 |
| |
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
I will try to do some constructive thought posting on the subject of the United Nations in Civ 3. It has been mentioned many times that the United Nations, as they are, are not too good, many want to see that close to UN of SMAC.
I do wholeheartedly agree with the statement, but I believe some specifications should be put here.
For the beginning, I see the UN as an organization where many civs participate, and certain requirements must be met to be in the UN. Now, I’ll go exactly to those requirements.
1. A civilization must build the United Nations Embassy, a Small Wonder to get a chance to participate in the UN. UN Embassy can still be enabled by Fission, as it’s an early game modern technology, which is, IMHO, a good time to begin the UN thing.
2. A civilization must produce a certain value of culture points per turn. I’m not quite sure as to what should it be, as I haven’t paid attention to culture amounts yet, but it should be a number that can’t be easily reached by a third-level power civ.
I have thought it over and decided that there’s no better second requirement. Total culture value doesn’t suit here, because it never decreases, population isn’t much of a factor, while the military size doesn’t necessary mean it’s a good civ worth to be in the UN. And the internal score calculated by Civ 3 is too abstract, IMO.
So, if you meet these two requirements, you are a member of the United Nations. Any civilization can call the United Nations, but there should be a limit, so that it doesn’t happen each turn. Say, the same civ can’t call the UN twice in 5 turns, and the same proposal can not be considered in 10 turns. The UN Secretary General is an exception to both rules.
About the abovementioned Secretary General. Before any other proposal can be considered, the UN must have a SC. 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. SC 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.
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.
I think these negative factors should be enough, not to decrease the k too much. Also, if a civ is in the UN, it will always have at least one seat. That is, even if k is 185, while f is 220, the civilization still has one seat, it doesn’t go negative.
Back to the UN Secretary General, for a bit. Being elected the SC 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 slight strain of relationships.
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.
OK, I’m tired now, and must take a break with this, but these are some suggestions we could use. Possibly, I will update this, but I really welcome any comments. Hope this wasn’t a bad post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PapaLenin
|
|
Finland
Nov 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
Good ideas though too complicated. In my point of view there shouldn't be country or seat votes just one country one vote. The idea is to make it interesting but simple too.
Then I feel that UN should not get through fission but earlier. Because game is pretty much at the end when u get fission and anyway its extremely boring to play in modern age...(I for my self never continue game when I get to modern age).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Another couple while I'm thinking of it...LOL (still on the call, but decided to jot down some ideas that are buzzing thru my head while I'm fixing this lady's printer)
* - Favored Trading Status: Generates extra coins for parties involved....particulars would need to be worked out, but say it could only be between member states, duration floats, each party gets x gold per turn (based on total number of cities or something ) in commerce driven gold (extra trading opportunities) and if you have several "extra" resources (say you've got five Ivory, for example) then if/when the first of those becomes available, it is automatically "gifted" to your favored trading partner. Attacking a Favored Trading partners is simply unallowed for the duration of the agreement.
* - Cooperative Research: Pretty much as above, 'cept you'd get extra beakers per turn instead of extra coins, and members in the agreement would always be willing to trade/sell their tech back and forth, but exclusively within the group (ie - they'd not sell any tech so gained to any other civ....and neither could you...the option simply would not be there to do it...to prevent exploits).
* - Client Civ Development - (not easily implemented!) Borrowing on the IMP2 concept, membership in the UN could allow you to buy specific tiles of a non-member civ's territory and make use of whatever resource might be there. Also, that resource could traded/sold by the civ whose territory it's in, and if so, you get a cut of the profits.
More...GRRR...but again...must go....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
Do you think the AI would be able to handle voting about things like Nuclear arms restrictions? I agree the ideas are cool, though.
Also, keep in mind that there will be games where there are only 2-3 civs left alive by the time anyone gets Fission. The UN as you propose it will work better with many civs.
