The U.N.

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Esckey, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. Esckey

    Esckey Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,321
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm slightly dissappointed with this wonder. Its great to be able to change things, like no more nukes. But I would love to have more abilities for the UN to vote on. The less warmongering(or those that prefer a challenge instead of bombing a bronze age civ back into the stone age) maybe a vote that will supply cash or something to the more needy civs. Something based on the point/score difference between the nations. Ya know like Foriegn Aid.

    But what I would really like is the ability to ignore the UNs rulings. I don't want to be forced into free religion or into enviromentalism. I don't care if it gives me big negatives on the diplomacy board, they're usually jerks anyways.
     
  2. Rainlife

    Rainlife Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Brussels, Belgium
    agree on the second half of the part, you should be able to not follow the guidelines of the UN (but with a penalty) something like this was applied in "master of orion 3" where you could decide to not follow the orion-senate's decissions. in the case of civ a relation-penalty or the chance of embargo's would be nice

    i would also like to see the possinility to pass others than "free religion, freedom of speech" and stuff, why not be able to vote that everyone becomes a buddihistics theocraty ?

    the first part might be something like the IMF? maybe this can be be a new wonder or building the UN gives you the possibility to vote for the creation of new organisations. how this would effectively work is difficult, rich civ would have to give money to a funds, but how will be decided how to distribute it again ?
     
  3. Schneids

    Schneids Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Canada
    I would like to have the U.N as an option, I am currently able to build every building , wonder etc. except for the U.N. No other nation in my game has built it either. I am currently researching Tech 3 and my nation is an economic, cultural and military powerhouse. Do I have to have good relations with the other nations to allow me to build it. I have all available resources so what am I missing, my civics are all of the modern civics.
     
  4. Desert-Fox

    Desert-Fox King

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Estonia, Laagri
    I agree... in real life the 3rd/4th world countries usually do not follow UN rulings. But they should get penalty... -4 You didn't accept a global civic.
     
  5. Ktulu

    Ktulu Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Completely agree with this. The UN is extremely annoying in the late game, especially since the resolutions are so predictable.
     
  6. Syntherio

    Syntherio Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Gifhorn, GER
    I think, if it is possible to ignore the U.N. you can kick it out of the game...
    What an interessting idea of suffrage: If I agree with the result, everything is ok, if I disagree, I just do what I want...
     
  7. zarakand

    zarakand Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Chicago
    LoL what about 1st world countries and their unilateral decisons. Doesn't seem to me as only 3rd world countries dont' follow the U.N.
     
  8. zarakand

    zarakand Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Chicago
    Do you think it's possible to do a security council for the UN? It would make the game's diplomacy option a bit more interesting and complicated especially on 18 Civs maps(the only setting i'll play!).

    The 3 or 4 highest scoring Civs are automatically on the U.N Security council, and then there's a general election for the chairman. Everytime the chairman wants to pass a resolution it must pass a majority vote from the Council before it can go on for general vote.

    There could also be interesting consequences if you choose to disobey the UN. Massive diplomatic strains on relations from the security council members, but only minor from the general assembly.

    By the same token lets say there's someone else who is also disobeying the U.N. and if you choose to disobey the same resolution, you can get a positive diplomatic boost.
     
  9. Xmas

    Xmas Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Watford, UK
    I think a good way the UN could work better as a game element would be this:
    When constructed, all civs are forced to participate and comply with the resolutions for x turns. After that, they can drop out and do as they like. They can also rejoin at any time if they accept every resolution that is in effect. However, there is a penalty for not being a member, plus a permanent penalty for every time they leave.

    The penalty for not being a member could be that they can't trade with other civs (or maybe only with non-UN civs). Also, they get lower reputation and some unhappiness.

    On top of that, every time a civ leaves, they get a permanent penalty that will last even if they rejoin (they can't be trusted any more). Leaving multiple times will add up. Not sure whether it should be unhappiness or something else.

    The conditions for diplomatic victory change as follows:
    - UN member civs count and vote as before.
    - Non-member civs only get 50% of their usual votes and abstain.
    This means that leaving the UN increases the odds of another civ for diplomatic victory (but not as much as if the non-members didn't count at all).

    If the civ that built the UN leaves, the wonder itself is destroyed (no more culture bonus as well), but the organization continues to exist (think of it as the rest of the civs meeting in a different city every year). The wonder can't be built again.

    If there are 50% or less civs remaining as members, the organization ceases to exist, and so does the building. In this case, the non-member penalty becomes permanent. Basically, this is a "history has proven that the civs can't collaborate" scenario.
     
  10. Exel

    Exel Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Finland
    I want U.N. to be able to use sanctions! I'd love to declare an embargo on a warmongering Civ that just happens to have oil and wont trade it with me. ;)
     
  11. Sidewinder00Q

    Sidewinder00Q Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    140
    You have to have Diplomatic Victory enabled. If you turn it off, the UN is unavailable for construction.
     
  12. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    how about a classical age UN. Maybe it could be called the senate and would do the same thing as the UN but not as powerful (can't win a diplomatic victory). This wonder would become obselete when the UN is built.
    The embargo idea and the ability to refuse what the senate does are both brilliant idea. Does anybody know a way implementing them? my guess is SDK.
     
  13. Cosine

    Cosine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Boston MA
    Sorta on topic, If you raze the city in which the UN is in, do the resolutions still stand?
     
  14. Dyvim Tvar

    Dyvim Tvar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    I would just like to see a UN where you can vote on any of
    the government options to become standard for all. Not just
    the typical US ones. After all, they don't have to suit you or
    the AI best now, do they?
     
  15. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford
    The penalties for disobeying the UN would have to be quite severe, and maybe scaled to the number of votes by which the resolution passed.
    Unhappiness is usually something people can spare, so it would have to be quite a penalty. I think that trade embargoes and diplomatic (e.g-4) penalties are appropriate.
    If you don't comply with lots of resolutions then there ought to be a distinct possibility of all civs except maybe extremely friendly ones going to war with you.
     

Share This Page