UN Victory in a Brave New World (Ideas and Suggestions)

[dexters]

So there has been an active discussion on UN victory and its apparent ease in several threads. This one I participated in has a lot of the same ideas I want to propose
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=501433

The Issues (as I see it)

• Same issue as in vanilla/G&K with regards to gold spamming city states to gain majority vote; City States have too much influence.
• Diplomatic victory arrives too early relative to other victory conditions
• AI all vote for themselves with the exception of the Liberation, therefore the only thing that matters is getting the most votes by yourself

Some proposed changes

• Reduce city state delegates to 1 for UN ; and or lag eligible votes of a City State by 1 voting cycle so rush buying allegiances will not be as bad
• Globalization Tech required for UN Victory; I have won without it which seems odd.
• Grant Globalization tech bonus to ALL civs; give researcher of Tech 2-3 delegate bonus for UN votes and double that amount 4~6 delegates for proposals
• Increase victory threshold by 1 delegate per map size increase ( so +4 on standard).
• Allow Civs to increase delegate count through social policy (+1 delegate for finishing a complete tree) and wonders (new national wonder that increase delegates? see 8/05 update)
• As Civs will currently only vote for themselves for UN; allow vote splitting.
  After UN vote occurs; Top 2 Civs will be listed and a run-off is conducted.
• Civs who the leaders have influential culture will grant 25% of their delegates; another 25% if ideology is shared. If there is a tie for vote splitting conditions (ie: Both Civs in the running have influential culture to the same Civ and shares the same ideology) then the alloted votes that would normally go to 1 Civ will be split to both Civs; If vote is odd and can't be split evenly fractions is always rounded down. ie: 3 votes to split. Each Civ will get 1 each. 3rd delegate is used to voted for themselves.

Additions (8/05)
Further delegate proposals for UN victory

• Add additional Spy/Diplomat at the Renaissance; So all civs get 2 instead of 1 to start
• Ideology wonders may also add extra delegates from the Ideology wonders (1 from Statue of Liberty; 1 from Kremlin; 1 from Prora)
• Other wonders they could also grant delegates - probably 1 delegate per (Eiffel Tower ; Cristo Redentor; Sydney Opera House ; Broadway)
• Add Utopia Project (placeholder wonder) - built only if players had build all other national wonders (3 delegates) Note: Anyone have a good International instituion they could suggest for this? Should ideally be an institution hosted by 'small but influential' country; This will be a tall-focused wonder though wide empires could still build it.
• New UN proposal: The peace prize - Only Civs with Warmonger Minor or below are eligible; Winner gets 3 delegates; Runner up 2 delegates; rest 1 delegate ;
  This proposal cannot be defeated but the proposal can be vetoed (see below)

More World Congress/UN Shenanigans

• The Veto: Host & Runner's up may exercise a Veto on a passed resolution ; Major diplomatic/opinion modifiers; Veto may not be overriden, but the Civ that proposed the vetoed proposal may call for a 'up and down vote' where Civs will vote Yea/Nay on Veto. Vote buying possible, but if Nay is majority; it will lead to immediate denouncements by all the Civs that voted Nay.
• Cease-fire Resolution: In cases where two city states start fighting each other, which can sometimes just go on forever, proposal may be put forth for a peaceful resolution.
  AI may see it in their interest to keep city states fighting (lower troop levels before their invasion) and may actively oppose it. If the two city states have two different masters; diplomatic considerations will trump all. in example, if the Civ proposing the cease-fire is considered guarded or worse; AI will actively oppose the resolution
  
  Most Civs will have little interest in city states they are not allied/friendly to and will usually have a very weak yea/nay on this resolution, meaning vote buying and cajoling is key. Otherwise they will place their votes elsewhere and the only one voting against your proposal could very well be your geopolitical foe.
  

 

[Galgus]

I like the idea of vote splitting and ideology potentially giving votes.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Simpler fix: Make the host resolution a part of normal proposals, and link the world leader to the seat of the host. Do that, and one other thing to encourage the active attempt to pass resolutions that 'the world' can agree on, and the victory can be made both "slower, harder" and "meaningful/competitive".