I think there should be a set number of seats available in the UN (lets say 1000, for example). Each civ would get a share of those seats based upon the ratio of their culture to the others. Actually, I'd like to see population come into it as well, so maybe an average between your culture and population ratios.
Say you have the highest culture of all the civs, and it amounts to 25% of the world total per turn*. If culture were the only factor, you would get 250 seats. Now say that you have 20% of the world's population. That would give you 200 seats. Averaged, you get 225 seats.
This is, in a way, similar to the Moo2 Galatic Council system, although that only used population. All the council could do was elect a leader, but at least there was an option to reject the decision (whereupon the rest of the galaxy ganged up on you - and peace was not an option). I liked that feature, and I think it should remain in CivIII. If you're the biggest and the strongest, and have been warmongering for thousands of years (so everyone hates you), you're not just going to meekly accept a UN decision you don't like.
I think building the UN great wonder should then enable people to build the UN embassy small wonder. The great wonder should give you some sort of advantage... maybe a boost to your seats... a percentage of some sort.
I do not think your reputation (breaking treaties, use of nukes, etc.) should have a direct impact on # of seats. Your rep will make it difficult to get other civs to vote for you, and you will be in danger of an embargo and/or getting kicked out for 20 turns. However, butter up those other civs with enough cash/tech/resouces, and you can get back into their good graces. That strikes me as more realistic (if cynical).
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter - but in general I like your ideas.
-Arrian
* - I wish the f5 screen not only showed your total culture value, but how much it was increasing each turn, AND the total culture values of the other civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
Vel,
I'm not sure about the Trade Pact you propose, but it might be there well. As I get home, I'll probably edit the post with it.
However, the Mutual Reseach Pact, I don't like it the way you offer - it was in CtP 2, and didn't work too good. Just my opinion, not wanting to give any ciritcs.
But what about such a use for a Research Pact between parties, making it much stronger: if each of the involved parties gets a tech unknown to the other, it automatically goes to everyone involved, and the owner gets some gold, automatically.
E.g., France and Rome are involved. France discovers Nuclear Power, while Rome discovers Satellites. France immediately gets Satellites, and Rome gets Nuclear Power. Each of those get gold, too. Maybe the amount of gold could be the number of breakers this tech costs?
I kinda like the idea of a major wonder first. UN major wonder, gives permament place in the UN (no expulsion). No seats bonus, so that it doesn't become too powerful. After UN has been built, other civs can build the UN embassy.
Vel, what about the Mutual Spaceship? I find it pretty odd, as there's no Allied Victory in Civ 3, and why would anyone help to build another spaceship? Unless you make it so that if two civs finish the same spaceship, and both win when it's launched, but it would be too easy, IMO.
Voting in other members: I considered this, but I think civs that don't meet the culture requirements should not be in. However, it's much as people like it, and opinions can be different there.
Of course, during the vote, you can click on another leader, and get the option to bribe him, much like in SMAC.
All that is in my first post I see pretty easy to implement, programming wise, except that the AI would need some heck of code to understand it.
Client Civ Development - not sure I understood it.
I would also like something like more nuclear pact options, some nuke control or whatever, possibly in addition to my Nuclear Disbanding Pact.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
To the guy saying there should only be country vote, not seat and country votes. Main reason for the seat vote is the election for Supreme Leader.
Imagine, there are 7 other civs in the UN, 5 are small and love you, 2 are very powerful and hate you. Also note that it's pretty easy to make smaller civs love you, due to huge culture you have compared to them and giving them stuff.
Now, it's country vote and elections for the Supreme Leader. 5 vote for you, 2 against, you vote for yourself. You get elected and win.
Now, it's Supreme Leader elections and seat vote, as it is by mine idea. 5 vote for you, 2 against, you vote for yourself. If the two powerful civs hating you hold more than 25% of the UN seats, you don't get elected. This makes it more realistic and also harder.
I think this makes sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Selkirk
|
|
very cool ideas, but way too complicated.
How about...
Anyone who builds the united nations small wonder is a member.
