The Un Impact

[Stiel]

The Firaxian people have told us that there will be a UN victory, this means you’ll have to be chosen by the other civs as chairman of the UN (correct me if I’m wrong)

They also have said that the country who builds the UN has a permanent seat within the UN. This would mean that there is some kind of ‘bargain table’ within the UN. Would this mean we can talk with more than 1 civ at a time?

This would have severe consequences for the game, example:

Civ A throws a nuke on a city of civ B, you all know that throwing nukes is considered as an international incident. Would it be possible to make a general ‘uranium’ embargo for civ A? And would this be decided by the members of the UN as a whole? If this is possible the impact will be great.

The same is with war, if I as a civ don’t want that civ A makes war with civ B, I could call an UN meeting. In this meeting I could ask the other civ to place an general embargo for civ A. And this embargo will be finished if the war stops.

This would be a REALLY COOL feature. And I’m guessing the UN will have a much greater impact on the game than we can imagine.

Oooohhh, I must have this game, I just cannot wait no longer…..!!!!!!
Dear Dan, if you reading this…. I’m volunteering to test the game and don’t worry. I’ll charge you nothing for that. I’m doing it for free!!!!

 

[DaEezT]

That bargain table you are talking about is the way diplomacy in general is going to work in Civ3. You can directly see who got what treaty with whom. Maybe Firaxis just hid some of the details but as far as i know is the UN just for the diplomatic victory, not for some special diplomatic actions. Alliances, right of passage, embargo etc. are all normal diplomacy actions.

But maybe Firaxis is keeping a secret there, at least i hope so
The UN could work like the planet council in SMAC

 

[WUM]

If i´m right, the real UN has 15 permanent membert. The civ3-UN will have 5. One of those is for the builder. Other players can earn a seat by different criteria. You need to have a seat to be chosen and win.
What bothers me is the possibility of another civ winning through UN-victory by being chosen by other civs without me being able to prevent this in ANY way!

The embargo-possibilities are intriging and daring. I guess everything depends on the smartness, inventivities and learningcapabilities of the new AI. It would be great if AI would kind of copy my own strategies (but only on deity-level, just in case i couldn´t win any more against a copy of my own superb strategy...)

Originally posted by Stiel

Civ A throws a nuke on a city of civ B, you all know that throwing nukes is considered as an international incident. Would it be possible to make a general ‘uranium’ embargo for civ A? And would this be decided by the members of the UN as a whole? If this is possible the impact will be great.

The same is with war, if I as a civ don’t want that civ A makes war with civ B, I could call an UN meeting. In this meeting I could ask the other civ to place an general embargo for civ A. And this embargo will be finished if the war stops.

 

[Robespierre]

What bothers me is the possibility of another civ winning through UN-victory by being chosen by other civs without me being able to prevent this in ANY way!

Yeah, that means that you have to be a cunning statesman and play your enemies against each other. As far as achieving victory goes, I think Civ3 will be a great improvement. I just hope that the histograph is more dramatic - i.e. the most powerful civilizations often change and big powerful empires can be toppled by hostile coalitions, like in the real world where people like the Persians and the Romans once ruled the whole world but now are weak little countries. In past Civ games it's been like if one civilization gets powerful early on it stays powerful for the whole game - it shouldn't be like that.

 

[Dutchgael]

Bram Stiel from Arcen, Netherlands?

In case you are: Groeten van mij (Rene)!

Looking forward to play Civ3 with you.

 

[stormerne]

Dutchgael: You should use the PM system (Private Messages) for those kinds of comments. Don't post them to the forum!

 

[Madine]

What bothers me is the possibility of another civ winning through UN-victory by being chosen by other civs without me being able to prevent this in ANY way!

Actually I like the idea of an AI civ being able to win without my explicit permision

Some people seem to perfer the AI to be a punching bag. That 's ok for the lower difficulty levels, but on Emperor or Deity I'd like to be given a run for my money.

 

[duke o' york]

Civ A throws a nuke on a city of civ B, you all know that throwing nukes is considered as an international incident. Would it be possible to make a general ‘uranium’ embargo for civ A?

What the hell would be the point of a uranium embargo? They've already launched a nuclear missile at your Civ B, which would suggest that they already have uranium deposits at their disposal. There is no point in stopping them trading for it as a countermeasure because they won't need to. The current everyone-declares-war system is far better. If you're going to start acting like a power-crazy fool then you'd better have the military muscle to back up your provoking tactics or you'll get crushed by the other civs. I'd like to see half the world at war with the other half through a complex web of alliances. That'd create a diplomatic nightmare, especially when the enemy's advances have been repelled and the allied civs must decide to press their advantage and take some valuable cities or to let the guilty civs rebuild, having learn their lesson.

 

[stravaig]

Duke -

But what if Civ C had 2 Uranium resources and had traded one of them to Civ A, thereby giving them Nuclear capability? In that case (hopefully a rare one) the idea of a widespread Uranium embargo would make sense!

I really dug the Planetary Council in SMAC, and always wished that there were more and cooler things to do with it. I doubt the UN will be all that impressive along those lines, but one can hope.

- Stravaig