more uses for UN

conehead234

Braves on the Warpath
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
4,384
Location
maryland
They should add more uses for the UN. After it is built, the civs should be able to vote on econmic sactions, weapon inspecters, and dissarmment of civs.

what do you think they should add.
 
i think u're right. UN has little too no purpose

1# i ALWAYS lose ellections
2# all u can do is win (points back too 1#)
3# it would be cool too get more stuf then, well..it would be cool if the UN president could do that stuff and that u too have too obey
 
Yea. I've been suggesting this for a while now.

I think new diplomatic options would be neat. Kind of like how nationalism introduces new diplomatic options.

The new options introduced with the UN can be related, for example, to nuclear issues. ie (limiting number of nukes you can build)
 
Yea if you get in a big war the UN can vote to dissarm you but you can try to build up your arms but if you get caught you get a big rep hit.

Then they should add bio and chemical weapons and if you use them or threaten to use them the UN can send weapon inpecters and you can try to hide them. If you get caught with them you will get a big rep hit.
 
Originally posted by TerraHero
1# i ALWAYS lose ellections

This is the same for me. I always lose the elections. I also agree that the U.N. should have more than one purpose, like it does in the real world. Weapons inspection and dissarmament would be a great idea.
 
May be they could make the UN more complex by having a Sercurity Council for the stronger nations so that small nations (that I like to conquer) won't alwas get in the way so you only have to be friends with the stonger nations. Also maybe the Secatary-General could have a lot more Rep.
 
the un is evil.... u shold have an option to spread ur gove. like uf ur a cummnuist gove u chold influents nations to ur point of view so u can start a wrold wide workers reavalution.
 
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. If you have been, then you must be a good civ for 40 turns or so to build it and hope no one else builds it first. After its built then anyone can apply to be part of the U.N., and if you have not been attacking or back stabbing everyone in the last 30 turns, your civ may get voted in if you have the majority of votes from current members and can be voted out the same way for bad action. The U.N. should be made of peace full and loyal civs that shun all aggressive warmonger civs.The civ to build the U.N. would be the head of it and have 2 votes at each session, if the city with the U.N. is captured then the U.N would still exist and be moved to the next city of the same civ until that civ is wiped out, then it would go to the next highest ranking member in the U.N.

U.N. Members if attacked
Once in the U.N. If you are Attacked you can call a summit and ask ALL members to come to your aid in many ways WITHOUT OBJECTION (all out war must be voted on). This may include breaking diplomatic relations ( No contact, like during a war ) with the aggressor civ ( if this course is taken, it is the last step that can be taken before all out war from all other members of the U.N. would be asked). Before asking the U.N. to break relations you may just ask them for an embargo against the aggressor civ first( includes right of passage ). Also the members of the U.N. that may have had trades or other deals with the aggressor civ, that have been broken due to these actions will NOT be marked as a cheat.
Aggression policies
If you ask the U.N. to go to war with the aggressor civ( one that YOU are all ready at war with and has attacked you first), there are a few ways to go about it, but one will happen.
1. Is all out war with ALL members from the U.N. for unconditional surrender of the aggressor civ( war to the death, aggressor civ must loose ALL cities, no peace un till this happens).
2. Is all out war with ALL members from the U.N. to cripple the aggressor civ to make future war, by taking all but say 3 or 4 of their cities, but not taking the capital. When this is accomplished then all U.N. members declare peace with aggressor civ.(no peace un till this happens)
3. Would have ALL U.N. members go into war economy and supply you with defesive units for the course of the war and they would be in the secret war(not declared on aggressor).
Whatever way you go there must be a vote from all U.N. members for them to enter the war. Depending on your situation will determine the outcome of the vote. If the aggressor civ did a sneak attack using your ROP or you lost two cities in the first turn of the war, the vote may favor wiping out the aggressor civ. When you are ATTACKED and call for a vote for war one of the 3 options WILL be picked, A vote can be called once per turn when you are attacked and at war with an aggressor civ.

When the #2 or #3 of the aggression policies is voted and passed weapons inspectors are often used in the post war to keep the aggressor civ from building an army any larger than one needed for self defense, or if the aggressor civ has used weapons of mass destruction in the past war. Inspections can be conducted on an unannounced basis, with strict sanctions or swift military action from the U.N. members if inspections find violations.

U.N. members wanting to attack
When not at war all action must be voted on, this goes from embargoes to your civ wanting to declare war. If the vote passes then ALL members will follow your cause just like if you had been attack. Even if a vote fails it can't stop you from making embargoes or alliances with fellow members that voted for it, but you and the other civs that go along with you will not get support from the other U.N. members that voted against it and get a bad rep or could be forced out of the U.N. by a vote, from past bad actions.
When 2 or more U.N. members go to war with an aggressor civ they declare war at the same time and declare peace at the same time. This goes for all parties involved.

Draw backs
Membership has some draw backs too, you can't make mutual protection packs at all, and no alliances or embargoes with non U.N. members. Also members are not allowed to use a spy. Hard to get in the U.N. but easy to get out, just withdraw your membership, you will suffer a bad rep with the current members and not be allowed back in for some time but can carry on your own agenda.

