casual_moose
that casual moose!
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 233
i think the UN should come earlier so if they make more uses for it you can actually use it before the game ends!
more uses for UN
- Thread starter conehead234
- Start date
Sturmgewehr
Warlord
Moderator Action: Rather humorous, but it is
a) injecting real-world situations into the game discussion (
)
and b) probably viewed as a troll by a large segment of our posters.
--Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
a) injecting real-world situations into the game discussion (
)and b) probably viewed as a troll by a large segment of our posters.
--Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Firaxis (and BreakAway Games) developers are reading these forums all the time! They do listen, and take heed of what is said (both pro and con). They don't necessarily do what *we* think they should, but they do their best to give us a good game.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
I already won...
But you are right: It SHOULD have more uses!!!
And not that annoying question all turns...
Your ideas in the first post are interesting and should be developed!
But you are right: It SHOULD have more uses!!!
And not that annoying question all turns...
Your ideas in the first post are interesting and should be developed!
Schmek
civil engineer
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Meateater
I would like to see more U.N. options also.
Building & Being part of the U.N.
Say you reach the tech level to get the U.N., you can only build it if you have not been a cheat and an aggressor nation for say the last 40 turns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't realistic. It was build after WWII, but not in the 90s.
May be it should create a special blue helmet unit. Could be fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Meateater
I would like to see more U.N. options also.
Building & Being part of the U.N.
Say you reach the tech level to get the U.N., you can only build it if you have not been a cheat and an aggressor nation for say the last 40 turns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't realistic. It was build after WWII, but not in the 90s.
May be it should create a special blue helmet unit. Could be fun!
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Another Governments Types
Why not a UE type? We can create Alliances and mutual-protection pacts, why not a Union of Civs?
For me it can increase culture efforts and eliminated a civ. But not in a conquer type of way. The chief of that Civ will only have power in the UN vote to decided. However if a foreign civ conquer de Union Civ Capital, the empire will divided (like in Civ1).
For the Unification will need to create a small Wonder to symbolize it. But the Wonder will also have the same characterisation of the Palace and the Forbidden City, double it effect.
The time for it will be after the creation of the UN.
Its an idea.
Zenon out.
Why not a UE type? We can create Alliances and mutual-protection pacts, why not a Union of Civs?
For me it can increase culture efforts and eliminated a civ. But not in a conquer type of way. The chief of that Civ will only have power in the UN vote to decided. However if a foreign civ conquer de Union Civ Capital, the empire will divided (like in Civ1).
For the Unification will need to create a small Wonder to symbolize it. But the Wonder will also have the same characterisation of the Palace and the Forbidden City, double it effect.
The time for it will be after the creation of the UN.
Its an idea.
Zenon out.
ok, brainstorming here:
I agree with zenon, well most of it and not having played Civ 1 i'm having problems imagining it but the idea sounds good.
The basic idea is to give holding the UN more diplomatic power, his pacts have more weight than those betwen other civs, let's say tha a civ has MPPs with the UN holding civ and his enemy, in normal cases that civ will atack the one who stickes first but because you have the UN no matter who strikes first, that civ will always go with you. Besides that the Union option will be available to the player, but the goverments will stay the same, the diference is that the union will permit more option wich permits them to throw their weight around:
- the posibility to restrict the army of a certain recently defeated civ, let's say the elimination of a navy or of air power
- the restriction of nukes world wide and the elimination of nukes in contries with some sort of inferiority, military or preferably cultural
- the ablity to restrict a certain techonology in their sphere of control, which ends at the borders of a powerful country. (this last one isn't that good as you can see)
Ofcourse such powers must be used wisely and a warlord with this could be dangerous, thats why only someone with a certain cultural level could create the UN wonder
Anyway, these are my 2 lei
PS: excuse me if in some point in my post i stop making sense, i have a tendency to do that
I agree with zenon, well most of it and not having played Civ 1 i'm having problems imagining it but the idea sounds good.
The basic idea is to give holding the UN more diplomatic power, his pacts have more weight than those betwen other civs, let's say tha a civ has MPPs with the UN holding civ and his enemy, in normal cases that civ will atack the one who stickes first but because you have the UN no matter who strikes first, that civ will always go with you. Besides that the Union option will be available to the player, but the goverments will stay the same, the diference is that the union will permit more option wich permits them to throw their weight around:
- the posibility to restrict the army of a certain recently defeated civ, let's say the elimination of a navy or of air power
- the restriction of nukes world wide and the elimination of nukes in contries with some sort of inferiority, military or preferably cultural
- the ablity to restrict a certain techonology in their sphere of control, which ends at the borders of a powerful country. (this last one isn't that good as you can see)
Ofcourse such powers must be used wisely and a warlord with this could be dangerous, thats why only someone with a certain cultural level could create the UN wonder
Anyway, these are my 2 lei
PS: excuse me if in some point in my post i stop making sense, i have a tendency to do that
Plug
Warlord
Nuclear weapons limitation treaties should be included with the UN. So should the banning of nuclear power plants. The "Kyoto Agreement" idea is also cool. Civs could be fined for going over internationally agreed limits.
