The U.N: The worst wonder?

[WoundedKnight]

After finishing a long, fun game of CIV, the UN is the one wonder I detest as it is not merely worthless, but destructive. After building the UN and becoming the secretary-general, some initiatives are still proposed automatically and not by you. The AI are a bunch of commies...they voted for free religion, emancipation, etc. worldwide. I had the religious civic that gives +100% great people, which was extremely helpful to my overall strategy. Then the AI voted for free religion and I lost my religion benefits as well as line of sight to converted cities in other nations.

I lost my civics that I liked and it is impossible to change them back without holding and winning another election on the same topic years later in the next UN term. Unfortunately, with virtually all of the AI players in favor of some changes, and getting enough "No" votes seem virtually impossible ... it's easier to get a domination victory than to win votes.

The contrast to the real-world UN is also obvious, as the real UN has seemed to accomplish little if anything in enforcing worldwide standards of religious or political freedoms.

I'll never build this wonder again, and if the AI does, I'll have to raze the city...since wonders can't be rebuilt, he he.

 

[SidSmurf]

I believe that if you turn off the "Diplomacy" win condition option, the UN cannot be built. That's how it was in Civ III anyway...

 

[Stuporstar]

I would like it if you could decline from any passed UN resolution, but you would take a major penalty in diplomacy from all the other AI's, and could even lead to war. This is what real nations do all the time. This would not only add more realism to the game, but probably more balance as well.

 

[TheEvilCheater]

I would like it if you could decline from any passed UN resolution, but you would take a major penalty in diplomacy from all the other AI's, and could even lead to war. This is what real nations do all the time. This would not only add more realism to the game, but probably more balance as well.

What i cant decline resolutions? OMFG thats stupidddddd gahhh

 

[reveron]

You can vote against resolutions.

 

[Totibbs]

In a duel mode, Human v. 1 AI I couldnt build the UN wonder.
Is that because there is a minimum amount of Civ's needed for UN? Or missed I a special resource?

 

[snepp]

After finishing a long, fun game of CIV, the UN is the one wonder I detest as it is not merely worthless, but destructive. After building the UN and becoming the secretary-general, some initiatives are still proposed automatically and not by you.

I've built the UN in every game I've played (have always been secretary general to boot) and have never had a resolution proposed that I didn't ask for.

 

[TerraHero]

The way it works is as followed.

first there is an election of the state secretary. The state secretary get to put up 2 or 3 votes, like the nuclear non-profilation and such. If it gets the majority, its passed.

At the end of his/her term, there is another election. If someone else gets elected now, he she can put up the same act again on vote. But this time, if it fails to get the votes or gets enough votes against it, its abolished and no longer in effect.

 

[woodelf]

I never thought of simply turning off Diplomatic victory. Does this truly work for eliminating the UN?

 

[Seanirl]

... how is free religion a thing a commie would pass? They ABOLISHED religion, which is like the exact opposite

 

[jar2574]

if you can't opt out of a resolution, then that is really stupid. any nation should be able to, and then others could just get irritated with them

 

[warpstorm]

Gee, a Wonder that let's me win the game by building it. Hmmm, is that the worst?

 

[TheDervish]

First of all, building the UN doesn't automatically assure you of a diplomatic victory. You need to introduce it as a resolution, and you need the required # of votes.

One thing you can do, if you build the UN, become secretary general, and everytime the resolution list comes out, keep clicking none. You get nothing done, the UN is effectively pointless, but you don't have to change civics.

 

[Padmewan]

Is the AI smart enough to "know" that these civic choices would hurt your civ? I am guessing that you are the leading civ, so anything they can do to slow you down, they should do.

 

[Stuporstar]

It's not really about hurting your civ, it's about what benefits them. The AI will usually only vote on a civic if it already has it implimented.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Same thing happened to me. If you're in the lead and you don't want the AI's to change your civics, don't build it.

 

[Paradigne]

In the one game I built the UN, the first resolution was to open up an additional trade route. I thought that was kind of cool...

 

[Gufnork]

There needs to be atleast three teams for the UN to be available. Otherwise the largest team could just dictate whatever they choose and there would be no diplomacy involved.

 

[Volstag]

That's the risk you take with the U.N. Honestly, if you're not trying for a diplomatic victory, I wouldn't even build it.

 

[Shillen]

How do you get the diplomatic victory vote to pass? In my game I have great relations with every other civ. I have no trouble getting elected to secretary general every time. But when the diplo victory vote is made half of the civs abstain from voting. Even though they have a total of +8 relation with me and -5 with my opponent. Why do they abstain? The number of votes I need to win is so ridiculously high that even if one good civ abstains I can't win. And if they abstain even though they like me then I have no clue what to do. They even abstained after I made them declare war on my opponent. I'm completely confused.