Non U.N. members
Non U.N. members may ask for support from the U.N. in the form of 1 & 2 under the Aggression Policies,and also embargoes, and breaking diplomatic relation. A summit will be called with all U.N. members and if the vote is majority then ALL U.N. members will join your cause, but if the vote is NOT the majority, then you are on your own, without any of the U.N. members joining you. If you have made 2 or more request, one may fail but one may pass(no war but embargoes). If action is taken then all of the parties involved will declare war and peace at the same time.
 
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.

I think personally that the U.N shouldn't become a Wonder of the World. I think that as soon as say half the Civ's in the game reach the level to get the U.N, it just appears, built in the top City in the game. Its supposed to be a Global Agency, not something someone own's and the rest are just tag along. You could have the choice of joining it if you wish or staying out, but if you did there would be an instant trade embargo against you by the other members who did join.

There's just so many way you could alter the U.N, it has an awful lot of potential however you need to be careful to keep it as realistic as possible without hindering the fun of the game
 
While I do agree that the UN should have a more practical use, I think some of these suggestions are a bit elaborate and may present some balance and/or implementation issues (at least for an expansion pack, anyway).


I would offer a different suggestion to the problem. Perhaps whoever builds the UN should be able to view/investigate any city of any civilization at any time. This would parallel the searches that the UN often conducts on various countries (ie, the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq). This would make it a valuable wonder to the peacemaker and warmonger alike as it would allow threat assesments to be made at any point.

This would be fairly easy to implement by simply allowing the building civ to use the 'investigate city' diplomacy/espionage action at any point with no cost and no fear of 'being caught'. It would also not present any serious balance issues or overpowering as it provides no direct advantage to the building civ, only intelligence information. Additionally, it does not offer any feature/ability/advantage that is not otherwise available to any other civ already (in much the same way that building the internet does not provide anything that you could not obtain by building research labs in each of your cities).


Please note that this is inteded not to be a critisism or flame of any kind, but simply a different perspective on solving the 'problem' at hand. That being said, please offer to me any comments, critisisms, or suggestions to this idea.
 
this ideas sounds good, but once again : does firaxis technicians have access here? it will be nice if one knows if your suggestions are heard......
 
I like the idea steviejay had about no one civ owning and about it not being a wonder. If these ideas do come true then it would be different then any other wonder. Also it should be able to make peace treaties between two warring nations and also for it to be able to deploy peacekeeper (by the way does any know if the can be used in a war or are they only used for peacekeeping)
 
Yea I think it would be GREAT if the UN in Civ3 was more like the PC in SMAC. That would be really cool. I always wondered why they just made it a means to a diplomatic victory and nothing more. :(
 
This is probably Civ4 stuff, but:

There's currently the problem of making peace treaties when you have alliances in place: rep hit for making peace if your ally is still at war. Also, several people have wished for the possibility of forcing or bribing two warring opponents into peace.

These kind of deals would require multi-party trade negotiations, so why not make the UN serve as that?

Whoever builds the UN can thereafter open an extended trade window, where he can put several civs on one side (each in its own box or something) and several civs on the other side. The UN owner may be one of them, too. Then the human player (single player game) or the UN owner (multi player) shuffles propositions of who gives what to whom around and when _all_ civs agree there is a simultaneous trade deal execution so that if it was peace negotiations then no rep hits are served to anyone if the entire alliance accepts peace. Of course, the multi-party deals could be used for other stuff, too.

This might be too much for an expansion set, though.
 
I'd like to see the ability to deploy peacekeepers in a given region. Maybe the member nations all have to donate X number of units to wear the blue and white (or have a "build UN unit" option for a city. Voting could take place on NBC weapons, pollution controls, trade, and maybe even aid to countries or cities (say a jungle city with disease?).
 
Who controls the peacekeepers, and what exactly do they do? (And dont say keep the peace. ;) )
 
The UN is very similar to Pandora's Box here, IT has just so much potential but if its taken to the extreme it might become annoying and a hinderance

The idea about being able to force Civ's to make peace is something I'm quite suprised they've never incorperated before. Usually if I'm playing a Regent game or something I'm quite the dominant force and I like to keep a few Civ's close as Allies so it would be cool if I could put pressure on them to stop a war, or maybe even start one, without having to fight the other side as well as you can do at the moment.

If you did that it might even turn the game in a possible Cold War scenario. If you could force a Civ to declare war on someone, I doubt there is anything stopping you from demanding other things, like requesting use of Allied Airbases or even maybe the use of their radar posts and stuff so that the fog of war over their teritory is cleared.

RX2000 has a good point about who controls the peacekeepers. on thinking about it maybe the computer should, but only attack in self defence, but on thinking about it, I think that maybe the idea of peacekeepers might be getting too deep in terms of how complex this Wonder should be

I think I'm starting to ramble here so I'll end it there, but I think that the UN could be made into something amazing, even though I'd have to agree with Pembroke and say that I suspect we will need to wait till Civ4 for such a substancial change to the way Diplomacy is engaged
 
Don't agree with you guys. UN are very useful already: YOU CAN WIN THE GAME! And i do that all the time:) expect one time:wallbash: and ones when my strongest oponents were Russians (i was Rome) and it was equal for two election until i win culturaly (btw in that game Russians were made UN).

The UN are completly useless in REAL LIFE!:(
 
Yes it allows you to win the game but more uses would make it seem more realistic.Just my 2 cents.
 
Back
Top Bottom