 |
What do you feel should change to the UN?
This poll is closed. |
| Only very small or no changes |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Small to medium changes |
   |
2 |
9.09% |
| Medium changes |
   |
3 |
13.64% |
| Large to radical changes |
   |
15 |
68.18% |
| The UN is worthless no matter how we change it. DELETE IT! |
   |
2 |
9.09% |
| Total: |
22 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
(note : I didnt read any of the previous threads on any of the subjects, so originality is not assured)
The UN should be much more complicated(well, being more complicated than the Civ3 UN is not that hard  ). There should be lots of possible proposals and they should be as customizable as possible.
Examples :
1) Total embargo. No resource, money, tech, maps, etc trade.
2) Partial embargo. The proposing civ should be able to choose what resources(techs, ...) should be included in the embargo. For example, preventing some nation from buying Uranium or Aluminium or, say, Rocketry.
3) Lots of proposals related to the enviroment. Water level rises and drops ala SMAC, pollution limiting proposals(not sure how that will work), etc.
4) Arms limitation treaties. No nuclear weapons, (assuming unit workshop), no units whose offense+defense modifiers are higher than a certain number.
5) Demanding some nation to destroy all the weapons of a certain type(not necesserely WMD) or face the consequences.
6) A proposal should include not only the proposal itself but a punishment to those who dont follow it. So that violating an Embargo or a pollution limit treaty will result in a monetary fine, building WMD in spite of a limitation treaty will result in embargo and/or war, etc.
And so on... The most important thing, IMO, is for everything to be as customizable as possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
Definitely radical changes need to be done. A repost from the other thrad:
quote:
Reposting from the general idea thread.
United Nations
Short description:
Various ideas to make the United Nations an exciting part of the game and playing an important part in the Modern age. Partially reposted from a thread I made during the early Civ 3 days.
Detailed description:
Generally, it has been mentioned by many posters that the United Nations, as it stands in Civ 3, is not a good concept. It merely has one function - voting for the diplomatic victory. Those who have played SMAC will say that the Planetary Council there was better.
I see the United Nations as an organization in which several civilizations participate, being the leading powers of the world. I hope that, in Civ 4, games with 8 civilizations will no longer be the standard, but rather games with 16 civilizations will be.
Therefore, I suggest two general requiremens to be a member of the UN:
1. Build a United Nations Embassy small wonder. Without this, you can't become a member of the UN.
2. The second requirement, if it was Civ 3, would be, I say, some culture per turn output. Maybe Civ 4 provides something better I don't know. The idea here is, that this requirement would separate the third-level civs from the most powerful ones. I don't think that military size is a good one, because you can be the powerhouse without the biggest military. And the civilization score tends to be too abstract.
So, if you meet the two requirements, you become a member of the UN. Then, any member can call a UN meeting, but there should be some sort of a limit. Not a big one, though, since it's late game already. Maybe, 5 turns minimum between meetings and 10 turns between another review of the same proposal. The UN secretary general should be the exception to both rules.
About the abovementioned Secretary General. Before any other proposal can be considered, the UN must have a SG. It’s elected by a simple majority (more than 50% of votes) by the members. The type of vote here is seat vote. Eligible should only be two candidates, the ones who have more votes than the other countries. This brings us to the subject of vote calculation, but let that go a little bit later. So, the Secretary General is an exception to the period of UN meetings rule. SG also holds a right of veto, both in the country vote and seat vote. I’ll explain these concepts now.
Seat vote is when each civ has a certain number of votes, calculated by a specific formula. Country vote is when a vote of any civ counts as one vote. Number of the seats a civ gets in the UN should, again, be dependant on culture. I do also think that the whole UN thing would then raise cultural priority for people. I think that the UN should have quite some power, and thus culture will be valued higher by people in MP games, because a crafty bargainer could use the UN votes to his advantage.
So, we have a constant value of n – that’s the minimal culture to enter the UN. You get one seat for each culture point per turn you have above the n-1 value. That is, if n is 250 (don’t know if it’s balanced, again) and you are producing exactly 250 culture points per turn, you only have 1 seat in the UN. If you produce as much as 320 culture points per turn, you get 71 seats in the UN. Let’s say this number is m.
However, m isn’t exactly the number of seats you get. For each Great Wonder you possess, m is increased by 10. For each Small Wonder, m gets an increase of 3. For each Great Leader you’ve had during the game, m is increased by 20 (will make the Leader more important!). These are the positive factors impacting m, and creating the number k.