That is,

• In addition to the automatic vote for host/leader of the world congress, give the option to propose a host vote as a resolution.
• That proposal option is available until end of game.
• In addition to the existing system of granting additional delegates to the forerunners of a world leader vote, make it so that no player can win the world leader position unless that player is the host -and- wins the most recent world leader vote.
• If the world leader vote goes in 2/3 majority to a player who is not the host, grant bonus delegate(s) under the aforementioned, existing system.
  
• Put in something about receiving delegates for getting resolutions passed (partisan support). But make sure delegates are NOT granted for any host vote.

As well, I could have sworn that the preview content -said- that CS delegates were lagged by one session, but there they are, instabought allegiance one turn before. The City-State should go through a qualitative change , after a 'sitting' of the congress, where it declares its support of its ally, and that gives the votes. Thus, you have to hold their allegiance for a period adjusted for game pace.

Can't be that Firaxis devs didn't think of this. But what's wrong with it?

 

[dexters]

Would a Total War-esque VC where you have to be elected UN host for so many years consecutively work?

Maybe 3x Host elections? With an election every 20 turns? The proposals will still happen in between elections.

 

[MantaRevan]

These are interesting ideas. I like most of them, with the exception of the lag for city states, which I think would be a little frustrating. One of the issues I had with diplo in G&K is that you basically had to have so much science to win a diplo victory that it was basically a money/tech hybrid. I think the UN arrives at a fine point in the game as well, no need to make it much later. I agree that city states should provide less votes and the primary way of acquiring their support shouldn't be money.

 

[Octonde]

As I've experienced it, diplomatic victory essentially means buying off a lot of city states, with the possible addition of killing a competitor. This seems like an odd sort of diplomacy. These ideas would fix some of this, though obviously no system is going to be perfect.

1.
Make City States count for less relative to real civilizations. I don't mind that I can buy friends, but when just spending a pile of gold makes me the world leader, that doesn't make as much sense.

2.
Make it possible for civs to vote for each other without needing to be resurrected. The civ with four votes should know that it isn't going to win (this round) and instead look at how it can improve its standing. They could sell votes to each other. This doesn't mean you can buy victory, but surely someone would be willing to pay to get themselves into second place for the bonus delegates next round. They could vote against you rather than just making useless votes for themselves.

3.
Allow conquered civs and CS to vote, though with fewer votes. The fact that they can be liberated means that these civilizations didn't vanish; they're still there even if they're not represented politically. Wouldn't the body that is trying to find someone to unify the world in peace pay some attention to these oppressed peoples? They might only be able to vote against their conqueror, but it's something at least. Note that because conquered civs/CS have fewer votes it is still worth it to conquer civs that actively vote against you (though at the risk of diplomatic penalty! so maybe not)

4.
Stronger World Religion and World Order bonuses could balance out the loss of the easy city state votes and possibility of negative votes, making the pre-world leader diplomacy more important. This would also elevate the importance of religious and cultural unity/domination, since tourism could flip a civilization over and give you the votes needed for your World Order.

5.
Add some type of quest. For example, if you're the leader then you cannot allow any cities to be conquered (liberations are okay) for 30 turns. That would mean that this civilization is not just popular, but also has the power and inclination to protect civilizations from bullies.

6.
Give more diplomats! It's strange that in the modern era I wouldn't be able to have a counter-spy, diplomats in every capital, and someone on a 'peace tour' (by which I mean violent coup tour). The National Intelligence Agency could automatically give a counter-spy in addition to the bonus general-use spy/diplomat. Alternatively, have a national wonder that gives extra diplomats, requiring airports in every city. Having more diplomats would allow for more vote-buying.

 

[dexters]

There's a forum for ideas and suggestions and if you search there you'll find I have made a similar thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=501692

Moderator Action: Merged threads.

 

[dexters]

Additions (8/05)
Further delegate proposals for UN victory

• Add additional Spy/Diplomat at the Renaissance; So all civs get 2 instead of 1 to start
• Ideology wonders may also add extra delegates from the Ideology wonders (1 from Statue of Liberty; 1 from Kremlin; 1 from Prora)
• Other wonders they could also grant delegates - probably 1 delegate per (Eiffel Tower ; Cristo Redentor; Sydney Opera House ; Broadway)
• Add Utopia Project (placeholder wonder) - built only if players had build all other national wonders (3 delegates) Note: Anyone have a good International instituion they could suggest for this? Should ideally be an institution hosted by 'small but influential' country; This will be a tall-focused wonder though wide empires could still build it.
• New UN proposal: The peace prize - Only Civs with Warmonger Minor or below are eligible; Winner gets 3 delegates; Runner up 2 delegates; rest 1 delegate ;
  This proposal cannot be defeated but the proposal can be vetoed (see below)

