Need some ideas on (NEW) UN

[NikG]

Aussie, I see the point, but I just dont accept the UN (in Civ terms) is the Security Council (in real world terms).

As it is, when other civs dont like you much do dont vote for the resolution you put up. But the UN in the real world, dont just pass resolution countries MUST abide, they also have various organs that says such and such about this and that )) and having the UN (in civ terms) vote for a resolution about civics, I see it much more of a vote of "a document saying free speech is the best". If UN should enforce every thing in the real world, they would get preoccupied until next centrury with the paper work...

Why is there so much problem around Iran at the time? Because they are developing nuclear weapons, and mainly US dont what that, so ... Iran is not excluded from the UN (is Iran a member?, just checked they have been member since 1945), even though that in The World's eyes they have become increasingly unrealiable, and so the attitudes toward Iran is decreasing. So should it be in the game!

So if you are "forced not" to build nuclear weapons in the game, and you on the road to this (nuclear facilities, etc.) the attitude towards you fall. And maybe even a vote of war(!!!) could be initiated.

Some other examples:
USA is not banned from the UN, because of the war in Iraq.
France, Germany (whole international community) is not banned either based they didnt support USA's war in Iraq.
Sudan is not banned, because of the genocide in Darfur.
Either is Nigeria, where killings of the native christians is a every day activity.
Denmark werent banned because of the cartoons of Muhammed.
Alot of contries are not banned because of use of death penality.
Israel, dont follow numerous resolutions (even some from the security council) and they are not banned either...

Hope I have made my point clear..

 

[Burt Reynolds]

I agree with you NIkG - the organization cannot do much to a state that is outside, however, there is one exception. If a state which is beyond the UN is a "threat to peace" the UN SC can decide on sanctions which would be law binding (that is in accord with international law). So, as you see, to some extent each state is a part of international community, it is not a question of choice, at least in some areas (like war and peace).

 

[Chamaedrys]

I agree with you NIkG - the organization cannot do much to a state that is outside, however, there is one exception. If a state which is beyond the UN is a "threat to peace" the UN SC can decide on sanctions which would be law binding (that is in accord with international law). So, as you see, to some extent each state is a part of international community, it is not a question of choice, at least in some areas (like war and peace).

That brings me to this idea:

All cities of the UN members geta free trade route to a city of another member. This would represant the advantage of "being part of the international community". On the other side the non members don't get trade routes with members. Infact UN sanctions are often "not so effective" so members and non members should still be able to trade resources.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

Well, as to the UN effectiveness, the real teeth of the organization is in deciding whether something is in accord with the international law or is it not. In order to do that it doesn't need the consent of the five permanent members and all that. For example look at the war of Iraq and the US. The UN SC did not act but after some members and majority of lawyers (and also head of the organization, Kofi Annan) said it was not justified and not in accordance with the international law, the US reputation suffered heavily. If we would like something like that in the game we need two things, I think. First are the standards of the international law (those could be decided by the player who is the current UN SG). Second is a question of voting on the issues by other players. Let's say that there is a war in the game, the UN SG says it was country A that was the agressor and proposes a resolution condemning A for the war. If it passes A gets a big penalty with the whole international community, if it doesn't only with those countries who voted for it. Deciding on the legitimacy of states' actions is the main power of the UN, in every other case it serves just as a forum, and is effective only as much as they (the most powerful ones, actually) agree with each other. In order to make the UN more important in the game, we need to strenghten the penalty of non-cooperation, but only by worsening the reputation of non-cooperating player.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

I had second thoughts about the question of reputation. What do you think about something of an overall reputation of a civ? It could be a sum of pluses and minuses in bilateral relations of a civ with all the other civs and would give a respective bonus (or a penalty) to relations with each civ (something of a feedback). Let's say civ A's relations with B and C is a sum of 3. That would automatically be translated to a 3 point bonus in bilateral relations with B and with C. Of course, if we had this mechanism working constantly it would be stupid and impossible, but this "dividend of peace" (as I like to call it) could be given every some amount of turns.

 

[dh_epic]

dh_epic must agree that forcing civics is not very realistic and either is it very fun to be forced to certain civics. It will only increase the value of the game if it is possible to actually wreak havoc in the international community.

Realism cannot trump gameplay. Not ever. Say you can disobey a UN resolution, and wreak havoc on the international community. Why have the UN at all? It's useless.

You can ALREADY wreak havoc on the international community.