Note: the factors for number k are taken from Civ 3. Maybe Civ 4 has no leaders, or has something else to add to the calculation. The idea is, that this number should be affected by the important aspects of civilization such as those mentioned above.
However, the negative factors are to take impact now, altering k. For each time you’ve used a nuclear weapon, k is decreased by 10%. Thus, a civ using much nukes just can’t be a major power in the UN. For each time you break a peace treaty by sneak attacking, you get 15 seats subtracted. If you declare war in negotiations, there’s no penalty, this only applies to sneak attacks. For each time you sneak attack OR declare war on the civilization you have a Right of Passage agreement, you lose 10 seats from k. This creates the number f, the final number of seats in the UN you get.
Note: If civ 4 features other weapons such as chemical or biological, then the use of those should also impact your final number of seat votes.
Yes, I know that it's not exactly realistic for the number of votes to change with your negative actions. This will also prevent a tactic I used often in SMAC to get the majority of votes - just go ahead and use chemical weapons on other civs, so that their population (and, consequently, the amount of votes) would get reduced.
Take in account that a civ in the UN should always have at least one seat. Even if the negative factors are more than positive, the seat number doesn't go into the negative numbers or anything.
Back to the UN Secretary General, for a bit. Being elected the SG doesn’t give you victory, not at all. To win, you have to be elected the Supreme Leader (better term, anyone?). You can only be elected as the Supreme Leader if you are at peace with everyone currently. Elections for the Supreme Leader are also by the seat vote method; however, you must gain 75% of votes to become the Supreme Leader. Note again - you can't gas around everyone and have 75% all by yourself as in SMAC, because reducing enemy population by atrocious means will likely mean that you are actually going to lose votes on your own.
As I said, the Secretary General has the veto right in the UN. What it means – if it’s a seat vote, then the number of votes for “Yes” decreases by 50%, giving the Secretary General a nice chance to get what he wants. If it’s a country vote (each country one vote), than the Veto overrides all those “Yes” votes, *unless* ALL the civs vote “Yes”. That is, if there are 6 UN members, 5 vote “Yes” on the matter, while the sixth one, which is the Secretary General, says “Veto”, the decision still passes. Otherwise, the veto is executive.
Among other proposals, there will, of course, be a possibility to elect a new Secretary General. I will now give a list of various proposals for the UN, but I think there could and should be more, ideas welcome.
o Elect the Secretary General (Seat vote, simple majority to accept).
This is what makes a new Secretary General come to the driver’s seat. Of course, the previous one can retain.
o Elect the Supreme Leader (Seat vote, 75% or more to accept).
This is what I’d like to see as the Diplomatic Victory. Should be hard enough, and close to that in SMAC, a better model.
o Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global Embargo at. If accepted, all UN members must declare Embargo on the victim civ. The Embargo can not be cancelled by any leader, only by the UN - the Repeal Global Embargo proposal. The embargo, in Civ 3, would mean no trade of luxuries and strategic resources - modify as applicable for Civ 4.
o Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global War at. If accepted, all UN members must declare war on the victim civ. Within the first 10 turns after the measure is taken, you get no option to sign a Peace Treaty. Moreover, all the UN civs are then allied, so signing a Peace Treaty first will likely strain your relationships. This one can be really strong... add something if the vote fails, I think. For instance, a right for the civ against whom the global war was proposed (and failed) to attack the UN members without a diplomatic penalty, or something.
o Repeal Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global Embargo on it is chosen. If accepted, the Embargo against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically.
o Repeal Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global War waged on it is chosen. If accepted, the war against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically – that is, a Peace Treaty is signed. The alliances are also cancelled, and there’s no diplomatic relations penalty for anyone.
Both Repeal proposals can't be called within, say, 5 turns after the Global Embargo/War has started.
o Expulsion from the UN (Seat vote, 66% or more to accept)
Vote initiator can chose any UN member. If the proposal is accepted, the nation gets out of the UN. In order to return to the UN, 20 turns must pass, after that the Civ returns to the UN automatically. I think this is OK. AI notice - AI should favor explusion of countries that are too aggressive in the UN.
o Nuclear Missile Decrease (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects a number of nuclear missiles. If accepted, any civ with that number of nuclear missiles or more than that must disband the agreed number of them within 5 turns. If not done, the member failing to do so faces a 20 turn expulsion, and there’s a strain of relationships - the latter probably being the more important penalty.
o End Military Conflict (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects any two civs currently at war. If accepted, the two nations automatically sign a Peace Treaty.