Each member gets a number of votes based on their per-turn Culture. (or population, or something else which doesn't accumulate.)
The UN enables the following diplomatic options:
Sanctions - With a simple majority vote, all united nations members are required to embargo a specific civ.
Police Action - With a simple majority vote, all member nations are required to form a military alliance against a specific civ.
World Government - With a 2/3 majority vote, a world government is established. This is a diplomatic victory for the sponsoring civ.
A civ which is attacked by another civ can go the the UN and get a favorable reaction for Sanctions or a Police Action against the aggressor.
The use of Nukes would make other civs more likely to vote against you in UN votes.
Friendly relations would make other civs more likely to vote with you in UN votes.
The Civ who builds the UN first gets to vote on proposals first. Civs who vote subsequently are more likely to vote the same way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Selkirk
|
|
One other thing.
You could ensure a civ's participation in a UN embargo by negotiating an embargo with the specific civ.
You could ensure a civ's participation in a police action by negotiating a military alliance with the specific civ.
There should also be an option in the trading screen to procure a vote for World government before the vote occurs. ( a 20 turn commitment, perhaps?)
For example I should be able to trade a MPP with one of those tiny island civs for their commitment to vote for me.
I might even be willing to send carriers and battleships to protect them from being eliminated before a vote could occur.
This would make the diplomatic victory something that you had to work at and more satisfying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
IthacaMike
|
|
Upstate New York
Feb 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Selkirk
World Government - With a 2/3 majority vote, a world government is established. This is a diplomatic victory for the sponsoring civ.
|
I'd say that the UN's members would have to control 75% of the world's population for this to make sence. What if I was playing OCC and created the UN. Should I be able to establish World Government on my own and thus win the game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
The UN works because it has members. The fewer the members, the less effective the UN becomes. Keep that in mind.
(*Remember the League of Nations? Didn't work. why not? Because the biggest most powerful nations weren't in it! Why the hell would they want to abide by a decision they had no input in?)
For instance, if you build the UN wonder, and everyone else has to build the small wonder to get in, why would they bother?
UN decisions only apply to UN countries, except in the case of embargos and military action.
There is no point being in the UN if you are the only member.
So, what to do then? Well, here's my idea (it's practically a game in itself):
1. Where do we start?
You build the UN wonder (cheap build, but high maintenance cost). Immediate effects are you get contact with every other Civ. Your diplomatic reputation goes up one notch.
2. How do you get other members?
You contact other civs and ask if they want to join.
a) Some will want to immediately (such as weaker civs). Some, especially big powerful civs won't see any advantage of limiting themselves to some world government. You may have to cajole with gifts or something. Your diplomatic reputation should affect this.
b) You, as owner of the wonder & first Secretary General, have veto power in the security council. You may have to offer this veto power to other powerful civs to get them to join (just like IRL with GB, FRance, Russia, USA and China). But giving veto power to too many civs will cripple your UN's ability to do anything (just like IRL).
3. What can you do with the UN?
i) Security Council
Like a big MPP against anyone outside the UN, but with more options. Make decisions regarding military action, economic sanctions, and peacekeeping. Ability to spy without penalty. Keeps track of other Civ's military power.
Arms reduction agreements. Nukes reduction agreements.
ii) General Assembly, International Community & Cooperation
Trade Deals help improve relations, esp. luxury swaps.
Civs with similar government types will get friendlier.
Rules of war (no atrocities, no razing, no deliberate targeting of civilians, etc...)
Rules of trade (no extortionary deals. must offer "fair" deals.)
iii) Health, Poverty, & Development
Works to improve the infrastructure of developing nations by cash infusion or sending workers.
Provides necessary techs, money, and resources, to developing nations for peaceful building purposes.
Land mine removal program.
iv) Human Rights Work
Works to return all captured workers or purchased slaves to rightful Civ. (invalid if workers have joined cities).