In addition, UN membership could count as a 'Defensive Pact' with other UN members so, if you get attacked by another nation, the other UN members will come to your aid (alternatively if you are attacked, python could be called to look for UN membership and-if returned true-1 to 2 high strength defensive units would automatically appear in your cities).

ran is not excluded from the UN (is Iran a member?, just checked they have been member since 1945), even though that in The World's eyes they have become increasingly unrealiable, and so the attitudes toward Iran is decreasing. So should it be in the game!

So if you are "forced not" to build nuclear weapons in the game, and you on the road to this (nuclear facilities, etc.) the attitude towards you fall. And maybe even a vote of war(!!!) could be initiated.

Neither of these would be sufficient.

If the player is automatically forced into a state of war because of the UN, it doesn't mean they actually have to *do* anything. They can pretty much pretend they're not at war, let the rest of the UN deal with the rogue nation, and cruise to a space race victory.

Attitudes do even less. Look at Civ 3. When was the last time you said to yourself "uh oh, I'd better NOT conquer the **** out of this guy, because he might get mad at me?" The AI can't turn their anger into action if you're already dominating the game.

The truth is if you can ignore the UN, the UN is pretty much useless. There's an ounce of realism to what I just said, too. If you hate the UN as it is now, you might as well just get rid of it entirely, rather than opening up holes in it that would make it meaningless anyway.

 

[NikG]

If the player is automatically forced into a state of war because of the UN, it doesn't mean they actually have to *do* anything. They can pretty much pretend they're not at war, let the rest of the UN deal with the rogue nation, and cruise to a space race victory.

I see your point, but as I said you will not get forced anytime. So if you vote no, then you shouldn't be forced to anything. Indeed the war thing is not very good. However we could make it an embargo instead. Whatever, the whole idea of get forced to something is plain stupid and irritating.

Attitudes do even less. Look at Civ 3. When was the last time you said to yourself "uh oh, I'd better NOT conquer the **** out of this guy, because he might get mad at me?" The AI can't turn their anger into action if you're already dominating the game.

Well it is not just add something and let the rest be. Of course changes are need alot of places to get what I am thinking to work. And in the end, not altering the gameplay ever much, but only adding to the experince of a singleplayer game. With the right algorithms everything would be doable!

The truth is if you can ignore the UN, the UN is pretty much useless. There's an ounce of realism to what I just said, too. If you hate the UN as it is now, you might as well just get rid of it entirely, rather than opening up holes in it that would make it meaningless anyway.

So is it in real life.... Or is it? It is not holes, it is adding fun and gameplay. If you disobey what the UN, fine, but you will pay the consequences. And maybe in the end lose the game, because no one what to trade with you. And that takes me to another point. Trade should be more powerful. So if you are an isolationist in the later eras without "trading" with other nation, you will suffer in the technology race. Not obeying the UN is the same thing, being an "isolationist". So in the end, unless you conquere the entire world, you will lose. Actually I dont really care if people dont like this. It is realistic and fun from my point of view. Adding to gameplay and realism, without adding to micromanagement and ruining the gameplay.

I respect your opinion dh_epic, however I disagree with it.
However instead of discussing the forcing/not forcing thing, I would like to hear what you eventually would like to see in the UN that can be voted on, if any of course.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

I respect your opinion dh_epic, however I disagree with it.
However instead of discussing the forcing/not forcing thing, I would like to hear what you eventually would like to see in the UN that can be voted on, if any of course.[/QUOTE]

Hi there,
I have two great ideas (in my opinion at least) about what to vote on in the new UN. First is the "democractic peace" resolution which would make any war between two democracies impossible. This, I have to say, is not my own "out of the blue" idea - the theory of democratic peace was, and is, a subject of serious scientific research and it has its place in the international relations theory. The second idea is a bit more complicated (and I really hate to say that because it is also extremely interesting). It is about voting the creation of the IMF that is International Monetary Fund (organization extensively associated with the UN in the real life). After the resolution passes, it would be possible to make "foreign investments" between countries that have the free market civic. It would look like that: country A invest 1000 gold in country B. A gets a certain interest rate every turn from that investment. B, in turn, would have the possibility of "nationalising" that investment, and thus, putting extra 1000 into its coffins. However, everything in this world has its price, and so, the country B's reputation would go down due to the "losing of financial credibility". What do you think about that?

 

[dh_epic]

I think that the UN doesn't fit in the current game style of Civ. It really is sort of a 'novelty' feature. A gimmick they tacked onto a game that's largely a war sim in Civ 3, and since then, it's become a standard expectation for fans.