Plus, my pet idea, ban whaling! All UN civs vote on this issue. If it passes all Civs can choose to ban whaling in their territories. Those Civs that do not ban whaling suffer a small setback to their reputation. Those states that ban whaling will no longer obtain food or shields from the whale squares but will get 1 extra gold from tourism. Civs could also choose to ban whaling independently of the UN and so receive a small boost to their reputation.
Accepting or refusing the "kyoto agreement" could also have a positive or negative reputation effect. The aim of these bannings and limitations is to allow Civs with a bad reputation the chance to rebuild their reputation. Maybe democracy and universal suffrage could also give civs a reputation boosts. Its easy to get a bad reputation but once you've gone beyond a cerytain limit it seems to currently be impossible to rebuild it. This needs to be rectified.
And no, I'm not an anti-whaling person at all. Just trying to think of ways in which civs can rebuild their war damaged reputations. I studied a little IR theory too. What about a Fukyama's end of history wonder. The whole world unites in a pacific federation of democratic states behind the constructing Civ.
Plus, my pet idea, ban whaling! All UN civs vote on this issue. If it passes all Civs can choose to ban whaling in their territories. Those Civs that do not ban whaling suffer a small setback to their reputation. Those states that ban whaling will no longer obtain food or shields from the whale squares but will get 1 extra gold from tourism. Civs could also choose to ban whaling independently of the UN and so receive a small boost to their reputation.
Accepting or refusing the "kyoto agreement" could also have a positive or negative reputation effect. The aim of these bannings and limitations is to allow Civs with a bad reputation the chance to rebuild their reputation. Maybe democracy and universal suffrage could also give civs a reputation boosts. Its easy to get a bad reputation but once you've gone beyond a cerytain limit it seems to currently be impossible to rebuild it. This needs to be rectified.
And no, I'm not an anti-whaling person at all. Just trying to think of ways in which civs can rebuild their war damaged reputations. I studied a little IR theory too. What about a Fukyama's end of history wonder. The whole world unites in a pacific federation of democratic states behind the constructing Civ.
jamesjkirk
Warlord
[international relations student]
There is theoretical support in international relations for having one civ build the UN.
In Hegemonic Stability Theory, a branch of realism, but also embraced by some liberals, the hegemon provides the pushes necessary to bring order to the world and thus prolong its position at the top. To do this, institutions are often created which serve the interests of the hegemon, like the UN and IMF. Before you say anything, keep in mind that according to this theory the US was only a hegemon from 1945 to 67. Back then the IMF set currency rates to be exchangable with gold or dollars, and the US usually got its way at the UN. Liberals also so that hegemons are only necessary for the initial push to build institutions and regimes, and that from there the international system takes care of itself and them.
[/international relations student]
Whew! Anyway, I think the UN definitely needs a purpose, I already always turn off diplo victory. I agree with most of what Plug offers, though I don't think whaling has a big enough impact in the world to include. (sorry!)
Also, it could be through the UN that peace can be arranged and sanctions could be levied against agressors or those that use forced labor.
There is theoretical support in international relations for having one civ build the UN.
In Hegemonic Stability Theory, a branch of realism, but also embraced by some liberals, the hegemon provides the pushes necessary to bring order to the world and thus prolong its position at the top. To do this, institutions are often created which serve the interests of the hegemon, like the UN and IMF. Before you say anything, keep in mind that according to this theory the US was only a hegemon from 1945 to 67. Back then the IMF set currency rates to be exchangable with gold or dollars, and the US usually got its way at the UN. Liberals also so that hegemons are only necessary for the initial push to build institutions and regimes, and that from there the international system takes care of itself and them.
[/international relations student]
Whew! Anyway, I think the UN definitely needs a purpose, I already always turn off diplo victory. I agree with most of what Plug offers, though I don't think whaling has a big enough impact in the world to include. (sorry!)
Also, it could be through the UN that peace can be arranged and sanctions could be levied against agressors or those that use forced labor.
Brainstorm on UN units:
1) make them standard infantry (or whatever) in all aspects except some reference that they are UN troops and that they still are from a particular country.
2) UN units cannot attack, but can be deployed anywhere to 'take up space' on a tile. If you fill a land bridge with a UN troop(s), that would prevent two parties from fighting cuz the UN troop(s) becomes a wall.
3) Should one of the parties attack the troop, the troop takes on it's countries form again (becomes a regular infantry or whatever) and all UN members are queued for action on the attacker. They then can do whatever is in their best capabilities, but must do something (ie - break treaties, embargo, declare war) - until the UN votes the war is over & all UN civs declare peace at once, but can redeclare on their own.