Works to keep people happy or content. Counts number of unhappy people per Civ and reprimands those Civs. Attempts to help Civ make more happy people.
Encourage representative government (all UN members contribute to "propaganda" costs.)
v) Culture
Designate UNESCO World Heritage Sites. If a Civ accepts a designation, those cities gain a culture bonus but pay maintenance. All UN members receive a smaller culture bonus too.
You can use this to prevent a dominant culture from gaining a cultural victory by boosting the culture of other civs (assuming 20000 cp in one city win is removed).
vi) Emergency Assistance
Works to assist areas damaged by flooding or disease or war. Rebuilds infrastructure. "Rescues" population. (only necessary if they reintroduce natural disasters or have military consequences)
vii) Environmental Protection
Contribute environmental techs to Civs where pollution is rampant.
Contribute funds to help build enviromental infrastructure (recyc, mass transit, etc...).
Global Warming Iniative (similar to Kyoto Protocol)
Fines for polluting members.
4. Who pays for all this stuff? How to come to agreement?
UN members contribute funds according to their joining agreement (20 turns). You, as Secretary General, decide how to spend these funds (separate from your own civs treasury of course).
Additional resolutions ratified by the Assembly include agreements for each member to pay a certain amount in funding.
How to ratify? Each civ gets one seat that they can always vote with on anything. Each Civ gets one additional seat for each Council they sit on (seven are listed above). Each Council has a minimum of 3 members.
(ex. There are 7*3=21 council seats, plus 1 seat per member. So if you have 11 Civs, that's 32 votes. )
As builder of wonder, you are on every Council for the first 20 turns. The other two get voted in the first meeting. The top two Civs with the most votes are in. All council seats get voted on with the initial 1 per civ vote, no council votes can count since they just started. No one can vote for themselves. Allies are necessary.
Diplomacy and reputation affects your ability to acquire a seat, if you want it. Seats cost money to maintain as Civs on those councils are automatically required to pay extra dues. You cannot reject the seat if you don't want it, unless you drop out of the UN.
Changing Council members and the SG happen only once every 20 turns, or whenever a new Civ joins the UN.
AS SG, you can call meetings regularly any time. Every other member can call a meeting only twice in those 20 years.
To ratify an agreement, the Council has to propose an agreement. If it agrees (2/3), then it goes before the Assembly. It needs the same number of votes as the # of member civs, excluding the votes already given by the Council who proposed it.
(ex. with 11 civs, you need 11 votes out of 32 total. But those 11 votes can't be from Civs that are part of the proposing Council)
5. I've heard the cost of being part of the UN, aside from the MPP, what's the benefit if I'm not a developing country that's getting help?
Diplomatic reputation goes way way up.
Culture bonuses.
More happy people.
Better trade deals possible.
Ability to engage in military action without diplomatic penalty.
Ability to engage in military action with allied help, and without worrying about letting the other Civ
Captured cities are held in trusteeship (basically, yours if you're Secretary General but you can't build military units) until peace is arranged, where it switches back to original owner.
Ability to SPY on other Civs through UN inspectors.
Free World Maps.
Ability to interfere with other Civ's political structure, destabilize or to stabilize.
Ability to "make" friends so they don't all gang up on you just because you're powerful.
Reduce pollution.
Avoid environmental catastrophe from dumb AIs.
Prevent AIs from self-imploding by drafting and pop-rushing.
Allows you to play as the Good Guy (possibly enabling humanitarian win.)
6. How do you use the UN to win?
I don't know that part yet. Supreme Leader vote seems a bit counter to the UN's mandate, and could be lame.
Possibilities (achieve all, majority, some, or just one):
a) You have to achieve world peace for 30 turns. No civs can be at war.
b) You have to have no unhappy people in ANY civilization.
c) ALL Civs must have a representative government of some sort.
d) You must have fewer than 1 nuclear weapon for every 4 cities.
e) You must have no polluted squares. Pollution points in each city (or per civ) must be less than some amount.
f) No Civ culture can be more than 1.5x as much as any other Civs.
g) No embargoes can be in effect either.
