make the UN shut up!

[Macha]

i usually use Hereditary rule, serfdom, Free speech, state property and theocracy/organised religion(50/50) and only 11 of them is in the top row which the un votes are for.

 

[SkyknightXi]

If I'm interpreting the idea correctly, the U.N. can be ordered to impel, on pain of ostracism, all the players to adopt the most advanced civic in a certain subset. But, it seems odd that Representation is inherently outmoded, in this scheme...Is there something I'm missing? I'd think it and Democracy to be parallel...

 

[Macha]

The UN hgas more power in the game than in real life. e.g. America attacking Iraq

 

[Isileo]

The UN annoying? No say it isn't so. Some things about this game are so realistic.

 

[ZB2]

the civics i use are not in the UN only option. thankfully a mod exists were you get to choose any civic. yet that isnt without its faults.

and we dont really get all 25 civics, the default 5, do absolute nothing, we should atleast have some advantage to using barbarism or despotism to the empire.

 

[Ravellion]

If I'm interpreting the idea correctly, the U.N. can be ordered to impel, on pain of ostracism, all the players to adopt the most advanced civic in a certain subset. But, it seems odd that Representation is inherently outmoded, in this scheme...Is there something I'm missing? I'd think it and Democracy to be parallel...

Think of represensation as the Roman or Dutch republics, or the Parliaments in early 18th century England, or late 19th century Germany. The representation was not at all democratic, but was based on landownership, aristocracy, wealth, or other kinds of influence. Sometimes the positions were for life as well, meaning if you didn't agree with how you were being represented... tough luck.

That's why Universal Suffrage is the top step: not some groups of people being represented, but all people actually voting for who gets to call the shots.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

i think a good addition in the next expansion would be to decline the invitation to join the UN at a -1-10 points for diplomatic realationships (You Refused to Join the UN) and the added danger of sactions (no trade with UN nations.) If you refuse to join the UN then the other member will have to vote you in should you decide to do so later.

Word to Big Bird. I concur 100%.

I think that the UN concept should be expanded further. There should be a UN peacekeeping force, and they can vote on attacking a country in violation of whatever (say building nukes, weapons of mass destruction, persecuting religious/ethnic minorites, attacking a UN nation without justification, etc). And any UN country who refuses to dedicate troops to that war will have economic/diplomatic sanctions against him (more negative points in diplo: You Flouted UN Resolution 241).

Of course, I think the reality is that the UN is actually an extension of whatever country is the current super-power...if history is any indication.

 

[ZB2]

who says democracy is the best form of government anyway?

like in Civ3, which was totally bias to democracy, like why would it have the lowest corruption rate?! grr.

 

[Arkatakor]

Yeah, I think you should be allowed to defy a resolution, but with a permanent negative modifier from every civ that adopted it (i.e. -3 "You refused to adopt emancipation!"), that would gradually fade once you DID adopt it yourself. The modifier would be different depending on the leader, and also signify how likely the leader is to break a resolution (Gandhi might take U.N. resolutions more seriously than, say, Tokugawa).

Could not agree more - just look at the US and its unilateral foreign policy in Iraq / Guantanamo. Giving a player no option to defy a resolution is simply unrealistic as recent history has proven. Hello, Firaxis, you following the news??

 

[Bagpuss]

Realism in games is very overrated imo. Anything that makes the game an interesting and enjoyable experience is good, whether its realistic or not. That said, 'interesting and enjoyable' is subjective, but I like the UN in the game. I like the way that it forces you to consider the consequences of diplomacy. And the civics thing works both ways; you can force the AIs to run civics that are inconvenient for them if you have control of it.
Going back to the original point, I can't see that a couple of clicks for a vote every few turns is that great an inconvenience considering the amount of clicking you'll be doing during an average turn at that stage in the game.

 

[Spyder1]

The UN in reality has no capacity to require/enforce its decisions on its members -- so the UN cannot say, hey, we hate State Property, you MUST switch now because we say so. The UN in Civ4 is completely unrealistic. Changes should be made to make it what the UN is: a voluntary association of states. Votes should take place, but you should have the option (as all states do now) to reject the results or step out of the UN. Mandatory involvement and mandatory "do as we say" is utterly ridiculous and one of the chief things I don't like about Civ4.

