UN Declare war

[Inspector Javert]

How can you get a mass declare war with the UN?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The UN/AP can only declare war on nonmembers

for the UN that means a civ with no population
for the AP that means a civ without the religion in any cities

 

[MrCynical]

It isn't possible to start wars with the UN - you can only force an end to them. It's only the AP where you can start a war, and then only against non members (i.e. the heathens).

 

[KMadCandy]

well you can start a war with the UN against a civ with no population. it's just really uncommon to have a civ with no population . you have to have "require complete kills on" and a civ has to have some units left but no cities and no settler, is what i've read. i suppose technically they could have a settler if they literally can't make a city with him. it's just that if they get a chance to make a city then they have population, so they're a member of the UN again, and then you can't declare mass war on them.

it probably wouldn't be a very long mass war. more like hide-and-seek. i found 'em! oops they're dead...

not a situation i've ever been in. i don't require complete kills since i don't like tracking even the last island city down, much less individual units!

 

[Inspector Javert]

that stinks I think if you defy a resolution you should have the chance of the UN mass DOW on you, could someone mod this?

 

[Stylesrj]

Why should defying the UN cause everyone to declare war on you? Isn't -5 happiness enough to deal with? (and you might already be at war, so the problem is worse)

Besides that, defying the resolution and having a mass DOW isn't very realistic. That does make any sense! It's just as silly as people say about airships. It just does not make any sense! Because of this logic, you must acquit implement it!

 

[Lord_Zath]

well you can start a war with the UN against a civ with no population. it's just really uncommon to have a civ with no population . you have to have "require complete kills on" and a civ has to have some units left but no cities and no settler, is what i've read. i suppose technically they could have a settler if they literally can't make a city with him. it's just that if they get a chance to make a city then they have population, so they're a member of the UN again, and then you can't declare mass war on them.

it probably wouldn't be a very long mass war. more like hide-and-seek. i found 'em! oops they're dead...

not a situation i've ever been in. i don't require complete kills since i don't like tracking even the last island city down, much less individual units!

I'll be testing this out in my mp game if it lasts that long. One computer only has a workboat and a scout remaining...

 

[Robcore]

I think this question raises a larger point.

If the Allies had not won WW2 would we still recognise the UN from what it is today. Picture this (slight rip off of Robert Harris's Fatherland):

Hitler and the Nazis build a h-bomb before the Americans. They secretly negotiate a truce with Roosevelt and they withdraw their troops from Europe. Churchill is removed from power and an agreement is reached regarding Britain. Britain is forced into signing a separate agreement with Hitler. In the Pacific, the Japanese are taking heavy loses and will soon drop out of the war after realising that the Americans are very close to completing their bomb.

A conference is held in Rome and the powers around the table agree to form a radically different UN. Hitler ensures Germany and America are the two most prominent powers on the security counsel by enabling their votes to be cast for war.

What I am saying, is there should be options there for an EVIL UN. Not just the pansy, help the environment, stop the nuclear bombs and be nice to each other resolutions they have in there at the moment.

Anyone remember Master of Orion 3? the Galactic Counsel in that allowed you to kick people out, invite people back in and declare war. Mediocre game, but that aspect of it was one of its redeeming qualities.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

I wish defying the UN would give happiness for national pride, but would expel you from membership for x turns. This gives the chance of people declaring war on you.

 

[Woodreaux]

I wish defying the UN would give happiness for national pride, but would expel you from membership for x turns. This gives the chance of people declaring war on you.

That's not a bad idea, but I would restrict this effect to civs running certain civics, say Nationalism or Theocracy.

 

[niels251]

if you look at the UN now. If for some reason China defys a resolution, the world is nog going to declare on them..... What should be added to this game maybe is an alliance feature where you could have an alliance between 4 nations and with an voting system something like NATO. That would be cool. The UN should be kicked out of the game in its current form.

 

[Inspector Javert]

What I am saying, is there should be options there for an EVIL UN. Not just the pansy, help the environment, stop the nuclear bombs and be nice to each other resolutions they have in there at the moment.

Anyone remember Master of Orion 3? the Galactic Counsel in that allowed you to kick people out, invite people back in and declare war. Mediocre game, but that aspect of it was one of its redeeming qualities.

An Evil UN seems like a good idea, perhaps you could defy a resolution and found another UN such as the USSR did (technically it was in response to NATO but...)

I do like the idea of expelling you for defying resolutions can anyone create a that would do this?