Revamping the UN

[Prometheus1992]

But what if all of the nations join into the UN? Wouldn't that unbalance the game by forcing most to contribute their units to fight against one nation if it were to invade another? I like the idea of the UN but there are still problems you people still haven't clearly resolved.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

They could definately improve it by making it more like the council in Alpha Centauri - elections every 20 turns to choose a head (not a winner), with options such as an embargo by everyone against a particular player, a declaration of war by everyone, or the "unite behind me as planetary ruler" end-game option.

Maybe options like the trade agreement - bonus of cash - or something to combat global warming - cost money.

Anything more seems needlessly complicated.

 

[rhialto]

I'd like to see a UN-style organisation able to not only ban nukes, but ban any particular unit type. A good historical example of this was a certain pope banning the crossbow in Europe. There would be three levels of banning:

- Use counts as an atrocity
- Moratorium (vanishes from build queue options, or building counts as a minor atrocity, plus use counts as an atrocity)
- Swords into Ploughshares (all existing units get disbanded, plus moratorium as above)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I like that idea, Rhialto .
On the matter of the UN, I think it should count as just the Security Council, where the builder and any other civ of a certain level of Economic/military power are Permanent members (perhaps Permanent Member status can be limited to 5 or 6?) Permanent members can:

(1) Ban a certain unit type-as suggested by Rhialto.

(2) Declare Economic Sanctions.

(3) Ban a resource from use.

(4) Send Peacekeeping forces to the cities of formerly warring civs.

(5) Bring down a resolution authorising a joint declaration of war (with all UN Permanent members required to declare war on the offender).

(6) Admit a nation as a member of the Non-Permanent Security Council.

(7) Dismiss a Permanent/Non-Permanent Security council member.

(8) Upgrade a civ from Non-Permanent to Permanent status.

(9) Appoint a civ leader as 'Secretary General'.

The only way for a permanent member to lose his seat is by a unanimous vote of the remaining permanent member civs (or an absolute majority of the entire security council), or by falling below the minimum 'Power Requirements' for membership. The only civ which cannot lose their status is the 'Owner' of the UN. Also, the owner of the UN-and the Secretary General- have Veto power on any votes brought down by other Security Council members.
Anyway, thats my feeling on this matter except that, like DH_Epic and others, I believe the UN and the Diplomatic victory should be completely seperate-except that Building the UN and/or being Secretary General should count towards a diplomatic victory (a victory condition which ought to be points based.)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I figured out how to solve the problems with peacekeeping forces:

When the UN declares a 'peacekeeping misson' against a particular Civ, players can only send their personal 'UN Units' that they built. This means players still control units, but cannot invade the cities. Also, when the UN declares war against someone(requires 2/3 majority vote) then everyone can take units, but does not gain the city captured.

I like the weapons bans and you could add another type, non-proliferation. It means that only nations that already had the technology and weapons deployed can continue to use and develop them.

In SMAC, when you won the diplomatic vote for victory you had to be able to back it up with the force of your allies. Being the wimpy guy meant that those who did not vote for you could destroy you while allies jumped ship. In Civ 3, you do not have to face off against those who disagreed. You can keep diplomatic victory, but require that you subdue or 'convince' the dissenters.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I like that idea, Rhialto .
On the matter of the UN, I think it should count as just the Security Council, where the builder and any other civ of a certain level of Economic/military power are Permanent members (perhaps Permanent Member status can be limited to 5 or 6?) Permanent members can:

(1) Ban a certain unit type-as suggested by Rhialto.

(2) Declare Economic Sanctions.

(3) Ban a resource from use.

(4) Send Peacekeeping forces to the cities of formerly warring civs.

(5) Bring down a resolution authorising a joint declaration of war (with all UN Permanent members required to declare war on the offender).

(6) Admit a nation as a member of the Non-Permanent Security Council.

(7) Dismiss a Permanent/Non-Permanent Security council member.

(8) Upgrade a civ from Non-Permanent to Permanent status.

(9) Appoint a civ leader as 'Secretary General'.

The only way for a permanent member to lose his seat is by a unanimous vote of the remaining permanent member civs (or an absolute majority of the entire security council), or by falling below the minimum 'Power Requirements' for membership. The only civ which cannot lose their status is the 'Owner' of the UN. Also, the owner of the UN-and the Secretary General- have Veto power on any votes brought down by other Security Council members.
Anyway, thats my feeling on this matter except that, like DH_Epic and others, I believe the UN and the Diplomatic victory should be completely seperate-except that Building the UN and/or being Secretary General should count towards a diplomatic victory (a victory condition which ought to be points based.)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Solid as usual, Aussie_Lurker. I believe that the Sec-Gen should NOT be one of the most powerful civ leaders, however, and that it should be the head of a minor civ, to reflect the fact that the UN Charter forbids a citizen of any of the Big Five from becoming the Secretary-General, and that all Sec-Gens have been from relatively small, essentially neutral countries.

