Would that nation be entitled to a vote if their behaviour warranted a war against them. I wanted it more for trade and issuing ultimatums to nations. Luxuries and other things should be discussed. War should only be suggested if a country fails to adhere to the UNs requests. I usually have about 10 civs left at this time- surely that's enough. Only a couple of nations should have a veto- maybe the top three civs etc.. Maybe it wouldn't be accomplished through the UN- you could ignore it like Bush and Blair etc.. did in Iraq!
Let the UN play a bigger role
- Thread starter Ian Beale
- Start date
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
It would depend on how the UN is set up. In real life, teh five permanent members of the security council (Russia, US, France, Great Britian, and China) have veto power. Each of these 5 would still get to vote if there was a motion to declare war on the other. And anyone would veto war against themselves.
The only time any of these actually vote against each other was in Korea when the US led the motion for military action against North Korean (and in effect China) was rushed through the council because China and the USSR were boycotting or walked out (can't recall right now) of the teh security council for someother reason (Again I am drawing a blank). Had they stayed in place, the Korean "Police Action" would never have occured because China would have used their veto. But I am getting off track.
The only time any of these actually vote against each other was in Korea when the US led the motion for military action against North Korean (and in effect China) was rushed through the council because China and the USSR were boycotting or walked out (can't recall right now) of the teh security council for someother reason (Again I am drawing a blank). Had they stayed in place, the Korean "Police Action" would never have occured because China would have used their veto. But I am getting off track.
Luckily Civ3 is not the real life so we can ignore all realistic details that would ruin the game or otherwise be dull and uninteresting. 
We don't need to be slaves to realism here. Basically the idea is to have a political arena in the game where the civs are provided tools and opportunities for intrigue, power grabbing, warmongering, bullying, backstabbing and horse trading. In the real world the UN charter is to promote peace. In real life peace is also nice whereas in a civ game it's just dull. Conflict is the magic word.
(Now, whether the real life UN charter matches with the actual reality is completely irrelevant here, so let's leave it at that. There are better forums to discuss politics.)
Game fact: If every civ... heck even if just one or two civs had a veto to UN edicts in the game then the whole idea would be completely moot. In Civ3 the civs are out for themselves and to the devil with the others. Veto can't work, not in the game as a game option. Therefore we just calmly leave it out: no veto for anyone. That way things actually can get interesting. Which is the whole point.
Besides, the rule that a proposed edict has to be seconded by another civ is kind of a veto. It ensures that even if a big super-civ controls more than 50% of the votes it still can't force its edicts through without being nice to at least one other civ. Which would also be good from the game balance point of view.
Another game fact: If every civ had an equal vote it'd also get dull. Smaller civs consistently ganging up against the biggest gets tired after a while. Answer: so don't make them equal. Relate the voting power of a civ to its actual power in the game. Heck, this would even be realistic as it represented the ability of more powerful nations to persuade, bribe and bully weaker nations to support it.
You just have to stop thinking of UN as a benevolent international organization for All Good And Nice Things and instead view it as another weapon of mass destruction in your civ's arsenal.
We don't need to be slaves to realism here. Basically the idea is to have a political arena in the game where the civs are provided tools and opportunities for intrigue, power grabbing, warmongering, bullying, backstabbing and horse trading. In the real world the UN charter is to promote peace. In real life peace is also nice whereas in a civ game it's just dull. Conflict is the magic word.
(Now, whether the real life UN charter matches with the actual reality is completely irrelevant here, so let's leave it at that. There are better forums to discuss politics.)
Game fact: If every civ... heck even if just one or two civs had a veto to UN edicts in the game then the whole idea would be completely moot. In Civ3 the civs are out for themselves and to the devil with the others. Veto can't work, not in the game as a game option. Therefore we just calmly leave it out: no veto for anyone. That way things actually can get interesting. Which is the whole point.
Besides, the rule that a proposed edict has to be seconded by another civ is kind of a veto. It ensures that even if a big super-civ controls more than 50% of the votes it still can't force its edicts through without being nice to at least one other civ. Which would also be good from the game balance point of view.
Another game fact: If every civ had an equal vote it'd also get dull. Smaller civs consistently ganging up against the biggest gets tired after a while. Answer: so don't make them equal. Relate the voting power of a civ to its actual power in the game. Heck, this would even be realistic as it represented the ability of more powerful nations to persuade, bribe and bully weaker nations to support it.
You just have to stop thinking of UN as a benevolent international organization for All Good And Nice Things and instead view it as another weapon of mass destruction in your civ's arsenal.
Like your idea about the Veto. If nation 1 has a rating of 700 and nation 2 has a rating of 350- nation 1 should have twice as much influence in the UN etc.. I like the idea of not signing military alliances in the UN but using it to declare war on a civ developing WMDs or banning the trade of nuclear materials to a civ attempting to develop nukes. Like the idea of bribery or threats, if this was introduced you could feel your civs superiority over others.
Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
Weapons of Mass Destruction could be added as a new tech, and new units would be assigned to it. Then, any nation which does actually decide to research WMD could face action from the UN. You would get a message saying, "The United Nations has passed a resolution condemning Persia's research into weapons of mass destruction." Actually building WMD's would result in a UN-wide trade embargo. Using WMD's would result in a vote on UN police action. Of course, the UN could take similar actions against nuclear weapons, which are WMDs too.
Furius
Prince
You know what, this is rapidly appearing like a far too complicated idea to work well. And what is the point of a tech that gets you into trouble just for researching it? I say this idea seems to driven by current affairs (not the original idea just were it is being taken).
Clown2TheLeft
Prince
Let the UN play its actual role: pointless. Get rid of the thing.
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
Don't like the idea of researching WMDs. I do like the idea of signing agreements to reduce the amount of WMDs a nation has. I do support the ban of trading important raw materials like uranium etc.. to civs who are developing them or have used them before. I also believe it should damage their reputation irreparably so know one shall trust them again. I agree with the ideas i'd made before. They are now becoming as furius said to complicated- lets keep it simple as i had first suggested!
"Let the UN play its actual role: pointless. Get rid of the thing."- How about no! Let the Pyramids play its actual role: pointless. Get rid of the thing. No!
I and many others think the UN would be a good introduction, however- it can't become too complicated!
"Let the UN play its actual role: pointless. Get rid of the thing."- How about no! Let the Pyramids play its actual role: pointless. Get rid of the thing. No!
I and many others think the UN would be a good introduction, however- it can't become too complicated!
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I most DEFINITELY think that the UN should be a forum for banning certain units/improvements and resources. Imagine all of the horse trading which you'd do, through normal diplomatic channels, just to get what those crucial votes you need to truly stuff up another civs chances at progress :Evil:
However complex it is, though, there should be more to having the UN than a possible Diplo victory. It should also DEFINITELY benefit the person who builds it in some way (more votes, veto power etc).
In fact, though I agree with the idea of automatic membership for all civs, perhaps there should be a "security council"-comprising of those nations that qualify for the secretary general in the current game!!! Anyway, just a few thoughts.
Aussie_Lurker.
However complex it is, though, there should be more to having the UN than a possible Diplo victory. It should also DEFINITELY benefit the person who builds it in some way (more votes, veto power etc).
In fact, though I agree with the idea of automatic membership for all civs, perhaps there should be a "security council"-comprising of those nations that qualify for the secretary general in the current game!!! Anyway, just a few thoughts.
Aussie_Lurker.
W.i.n.t.e.r
Frozen!
Symphony D.
Deity
I think the U.N. should be completely inefficient and not do anything of importance in the game, just like in real life. Oh, wait, it's already like that in the game. 
Seriously, just look at SMAC/SMAC-X's Planetary Council. Bring back something similar and I'll be happy.
Seriously, just look at SMAC/SMAC-X's Planetary Council. Bring back something similar and I'll be happy.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
A fundamental difference between the Planetary Council and UN is when they appear in the game. The PC comes fairly early, the UN comes just before the very end of the game. Late game techs and Wonders should all be geared towards bringing the game to a fast close rather than delaying the inevitable, IMHO.
The UN that has been described in this thread just seems to run counter to that.
The UN that has been described in this thread just seems to run counter to that.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
I think we all need to ask ourselves "would I like this change in the UN if the AI used it on me?" In a lot of cases, I think the answer would be "no". Sure, it'd be nice to use the UN to ban certain weapons that the AI develops first, but what if they gang up and ban your nukes?
Here's what I'd like to see changed in the UN:
Eliminate the ability to buy a UN win a turn or two before a vote is held by signing MPP's with all the AI's. This is arguably an exploit, cheapens the whole idea of a diplomatic victory, and (seems to me) shouldn't be too hard to correct. The concept of playing a game as a warmonger, building the UN, signing MPP's, and getting a diplomatic victory just about defeats the whole purpose of having a diplomatic victory available.
I've won a couple of diplo victories without exploiting the victory conditions and it's difficult, but doable. Yet the diplomatic victory in general gets knocked as being "cheap" or "easy".
How about fixing it?
Here's what I'd like to see changed in the UN:
Eliminate the ability to buy a UN win a turn or two before a vote is held by signing MPP's with all the AI's. This is arguably an exploit, cheapens the whole idea of a diplomatic victory, and (seems to me) shouldn't be too hard to correct. The concept of playing a game as a warmonger, building the UN, signing MPP's, and getting a diplomatic victory just about defeats the whole purpose of having a diplomatic victory available.
I've won a couple of diplo victories without exploiting the victory conditions and it's difficult, but doable. Yet the diplomatic victory in general gets knocked as being "cheap" or "easy".
How about fixing it?