 

[Bagpuss]

Doesn't this retread the same ground as the 'Why should The Pyramids give you more civics choices?' threads? I mean, they were just big tombs so it's totally unrealistic. Also, Scotland Yard does not produce spies, jails don't make populations support wars and the Globe Theatre didn't eradicate unhappiness.

You could make it 'realistic' and and up with a game that would never work. Why does it need to be realistic?

 

[Sir-Skogheim]

The U.P (united planets) in Galactic Civilizations 2 is the best U.N in any game i've seen. It has proposals like penalize all nations at war with charge of _ gold per day until war is over, sometimes you vote on the nation that holds the galactic olympics which gives the hoster a + _ happiness rate on all planets. Those who have played it thouroghly probably know what i mean. The Civ 4 U.N should be more like it.

 

[searcheagle]

Yeah, I think you should be allowed to defy a resolution, but with a permanent negative modifier from every civ that adopted it (i.e. -3 "You refused to adopt emancipation!"), that would gradually fade once you DID adopt it yourself. The modifier would be different depending on the leader, and also signify how likely the leader is to break a resolution (Gandhi might take U.N. resolutions more seriously than, say, Tokugawa).

I think this addition. It could lead to a war.

 

[feldmarshall]

instead of forcing civics, why can't UN send peacekeeper, or give sanction to warring countries? and the builder of UN may have veto right as well, or superpower countries can deny UN resolution (like US did in Iraq)

 

[aronnax]

The UN is very stupid. I just find it pointless that I can build the UN and go on invading Russia cause Germany asked me too. The UN is suppose to maitain peace and harmony around the world and have human rights and all. I think that there should be an option to show your Neutality without angering the AI after the UN is built and you get Penalties for going to war.

 

[ZB2]

-all the civics should be chooseable, instead of it being baised to democrappy
-you should be able to vote embargos against AI, in which all ai stop trades with that civ.
-going to war gives -3 you declared war on our friend (instead of initial -1) after the UN is built, anywhere, by anyone.
-vote the UN to go to war. it 'gifts' units to its member nations to fight the selected civ. the units action script is to attack. not mill about and stay in cities.
-more UN bonuses, (like the +1 trade route); happiness bonus, health bonus (WFP), more gold produced by towns... etc use your imagination. (gameplay, not realism)

when the UN elects its first secretary general, you decide if you want your civilization to join this 'one world governemnt' by joining, you get all the said, and above bonuses and are eligable for diplomatic victory. by not accepting you get a negitive happy face for refusing to join and/or diplomatic penalties. ontop of not being elligable for diplomatic victory, and all said bonuses.

that make the UN good enough?

 

[kristopherb]

who says democracy is the best form of government anyway?

.

"democacy is worst type goverment except all the others that have been tried"winston churchill

 

[ZB2]

Cry me a river liberal.

 

[Sebiche]

If and only if you are a conquering murderer with a ridiculously large empire.

we've got a pacifist eh?

I try to NEVER EVER delete a civ by conquering all of it. I simply leave it with its one city, surround it with mine and CAPITULATE AWAY.

This can be VERY VERY expensive without STATE PROPERTY. Technically, I'm using to avoid total civ obliteration, therefore its good.

Besides, all me buddies I usually end up with in civ (aka Alexander, Mao, Catherine or Stalin) all likes the State Property. If you don't, thats great, but come ON its a game. Where not conquering murderers, were just players doing something we could never do outside of civ.

I always end up with my civics like this:
-Hereditary Rule (Hell YEAH!)
-Nationhood (free AND happiness? ALRIGHT)
-Emmancipation (HA! losers who dont have it SUFFER!)
-State Property (Finally, I can stop bankrupting with me LARGE EMPIRE)
-Free Religion (Uhh... how I hate religious turmoil and wars. "Adopt my religion!" NO, YOU ADOPT MY RELIGION MORON!!)

...besides, who doesnt like the ocational civ bowing down and kissing ones feet?