Just a couple of proposals here, as I said, I welcome more. Note that you can make two such proposals 5 turns after each other: End Military Conflict, Rome and Greece. 5 turns later you can make another: End Military Conflict, England and India. Offering two same nations is considered the same proposal, and can only happen once in 10 turns.
If a UN member uses nuclear weapons vs. another UN member, a vote about his expulsion from the UN is initiated automatically.
Maybe some sort of a UN Peacekeeper unit should be added, but my ideas aren't too specific yet there...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
We want a functional United Nations! Look to GalCiv and SMAC for the barest minimum of functionality.
Nuclear Master... Diplomatic victories might be okay, they were just very lame in Civ 3. NonCheese Diplomatic victories in SMAC (ie. getting the rest of the nations who are at least in the ballpark of being your equal to vote for you, rather than wiping out every base save one of the enemies and voting for yourself) could sometimes be satisfying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Skywalker's right on. Allow multi-civ alliances/embargoes, and you don't even need the UN anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
What if the UN is simply the Modern Foreign Advisor Screen?
In the Ancient Age you have primitive diplomacy, so the Foreign Advisor has not a lot of real options, maybe just Peace and War. And the graphics for the Foreign Advisor Screen look like a field where you might meet and parlay.
When you get to Medival Times, the graphic changes to a giant Tent and you get more options, like ROP and Military Alliance.
By the Rennaissance your graphics are an ornate stateroom, and you have access to embargos, etc.
In the Modern Age, once you build the UN small Wonder, the foreign advisor screen looks like the UN, and you have access to the most advanced diplomatic options, like favored nation status, multi-party treaties, nuclear non-proliferation, etc.
The specifics of which diplomatic options should be available in which age are up for debate since there was obviously multi-party treaties before the UN, but the basic idea is to treat the UN as the logical progression in how you do diplomacy.
As a corrollary to this, I think that trade should generate revenue, not just pass revenue back and forth. So if I was trading furs to India for silk, we should both get a "trade bonus" (say 5 gold per turn). And this bonus should go up as your diplomacy gets more advanced. This would make people A) want to trade more B) Want to upgrade their diplomacy, and C) create more international economic consequences of going to war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I like the Peacekeepers idea, but I really don't think they should be under the control of any civ. Instead they should be a unit under UN AI control. Maybe a vote at the UN could give that AI instructions, but no way should any one civ be able to use the Peacekeepers solely for their own use just because they built the UN first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
I have an idea... though it spans multiple categories, I'll get to the point eventually 
First, a civ should be able to be a member of multiple culture groups (though have only one that gives it its city art). For example, America should be both American and European. Greece should be both Mediterranean and European. Egypt could be Mediterranean and Middle Eastern. You get the picture.
Second, each civ shouldn't just be in a few culture groups, but rather have a number associated with each culture group. The higher the number, the more that civ is in that culture group. A value of zero means it isn't in at all. This may or may not have a game effect except what I'm about to propose.
Third, rather than have multi-civ alliances as something on the diplomacy screen, make them a sort of small wonder (that you name and you can make multiple of) that ALSO is a part of some number of culture groups. Here are some examples of how it would work:
I'm the Americans. In Washington I build an alliance SW and call it "NATO". I set it so that it is open to all European and American civs (of any level of association) in the governments Democracy or Republic. I then go into the diplomacy screen with England and ask them to join it. They agree. I do the same for France, Rome, Germany, and various other civs. The Russians, on the other hand, build the Warsaw Pact, which only European Communist civs can join. Some European civs join that.
Now, as the Americans and the builders of NATO, I get to move all NATO troops. Each civ can donate some of its troops to NATO (it can also take them back, of course). These units still count as "mine" for score, upkeep, and power calculation purposes, but they have the benefit of being able to enter the same tiles as the troops of NATO members and the detriment of not being under my command (unless I am the leader of NATO). If a country in NATO is attacked, NATO goes to war with the aggressor, but aggression by a NATO member does not automatically trigger a declaration of war (essentially like how MPP's worked). A war started by a NATO member, in fact, cannot bring in the rest of NATO unless one of the cities owned by that member at the beginning of the war falls (so a country can take back its own territory without having to worry about bringing the rest of NATO down on its head). NATO can declare war on both other alliances and individual civs.
