why is the new function of UN is important

[qingyijie]

UN should not / not merely be a means of diplomatic victory, but become another diplomacy platform, eg, on which civs can vote to force an invading civ to stop her war, or collective embargo on invader.

I think it is very important to make UN not (or not only) a Great wonder which allows a diplomatic victory but also another diplomatic stage. I understand this may have been pointed out millions times already, but i want to point out why it is that important. (Of course, it might have been pointed out earlier too)

I think military conquest of the whole world is easy in the present game of Civ3 and its PTW. If you are already dominant in military sense in ancient and middle ages, it is not difficult to conquer the whole world in the industrial and modern age. This makes the game boring - the victory is determined early in the ancient and middle ages.

Therefore, the function of the UN should be: after the establishment of an UN, anyone who wish to wage a war must have aquired a majority vote. If she failed to and insisted to wage that war (like what US did), the player who built UN can decide to punish the warmongoer in certain ways, namely:
to force all UN members (all civs) to declare war on her;
to force all UN members to embargo her.

Imagine, in real today's modern world, the US just can't conquer all countries and rule the whole world simply because she has the largest and strongest army!!

Having this mechanism, strong military civs are forced in the modern age to achieve types of victory other than conquest.

 

[Ribannah]

That doesn't sound very realistic ....

 

[qingyijie]

why not realistic?
the realistic world is: military force is not everything. you can't just conquer whereever you want simply because you have a strong army. Like Bush, you need excuses, you need some allies to support you in the voting of UN.......

 

[Chieftess]

The real UN is also made up of over 150 nations IIRC. In Civ3, by the time the UN is built, there maybe be less than 8. Besides, MPPs, and alliences sort of do the same thing in a Civ3 game. Not to mention wars become trickier with MPPs and nukes.

 

[qingyijie]

I do not really agree.

In my personal experience, one MPP is enough to cause other civs to sign MPP and alliances and very quickly a world war will start. MPP causes wars, doesn't make Civs dare not to wage a war.

 

[Chieftess]

Which is why the AI is just plain out too dumb to know how to even handle it. If the AI were programmed to do that with the UN, it would always vote against the player. Remember the senate in Civ2? That was an annoyence to many players.

 

[wesnipes]

Its a good idea IMO. Well done qingyijie.

 

[sealman]

I have to agree with Chieftess and Ribannah.

Plus, what if you do not wish to become a member of the UN?

I do agree that more work needs to be done to the diplomatic means of this game, but this is not the answer.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, allowing sanctions against offending parties after the UN is built sounds like an idea worth exploring to me, but qingyijie's proposal would give the UN controler a too strong position.

Sketch of alternative idea: After the UN has been built, any civ can suggest imposing sanctions on another civ. If a majority of civs endorse the suggestion, that civ get placed under a UN embargo, the effect of which is giving a hefty rep hit to any other civ who conducts trades with it. Any ongoing trades with the embargoed civ is immediately interrupted with no rep hit. Every ten turns the UN embargo comes up for renewal - a majority for keeping it is recquired for it to be ,uh, kept.

The reason the US cannot conquer the world tomorrow is that it doesn't want to, and that all-out nuclear war is rather more apocalyptic in reality than in Civ. Also, realistically, the AIs should probably be more willing to gang up against a potential world-conquerer. That'd however annoy warmongering players, who'd complain about the AIs always ganging up on them.

 

[Zier]

Originally posted by Chieftess
The real UN is also made up of over 150 nations IIRC.

Yeah but there's like only 8 that can VETO.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Five veto-wielders to be exact. Originally the nominal "major victor nations" of WWII - the USA, the Soviet Union, the UK, France and (nationalist) China. The People's Republic of China has since taken over the Chinese seat and veto, while Russia got the Soviet seat and veto after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
....
Also, realistically, the AIs should probably be more willing to gang up against a potential world-conquerer. That'd however annoy warmongering players, who'd complain about the AIs always ganging up on them.

As it is, it seems like the AIs gang up on the weaker guy.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would like the UN to act like SMAC's Planetary Council

The civ who builds it, the civ with the largest population, and the civ with the most cities, get to be in originally

Any new civ can enter with a majority vote

Things that would be voted on would be economic aid, environmental clean up, Nuke-banning, and sanctions

I think you should get the option to win diplomatically after the descovery of Future Tech (I think this win is stupid, I would rather win histographically)

 

[sealman]

Side question:

if you take out diplmatic win can you still build the UN?

 

[morkaphi]

Nope.

 

[Renata]

What level do you play on? I haven't seen many deity level games be 'all over but the shouting' in the middle ages. Have you tried moving up a level or two to keep it interesting?

Renata

 

[farting bob]

i like the idea, and agree that havign a wonde whch unless youve been a very bad diplomat througth the game, you will have a vey strong chance of winnign the gam if you can get it first. thi shas alwys seemed to be the easiest way to win, since stayign out of wars (or at least not actually invading somone) gives you a tech advantage, leading to a better chance of UN beign built.
but in many games, they might only be 2 or 3 maor powers, the rest with only a few cities. thi swould mena that smaller civs would have the power to stop you if you get to big or pwerful. this wud be bad since in higher levels, trade is crucial, and if everyoen decides to go t war with you it cn prevent a win, just because the smaller civs dont like you.

 

[Civrules]

Maybe we don't really understand why some civs get to veto and some don’t in the real world. We need to understand how the real world diplomacy works.

Compared to the real world diplomacy, civ 3’s is nothing.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by civrules
Maybe we don't really understand why some civs get to veto and some don’t in the real world. We need to understand how the real world diplomacy works.

Compared to the real world diplomacy, civ 3’s is nothing.

In the real UN. The firve permament menbers of the security council get a veto. Those nations are the US, Russia (formally the USSR), England, France and China.

The reason being that they were the five nations with nukes at the time. Every know and then there has been talk about adding the other nuclear power to the big 5, but these talks go nowhere.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't like the idea. Why? Because it would stretch the game out. By this time techs and wonders should be there to complete the end game, not to delay the inevitable, which is all I see coming out of it.