{The List} United Nations

[Kuciwalker]

That sounds really evil and really cool...

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot

Also the UN takes troops from its member nations for hot spots around the world, I reckon this would be interesting to see in action.

So if we have a line of UN Blue Helmets on a common border with a two waring nations during a time of peace and reconciliation, they could either be actively patroling the border (able to engage any parties that try to attack the other party during the peace) or passively patroling the border (standing aside as one attacks the other, but acting all outraged etc).

Interesting ideas Paddy.

I was thinking that the UN would either produce a "peacekeeper" unit (like Knights Templar or Zeus) or membership to the UN required giving up an rifleman/infantry unit which would be controlled by the civ that built the UN. There would need to be a cap of four or five peacekeeper units.

These units couldn't actually STOP war, but they could position themselves in hot spots anywhere on the planet. The peacekeeper taking up positions among hostilities would make combat more difficult as you couldn't enter the tile of a UN peacekeeper without a fight and a major rep hit. Peacekeeper units would not affect tile usage by the civ owning the tile.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


Interesting ideas Paddy.

I was thinking that the UN would either produce a "peacekeeper" unit (like Knights Templar or Zeus) or membership to the UN required giving up an rifleman/infantry unit which would be controlled by the civ that built the UN. There would need to be a cap of four or five peacekeeper units.

These units couldn't actually STOP war, but they could position themselves in hot spots anywhere on the planet. The peacekeeper taking up positions among hostilities would make combat more difficult as you couldn't enter the tile of a UN peacekeeper without a fight and a major rep hit. Peacekeeper units would not affect tile usage by the civ owning the tile.

Yes, I agree that any fighting with them should cost the player hard in some way with the rest of the international community....

[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]

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?

[Kuciwalker]

if you're going to shorten it, it's "sky"

[Paddy]

Originally posted by 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.

This is good.

[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?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

In fact, the AI "peacekeepers" could just travel to any location that was experiencing conflict and just get in the way of both sides. How annoying and realistic that would be.

There would need to be a provision for a transport or two for these blue helmets....

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by 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?

And you thought the foreign advisor screen was confusing and cluttered? Obviously a redesign of the advisor's screen would needed as well...

[wrylachlan]

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).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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?

No, the leader always controls the troops. It's just that the alliance has to approve a declaration of 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?

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.

[wrylachlan]

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.

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]

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.

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).