To me, coming up with an interesting UN feature needs to come later. Much more important is coming up with more interesting diplomacy. To do that, you'd have to fundamentally rethink the game. If the game pits you against everyone in a winner-take-all situation, you'll inevitably backstab people. If victory becomes easier if you cooperate, you'll cooperate. Right now, it's too backstabby for diplomacy to be anything but an exploit for the player.

You're on the right track when you talk about penalties for isolationism. The key is to look at the 'big picture'. If you think of the UN as being it's own little thing, it will suck.

 

[[CRO]Nemesis]

Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
-The most cultural, the gratest, the most advanced and the strongest civilizations can put Veto on decision
United Nations Economic and Social Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Economic_and_Social_Council
don't realy know what to put here, but you can put embargo on trading with some nations

 

[dimaliok]

WOW cool ideas guys

 

[Burt Reynolds]

First I want to say a few words about how I see the game Civilization.Some of you said before that it should be fun in the first place, and only then real. Thus, in many opinions, the game doesn't have to work like the real world as long as there are fun choices for the player. Here I disagree, because what gives me most of fun playing civ is that it is similar to reality. We shouldn't make it otherwise or it will lose much of it's charm.
Now to the UN. Let's face it - this organization is not what it meant to be. Why? Because the states aren't as they "should have been" in minds of those writing the UN Charter. The truth is that ideals of peaceloving understanding don't rule in the chiefdom of international relations. Neither do the backstabbing and confrontational behaviour. It is a mixture of both, and so, the role of the UN should mirror that, I think. That's a bit of a "big picture" isn't it? But now a problem even bigger that the picture arises - how to translate that into action? The UN SC has the power but not always. The countries often co-operate but sometimes they don't. The Secretary General sometimes counts as an important international player but sometimes he doesn't. The number of tank divisions often counts but sometimes the power of ideas is stronger. The big picture is somewhat complicated (to say the least) as you see. But if we have it in mind while making small "executive" pictures, we can improve the game without losing contact with the reality. As to the diplomacy in the game, I agree it's not a strong point of the game. In my opinion it should be more politically realistic and less concerned with the history of relations between the countries. If a deal is profitable to both parties why it should be stopped by "you didn't give us tribute" justification? It's idealistic and a bit stupid I think.

 

[Padmewan]

I agree with Burt Reynolds that, for me at least, the fun is premised on realism. After all, without realism, we should be content with Arbitrary Polygon X moving to Arbitrary Polygon Y and taking the tile. (This is called chess).

That said, dh_epic is spot-on that the UN was tacked on without much thought to the game, partly because diplomacy in Civ is pretty much in its infancy. Part of the problem is whether you are playing a "nation" or a "civilization." Do "civilizations" even engage in diplomacy, or belong to the UN?

Assuming you can get over this problem, which I have a hard time doing, there is a problem of "realism" in diplomacy overall. To make the UN functional you would need to make diplomacy far more sophisticated and rational. I'm afraid to keep digging, but fundamentally there needs to be a better economic model to make that possible. (One interesting dynamic from Medieval Total War was that you could only trade with other nations: as you conquered more of the map, your trade would plummet -- this is captured somewhat in Civ4, but not big enough numbers to make that much difference, IMHO).

Fundamentally, the problem (from this perspective) with the Civ series is its bias towards war/conquest. In the real world, at least in modern times, there is really no incentive for the US to, for example, conquer Africa. (Let's not talk about Iraq!) How is this modeled in Civ? Not at all... it is always good to conquer more land, with "maintenance" being an inhibitor but an arbitrary and surmountable one.

Thus, if Civ is biased towards war mechanisms, then I think it's right to have the UN be shrunk down to the Security Council, unless the other mechanisms (diplomacy, economic development) can be better modeled in the core game engine. Otherwise, the UN is largely window dressing.

 

[Elhoim]

I can´t remember them, but the United Planets Council of Galactic Civilization II has some very pretty resolutions that can be used. If you have the game, try playing it for a while to get some ideas, and if you don´t have it, get it as it is great fun!

 

[Hived]

Sorry, if I repeat something, but I've not read all the posts, you've written in here.
Here my ideas:
The founder of the UN can invite as many members as he wants to join 'his' UN, as soon as it's founded (should work like a separee in a Chat). The Invited people can join, or let it be. KI joins if the relationship is +x (thought of 1 or 2) or better).
I share the idea with the influenced relationship of UN-members (+3)
Members of the UN get one further trade-route, with other UN-members.

Ideas of Resolutions:
Closing of all the UN-member-trade-routes to one special player/all non-UN-players.
nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty (non-UN-members can still nuke!)
Election of the secretary
...

