second it in the following X turns. If it gets a second then the civs vote on it. If the "yea" gets more vote points than the "nay" then the edict takes effect and the civs have 3 turns to comply to it (selling buildings, disbanding units, initiating payments, declaring war, etc.) If they fail to do that they suffer an attitude hit and are shunned by the righteous civs complying to the UN edicts.
For example, if a civ didn't have access to ivory itself it might propose an edict to ban ivory (the poor elephants and all that...) to harm its rival that did have access to ivory. If the edict passed then all civs using ivory must disconnect from them in 3 turns or suffer a major attitude hit.
An edict lasts 20 turns. It can be proposed again, of course. Civs you are in more friendly terms with will generally vote for you if it doesn't harm them while your arch enemies probably vote against you just for the principle of it.
(Well what if I _have_ played too much MOO3 lately? The Orion Senate is a darned good game implementation...)
My vision of an advanced UN in Civ:
Once built civs get automatic membership (just to avoid some exploitation tricks...) with each having a number of "votes" or better called "influence points" based on the relative strength of the civs (number of cities, military might, population, etc). The builder of UN gets some bonus points to make building it worthwhile. Democracy is for the masses while international politics is Influence and Power so some civs will be more equal than the others.
In the UN any civ can propose an Edict. An edict can be:
- Ban building a unit/improvement
- Ban unit/improvement totally (=both owning and building)
- Ban the trade of a luxury/resource
- Ban a luxury/resource (=both trading and accessing)
- Ban a treaty form (MPP, MA, etc.)
- Declare war against civ X
- Give development aid to civ X (=everyone pays the proposed amount of gold or gpt to civ X)
- Other?
Once an edict is proposed another civ must second it in the following X turns. If it gets a second then the civs vote on it. If the "yea" gets more vote points than the "nay" then the edict takes effect and the civs have 3 turns to comply to it (selling buildings, disbanding units, initiating payments, declaring war, etc.) If they fail to do that they suffer an attitude hit and are shunned by the righteous civs complying to the UN edicts.
For example, if a civ didn't have access to ivory itself it might propose an edict to ban ivory (the poor elephants and all that...
) to harm its rival that did have access to ivory. If the edict passed then all civs using ivory must disconnect from them in 3 turns or suffer a major attitude hit.An edict lasts 20 turns. It can be proposed again, of course. Civs you are in more friendly terms with will generally vote for you if it doesn't harm them while your arch enemies probably vote against you just for the principle of it.
(Well what if I _have_ played too much MOO3 lately?
The Orion Senate is a darned good game implementation...)yeah i like the idea of banning a trade in a set resource e.g tobacco- due to health costs etc... i Also like the idea of reducing harmful emissions from your cities (pollution) or being fined from the UN. It would be good if you could sign treaties not to develop WMDs etc... I'd like it if you could bribe civs to support your views like the Yanks basically do in real life. BTW i supported the war in Iraq so it isn't a protest. The UN could also act as peacemakers in wars acting as a go-between. It is so annoying when they refuse to acknowledge your envoy. I think we should also have to contribute funds and units to the UN so it reflects real life in a more accurate way. I like the idea of permenant members with a veto (possibly) and other insignificant nations who don't want to lose economic assistance or your friendship. Here you could really feel in control of your wealth.
Furius
Prince
This idea could work. I likeit, though I worry about people who go overboard banning stuff, and how the AI would use it (I can just imagine, in 1940 AD an edict being passed around by the AI to ban "Warrior")
no the only units that should be banned are nukes etc... Only resources where it can b argued there are health risks etc should a ban be enforced. Yeah i could imagine stupid bugs arising like banning the trade of oil r something stupid. When i'm the most powerful nation i'm not given any respect and am treated with contempt by other civs- i want to feel my power and know that other civs feel it too!
No, no, no, I want to ban stuff the enemy civs desperately need but I can do without or which I wouldn't even notice if they were missing. Who gives a <beep> whether they are harmful to health or scary doomsday devices. This is politics, man!
Of course this requires that the AI would return the favor to me when it can but this ought to be doable. The AI should only need to calculate who's going to lose the most and how much it would hurt himself, I think. Anyway options shouldn't be restricted without a reason.
Besides think about the possibilities: You could actually ban those modern day spearmen so your tanks could attack without fear!
Other possible edict types:
- Share technology: after 3 turns at least two civs must know the chosen tech known by someone, i.e. the monopoly holder must sell/give it to someone thus making it more tradeable.
- Pollution control: the number of polluted square inside a single civ must not exceed X after its turn ends.
- Control units/improvements: no civ may own more than X numbers of the chosen unit/improvement.
The third is actually just an expanded version of the ban unit/improvement edict as you'll get a total ban by setting the upper limit to zero. This way it would have more uses, too. Like managing to restrict the number of temples below some number when you are the _second_ largest civ. Of course, when that's done unto you you'd probably seriously think about letting loose a couple of ICBMs with the UN city as the target...
Of course this requires that the AI would return the favor to me when it can but this ought to be doable. The AI should only need to calculate who's going to lose the most and how much it would hurt himself, I think. Anyway options shouldn't be restricted without a reason.
Besides think about the possibilities: You could actually ban those modern day spearmen so your tanks could attack without fear!
Other possible edict types:
- Share technology: after 3 turns at least two civs must know the chosen tech known by someone, i.e. the monopoly holder must sell/give it to someone thus making it more tradeable.
- Pollution control: the number of polluted square inside a single civ must not exceed X after its turn ends.