 

[jkp1187]

The problem with the idea in this thread is that it creates something new to do without actually adding much to the game. The "council" idea worked in SMAC because it made sense in that scenario for the factions to want to continue with some form of UN at as early a time as possible. In Civ IV, however, it simply would be ahistorical for such a global deliberative body to exist once all other civs had been contacted (i.e., around 1500). And for it to come into existence with the construction of the UN, that means at best -- what? 20 or 30 turns of UN activity before the game ends? (Sometimes not even that many.) It just wouldn't work very well in the game, and would go against Sid's own Covert Action Rule: "it's better to have one good game instead of two great games."

 

[apatheist]

I partly agree with jkp1187, but it's worth thinking it through. The UN formalized many diplomatic arrangements that already existed in an informal, ad hoc fashion. I think something like the UN was inevitable. That said, I'm still not convinced that peace-keeping is a worthy addition to the game. I don't understand why I would want to participate. Nor do I understand why much of this collective negotiation is better and more useful than extending the current bi-lateral system into a multi-lateral, but still ad hoc system, and adding capabilities like joint declarations of war and arms control treaties.

Aussie, what do you mean by "power requirements?"

 

[searcheagle]

In Civ IV, however, it simply would be ahistorical for such a global deliberative body to exist once all other civs had been contacted (i.e., around 1500).

Remember, this is ALTERNATIVE History, Not History. Once a few civs are gathered together, what is to stop them from inventing the UN or the League of Nations or whatever they want to call themselves.

 

[troytheface]

Leagues- United Nations ect. are notorious for being short lived and ineffectual-russia/america will never be sanctioned- the Pelopensian league fell apart quickly after the war ect. If anything the U.N should have less power not more - (imagine the U.N. banning nuclear weapons and the U.S. saying ok- lol- never happen - never will- the pope tried to ban the crossbow- no weapon that has proved its worth has been cast aside -even poisen gas and bio weapons are still around -if anything the U.N (which is funded mainly by the U.S in a building built by the U.S. ect ) should be something that makes the owner gain some culture points and maybe can have a small army to control (that would be kinda fun and u get an actual visible something) to use against weak nations - as a matter of fact they should have a mercenary army progression that goes something like - greek mercenaries- barbarian mercenaries- national mercenaries- U.N. mercenaries

 

[rhialto]

One point I forgot to make with the banning weapons idea was that only the first level could be done unilaterally. the next two could only vbe done as part of a mutual agreement, although this agreement could be with a velvet fist (ie disarm or will kill you).

Spoiler politically sensitive :

Consider that Bush essentially offered Saddam a "disband all your NBC weapons or we invade" treaty just prior to the current festivities in Iraq. There should be some kind of diplomatic penalty if such a treaty is accepted and you then attack anyway.

Mutual disaemment treaties are of course possible under this system too.

Personally, I think ad hoc multilateral diplomatic options are the way to go. The UN should allow you to declare war with relative impunity if you own it. Civ2 had the right idea on how it is cynically used and abused.

If we are going to create a real world institution in the game, the game effect should be based on what that institution actually does, not what it would do given an ideal world.

 

[jkp1187]

Remember, this is ALTERNATIVE History, Not History. Once a few civs are gathered together, what is to stop them from inventing the UN or the League of Nations or whatever they want to call themselves.

Presumably the same thing that keeps nuclear weapons from being constructed with the discovery of mapmaking: lack of technological/social advancement.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, what was the Hanseatic League except a form of proto League of Nations? After all, like the latter League, the Hanseatic League transcended national boundries. Unlike nuclear weapons-which require a certain degree of scientific/technical know-how, all an organision like the UN (but not necessarily the UN itself) needs is a desire for formalised co-operative relationships.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[searcheagle]

Well, what was the Hanseatic League except a form of proto League of Nations? After all, like the latter League, the Hanseatic League transcended national boundries. Unlike nuclear weapons-which require a certain degree of scientific/technical know-how, all an organision like the UN (but not necessarily the UN itself) needs is a desire for formalised co-operative relationships.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Exactly my point, aussie, stated in much clearer way. The point is that international organizations can and should exist before where they did in real life.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

True, Aussie_Lurker, that would be the only prerequisite if the UN's talking-shop function were its only one...but it isn't. The humanitarian aspect and the peacekeeping aspect, now generally the more important UN function since nobody of importance listens to UN resolutions anymore (unfortunately). And no one woud care to think of these prior to the concepts of nationalism and the atrocities of war that were enabled by the advent of modern technologies, and the spirit of internationalism that these potential atrocities created. Before, nobody could kill massive numbers of people, and everyone fended for themselves unless there was some advantage to be gained by helping others out. After, people were scared of atrocities and wars that spiralled out of control, and this, combined with the rise of democracy, nationalism, and self-determination as the "official" (i.e. touted by everyone, whether they practiced it or not) standard of policy, led to the feeling that helping others prevent war was a good idea.