More World Congress/UN Shenanigans

• The Veto: Host & Runner's up may exercise a Veto on a passed resolution ; Veto may not be overriden, but the Civ that proposed the vetoed proposal may call for a 'up and down vote' where Civs will vote Yea/Nay on Veto. Vote buying possible, but if Nay is majority; it will lead to immediate denouncements by all the Civs that voted Nay.
• Cease-fire Resolution: In cases where two city states start fighting each other, which can sometimes just go on forever, proposal may be put forth for a peaceful resolution.
  AI may see it in their interest to keep city states fighting (lower troop levels before their invasion) and may actively oppose it. If the two city states have two different masters; diplomatic considerations will trump all. in example, if the Civ proposing the cease-fire is considered guarded or worse; AI will actively oppose the resolution
  
  Most Civs will have little interest in city states they are not allied/friendly to and will usually have a very weak yea/nay on this resolution, meaning vote buying and cajoling is key. Otherwise they will place their votes elsewhere and the only one voting against your proposal could very well be your geopolitical foe.
  
  

 

[kaspergm]

I have two propositions:

With regards to city-state votes: City-States should vote for the civ who has accumulated most influence with them over them term of the entire game, not just their current ally. This will make city-state diplomacy much more relevant during the early part of the game, because you will be able to accumulate a large "buffer" which will make it more difficult for one civ to buy you out right before the World Leader vote.

With regards to major civ votes: I would follow Circuit's proposal in this thread: Make it so that civs with a number of delegates less than the arithmetic mean will consider voting for someone else for World Leader (they realize they can never win the vote themselves). They will only vote for someone that they really like, however. This will make actual diplomacy count, because being on a good relationship with someone will actually count in the vote. Alternatively, one can make only the top candidates eligable for world leader, that will amount to the same result.

 

[steveg700]

I'd say we're overthinking this a bit. There are two things that need to happen with regards to diplomatic victories, and they happen to be in contention with each other:

1) The AI needs to compete for city-state alliances morea aggressvely. They need to coup and buy influence in the same fashion that a player does.

2) Players need to stop griping on messageboards when the AI competes for city-stae alliances aggressively. We used to see coups frequently, people complained about it, and now we have an AI that essentially forfeits the diplo victory.

The best solution is for the game address one of its major shortcomings: transparency. Players need to know when other civ's are attempting to wrest alliances away from them. It shouldn't be this out-of-the-blue sock in the jaw.

I mean, right now do we even have a way to know who else is friends with a CS? Do we have a way to know who's pledged to protect it? If this info's available, I've missed it.

 

[Browd]

On pledge to protect, you can go to the declare war screen for a CS and it will warn you who is protecting that CS before you confirm a DOW.

 

[steveg700]

I have two propositions:

With regards to city-state votes: City-States should vote for the civ who has accumulated most influence with them over them term of the entire game, not just their current ally. This will make city-state diplomacy much more relevant during the early part of the game, because you will be able to accumulate a large "buffer" which will make it more difficult for one civ to buy you out right before the World Leader vote.

This shouldn't actually be difficult to code in. I mean, they could have an "alliance history" counter that starts ticking up for each turn that you spend as an ally. The only concern is that some civ's might get a generous head start based simply on starting position. Maybe only start counting these turns after the WC is founded.

 

[dexters]

This shouldn't actually be difficult to code in. I mean, they could have an "alliance history" counter that starts ticking up for each turn that you spend as an ally. The only concern is that some civ's might get a generous head start based simply on starting position. Maybe only start counting these turns after the WC is founded.

They have an alliance history counter? What is it used for?

The best solution is for the game address one of its major shortcomings: transparency. Players need to know when other civ's are attempting to wrest alliances away from them. It shouldn't be this out-of-the-blue sock in the jaw.

I mean, right now do we even have a way to know who else is friends with a CS? Do we have a way to know who's pledged to protect it? If this info's available, I've missed it.