I would say a standard infantry as low level UN troop, and a toned down mech infantry as a high level UN troop. The only Civs allowed to join UN must be able to at least create regular infantry.
just a thought on UN troops...
1) make them standard infantry (or whatever) in all aspects except some reference that they are UN troops and that they still are from a particular country.
2) UN units cannot attack, but can be deployed anywhere to 'take up space' on a tile. If you fill a land bridge with a UN troop(s), that would prevent two parties from fighting cuz the UN troop(s) becomes a wall.
3) Should one of the parties attack the troop, the troop takes on it's countries form again (becomes a regular infantry or whatever) and all UN members are queued for action on the attacker. They then can do whatever is in their best capabilities, but must do something (ie - break treaties, embargo, declare war) - until the UN votes the war is over & all UN civs declare peace at once, but can redeclare on their own.
I would say a standard infantry as low level UN troop, and a toned down mech infantry as a high level UN troop. The only Civs allowed to join UN must be able to at least create regular infantry.
just a thought on UN troops...
Puzzlinon
Insomaniac
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 270
Some simpler mods might make the U.N. (as a wonder) more useful to the constructing civilization. After a civ constructs the U.N, they should have automatic embassies in all civs (probably have them already, but just in case). And diplomatic information (treaties, pacts, etc) should still be visible for all countries you're at war with.
It could also increase the success chance of spy placement and spy missions for the owner, or maybe lower the cost of spy missions by some small factor.
Those would make the U.N. useful in easy-to-add ways.
It could also increase the success chance of spy placement and spy missions for the owner, or maybe lower the cost of spy missions by some small factor.
Those would make the U.N. useful in easy-to-add ways.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Sounds good but I would also like the ability to say no to those actions. Also I would like the ability to not join the U.N. like Switzerland. Of course refusing to disarm if it puts me at war with the world. For example if they decide I am to powerful and order me to disarm I would say no. Then they vote on whether to attack me. If they vote no nothing happens, if they vote yes then messages will pop up saying who declared war. For example:
The french declard war on you because you violated the U.N. pact.
The Zulu declared war on you because you violated the U.N. pact.
I also like the "security council is more powerful idea then most civs" idea. Of course those who chose not to join won't have to follow its rules and won't be elligable for a diplomatic victory.
The french declard war on you because you violated the U.N. pact.
The Zulu declared war on you because you violated the U.N. pact.
I also like the "security council is more powerful idea then most civs" idea. Of course those who chose not to join won't have to follow its rules and won't be elligable for a diplomatic victory.
Plug
Warlord
Maybe the state that constructs the UN should have an automatic plaec on the UN security council ( which is a great idea).
I agree that there should be a choice of whether to join or not.
I agree that there should be a choice of whether to join or not.
Rita Poon
You've just been Reinerd!
I use the UN as a small wonder that auto-produces one of Balou's Peacekeepers every 5 turns. Its stats are identical to the Marine & his nationality is hidden. Pre-req tech is Democracy & it goes obsolete with the discovery of either Fascism or Communism.
Idea behind this is Civs that value Democracy/Human Rights are more likely to get he backing of the UN.
Idea behind this is Civs that value Democracy/Human Rights are more likely to get he backing of the UN.
Ben E Gas
King
Alone said:...........The UN are completly useless in REAL LIFE!
I agree with this statement. And my suggestion is to not alter them in civ3 to do more. They seem useless in real life.
Rita Poon
You've just been Reinerd!
I agree, too. But my suggestion would be to alter it to make it do less. The UN should give you culture points. It should offer expanded oppurtunities for diplomacy. But it sure as hell shouldn't win the game. OTOH, last thing the UN should do is act as a military alliance. The UN is not the modern equivalent of the Cold War era NATO.
In my games, Peacekeepers give Democracies a little bit of help. Democracies are so awful at sustaining wars. Neutral peacekeepers allow you to "go to war" without actually declaring war. But one gets too few Peacekeepers from the UN to actually build a worthwhile army.
Really, what are you going to do with 10 hidden nationality marines? Maybe help defend a town. Maybe dispatch them to defend a fledgling tading partner. You're probably just better off building 10 marines. At least they won't get picked off without fear of retribution.
In my games, Peacekeepers give Democracies a little bit of help. Democracies are so awful at sustaining wars. Neutral peacekeepers allow you to "go to war" without actually declaring war. But one gets too few Peacekeepers from the UN to actually build a worthwhile army.
Really, what are you going to do with 10 hidden nationality marines? Maybe help defend a town. Maybe dispatch them to defend a fledgling tading partner. You're probably just better off building 10 marines. At least they won't get picked off without fear of retribution.
Similar threads