*Note: I'm not sure how all these can be applied. A few are pretty straightforward, but the others could be too much for an AI to handle. I guess that makes it perfect for MP then
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BillChin
|
|
Good ideas. However, the United Nations comes at the end of the tech tree and the game is almost over. These ideas are better suited for something like Master of Orion 3 where the Galactic senate will be a major power throughout the game. Maybe the thread might be better titled League of Nations or International Council, because the current U. N. wonder has little connection to what is proposed. In my opinion, the changes are near worthless if the U. N. still comes with Fission tech.
A radical change would be to call an International council when all civs get contact with each other, or the beginning of the Industrial Age, or when two-thirds of the world gets settled (MOO2). Maybe call it the League of Nations, and leave out the option of winning the game until the current U. N. wonder gets built. Then the proposed rule changes could add to the game as civs could make changes to obtain membership and council decisions would influence the outcome of the game.
Still, I see all these ideas adding a ton of code, even more testing, and in my opinion not that much added play value. A few more diplomatic options are available. Many more screens and pop ups are needed to enable those. The proposal does not seem to give a player more ways to win the game, or much more choice in play style. There already are options for builder, techer, trader, conqueror. There already is an option for winning the game diplomatically. A player already has the option of seeking allies or going one against the world. The idea of winning through world peace is interesting, but that could be put in without all the other stuff. In games with eight or fewer players, I believe the changes would have a minimal impact on game outcomes. Overall, I see the proposal adding some more texture, but in my opinion that is a lot of code to add some texture.
For these reasons, I would vote no on the proposed changes even if the other radical step of calling a League of Nations very early in the game is also put in. These ideas are decent ones, but I believe they do not make a good fit with the current Civ III game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Thinker
|
|
What I'd really like to see is a UN that would work in a multi-player version. The way the current one would not work there (everyone who could votes for themselves, creating a huge tie) shows best what wrong with the current model: If the AI was playing by the same rules you are they would not vote for you to win.
The UN needs to be restructured, as some have shown here, so nations have a reason to join and can effect things that matter.
What if the most advanced nation had to share tech with the less advanced? What if the richest nation had to help poorer ones? What if joining meant it was harder to take cities by culture by other members? What if you had to trade food to nations that can't seem to grow?
In a multiplayer game I would see the UN as a way for the players in last to band together to slow the player in first. And I see the player in first thinking he might want to join to try and control the group ... or he might just nuke them all.
Rik
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
Selkirk, I have to disagree, I do not see the ideas being compliciated, it just sounds so.
Captain, very good additions to all that Vel and I've said, but I bet that's a bit too much. We don't want the UN to be too important, a bit less role for it...
Yes, agree now that Fission is too late. Could be mid Industrial Age, somehwere after Scientific Method, maybe? A new tech, like Modern Diplomacy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BillChin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Yes, agree now that Fission is too late. Could be mid Industrial Age, somehwere after Scientific Method, maybe? A new tech, like Modern Diplomacy? |
I suggest several options for first meeting of the League of Nations and enabling the small wonder International Embassy (or whatever name).
1) When one civ has contact with all other civs.
2) When a certain percentage of the map gets settled (66%, 75%, 90%?)
3) When the first civ enters the Industrial Age
3a) When the last civ enters the Industrial Age
Maybe have three or four levels of membership, non-voting member, voting member, security council (veto power), secretary. Again, leave out the option of ending the game with a League vote until Fission tech comes online.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Über KruX
|
|
i strongly dislike your "end conflict" point, mainly because i don't want some stupid "union" of so called "nations" interfering with my ICBMing of whomever i choose. i'd gladly fight the entire UN, but i do not want treaties signed for me.
all other points are accepted by my ministry of... erm... acceptance.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-03-2002 22:20
Solver...simply outstanding! That would add sooooo much to the game!
|