I like this idea. Diplomacy should have a city-state subscreen that lists all the CS who they are allied to, who has pledged, active quests, alliance history and threshold to UN vote if they ever do a system where it's based on turns allied before they grant you their vote.

 

[kaspergm]

I'd say we're overthinking this a bit. There are two things that need to happen with regards to diplomatic victories, and they happen to be in contention with each other:

1) The AI needs to compete for city-state alliances morea aggressvely. They need to coup and buy influence in the same fashion that a player does.

2) Players need to stop griping on messageboards when the AI competes for city-stae alliances aggressively. We used to see coups frequently, people complained about it, and now we have an AI that essentially forfeits the diplo victory.

The best solution is for the game address one of its major shortcomings: transparency. Players need to know when other civ's are attempting to wrest alliances away from them. It shouldn't be this out-of-the-blue sock in the jaw.

I mean, right now do we even have a way to know who else is friends with a CS? Do we have a way to know who's pledged to protect it? If this info's available, I've missed it.

I fully agree with what you say in this post, and I definitely feel that having an AI sanity check that makes it buy out CS if it has money and you are about to win WL vote would go a long way in at least making DV a challenge - even if it wouldn't be much diplomatic still.

With regard to your point #2 I would like to object, though, that while it is true that people sometimes have been whining a bit, this also boils down to Coups being a HORRIBLE game mechanism. I think the rigging of election is fine as a game feature, because it doesn't really rely on a random roll. Coups, on the other hand, are unpredictable and a horrible example of random rolls having major impact on the game. The number of times I've gone from 100+ influence down to 0 (zero!) influence because of some random AI lucky fluke was enough to make me play with Espionage permanently disabled in G&K.

I'm not against other ways of spies interacting with City States, even something with a chance of success determined on a random roll - I would like a "propaganda" option where you could boost your own influence with the City State (and if you failed at succeding the roll, it would backfire and you would lose some influence), but the boost should be a fixed number, not the horrible "switch influence with the leading civ" mechanism.

 

[dexters]

^ What's missing with City States is an ideology layer obviously. That would become the battleground for Civs, add a whole new layer of influence and could inform how they vote for UN outside of pure gold/influence considerations.

It seems so obvious. I really wonder if its coming in a patch/expansion.

 

[nimzo28]

With regards to city-state votes: City-States should vote for the civ who has accumulated most influence with them over them term of the entire game, not just their current ally. This will make city-state diplomacy much more relevant during the early part of the game, because you will be able to accumulate a large "buffer" which will make it more difficult for one civ to buy you out right before the World Leader vote.

I see a problem here. Example: I play peacefully and have some CS as friend, and these CS have one ally (example: Huns). Then, Huns dow me, and the war last 100 turn (Huns refuses peace).

With your idea, I'll lose the possibility to win a Diplomatic game, because I was with a relation of "-60" with several C.S during 100 turn (without wishing that...)

I don't like the fact that a C.S allied to a Civ automatically start a war against another Civ if these Civ are in war. I won some battle so easily (at Immortal) because of the diversion of C.S.: I march from North to South towards an ennemy capital, but that Civ, instead of using his troops for defense at the North of his capital, chose to start an attack against a C.S in other direction. A C.S who wasn't doing anything. Just a non sense.

 

[kaspergm]

I see a problem here. Example: I play peacefully and have some CS as friend, and these CS have one ally (example: Huns). Then, Huns dow me, and the war last 100 turn (Huns refuses peace).

With your idea, I'll lose the possibility to win a Diplomatic game, because I was with a relation of "-60" with several C.S during 100 turn (without wishing that...)

I don't like the fact that a C.S allied to a Civ automatically start a war against another Civ if these Civ are in war. I won some battle so easily (at Immortal) because of the diversion of C.S.: I march from North to South towards an ennemy capital, but that Civ, instead of using his troops for defense at the North of his capital, chose to start an attack against a C.S in other direction. A C.S who wasn't doing anything. Just a non sense.

No, that's not how I would suggest it would work. As long as Huns declare war on you, the event should not affect your relationship score with the City State, although admittedly you would be cut off from getting positive influence with them as long as the war lasted because of the way city state system works (something I don't fully improve of, but that's how it is). On the other hand, if you DoW Huns (and the city state), you should get a cut to the influence score with that CS, but as I imagined it it would not be a cut each turn your in war, but only a one-time cut when you actually DoW them (be that -60 or -100 or whatever), just like you would only get a positive input when you do something good for them (like fulfill a quest or give them money) and not for each time you are in a good relationship. So I think that could still work.