 

[Burt Reynolds]

When I play Civilization I'm having no doubt that I lead a nation not a civilization. I think it's just a question of a good marketing - if Sid had wanted to be accurate he should have called the game "Nationalization", and it doesn't look nice, does it? But tell me, is there a German civilization or French civilization or is it all European? The same with USA - is it really a particular civilization or just one of the forms of the western civ? The game's just called civilization but it is all about nations, or to be more accurate, about states.

I also think that diplomacy should be changed, but not so much as to start from nothing. In the later periods of the game the civs should be more interconnected. That should be reflecting the globalization process. The better UN is a good platform to do that I think. We should make those interconnections real, so the wellbeing of the international community as a whole (that is every player in the UN) would be in the real interests of each member of the game. That is just how every society work (at least in theory)

To make globalization work in the game we need to strenghten the economic cooperation. A new feature of international investments would be cool I think. It may be a new possible option for the UN members in a diplomacy screen. Let's say USA would make a foreign investment in Germany. Then both countries would share a 5% interest rate from that money. It would be deposited in Germany and they would be able to "nationalize" it thus ending the whole enterprise and by the way worsening their relations with US and with other UN mebers, but acquiring some extra gold.

That would enable a big incentive to become a UN member and become integrated with the world economy. The membership in the UN should not also be for free. The countries should pay some money each turn to provide the collective good of making foreign investments.

I'm not a programist so I don't know if that's technically possible, but I think it would make the game more realistic (and so more fun too).

 

[dh_epic]

Burt Reynolds, you have to go back to what Padmewan said to understand the fundamental problem.

Fundamentally, the problem (from this perspective) with the Civ series is its bias towards war/conquest. In the real world, at least in modern times, there is really no incentive for the US to, for example, conquer Africa. (Let's not talk about Iraq!) How is this modeled in Civ? Not at all... it is always good to conquer more land, with "maintenance" being an inhibitor but an arbitrary and surmountable one.

Bigger is always better, backstabbing is always smart, and conquest enables all victories. No amount of tinkering with the UN can change that. If the game pits you against your friends in a winner-take-all environment, you cannot have legitimate diplomacy.

Which is the #1 complaint I have with realism-mongers. Yes, realism is part of Civilization 4's charm. But part of the charm is also that it's a game, and games have winners and losers. And in a game with a winner, you'll see America back stab England before the 2050 AD deadline, and everyone in the entire world shifting their production towards Alpha Centaurii, with zero concern for what impact Nuclear war has on the long term sustainability of the planet. Games are by definition unrealistic. Yet the same people clamoring for more realism are the same people who LOVE conquering the entire world -- the most unrealistic dream imaginable.

If you want good diplomacy, you have to go really deep... you have to tackle the entire point of Civilization 4. How do you win?

 

[Padmewan]

If you want good diplomacy, you have to go really deep... you have to tackle the entire point of Civilization 4. How do you win?

I was reading A Theory of Fun for Game Design this weekend and thinking a lot about this question. The author (Raph Koster, who now runs Sony's online worlds) asserts that most games model "reptile instincts" at their core -- run, jump, shoot. I think you can argue that Civ is a step above that -- it's fundamentally a resource management / opportunity cost game.

The core issue brought up in this thread is the one that Raph worries about most: today's survival skills are not about running and jumping but tolerance and cooperation. Yet, what games model those skills? Arguably, MMORPGs and The Sims.

To make the UN "work," you would have to have a good theory of social interaction on which to model the UN and, actually, all diplomacy -- including altruism, game theory, etc... Then you would need to create mechanisms to move the levers of that model and a objective worth working towards.

Having never achieved a diplomatic victory in vanilla, I can't say that much to praise or criticize it. I do know that the developers, at least, feel that the AI relationships are now a lot more rational and reasonable than in Civ3, and that you can no longer "buy love" in the game. I'm curious about others' experiences with this -- if anyone has ever played an "all-diplomacy" game the way people play "culture" games.

***

Anyway, in refactoring our mod I'm investigating how to expand diplomatic options. I think we actually want to start with a functioning "UN" and then have it break down over time, rather than v.v. Particularly important for us would be the option to kick members out of the UN, with nasty consequences for the pariah.

 

[almeida_cohen]

I was just wondering if anyone has started to make this mod? and when will it be ready?

thanx

almeida_cohen

 

[jlocke]

if anyone did, it would certainly be amazing.
I've been trying to add more interesting voting options to the UN in my Cold War scenario, but without much success.