Now, later, the Warsaw pact was resolved, Russia et al went into anarchy and became Democracies (though this isn't really important). France decides to build the SW "European Union", which only allows FULLY European civs (sorry, America, no go). England, Germany, Spain, and lots of other countries join it. It sits their and does nothing
America, on the other hand, built NAFTA in Washington. It's only open to fully American civs. NAFTA isn't a military alliance (like NATO was) but rather an economic one. I have two ideas how this could work. In the first one, all strategic and luxury resources are SHARED between members, but there is no (or at least decreased) income from the "trade" between them (no tariffs) and they can't make gpt deals with each other. In the second one, income from "trade" is increased but no GPT deals are allowed. I'm concerned the first is too powerful, but the second is too weak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Interesting, Luke. Or is it Anakin?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
Couple of questions for you sky (heh):
1) You say that the builder of the SW controls the troops but NATO declares war. Do you mean that you control the distribution of troops in peacetime, but once war is declared the AI takes over? Would this be expoitable by moving tons of troops into a position of great strength vis a vis a small non-alliance nation in order to try to trigger the AI to declare war?
2) How do you handle overlapping alliances? The US creates an all America's alliance. Britain creates a European + Americas alliance. How do the US and Inca's trade? Under the provisions of the US created alliance or the Britain created alliance? How do you mediate the differences in overlapping alliances?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner Yes, perhaps that's better. The US built the UN, but we don't control it to any great degree. A vote among civs, or just let the AI handle the troops makes more sense.
|
What about a combination of the two? The civs vote on a goal of the UN and the AI implements it. If a war is going on the UN can vote to intervene or not, and if they do intervene, to what extent
-Only fire if fired upon.
-Prevent Enslavement (If someone tries to enslave a worker in a tile adjacent to a UN soldier a combat is initiated.)
-Prevent Wanton Distruction(same as above except for razing cities instead of enslaving).
-Prevent Genocide (If it comes down to one last city in a civ the UN defends it with everything they have)
-Protect Cities (If either of the warring civ's takes one of the enemies cities, the UN recaptures it and returns it to the original civ).
-Protect borders (Any military unit in enemy territory on either side is a target for the peacekeepers).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
No, the leader always controls the troops. It's just that the alliance has to approve a declaration of war. |
I'm against the civ who builds the alliance controlling the troops. I feel there are a lot of opportunities to "cheat the system". Like voting with the alliance to declare war with an enemy bordering your ally then pulling your troops out of the alliance so that your ally gets screwed, but you're able to defend your own borders. Then when the enemy has overextended itself fighting against your former ally, you go in and mop up.
I think that once committed you can't pull out your troops, and the AI controls the alliance troops so that the leader can't use them in a way which austensibly aids the alliance, but in reality aids the controlling civ... though on second thought that's kind of realistic... but I still don't like it in game terms.quote:
The provisions of an "economic alliance" are always the same (or we could remove them altogether), so they don't conflict and they don't stack. |
What about if I'm the US and I'm in an alliance with Inca, Maya, and Aztec. They outvote me to attack Britain.... Only problem is I'm also in another alliance with Britain, France, and Germany...
Economic alliances are not the only situation that would necessitate some sort of mediation between overlapping alliances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
I'm against the civ who builds the alliance controlling the troops. I feel there are a lot of opportunities to "cheat the system". Like voting with the alliance to declare war with an enemy bordering your ally then pulling your troops out of the alliance so that your ally gets screwed, but you're able to defend your own borders. Then when the enemy has overextended itself fighting against your former ally, you go in and mop up. |
First, in an alliance (lets go back to NATO), if troops from a NATO member conquer a city that was taken from a NATO member in a war after (or during) the creation of NATO, it is immediately returned to the original owner. Second, a civ would be able to withdraw its troops from the alliance (just as it can donate them) so at least it wouldn't LOSE anything.
quote:
What about if I'm the US and I'm in an alliance with Inca, Maya, and Aztec. They outvote me to attack Britain.... Only problem is I'm also in another alliance with Britain, France, and Germany...
Economic alliances are not the only situation that would necessitate some sort of mediation between overlapping alliances. |
You can choose to withdraw from either alliance (or both).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2004 10:38
|