Obviously, being in war for 100 turns with Huns *will* make it hard to get the vote from a CS that was ally with them for those 100 turns, but that's sort of the entire idea of this change.

 

[kayser79]

You should have to win two WL elections in a row. The second will be harder, obviously...

 

[searcheagle]

As I've experienced it, diplomatic victory essentially means buying off a lot of city states, with the possible addition of killing a competitor. This seems like an odd sort of diplomacy. These ideas would fix some of this, though obviously no system is going to be perfect.

1.
Make City States count for less relative to real civilizations. I don't mind that I can buy friends, but when just spending a pile of gold makes me the world leader, that doesn't make as much sense.

Either the CS influence has to go down or change the way that influence with the CS is gained. Right now, you can take a CS from near enemy to ally in one turn.

There should be a limit to how many steps the CS can take from enemy to friend per turn via gold.

2.
Make it possible for civs to vote for each other without needing to be resurrected. The civ with four votes should know that it isn't going to win (this round) and instead look at how it can improve its standing. They could sell votes to each other. This doesn't mean you can buy victory, but surely someone would be willing to pay to get themselves into second place for the bonus delegates next round. They could vote against you rather than just making useless votes for themselves.

Yes, have civ's that won't win, ally with the civ that most fits their military, economic, or cultural goals.

3.
Allow conquered civs and CS to vote, though with fewer votes. The fact that they can be liberated means that these civilizations didn't vanish; they're still there even if they're not represented politically. Wouldn't the body that is trying to find someone to unify the world in peace pay some attention to these oppressed peoples? They might only be able to vote against their conqueror, but it's something at least. Note that because conquered civs/CS have fewer votes it is still worth it to conquer civs that actively vote against you (though at the risk of diplomatic penalty! so maybe not)

I disagree- unless those Conquered civs/CS are puppet states. Then allow them to vote on their own since they are "independent."

4.
Stronger World Religion and World Order bonuses could balance out the loss of the easy city state votes and possibility of negative votes, making the pre-world leader diplomacy more important. This would also elevate the importance of religious and cultural unity/domination, since tourism could flip a civilization over and give you the votes needed for your World Order.

All the factors that you mentioned above should be things that influence CS allies and/or voting decisions.

5.
Add some type of quest. For example, if you're the leader then you cannot allow any cities to be conquered (liberations are okay) for 30 turns. That would mean that this civilization is not just popular, but also has the power and inclination to protect civilizations from bullies.

I don't see the benefit or fun of this one.

[/quote]6.
Give more diplomats! It's strange that in the modern era I wouldn't be able to have a counter-spy, diplomats in every capital, and someone on a 'peace tour' (by which I mean violent coup tour). The National Intelligence Agency could automatically give a counter-spy in addition to the bonus general-use spy/diplomat. Alternatively, have a national wonder that gives extra diplomats, requiring airports in every city. Having more diplomats would allow for more vote-buying.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why there is a limit in the first place. I wish we could build spy units like any other. Why should units get promotions based on what era it is? And why should the era dictate how many spies/diplomats I can have.

 

[GoStu]

I think one of the biggest issues with the idea of major civs voting for one another is there's no good in-game reason to do so. It's a "lose the game" button, handing someone else the win. I'd like to see some way for there to be a shared victory diplomatically: maybe the winning player can pick one or two other civs to share a victory with. Unlike any of the other victory conditions, diplomatic seems like one that more than one person could win. You could base the win-sharing on ideology, or something else.

Versus AI, this doesn't change much about the game, and versus other players it gives some incentive to be cooperative. The potential intrigue seems interesting.

I also agree that city-states play WAY too much into it. It doesn't make much sense to me in a real-world sense: when there's 6-12 real empires on the globe, who really cares what Vancouver thinks?

Finally, I saw someone else proposing above that the winner has to win multiple votes. I love this idea, and it makes real-world sense too. I can't see a world in which one vote means "hey, we win at everything forever". If you added a shared victory, changed the relative value of other players to city-states, and made it necessary to win multiple votes, I think diplomatic victory would become more interesting, challenging, and wouldn't be a shortcut any more.