- Control units/improvements: no civ may own more than X numbers of the chosen unit/improvement.
The third is actually just an expanded version of the ban unit/improvement edict as you'll get a total ban by setting the upper limit to zero. This way it would have more uses, too. Like managing to restrict the number of temples below some number when you are the _second_ largest civ. Of course, when that's done unto you you'd probably seriously think about letting loose a couple of ICBMs with the UN city as the target...
I thought it would make the game more interesting having an element of unpredictability in trading. Not just health warnings i was giving an example. It would be good if every so often a luxury was banned for some reason. It'd be good to go to the UN saying something like, "I call on all members to refuse o sell nuclear materials to the Germans" etc... Controlling pollution is a good idea- with fines for not meeting the UN requirements. The only units to ban in my opinion should be nukes. Conventional weapons shouldn't be banned- but banning nukes should if all members agree etc.. Restricting temples etc... is not an option in my opinion- what use would this be? The UN should receive compulsory amounts from each civ and if they default on payments- buildings are sold etc... Don't know about a limit to your conventional units but nukes certainly.
nini1972
ruminating citizen
I really like your range of ideas anout UN.
IMO, UN must be engaged when a large empire is going to disrupt, selling for cheap a lot of territory... you know, when your once powerful neighborhood finally falls apart and you grasp its cities without effort... something similar to the fall of Ottoman empire in early XX. I think this won't be too unbalancing 'cause limited to the end of the game.
Maybe Un can furnish troops for occuping a city of A BANNED empire falling down. Or at least can place troops along its borders.
Un troops could take part in a city occupation [till its inhabitants calm down] just aside
the nation that got Un agreement.
just ideas....
IMO, UN must be engaged when a large empire is going to disrupt, selling for cheap a lot of territory... you know, when your once powerful neighborhood finally falls apart and you grasp its cities without effort... something similar to the fall of Ottoman empire in early XX. I think this won't be too unbalancing 'cause limited to the end of the game.
Maybe Un can furnish troops for occuping a city of A BANNED empire falling down. Or at least can place troops along its borders.
Un troops could take part in a city occupation [till its inhabitants calm down] just aside
the nation that got Un agreement.
just ideas....
Yeah peacekeepers sound good. Don't like the idea of them being too powerful though- i believe the force should be made up of each nations forces. In the Cold War the US was the UN when fighting Communism- so powerful countries should still dominate it. What does "IMO" mean i've seen it several times but never understood it! The UN has to play a bigger part because becoming Secretary General is just crap in PTW, it might as well not exist!
Well when you get to the modern age it should at least reflect that? I think it could help improve the game by making it more detailed and taking parts of the game to a new level. PTW is getting boring cos in my game it becomes predictable. U love the UN? Ur not American though. Apart from the UN then and terrorism (all ages) how would you improve it. The UN is an important part of the world we live in today which to me represents freedom. Surely this is an important part of the world we live in and deserves greater prominence in the game?
I'm leery of including things in Civ just because they make news today. WMD? Terrorism? Evidence from spies? A big deal now, but really, don't you think lowly things like Paper or The Telephone or migration of peoples ought to get in first?
50 years ago we would have thought of course Civ should reflect the clash between communism and capitalism. We know better now.
***
Anyway, I'd rather see more features to the UN than yet another modern combat unit. If the modern age needs expansion, then expand the UN by all means.
The ideas in this thread are intriguing.
50 years ago we would have thought of course Civ should reflect the clash between communism and capitalism. We know better now.
***
Anyway, I'd rather see more features to the UN than yet another modern combat unit. If the modern age needs expansion, then expand the UN by all means.
The ideas in this thread are intriguing.
nini1972
ruminating citizen
IMO means 'in my opinion' [I think so, well I'm not sure]
hi
Ah though unintentionally Lindstrom has just reminded me- surely similar governments should help and defend each other. I agree that the UN shouldn't act as just another modern combat unit. I wanted it so it could open up new doors in diplomacy and trade. WMDs and spies- not just a big deal now. Spies have been around for ages and WMDs have played a major part in the world in the past 1/2 century. Yes i agree with migration too (see my earlier threads) but i think extending the UN's role in the game would make it more interesting and improve different parts f the game- not just war!
Sims2789
Fool me once...
they should also be angry if the world power goes to war with an oil-rich nation that has no WMD's.
Furius
Prince
Yep, they should.
Now that I think about it though, I'm not sure I'd like the UN, what right does the game have to boss me about like that?
Now that I think about it though, I'm not sure I'd like the UN, what right does the game have to boss me about like that?
if your a powerful nation and have a veto- you can block anything you don't like! Maybe it could be optional- you could always make it unavailable in the editor or even delete it. I think most people would like it for the reasons given earlier.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Giving the UN more powers is not really a good idea, IMO (yes Ian, IMO means 'In My Opinion')
I mean, in real life, the UN is made up of every country in the world, or at least those that choose to be members. In CIV 3, there are only a handful of civs left.
All those remaining civs would basically be "powerful" nations - by just making it this far. Now if a vote came up to attack someone, each civ should be entitled to a veto and who would vote to attack themselves. In other words, nothing would ever get accomplished.
I mean, in real life, the UN is made up of every country in the world, or at least those that choose to be members. In CIV 3, there are only a handful of civs left.
All those remaining civs would basically be "powerful" nations - by just making it this far. Now if a vote came up to attack someone, each civ should be entitled to a veto and who would vote to attack themselves. In other words, nothing would ever get accomplished.
